Mediaboss Marketing

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement

As previously disclosed, on October 20, 2020, PNM Resources, Inc., a New Mexicocorporation ("PNMR"), Avangrid, Inc. ("Avangrid"), a New York corporation, andNM Green Holdings, Inc., a New Mexico corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary ofAvangrid ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (asamended by the Amendment to Merger Agreement dated as of January 3, 2022, the"Merger Agreement") pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into PNMR(the "Merger"), with PNMR surviving the Merger as a direct wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Avangrid. The Merger Agreement provides that it may be terminatedif the Effective Time shall not have occurred by April 20, 2023 ("End Date"),provided that PNMR and Avangrid may mutually agree to extend the End Date toJuly 20, 2023 if all conditions to Closing have been satisfied other than theobtaining of all Required Regulatory Approvals.

On April 12, 2023, PNMR, Avangrid and Merger Sub entered into Amendment No. 2 tothe Merger Agreement (the "Second Amendment") pursuant to which PNMR andAvangrid each agreed to extend the "End Date" until July 20, 2023. The partiesacknowledge in the Second Amendment that the required regulatory approval fromthe New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ("NMPRC") has not been obtained andthat the parties have reasonably determined that such outstanding approval willnot be obtained by April 20, 2023.

The foregoing description of the Second Amendment is qualified in its entiretyby reference to the Second Amendment, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit 2.1hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 8.01. Other Events.

On April 12, 2023, PNMR issued a press release announcing the Second Amendment.A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporatedherein by reference.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Statements made in this Current Report on Form 8-K for PNMR that relate tofuture events or expectations, projections, estimates, intentions, goals,targets, and strategies are made pursuant to the Private Securities LitigationReform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally includestatements regarding the potential transaction between PNMR and Avangrid,including any statements regarding the expected outcome of the Appeal, thetimetable for completing the potential Merger, the ability to complete thepotential Merger, the expected benefits of the potential Merger, and any otherstatements regarding PNMR's and Avangrid's future expectations, beliefs, plans,objectives, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, or futureevents or performance. Readers are cautioned that all forward-looking statementsare based upon current expectations and estimates and apply only as of the dateof this report. Neither Avangrid nor PNMR assumes any obligation to update thisinformation. Because actual results may differ materially from those expressedor implied by these forward-looking statements, Avangrid and PNMR cautionreaders not to place undue reliance on these statements. Avangrid's and PNMR'sbusiness, financial condition, cash flow, and operating results are influencedby many factors, which are often beyond its control, that can cause actualresults to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-lookingstatements. For a discussion of risk factors and other important factorsaffecting forward-looking statements, please see PNMR's Form 10-K and Form 10-Qfilings and the information filed on PNMR's

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forms 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), which factorsare specifically incorporated by reference herein and the risks anduncertainties related to the proposed Merger with Avangrid, including, but notlimited to: (i) the expected timing and likelihood of completion of the pendingMerger, including the timing, receipt and terms and conditions of any remainingrequired governmental and regulatory approvals of the pending Merger that couldreduce anticipated benefits or cause the parties to abandon the transaction,(ii) the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could giverise to the termination of the Merger Agreement, (iii) the risk that the partiesmay not be able to satisfy the conditions to the proposed Merger in a timelymanner or at all, and (iv) the risk that the proposed transaction could have anadverse effect on the ability of PNMR to retain and hire key personnel andmaintain relationships with its customers and suppliers, and on its operatingresults and businesses generally. Other unpredictable or unknown factors notdiscussed in this communication could also have material adverse effects onforward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance onthese forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

View post:
PNM RESOURCES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits (form 8-K) - Marketscreener.com

There were those in the South who fought and lost a war over whether white-skinned people were superior to others. They also thought they were entitled to gain wealth from the labor of people they had shipped here from Africa.

Defeated, some put on costumes and terrorized those who had been freed of slave labor. This was in 1868, down near the Alabama border, at Pulaski, Tennessee. A racist, President Woodrow Wilson so liked D.W. Griffiths Ku Klux Klan-promoting film Birth of a Nation that he had it shown at the White House.

Memphis, Tennessee, the Mississippi River city where slaves rolled bales of cotton onto steamboats for shipment to cotton mills, is more famous as the place where city leaders conspired with a marksman to kill the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 55 years ago this month.

Some books are banned in Tennessee, but on the positive side, at Fisk University in Nashville, Diane Nash, along with John Lewis, organized freedom rides to end segregation on buses in the South.

Tennessee stays in the news, just now with mentally challenged white supremacist legislative majority adherents to Republican extremism voting to expel two Black legislators from their chamber for breaking decorum, mainly because they are Black.

They were demonstrating to pressure the House to pay attention and act: Children had just been murdered in a nearby school. Several years ago, John Lewis and others did the same thing in Congress to make an important point.

The issue is guns, specifically military-style weapons, and particularly those chosen to kill children in schools.

Ever since the U.S. military fought the Moros in the Philippines, it has desired weapons that fire rapidly, with ammunition that more effectively kills. The weapon of choice by those who have been coming into schools to kill teachers and schoolchildren is the AR-15. When converted to fully automatic operation, it can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, and these bullets are designed to tumble and tear the victims insides.

