Sorry I missed all the excitement. This would have been fun to video tape.
As reported by our local and very liberal newspaper : http://www.corralescomment.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2148&Itemid=2
As reported by the Independant American Party of NM:
http://newworldorder.mywebteks.net/?e=13
I think a recording device should be standard accessory equipment
I agree Don. A lot of dedicated OC'ers wear a recorder on a lanyard and turn it on when they leave the house and just let them run all day.
What sort of recorder? Got any links to share?
I was looking at miniature video recorders, but they are pretty darn expensive.
I've been a longtime fan of the Olympus brand, back to when they actually used micro tape cassettes. Google Olympus voice recorder. There should be several in the under $50 price range as well as many that cost much more. Hundreds of hours of recording time.
I guess expensive is relative but this is the hands down favorite of OC'ers and the one I always recommend.
Sony ICD-PX312
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Digital-Flash-Recorder-ICD-PX312/dp/B004M8SSZK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343188727&sr=8-1&keywords=Sony+ICD-PX312
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/310ZthI17zL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Peter, does that recorder have a tether loop on the back to attach a lanyard to?
Quote from: NM_Shooter on July 25, 2012, 11:15:34 AM
Peter, does that recorder have a tether loop on the back to attach a lanyard to?
On top at the back is the attachment bar for one. Most of the OC'ers wear them around their neck under their shirts.
Well, this has come to a somewhat interesting conclusion.
The letter I wrote to my district counselor prompted him to call me. His name is Ennio Garcia-Miera and he said that he wanted my viewpoint. Knocked me over as he is a democrat / Buddhist. No kidding.
Anyway, he said that he wanted input from as many folks as possible before making a decision on this. I spoke with him for 30 minutes or so, exchanged several emails, and encouraged my neighbors to comment. I am guilty of being selective in which neighbors I spoke to ;)
He also sought the advice of several lawyers that he knew. He called me back today (!!!) to tell me that he had made a decision, and that he had already advised the Mayor to NOT place any type of new, gun restricting ordinance on the agenda.
He also said that he was still upset with the village policeman who said "I don't care about the constitution", and who made condescending and sexist remarks to the person who was engaged in open carry (Bobby Bridgewater). He asked me to forward the contact information for the OC individual, as he knew that I had been corresponding with him as well.
In tracking down the contact info for Bobby Bridgewater, I ended up calling a number for Jon Barrie, who is Independant running for Senate. Oddly, I called his office number late in the day, and Jon picked up. We had a nice long chat about this incident, and he ended up giving me Bobby's phone number to forward.
So this was a weird sort of deal. I found myself talking to both ends of the political spectrum... a democrat on one side, and a constitutionalist on the other. Oddly, they both found some common ground. I'm hoping that this issue stays off the agenda, and that my democrat-Buddhist counselor can convince the chief of police to agree to train his guys and keep my village out of a civil rights court case.
And it appears I can still open carry in the park :)
Well done!
You can make a difference. [cool]
Very [cool]
This recording app looks interesting
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/police-scan-us-soon-well-scan-them/
"ACLU-NJ Launches Smartphone App That Lets Users Secretly Record Police Stops" (newyork.cbslocal.com, July 3).
Why record in secret? Because if a citizen openly records a cop's particularly brutish stop-and-frisk or other unvarnished invasion of the Fourth Amendment, that person is very likely to be arrested in some states.
"There's really only three buttons (on the Police Tape app) that the user needs to deal with," says Alexander Shalom of the American Civil Liberties Union's New Jersey office. "There's a know your rights button that educates the citizen about their rights when encountering police on the street, in a car, in their home or when they're going to be placed under arrest, and there's a button to record audio and a button to record video."
Adds CBS New York: "The app lets users record audio and video discreetly with a stealth mode that hides the fact that the recording is happening."
The ACLU-NJ's Shalom challenges us: "You can think back to when Rodney King was beaten at the hands of the LAPD. For years, we've watched the police on video and that's led to reforms and police accountability, but now that cellphones and smartphones are becoming more ubiquitous, people have this ability to videotape.
"It really is a cutting-edge tool to ensure accountability in the 21st century."
Imagine that! Citizens are using furtive methods to maintain their constitutional rights by proving that police are dismembering these freedoms!
Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson would hesitate for a minute to use this technology?
