County Commissioners Vote to Become Bill of Rights Sanctuary County

A polarizing issue came before Collier County Commissioners during their August 22nd meeting on an ordinance that would establish Collier County as a Bill of Rights Sanctuary County. Commissioners voted 4-1 to approve the ordinance brought forward by District Two Commissioner Chris Hall as part of his campaign promise promoting a smaller government with less control. Collier County will be the first in Florida to become a Bill of Rights Sanctuary County.

Anticipating animated public discussion during comments, Commission Chair Rick LoCastro reiterated the meeting rules that included no outbursts of applause. “Let’s have a respectful, valuable discussion,” said LoCastro.

Hall started the proceedings by recapping the ordinance’s intent. “It’s not political,” he said. The ordinance is for “establishing in Collier County, by ordinance, that no matter what happens in Washington D.C. in laws or what happens in Tallahassee, as long as those laws are constitutional or in pursuance of the constitution, that is the supreme law of the land. This is not to go against any constitutional law that comes forth. This is an ordinance that allows you, the people, to be protected by anything that comes down that is unconstitutional of what we call an unlawful act.” Hall also pointed out what the ordinance does not do. “This is not a cherry-picking procedure. It’s not an ordinance that allows us to secede from Florida or from the Union. It’s not for the Board of Commissioners or the future Board of Commissioners to decide what’s constitutional or what’s not constitutional.”

District Three Commissioner Burt Saunders, the lone dissenter, had an issue with the vagueness and enforceability of the ordinance. “One of my concerns about this ordinance is what I would describe as vagueness in the sense in how do you determine whether a federal rule or edict of some sort is constitutional? How do you determine if that law is unconstitutional?” he asked Collier County Sherrif Kevin Rambosk.

“It will require us to do a little bit more background, which we believe is correct and should be necessary, to ensure that we build the best case possible to forward to the state attorney,” said Rambosk. “But in the end, it’s going to be the court that makes some of the decisions I believe that you are looking for an answer to, it wouldn’t necessarily be us.”

“You don’t determine the particular validity of a statute,” asked Saunders. “That is left to the judicial branch of government, not the executive branch.” He then asked, “You would enforce it until you were advised by the right authority it’s not constitutional. Is that incorrect?”

“No, I think in general, that would be correct,” said Rambosk. “However, if we believed, and our legal staff told us that in their opinion it is unconstitutional, and we had the right evidence, court cases and information to support that, then we would take the appropriate action.”

“Would that appropriate action be going to the judge to rule whether that statute is constitutional?” asked Saunders. “We do that each and every day,” said Rambosk. “We look at a case, and we determine whether we believe it fits within the criteria of the law and I think even with a constitutional complaint we would make that assessment and if we believe it rose to that level we may have to take it to court. I am not even sure that any of us know that at this point.”

Supporters and non-supporters during public comment circled around the same talking points. The Covid mask mandates and business closures were cited by supporters of the ordinance along with other government intrusions. The Second Amendment, which was the impetus of this resolution two years ago, was also cited by supporters with Michelle Albergo reading a statement from Cary Scott, General Manager of The Alamo Range. “Armed citizenry is essential to maintaining the balance of power between the government and its people,” the statement said. 

On the opposite end, two local members from Moms Demand Action, a national common-sense gun reform organization, said the ordinance would have the opposite effect, giving some citizens a misguided interpretation that they could own guns when they could not. Other opponents point to already existing constitutional rights that protect citizens and the vagueness of anyone interpreting and enforcing the Constitution outside the judicial system.

In his supporting remarks, Commissioner McDaniel said that he believes this is “a reaffirmation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

Commissioner Kowal’s support came from his belief that the ordinance “protects you from us. Just a check and balance on us… and maybe not us but boards in the future.”

“I think this is a well-intended ordinance,” said Saunders. “I can’t support this ordinance as drafted. I absolutely support and defend the constitution of the United States.”

 “This ordinance does not give anyone autonomous authority,” said LoCastro. “I believe in limiting government overreach. I believe in citizen rights. I believe in the protection of citizens' freedoms.” “I am proud to support this again,” said LoCastro.