Litmus tests belong in chemistry labs, not in county commissioners’ resolutions.

That was my “on second thought” reaction to last week’s request of the Jefferson County Commissioners, made by Dale Woods of Punxsutawney.

Woods had asked the commissioners to enact a “sanctuary ordinance” regarding our gun rights. The ordinance would presumably suggest that Jefferson County’s government, sheriff and jail would not cooperate with the federal government if it tried to limit our current rights with respect to firearms.

My first reaction was, “Well, sure; let’s do that!”

I am a lifelong hunter. I own rifles, shotguns and handguns. I have a concealed carry permit. I am a member of the National Rifle Association.

With those bona fides, I at first thought well of the idea.

Then I read the Feb. 23 news story twice.

The commissioners said, “We’ll think about it,” but they don’t want to open that specific can of worms.

Commissioners Jack Matson and Herb Bullers both noted that the statewide associations to which Jefferson County belongs advise against adopting a “sanctuary” ordinance in favor of protecting Second Amendment rights – because that could open a “bidding war” with other counties passing ordinances attempting to restrict those same rights.

In Philadelphia, Matson noted, he can’t bring his handgun with him even though his Jefferson County carry permit is presumably valid statewide. Philadelphia has more restrictive local laws. Other counties could imitate Philadelphia – though why anyone with any sense would want to imitate Philly’s law is beyond me.

Matson’s response pretty well summarizes my feelings: Gun control is a federal issue because the Second Amendment is part of the federal Constitution and the federal Constitution supersedes any state or county laws. Matson said the issue “needs to be dealt with on a federal level, protected on a federal level and if there needs to be a change, it has to be a change to that (Second) amendment and we’re not in support of that. Absolutely not.”

Bingo.

There are two sides to the “sanctuary” argument.

Some cities call themselves “sanctuary cities,” and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement with regard to capturing illegal immigrants or use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

The Trump administration, like other administrations, is threatening to withhold federal money from those cities.

In my view, the money should be withheld. If a local government refuses to do the federal government’s bidding, then it ought not to take federal money to be used for the same purposes. If San Francisco’s police won’t help to enforce federal immigration laws, then San Francisco ought not to get federal money to help police buy equipment or to build or maintain its jails, in my view.

But let’s face it. We have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. Nobody is seriously moving to take away rights to possess now-legal firearms.

Closing loopholes is something else. When I bought my last handgun, at a sporting goods store, I had to go through a background check. I should have to do the same thing, in my view, if I buy a gun from a friend, or inherit a gun. If I buy or inherit a motor vehicle, I am required to register it if I wish to use it off my property. The same thing should apply to guns.

I am not y concerned about giving the government a list of who owns guns. My guess is that the feds already have a data-combing program that will scan these words after they are published. Somewhere, there will be a note: “That kooky Bonavita guy owns a handgun.”

I would not be surprised if the feds also collected an email message to one of my children: “I just bought a handgun.”

Fear of the feds is a bogeyman. The feds do commit awful abuses. But we can’t win a war against the feds. The Confederacy tried that and the whole nation ended up with the 1860s equivalent of 30 million dead and perhaps a billion maimed.

We can, however, vote dolts out — if only some non-dolts would run against them.

Now, let’s revisit a “litmus test.” The chemistry process uses specially-treated blue paper.

You dip one end of the litmus paper into the solution, and then take it out immediately. Observe the color of the portion of blue litmus paper that was in contact with the solution. If it turns red, the solution is acidic. If the litmus paper remains blue, the solution is either basic or neutral.

That’s fine for chemists.

But I refuse to allow other people to badger me into taking positions on issues that reflect their views, fears or biases. I am Constitutionally entitled to fly an American flag – or not, and to publicly support Second Amendment rights – or not.

I am an American.

So are you.

¯¯¯

Denny Bonavita is a former editor at newspapers in DuBois and Warren. He lives near Brookville. Email: denny2319@windstream.net.