According to the ACLU-NJ's website, Android users can now download the Police Tape app, which will be available to iPhone users sometime this summer.
It's time for the national ACLU to get the word out to all its affiliates and make sure smartphone users can get this app!
In June, the ACLU's New York affiliate released a somewhat different app called Stop-and-Frisk Watch. I'll continue to inform you about the future of the ACLU-NJ Police Tape app and other such developments around the country.
And we should all bear in mind, Alexander Shalom tells The (N.J.) Star-Ledger, that "police often videotape civilians and civilians have a constitutionally protected right to videotape police.
"When people know they're being watched, they tend to behave well" ("N.J. ACLU unveils 'stealth' app allowing citizens to secretly record police," Eunice Lee, nj.com, July 3).
So do cops. So do presidents. This landmark return of our president, Congress, state and local police to our rule of law will continue here next week.
You know what that app needs? A way to lock the data into the phone.
I have thought that a recorder is a good thing, but if it is confiscated and the data is erased, it provides no benefit. I wonder if any audio recorders have the ability to secure the data with a code......
You had a recording device when we apprehended you ???
Appears that my councilor's advice fell on deaf ears.
The mayor and at least one of his cronies has decided to proceed with enacting a gun control ordinance in my village. They also did this in stealth mode, not letting my councilor know about this until the minimum require time for review. He got it today, and forwarded this to me today. The village meeting is Tuesday, so we don't have a lot of time to get folks to attend.
I wish I knew how to upload a pdf to a sharable location, I'd post the proposal.
I have sent a copy of this to my local club, and to the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, to see if we can get folks to the meeting.
I am sure this will pass. We have a boy's club of three vs. three on the city council, and our mayor breaks the tie for his crony group. Every time.
What you really need to do is organize and lobby for statewide preemption. The patchwork of local laws is a nightmare and fighting them one at a time takes enormous resources.
Here is what we did in Va.
Quote§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.
A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. However, no locality shall adopt any workplace rule, other than for the purposes of a community services board or behavioral health authority as defined in § 37.2-100, that prevents an employee of that locality from storing at that locality's workplace a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked private motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail, juvenile detention facility, or state-governed entity, department, or agency.
B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."
(1987, c. 629, § 15.1-29.15; 1988, c. 392; 1997, cc. 550, 587; 2002, c. 484; 2003, c. 943; 2004, cc. 837, 923; 2009, cc. 735, 772; 2012, c. 757.)
What is the local conciseness among the masses? - well the village.
Between the shooting Co and the one this last weekend people are really starting to loose there patience with guns and seeming liberal gun laws. Both of those the Colorado and Sikh Temple in Oak Creek most likely would have been worse by the way with a couple well placed satchel charges or IEDs.
A kid in China went nuts-oh berserk the other day and killed seven with a knife and cut a large amount of people. However people just see gun. Take the gun away it will go on......................
Our own state constitution already reads :
Line 17 :
"No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense ... no municipality or county shall regulate in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms"
But then they go on to argue that since this right is NOT absolute... you can not carry in courthouses, schools, some liquour establishments, etc, that it is okay for my village to make up whatever gun laws they want.
I don't think that they realize that
1) What they are proposing is in direct conflict to the 2nd amendment of the US, and also the constitution of my state.
2) They risk being taken to court and having their butts sued off.
3) There is overwhelming evidence that placing firearm restrictions on law abiding citizens increases the amount of violent crime, and vice-versa.
For what it is worth, here is the proposed ordinance.
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page1.jpg)
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page2.jpg)
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page3.jpg)
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page4.jpg)
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page5.jpg)
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page6.jpg)
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/misc/page7.jpg)
Microsoft gives you Skydrive on Hotmail or Windows live, Frank. You can upload the document and make it public then share from there. Gmail does something similar I think.
Well at least it isn't going to affect the Coralles 4th of July Parade. :-\
Buy a shiny badge on Ebay and wear it on your belt like the cops. Everyone will think you are a peace officer and leave you alone. ;D ;D
http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-NEW-PRETEND-PLAY-POLICE-SHERIFF-AGENT-TOY-BADGE-SET-/251126400835?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a784cc743
Went to a gunsmith here in Corrales to tell him about the ordinance proposal and the meeting Tuesday. I also stopped in a local bow / gun shop, and the proprietor told me that an attorney had already been in to share the news with him. My councilor sent me an email saying that he wants to talk with me before the meeting. Not sure what that is all about.