About 45,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. An increasing number are children. Guns account for more child deaths here in the U.S. than any other cause.

Our Constitutions Second Amendment provides, 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. (The first 12 words are conveniently omitted when the NRA quotes.)

This amendment was on the Founders minds in the hour when Washingtons forces fighting the British were significantly militias from the colonies. Future defense of the country was expected to come from state militias. The colonists feared a national army.

The militias created in the South were formed to defend against slave rebellions and to keep slaves from running away. Southerners demanded such an armed militia provision be put into the Constitution. In the Militia Act of 1903, Congress created the National Guard, an expression of how the Second Amendment was to deliver its promise.

In short, the Constitution did not grant possession of guns for indiscriminate killing of others. That is something some justices of the Supreme Court have decided to interpret from their reading of the Second Amendment and to allow to happen.

In the interest of public safety, the District of Columbia (Washington) had a law limiting possession of firearms. A man named Heller challenged the law. In 2008, based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Heller. For the majority, Judge Antonin Scalia wrote, There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred right to keep and bear arms.

Had he been wiser, he could as easily have interpreted the amendment as the Framers intended. This narrow ruling has led to much greater proliferation of guns and more killings. The number of guns possessed long ago exceeded the number of people living in the United States. Ironically, Justice Scalia died of heart failure eight years later while out hunting carrying a gun.

Democrats are on record to once again ban possession of military-style weapons. Republicans could win votes, and hearts, by joining in this effort, but the gun lobby pays for their campaigns, and they will join no effort to reduce gun deaths. Like banning abortion, this is a vastly unpopular long-term losing political strategy.

Hunters, relax. We need to outlaw possession of all military weapons and also confiscate them under severe penalty of law. Only an inept hunter needs an AR-15.

Charlemont resident Carl Doerner is an author and historian, currently editing his new work, Breaking the Silence: Revisioning the American Narrative.

Originally posted here:
My Turn: Gun control voices in Tenn. met with same old suppression - The Recorder

As the riot of gun violence in America produces fresh massacres by the day, firearm fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge the blood on their hands, and their suicidal stance in the face of escalating carnage is that more guns are the answer.

But its worse than that.

Take a close look at the arguments that gun extremists advance and a dark truth emerges. They repeatedly put defense against tyranny at the center of their claim to unfettered access to firearms. In the almost 232 years since the ratification of the Second Amendment, individual gun owners have had no substantial or sustained occasion to take up arms against the federal government. Yet guns are involved in almost 49,000 annual deaths in the United States. Anyone who has studied the matter arrives at the simple conclusion that more guns mean more death, and the gun-permissive U.S. is an extreme outlier in the developed world.

The nature of gun violence in America therefore amounts to a proxy war, with school children targeted as unwitting infantry and grocery store shoppers conscripted as cannon fodder. Attackers armed as if for military engagement, backed by Second Amendment fanatics, are deployed in public to kill unsuspecting innocents.

This is a hot war. We know which side is the aggressor. Gun extremists arent just political misfits. They are belligerents.

It is true that the framers crafted the Second Amendment as a defense against a form of 18th-century tyranny. Some representatives from the various states were wary of a strong federal government that could establish a standing army and dissolve state militias, and the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly tied to militia service in the text of the one-sentence, 27-word amendment.

Whats not explicit in the amendment is an individual right concerning firearms. In the records of the First Federal Congress, which produced the amendment, There was no discussion at all about private ownership of guns, notes Ray Raphael in his annotated U.S. Constitution.

Second Amendment scholar Michael Waldman makes a similar point. There is not a single word about an individuals right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in (James) Madisons notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights, Waldman wrote in Politico Magazine.

Courts treated relevant cases accordingly, and state and local governments adopted gun restrictions more or less uncontroversially for more than two centuries.

The far right's fantasies about armed resistance against some abstract tyranny are made real in the form of countless corpses on America's streets and in public places throughout the country.

That all changed with the rise of the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment fanaticism in recent decades. It wasnt until the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time said the Second Amendment guarantees an individuals right to own a gun.

But the ruling was criticized even by some prominent conservative legal observers. No less an authority than Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that the Second Amendment was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Moreover, right there in the text of the Heller opinion, Scalia allowed that in 21st-century society where gun violence is a serious problem, the notion that the Second Amendment is outmoded was open to debate, though such a debate was beyond the courts purview.

But far-right leaders who genuflect to deadly weapons treat a post-Constitution compromise as God-given gospel, and they are willing to watch the bodies of murdered children pile up as a price for their beliefs.

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, the preeminent and clown-like mascot of the gun lobby, has mastered the language favored by the shall not be infringed fringe, as when she tweeted, Our Founders wisely knew that the right to keep and bear arms was the last line of defense against tyranny.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida embraced a similar interpretation when he told a crowd, The Second Amendment is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary.

As Democrats in the Colorado Legislature advanced a set of gun violence-prevention bills, Republican extremists voiced factually incorrect, mass murder-inducing views about gun rights.

