Mediaboss Marketing

TRAVERSE CITY Grand Traverse County residents who turned out for public comment overwhelmingly demanded the resignations of commissioners Ron Clous and Rob Hentschel during a special meeting Thursday.

Many demanded an apology for the actions of Clous, who displayed a rifle at the Jan. 20 commission meeting during public comment, and Hentschel, who laughed at Clous behavior.

And many said they were disgusted that the board has not denounced the Proud Boys, a far-right group, whose members were featured during a public comment session at a board meeting last year.

No resignation, no apology and no denouncement was forthcoming from either commissioner. But after nearly five hours of public comment from more than 70 people a Resolution of Redress brought forward by Hentschel was taken off the agenda on a vote of 5-1, with Hentschel voting no.

Commissioner Brad Jewett left the meeting early because of a prior commitment.

The resolution, written by Hentschel, would have declared the display of weapons while members of the public are speaking inappropriate. It also called on commissioners to use the same professional behavior in video meetings as they would in a traditional meeting.

Members of the public called the resolution inadequate and unapologetic, that it whitewashes the issue or simply sweeps it under the rug.

They called Clous display of the rifle intentionally intimidating and coming as it did during a discussion of the Proud Boys and the Second Amendment, associates the county with the group whose members have been tied to the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt at the U.S. Capitol.

What happened on the 20th, I accept that a lot of people saw that situation differently than I did at that moment, Hentschel said of the incident.

Clous made no comment. Clous has returned just one call to the Record-Eagle since the incident, but Hentschel has given radio and television interviews.

Immediately after the incident Hentschel said he saw nothing wrong with what Clous did, saying he laughed because he found it ironic that the commenter was talking about the Second Amendment when Clous picked up the gun. He has not changed that opinion during the backlash since.

County attorney Kit Tholen told board members that an investigation has been started and that the county has received notice that at least one attorney is looking into a lawsuit against the county.

Some residents asked the board to instead pass another Resolution of Censure that will likely be presented at a Feb. 3 regular meeting.

The alternate resolution was written by newly-seated Commissioner Darryl V. Nelson and says that the two commissioners actions violated an ethics policy that all employees and appointed and elected officials are required to follow.

Some said the Resolution of Redress presented Thursday was meant to circumvent Nelsons resolution and avoid censure. It is unclear if it will be presented again at the February meeting.

Many commenters at Thursdays meeting said the Jan. 20 incident, which has received wide national and international media coverage, was shameful, embarrassing and unacceptable.

People all over the world are watching, said Christine Uribe.

I am disgusted by the actions of this board, Uribe said.

Many commenters also signed a letter calling for Hentschel and Clous to resign. The letter had been signed by more than 1,400 people as of Thursday, including every member of the Traverse City Commission.

As the public comment session wore on, some people unmuted their microphones to interrupt speakers with music, jeers and swearing.

Hentschel invited IT director Cliff DuPuy to put them in the lobby or remove them from the meeting.

Many of those giving public comment said they did not want to give their names, as they were afraid of repercussions.

A high school student who declined to give her name or where she went to school said Clous is more than 25 years old with a fully-developed brain that should have registered that what he was doing was wrong.

You are an adult and you should be acting as such, the student said. There are students who look up to you and you represent our community.

Bob Brown said he approves of gun rights and said that what Clous does in his own home is his business.

That was his home, but it was a public meeting, Brown said, who recommended censuring Clous and Hentschel and moving on.

He also called on them to take responsibility for their actions.

Stand up, be men, apologize, Brown said. Its just disturbing to see people acting like junior high school locker room boys in a public meeting.

T.J. Andrews said the process of calling the special meeting seemed meant to discourage attendance. It was held at an irregular time 1 p.m. instead of the normal 8 a.m. with less than 24 hours notice, she said.

It appears this meeting was intended to limit public engagement, Andrews said.

Notice of the special meeting was posted within the 18 hours required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

The Resolution of Redress states the pandemic has forced people to use new technologies such video conferencing, for which standards of appropriate behavior and professional etiquette have not yet been universally established.

Andrews said livestreamed meetings have been going on for months now and even schoolchildren understand what their behavior should be when they are in class on Zoom.