I sent an email to my local gun club, as well as NM state shooting sports association.
Worst part is that this is deep in the agenda. It may be a long night. I'm not comfortable speaking in this sort of a situation, but I feel obligated to get off my butt and voice my opinion.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on August 12, 2012, 11:39:00 PM
Worst part is that this is deep in the agenda. It may be a long night. I'm not comfortable speaking in this sort of a situation, but I feel obligated to get off my butt and voice my opinion.
Good for you! [cool]
You might want to post here and see if some of your fellow New Mexicans are coming.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?115-New-Mexico
OK... I am getting a lesson in civics over this thing.
My councilor just pointed out that the proposal is a resolution and not an ordinance, and he is confused as to what this exactly means.
An ordinance is a law and can be enforced by our police.
A resolution is more of a "be kind to coyotes day" sort of thing.
I spoke with him for awhile, and told him that I thought that this seemed as though the village knows it is illegal to pass a law restricting open carry, so they are voting on an ordinance only to post signs against open carry.
He said that he might ask to take this discussion into closed session in order to discuss with the council and mayor just exactly what the hell it is that they are trying to accomplish. Or if they even know what it is that they are trying to accomplish.
He also told me that the council meeting was going to be the first one in which they use metal detectors at the door. How nice of them.
Our grass roots opposition to this resolution is gathering attention from others.
My councilor just sent to me some correspondence which has been sent to all of the councilors from one of my fellow citizens. I am wondering if this was the attorney who stopped in at the gun shop that I heard about.... I think this is very well written.... this is what he had to say to them :
Subject: Proposed Resolution Banning Open Carry of Firearms on Village Property on the August 14, 2012 Council Agenda
I am sending each of you my thoughts on the proposed Resolution because 3 minutes is not enough time to explain why this resolution is not only a violation of the state constitution and laws, but also a very bad idea. I don't think any of you should be put in the position of having to vote on this resolution without the chance to understand why this proposal should be defeated. This e-mail also puts you on notice of legal liabilities if you pass this Resolution.
I don't know what legal analysis you have been provided. I am not giving you a legal analysis as the question is not that hard to figure out. Consider this:
Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution states:
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (Emphasis added)
Now that is very clear. Case law which I assume your lawyer has provided you makes it even clearer that this language means exactly what it says.
How can anyone say that this proposed resolution does not violate the state constitution?
This resolution is also a very bad idea regardless of its illegality.
Because a few paranoid people have an irrational fear of firearms Pandora's Box has been opened.
In doing so, attention has been given to people who have an agenda of confrontation. That is their right, but ignoring the exercise of their right to open carry could have avoided some confrontations. Merely carrying a gun openly is not a crime or a threat but confronting those who do simply inflames a side show. It is now too late to let sleeping dogs lie. But the best way out of this drama is to recognize the rights people have to free speech and to carry firearms, and to gracefully move on without any more ill advised confrontations.
I understand that this is not being proposed as an ordinance. Therefore, it may be argued that this is not a regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. I find this argument specious.
The Municipal league states that the difference between a resolution and an ordinance is that a resolution "does not have the force of law..." but is instead a "formal declaration of the governing body concerning a certain subject which it cannot or does not wish to control by ordinance" The language of the so called proposed resolution actually prohibits and by application makes criminal the open carrying of firearms on village property. This still boils down to regulating, unconstitutionally and illegally, the open carry rights guaranteed by the New Mexico Constitution.
This resolution seems to be an ordinance cloaked in a façade of a resolution. In so doing it denies the public the right of three hearings and their input required for any ordinance. Why is this ordinance cloaked as a resolution?
This so called resolution actually proclaims prohibited conduct. Such prohibitions then become laws the violations of which ultimately lead to criminal arrests. It is wrong to propose this newly created criminal conduct as a mere resolution when it will operate as an ordinance making otherwise constitutionally protected actions illegal.
A regulation of the right to keep and bear arms which prohibits otherwise protected conduct is by any other name still unconstitutional.
In addition, the 'Whereas' clauses either state the obvious without supporting the proposed regulation or state facts that are not true.