The Second Amendment says, Shall not be infringed upon. That means nothing you cannot do anything to affect the Second Amendment. Thats what the Constitution says, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, a pastor from Colorado Springs, said, adding, predictably, that the Second Amendment is based upon protecting yourself primarily from tyrannical government.

This armed conflict envisioned by gun zealots has yet to materialize directly. But it has cost tens of thousands of lives every year. More than 10,000 people have died from gun violence in the U.S. so far in 2023 well more than the number of Americans who died fighting the Revolutionary War. There have already been at least 130 mass shootings this year, the latest having occurred at an elementary school in Nashville, where three 9-year-olds were among the victims. East High School in Denver has been the site of two instances of gun violence just this year. Gun violence is the leading cause of death among Americas youth.

The far rights fantasies about armed resistance against some abstract tyranny are made real in the form of countless corpses on Americas streets and in public places throughout the country. Firearm fanatics like Boebert and Bottoms are the cowardly battle commanders who would not show themselves at the front lines but are nevertheless responsible for the bloodshed, and their obstinance in the face of dead school children is a derangement that favors human sacrifice over functional society. They are obsessed with rights, but they have forfeited the right to be welcomed as good-faith participants in debates on guns, since democracy is hostile to proxy-war combatants.

It is inconceivable that Americas founders would approve of what gun rights absolutists have made of the Second Amendment. And any constitutional provision is only valuable insofar as it serves us living Americans trying to make the best common existence for ourselves under current conditions.

The Constitution was made to be reformed, which the presence of amendments makes plain. Lives are superior to laws. But thats a proposition gun extremists would have us all shot to oppose.

This column wasoriginally publishedby Colorado Newsline, a sister publication of Arizona Mirror and a member of theStates Newsroomnetwork of local newsrooms.

See more here:
Gun violence is a proxy war on the American public - Arizona Mirror

Captain Christie Mysinger

The Villages Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution will welcome Captain Christie Mysinger of the Lake County Sheriffs Office as guest speaker at their 10 a.m. Saturday, April 8 meeting at Captiva Recreation Center. She will speak about the Second Amendment and Florida laws relating to gun ownership.

Born in Michigan, Captain Mysinger received her Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice from Columbia College, completed the Administrative Officers Course at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, graduated from the Florida Criminal Justice Executive Institute Senior Leadership Program, and is a Nationally Certified Drug Recognition Expert, IACP.

Captain Mysinger joined the Lake County Sheriffs Office in 1991 and has served the citizens of Lake County for more than 30 years. During this time, she had the opportunity to work in a variety of assignments including communications, patrol deputy, field training deputy, D.A.R.E. officer, School Resource Deputy, Investigations, Public Information Officer, Community Services Unit, Professional Standards, Patrol watch commander, and School Resource commander.In 2020 she was tasked with filling in as the Lake County Schools Safety & Security Specialist at the request of the Superintendent.

Captain Mysinger has been an instructor at the Lake Tech Institute of Public Safety since 1996, specializing in the high-liability areas including firearms, defensive tactics, CPR/First Aid, and driving.She is a live-fire house instructor and has served as the lead concealed weapons instructor for Bass Pro Shops Orlando for the past eight years.Mysinger studies Constitutional Law and is on a list of firearms experts for the State Attorneys Office.

She and her husband, Tom, were married in 1999 and have three children.

The Villages Chapter of SAR meets at 10 a.m. on the second Saturday of each month at Captiva Recreation Center. Visitors are welcome to attend.

Read more from the original source:
Law enforcement officer to speak about Second Amendment - Villages-News

Attorney General Paxton joined two Montana-led amicus briefs challenging New Yorks Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which makes it a felony to possess a firearm in any place of worship or a sensitive location.

After New York enacted the CCIA, several religious leadersReverend Dr. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., Bishop Larry A. Boyd, and Pastor Micheal Spencersued, arguing that the law violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A district court then issued a preliminary injunction, which New York appealed. The amicus briefs are thus being filed in defense of the religious leaders, as well as the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, in the New York City-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The amicus brief filed in Hardaway and Boyds case highlights that there is effectively no historical basis for a ban on the possession of firearms in places of worship: Apart from a handful of state and territorial laws enacted during the late nineteenth centurynearly a century removed from the foundingthe historical record doesnt show an enduring American tradition of restricting the right to carry firearms in places of worship.

Additionally, the amicus brief that was filed in Spencers case notes that, since our nations inception, the Second Amendment has long protected the right of Americans to carry firearms in public places: [E]vidence closer in time to the Second Amendments adoption is most relevant for understanding the Amendments scope. . . . The Second Amendment protects the right to possess handguns, both in the home and in public, for the purpose of self-defense. And New York fails to identify a single similar or analogous place-of-worship restriction before 1870.

To read the brief filed in Hardaway and Boyds case, click here.

To read the brief filed in Spencers case, click here.

The rest is here:
Paxton Defends Religious Leaders and the Second Amendment ... - Texas Attorney General (.gov)