Some people said calling for the two commissioners to resign goes too far, that Clous actions are being blown out of proportion by liberal snowflakes. Clous may have used bad judgement, but it doesnt justify losing his board seat, they said.

Clous brought his gun out while Keli MacIntosh was speaking out about the Second Amendment resolution. She also objected to the boards refusal to denounce the Proud Boys, a group whose members played a role in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

MacIntosh has filed a complaint with the Michigan State Police, saying she felt threatened by Clous actions. She is now receiving threatening calls, and the MSP is making regular checks on her at her home.

One caller who gave only his first name, Chris, said he was disappointed at the hate directed toward Clous.

To say or imply that this was in any way threatening is idiotic, he said.

Tholen at the start of the meeting said he regretted that there was not an invocation listed on the agenda.

The reason an invocation is allowed at a meeting is because it encourages people to focus on shared values and respect for each other, something that is in short supply lately, Tholen said.

But board members are there to do the publics business, he said.

You are not going to agree with everything you hear in public comment, Tholen said. But as your attorney I ask that you listen to people and treat their thoughts with respect.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the original here:
Resolution of Redress removed from GT board agenda - Traverse City Record Eagle

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

The Second Amendment of the United States reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It may be surprising, but prior to 2008, the Second Amendment did not give any individual the right to own a weapon.

In 2008, the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), for the very first time, recognized the Second Amendment gives an individual a right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) the U.S. Supreme Court also affirmed the Heller decision and made the Second Amendment applicable to state governments.

In the Heller case, the majority opinion, written by one of the most distinguished conservative justices, Justice Antonin Scalia, stated: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

Justice Scalia also specified, The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Justice Scalias comments simply mean that there are well-established limitations on any persons right to bear arms.

For example, a law enforcement officer investigating a potential crime has the right to frisk a person for (the) officers safety and remove any weapon that individual may have in their possession. Furthermore, if the weapon is part of the evidence being gathered during the investigation, the officer has a right to keep the weapon until further determination by the courts. In New Mexico, anyone carrying a concealed handgun needs a license. Thus, if anyone is concealing a handgun without a license and an officer stops that person, the officer may keep the gun as evidence of a crime. Law enforcement officials also have the right to request search warrants from a judge to seize any weapon that may be part of an investigation.

In New Mexico property owners can prohibit the carrying of firearms onto property they lawfully possess by either posting signage or verbally notifying people that guns are not allowed. Thus, if anyone is carrying a gun in violation of the property owners prohibitions, an officer is legally permitted to impound the gun as evidence of a crime. As Justice Scalia explained, carrying a firearm, with or without a permit, is also restricted in many locations or by convicted felons or the mentally ill. Thus, these are just some of the circumstances where law enforcement officers currently have the right to remove and keep firearms until further determination by the courts.

In May of last year, the governor signed into law another gun regulation which many call the Red Flag Law. This law is intended to provide a process, with judicial oversight, that allows law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms when there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to themselves or others. This law is reminiscent of practices in Old West movies where the sheriff would confiscate weapons and require everyone to remove their side arms before entering the town in order to maintain public safety or avoid trouble.

................................................................

Some argue the Red Flag Law is simply another tool for law enforcement to maintain public safety, and a more sophisticated attempt to revisit these Old West practices, with added protections of judicial oversight and review. Others argue this law is an infringement of the Second Amendment.

There is little doubt our New Mexico Supreme Court will be asked to resolve this dispute some day in order to protect and define the rights contained in the Constitution. Whatever the outcome, Im sure everyone can agree that great care should be taken to ensure everyones safety. We all know that any weapon, including guns, and some of the people that use them, can be dangerous. Lets remember that the courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, is the proper place to present, argue and resolve any differences because no one wants any more shootouts at the O.K. Corral.

Judge Frank Sedillo presides over the civil division of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the judge individually and not those of the court.

Go here to read the rest:
OPINION | Squaring the 2nd Amendment and Red Flag Law - Albuquerque Journal

Here in Vernon County we are facing down a Second Amendment Preservation County Resolution. This illegal and non-solution to a non-problem is not meaningless. The meaning is in the messaging, to paraphrase a slogan from our past culture (Marshal McLuhan): such legislation gives those who have learned to fear the skin of People Of Color an assurance that their actions will be legitimized rather than condemned.