The fourth 'Whereas' states the fact that the right is not absolute and can be regulated but misses the point that the regulation cannot be done by this body. It can only be done by the state legislature for the entire state. Furthermore such regulation must have some compelling state interest and public good or welfare to overcome the right to keep and bear arms. In this case the irrational fears of a person do not provide a rational reason to regulate this right.
The fifth 'Whereas' regarding the right to post lands ignores the fact that this applies to private, not public lands. Access cannot be denied to public lands when that access is guaranteed by the constitution. Access cannot be denied to people on the basis of race, or color. Nor can access be denied to someone who openly carries a firearm in compliance with state law and constitutional rights. This premise is fundamentally flawed.
The sixth 'Whereas' is legally insufficient. I would even say it is irrelevant. As pointed out by Mr. Ron Reder in a letter in the Corrales comment, ..."I think it is well over the line for government to limit innocent, law abiding citizens rights just to make other people feel more comfortable; to assuage their irrational fears." I could not say this any better.
The next 'Whereas' recounts a so called incident to which I say, so what? The mere sight of a firearm in a holster being carried may cause apprehension to some people but that apprehension is irrational. If a firearm is worn by a plainclothes officer unknown as an officer to the viewer is it any more fearful than one worn by a law abiding citizen? Irrational fears do not get to rule this world or this village.
The next 'Whereas' declares this regulation does not interfere with exercising constitutional rights. Many beg to differ The law is not on the villages side.. This resolution recognizes the right of concealed carry license holder's to carry on Corrales property while denying that right to those who carry openly. But, the right belongs to everybody, equally.
This resolution creates two classes of citizens based on the same exercise of a constitutional right. This resolution criminalizes one who carries openly but approves of and acknowledges the rights of those who carry concealed. There is no rational basis for this distinction.
The next 'Whereas' is unsupported. How in the world is this attempted prohibition against open carry of firearms on Corrales property necessary for the public safety? No facts are presented for this inflammatory claim. The mentioned incidents do not rise to that level, especially considering how they became inflamed.
The only conduct that is said to be a threat to public safety is that some paranoid people will become irrationally afraid if they see a gun carried in a holster. This is not a public safety issue. That may be a mental health issue.
Under paragraph 2 c this resolution actually changes and limits rights already guaranteed by state law. The resolution will prohibit keeping a loaded firearm in a person's vehicle. However, consider NMSA1978 chapter 30, article 7, Section 2:
"Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.
A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon consists of carrying a concealed loaded firearm... anywhere, except in the following cases:
... in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of the persons or another's property."
Once again this resolution rewrites and fundamentally changes state law in an obvious violation of existing rights.
Finally this resolution purports to give the village power to put up signs prohibiting firearms on public property contrary to state law. If these prohibitions are illegal or unconstitutional then the village can't post illegal signs. Isn't this going to set up our police into making unlawful arrests?
The people of this village cherish all of their constitutional rights. There are principals to be upheld. Whether 10 or 20 come to speak, a very diverse group of people is being stirred up. They will consume time and energy and invoke passion and disagreements. This will take time away from other more meaningful discussions.
If this resolution passes there will be substantial opposition in the community as a matter of principal.
Individuals and organizations like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America can take legal action. I have it on good authority that they are already looking at this situation. A regional rep of the NRA is planning on attending the council meeting.
They can sue civilly before anyone gets arrested. They can sue when anyone gets arrested. Those who get arrested can also sue not only to have their charges dismissed but also for damages for illegal arrest.
Why are we going to incur these great expenses? Isn't this a waste of time, energy and a whole lot of money?
A few weeks ago I spoke in favor of the half mill tax increase. I did so to provide much needed and earned raises for the village police, fire, roads, maintenance and clerical people in our village. I did not support these taxes so this council can waste money on substantial legal fees on an issue that is limited to and driven by irrational paranoids or antagonistic individuals. Someone has to be the adult here.
How much tax payer money has already been consumed in drafting this resolution? How much more money will be wasted fighting the many lawsuits and legal challenges. How much will the village have to pay for damages for illegal arrests? And even if no damages are awarded against us, how much will it cost to just defend these suits?
And all this expense is for what? These expenses are because somebody is irrationally afraid of the sight of a firearm legally carried. Won't these people be just as irrationally fearful at the sight of a citizen walking down the street carrying a gun, but are not in a public park? Is the village next going to attempt to prohibit legal open carry on the streets because the streets are public village property? Where does this madness end? End it now.