In many communities there is a minority that demonstrates their fear by arming themselves in public as soldier in a war zone. I for one do not want to be confronted by someone who needs to project their own fears onto the community in this way. In many communities across the USA this is true for some who serve in law enforcement.

We have seen the horrible video of George Floyd and too many other deaths at the hands of our law enforcement protectors. This root cause needs to be addressed. A culture that gives support to racism is a culture of weeds that needs uprooting so a healthy culture of care for all citizens can emerge.

Barbara Richards, Viroqua

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Go here to read the rest:
Letter to the editor: Second Amendment protection or projection? - La Crosse Tribune

A Utah lawmaker is furthering his bid to make Utah the next state to allow concealed carrying of firearms without a permit.

And in case that doesnt work, another lawmaker is looking to suspend that permit requirement amid a declared state of emergency whether that be for an earthquake, a flood and, yes, a pandemic.

Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, is sponsoring HB60 in the Utah Legislatures upcoming 2021 general session, set to begin Jan. 19. The bills language mirrors legislation he filed in the final days of the 2020 session, which would remove the states requirement for law-abiding Utahns over the age of 21 to have a permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

Every single person has the right to protect themselves, Brooks said, arguing that right should extend to people uncomfortable with openly carrying firearms. Its allowing a law-abiding citizen to be allowed (to put their gun) under their jacket or a wife to put it in her purse.

Currently, 16 states allow concealed carrying of firearms without a permit: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, North Dakota (residents only) and Wyoming (residents only). Four others allow permitless concealed carry with certain limitations: Illinois, Montana, New Mexico and Washington.

Utah law currently allows people who are legally able to possess a firearm to openly carry their guns in public. A permit is only required for carrying a concealed firearm.

Brooks said hes confident his bill will win the support it needs to become law from both the Legislature and Gov.-elect Spencer Cox.

Both Gov.-elect Cox and Lt. Gov.-Elect (Deidre) Henderson have said they would support a constitutional carry bill and look forward to working with the sponsors on the details, Coxs spokeswoman, Jennifer Napier-Pearce, said in a text Wednesday.

In 2013 Gov. Gary Herbert vetoed a similar bill, at the time arguing Utahs permitting system has been in place for decades, and in its current form for more than 15 years. In that time, it has become a national model.

But since then, Brooks said studies have shown concealed carry permit laws dont have an impact on violence or crime. After four years of grappling with the issue, he said hes ready to make the case that Utah should do away with the concealed carry permit requirement altogether.

This is really not a left and right issue, Brooks said. This is just a good data issue.

Brooks pointed specifically to a 2019 study by the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, which found state level concealed carry laws had no impact over 30 years, from 1986 to 2015, on homicide, violent crime and public health indicators.

So basically it does no good to take away someones right to carry, Brooks said. They see no difference.

Rep. Cory Maloy, R-Lehi, hopes Brooks bill wins approval, but hes also running a more targeted bill, HB61, to suspend the concealed carry permit requirement during a declared state of emergency. If Brooks bill passes, it will make Maloys bill moot. But Maloy said hes still sponsoring the legislation in case Brooks bill doesnt succeed, arguing it would allow Utahns to exercise their Second Amendment rights discreetly amid times of fear and uncertainty.

Especially in the early days of the pandemic, we were having shortages all over the place. People were feeling very unsure, very nervous about their ability to provide for their families and their safety, Maloy said, pointing to hoarding of cleaning supplies, toilet paper and ammunition as indicators that Utahns and Americans had great concern for their persons and their families.

So whether thats in the wake of an earthquake that fractures Utahs infrastructure or amid a pandemic that disrupts everyday life Maloy said Utahns should be able to legally carry their guns, regardless whether that firearm is out in the open or under a jacket.

People should be able to exercise that right in a time when people may be scared or feeling insecure or in danger, Maloy said.

The bills are expected to meet their fair share of pushback on Capitol Hill from those who have been pushing Utah for more gun restrictions, not less.