Enough time and energy has been wasted on this matter. As a matter of law, and as a matter of what is right, and in good common sense, you need to vote this resolution down.
As a citizen of this village I feel a duty to share my observations. I urge this village to not stray down this acrimonious and meaningless path. I share these observations in hopes that sanity will prevail and the lid for Pandora's Box can be found and returned to its proper place.
I do not ask for any reply to these comments. I fear that if I discuss this with several councilors before the meeting, and inadvertently pass on a councilors view, I may improperly facilitate a rolling quorum.
Sorry to keep flooding this thread and hogging all the bandwidth...
This was the letter that I sent to my mayor and all the council members when this first was published in the paper, and before the resolution was drafted :
July 23, 2012
Mayor Philip Gasteyer
4324 Corrales Rd
Corrales, NM 87048
Dear Mayor Gasteyer,
My intent is to have the following published in the Corrales Comment. Thank you in advance for your attention to my concerns.
I was disappointed to read in the July 7 edition of the Corrales Comment that our village council seems to be having a reactionary and somewhat emotionally driven response to a law abiding citizen exercising a constitutional right to bear arms. The statement in the Comment reads "disallowing firearms in public places", which is significantly onerous in its scope.
Furthermore, I am exceptionally alarmed as it appears that a decision by the council will be made without input from the public.
Too often, our knee-jerk reaction is to enact a policy or law in response to a perceived problem. In this instance, the new law being considered is in direct conflict with a constitutional right. This was pointed out multiple times in the Comment article, attributing the word "right" as being used by both Vigil and Harper. This law would be nothing more than whitewash as it would pacify the anti-gun crowd but would not provide tangible security. Factual evidence shows that security is actually reduced.
It is proven again and again (ask me for references) that laws restricting firearms results in a less secure and more dangerous society. This is shown most recently by the rise in violent crime in Australia. Those who are unlawful, evil or demented just will not comply. These laws only serve to strip law abiding citizens of their ability to protect themselves and others.
In recent history, reflect on the one thing in common where shootings have occurred at Luby's, Columbine High, Virginia Tech, Hollywood Video, and many others. No law abiding citizen was carrying a firearm, and no law enforcement official was there to assist. Stripping law abiding citizens of their right to carry and protect themselves is not the answer.
Consider the most recent violent attack on innocent lives in Aurora Colorado. Aurora already has prohibitive gun laws. Concealed carry is not allowed. Additionally, Cinemark Theaters has a no-firearms policy. The theater was packed with law abiding citizens, along with one demented person with intent to kill. Reportedly, the police arrived within 90 seconds to find 70 victims.
"When seconds count, police are minutes away", has never been more poignantly appropriate. Even if firearms were completely removed from society, those who are intent on harming innocents would find a way to do so, be it with box cutters on airplanes, or with a truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Laws that provide no benefit, and only serve to remove the rights of law abiding citizens have no place in society. Please disregard the emotional response generated by an inappropriately alarmed person and instead allow evidence and common sense to prevail.
I would appreciate your feedback on this subject.
Resolution defeated!!! 4 to 2
To hear our village attorney defend his writing as enforceable under trespass laws was revolting.
The chambers was absolutely packed, with folks sitting on the floor, and standing in the foyer and the side rooms as well. I was struck that it looked a bit like a Rockwell painting as people were jockeying for position at the windows.
There were about 25 people voicing their objection, which helped me get over my case of mike-fright. News crews were in attendance too. I said my 3 minutes and sat down as quick as I could. Only three people showed up to voice support for this resolution.
Interesting. Last night the KOB TV news report was available as a video. Today the video has been removed.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2728450.shtml?cat=500
I'll be videoing this one today.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/aug/15/tdmet01-pro-gun-organization-plans-a-read-in-at-ri-ar-2131548/
There i a story about this that I'll tell later.
Here it is on our local KOAT chan 7 :
http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/Heated-meeting-over-possible-gun-ban/-/9153762/16131752/-/bepxtcz/-/index.html
Here it is on chan 4. The nervous looking grey headed guy with the striped shirt is Mick Harper, the councilor who initiated this resolution.