We are living through a gun violence crisis in America, and some politicians in Utah not only dont seem to care about it, they are running bills that will make it more likely that people will shoot each other, said Katie Matheson, spokeswoman for the left-leaning Alliance for a Better Utah. We shouldnt wait until we have a crisis in Utah. We need our representatives to wake up these bills are tragedies waiting to happen.

Brooks said hes positive removing the concealed carry permit requirement wont make any difference of gun violence in Utah. There have been plenty of states with plenty of years of experience and plenty of study showing this is a good safe policy.

Brooks said he has to chuckle when people express concerns about doing away with the concealed carry class Utahns are required to take in order to obtain the permit, saying those who question whether thats a good idea have never taken that course.

It doesnt teach you how to use a weapon, he said, arguing its up to individual responsibility to learn how to operate a gun safely before carrying one. Our laws should balance personal responsibility with wisdom and reason. And it should across the board. Why do we need so many regulations? This person should be responsible for their actions, and when people make mistakes, then theyre liable.

Clark Aposhian, Utah Shooting Sports Council chairman, said the bill wouldnt be a huge leap but rather a tiny, tiny step in the permissibility of carrying a gun. He called it a commonsense carry bill, and one that would bring more logic to Utahs current gun laws.

Its not like were venturing out into something that no other state has done, Aposhian said, also citing other state data about no impact on crime or violence. I seriously doubt Utahns in general ... will notice any change whatsoever in their day-to-day life with this.

Ermiya Fanaeian, who co-founded the Utah chapter of March for Our Lives before she reopened the Salt Lake Chapter of the Pink Pistols, a pro-gun, pro-LGBTQ group, said she thinks both bills do indeed keep the values of the Second Amendment in mind and in many ways are keeping an idea of how to remove bureaucratic procedure that makes accessing protection inaccessible for everyday Utahns.

However, with this in mind we also understand the need of concealed carry permits and why they were introduced to begin with, Fanaeian said. And those concerns are still very much valid today.

Fanaeian said she would like to see the bills also introduce initiatives that would address these concerns in more impactful ways, including funding for community programs encouraging widespread gun safety.

I hope any legislative initiative to make guns more accessible would also be followed with this as well, she said.

Go here to read the rest:
Will Utah become the next state to drop concealed carry permit? - Deseret News

The Future Of The Second Amendment All Comes Down To Georgia

Georgia -(AmmoLand.com)-The Second Amendment will be around in some form or another in the future. But what form will it exist in? Will it be a right that we are able to exercise in a manner close to what the Founders intended? Will it be something that is there, but regulated to be, for all intents and purposes, non-existent? What happens in the Georgia runoffs could decide that future.

Youre probably sick of hearing calls to re-elect Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. In some ways I cant blame you. Had there not been some very serious issues regarding the process in November, Perdue would have been already re-elected alongside President Trump. But we are dealing with two runoffs and winning both is crucial.

The election of either Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock would be a massive disaster for our rights. Both have a clear hostility towards the Second Amendment. Just in the short term, their election would make it more likely to see anti-Second Amendment legislation enacted. But over the longer term, it would mean potentially more stuff to get rid of, making that road longer than it needs to be.

There should be no mistake about it, we are facing a much longer and harder road than many of us thought wed be dealing with two months ago. Some of it was to be expected from Silicon Valley censorship, but a lot of it comes down to the fact that anti-Second Amendment extremists werent going to just roll over once Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed. In fact, they are openly talking about packing the court to neutralize the pro-Second Amendment judicial nominations President Trump has made.

If Mitch McConnell runs the Senate, court-packing never gets a vote. If Chuck Schumer ruins the Senate, then it could come down to Jon Tester and Joe Manchin, who have not been very good on the judicial nominations front. Do you really want to trust the future of the Second Amendment to those two Senators?

The logical answer to this question is, No. It is better to have Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate to shorten the road needed to restore not just our Second Amendment rights, but our republic as well. That requires building a firewall, and build that firewall to protect our rights means that Second Amendment supporters need to back Loeffler and Perdue, then also support the National Rifle Associations Political Victory Fund and their Institute for Legislative Action, in order to be ready for 2022 and 2024.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

More:
The Future Of The Second Amendment All Comes Down To Georgia - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News