The nervous looking grey headed guy in the black shirt at the podium speaking is me. 10 seconds of fame that I can't get back.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2728450.shtml?cat=500
Well, this looks like it might not be over.
My overly-liberal newspaper erroneously reported on events that night, saying the that NRA flood the chambers, and that the pledge of allegiance was shouted down. I have written a response to the newspaper which I suspect may not get printed. The newspaper is part of the oliagarchy of the village liberal politics. The story from the Corrales Comment is not available online yet.
Here is my letter :
I feel compelled to provide both clarification and correction to the August 25 Comment story "Council Okays Guns".
First, out of respect to Mr. Vega, he told us that he received two "Battle Stars", which are decorations of meritorious conduct during battle. Not "Battle scars" as reported by the Comment.
Next, there were repeated reports of our Pledge of Allegiance being "shouted down" or being "interrupted". This simply is not true. Mayor Gasteyer asked that the pledge be recited first in Spanish, then English. During the recitation in Spanish, many of the attendees opted to recite the pledge in English at the exact same time. It is very important to note that no other verbal expressions were made during the recitation. Mayor Gasteyer started the pledge three times in Spanish, and three times it was recited, with participants voicing their pledge in both Spanish and English simultaneously. There were many more English participants than Spanish, and the English participants were proudly vocal. Their contribution to the pledge was not an attempt to shut down or shout down. Those of us who were waiting quietly to say the pledge in English were not offered an opportunity to do so by the mayor who did not invoke the pledge in English during the meeting.
I find the practice of saying the pledge separately, in different languages at different times, insulting to the mixing-pot profile of America. This does nothing but encourage divisiveness. We should say the pledge ONE time, and we should be encouraged to recite it in whatever language allows us to be most enthusiastic.
I am also unsure why the Comment reported that "the NRA flooded the Village Council chambers". I arrived early to register to speak, so I was able to watch the chambers fill to overcapacity conditions. I suspect that there were easily 125 to 150 people in attendance, and at no point was anyone asked to identify if they were NRA members or not. A few speakers identified themselves as such, but the vast majority did not reveal if they were or were not affiliated with the NRA. Reporting that the NRA flooded the chambers is speculative at best and hopefully not deliberately misrepresentative.
The title of the article is also misrepresentative. Our council did not "Okay Guns in Parks and Playgrounds". Our national and state constitutions "Okayed" guns in parks and playgrounds long ago. The resolution proposed by Councilman Harper sought to violate that right, by restricting open carry. The resolution which sought change to this existing status was rejected.
Our Village legal council, Attorney Appel, wrongly cited District of Columbia vs. Heller. Anyone researching this should also read McDonald V Chicago. Keep in mind that Attorney Appel and the firm he works for would benefit from any lawsuits brought forth against the Village of Corrales....lawsuits which will absolutely, certainly arise.
It is difficult for me to listen with a straight face to those who believe that simply banning weapons from events will keep those who wish to do harm from bringing them anyway or from finding other ways to hurt others. Resolutions or ordinances such as this only serve to disarm lawful people. Those who wish to harm others, simply will not abide. The law abiding, unarmed person rapidly has their status changed to "victim" by resolutions such as this.
This resolution was dangerous in its scope, and should have been more soundly defeated than it was. Kudos to Councilor Hart for his logically sound analysis of the situation and appropriate vote.
Well done in getting involved. Sounds like it must be an election year for some knuckleheads. How else can one explain so much effort made on a clearly illegal effort. The attorney makes a great point on the liability; think about all of the big shootings ended by someone with a gun like Trolley Square in UT a shooting before the well-publicized Aurora, CO shooting also in Aurora. Now if someone normally carried, but didnt that day due to their regulation I could foresee a serious legal liability.
Well written Shooter. I think I would press the issue if your paper does not print your rebuttal. Especially if it chooses to print the other sides view. I so loved your point on the Pledge of Allegiance. After all it is a meeting of all citizenry I hope. Not Anglos on the right and Hispanics on the left and blacks to the rear and American Indians you all stay on your Reservation. And the Orientals you all might as well go home as we don't spots for you and you speak funny.
Funny when the party and people that advertise the need for accepting diversity and reaching out to each other. Then they desire to separate each other. ??? HUMM!! Orwellian New Speak in action!! ;D
Stay on them NM.
You've got them on the run!