Mediaboss Marketing

Submitted by Aaron Arkin.

In the 1963 movie of the same name, Billy Liar (played by Tom Courtenay) is an aggrieved young man, described as ambitious but lazy, living at home in a middle-class English family. Unable to free himself from his dependency and lacking the strength of character to move himself into the world of adult choices, he resorts to constant lying (thus the name) and frequent fantasizing. Of the latter, the most striking is when in response to a harangue from his parents, we see him armed with a machine gun angrily mowing down his entire family. For the movie audience, the contrast between Billys fantasy and what is actually and mundanely taking place at the family dinner table is shocking, and maybe for some, even vindicatory.

Of course, Billy wouldnt really murder his family, and in England he wouldnt have ready access to a machine gun. But experiencing grievance is not rare, and in our country awash in assault weaponry, the aggrieved dont always settle for just fantasy.

When establishing responsibility for a criminal act, three elements are sought: means, motive, and opportunity. In the case of mass murder, means is easy access to guns. Here in the US, their ubiquity was turbocharged by the Supreme Courts most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which 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.

Historian consensus for most of American history however, was that the Second Amendment limited the un-infringed possession of Arms to a citizen militia. They concluded the Founding Fathers were focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed in the absence of a national armed service. The revised interpretation of the Amendment, giving individuals that constitutional right, was provided by the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia. Writing for the 5 to 4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (June 20, 2008), he ignored both the Amendments historical context, and its grammatical construction.

The Second Amendments grammatical construction, it is built on two clauses, the building blocks of sentences. Clauses are groups of related words (phrases) that contain both a subject and a verb. When a clause can stand alone as a complete sentence with a clear meaning, its considered independent. If it only makes sense when you join it with another clause, its dependent (or subordinate). A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is a dependent clause because it makes sense, that is, it is only a complete thought when combined with its following clause the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Another way we know that the Second Amendments grammatical construction is a complete and logical thought only when the two clauses are combined is because, according to the grammar text, Writing and Thinking, Foerster and Steadman, revised by McMillan, the meaning of the independent and dependent clauses holds if the full statement can be preceded by the terms if, in case that, provided that, unless, since, as, because, inasmuch as, in that, or and now that, without changing the thought of the sentence. For example: Inasmuch as 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 has the same meaning as the Second Amendment.

Summing up, the complete thought and logic of the two Second Amendment clauses is that, if militias are necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms wont be infringed. The converse of that statement is that, if militias are not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms does not automatically follow. Since we no longer have or utilize self-armed citizen militias to secure the State, the Second Amendments rationale became irrelevant or inapplicable when the United States created its own armed services. One could reasonably argue that, in effect, the Second Amendment repealed itself.

As an avowed constitutional textualist (by the way, a questionable and controversial mode of legal interpretation of historic documents), who supposedly focused on the plain meaning of the text of legal documents to understand and emphasize how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appeared, it is striking and ironic that Judge Scalia chose to ignore both the grammatical construction of the Amendment, and its historical context. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter, and Steven Breyer) argued that the courts judgment was a strained and unpersuasive reading which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law. One may fairly conclude that in his desire to provide individual citizens the right to have Arms for self-protection, Judge Scalias commitment as a constitutional textualist was conditional.

Many supporters of Scalias interpretation do seem to sense that his reading of the Second Amendments intent rests on shaky legal ground; seeing any restriction on gun rights as a hole in the dike or a slippery slope, if you will, that could cause Scalias legal edifice to fail. Pointedly, we dont see similarly strenuous advocacy in service to the other nine Bill of Rights Amendments which, presumably, sit on firmer legal grounds. Shaky grounds or not, with the Courts ruling, we are now left to deal with its unintended consequences.

When it comes to grievance as a common human experience for motive (the second element of a criminal act) at the heart of mass shootings, I am brought in mind of an ironic saying, Lucky the man who knows who his enemy is. I take this to mean that if ones focus is on an enemy for ones difficulties or failures, it is not necessary to look within. And unfortunately as it turns out for us, for many people with that need there is no lack of enemies: different races, religions, political views, sexual identity and preferences, immigrants, economic classes, event attendees, people in power, people without power, high achievers, old people, young people, people who criticized, bullied, bested, insulted, or made fun of you; who cut you off on the highway, drove too slowly, wore the wrong color clothing, said something you didnt like, looked at you funnily, had something you were lacking. In other words, the other.

Opportunity (the third element of a criminal act) for mass murder is provided by so-called soft targets: night clubs, houses of worship, places of employment, grocery stores, schools, restaurants, malls, public gatherings, festivals, highways, homes, neighborhood streets. There is really no limit. Considering all of the above, we have a perfect storm for increasing the number of mass killings using semi-automatic and what are effectively automatic weapons.

Even in the face of this horrific violence however, there has been little appetite for meaningful political solutions. There is even refusal by many politicians to accept that the proliferation of lethal weaponry contributes to the slaughter. Instead we get the mantra: Guns dont kill people; people kill people, followed by arguments for increasing funding for mental health care (which ironically many politicians on the right have voted to defund in the past), hardening all soft targets (as if that were really possible), and getting tougher on criminals (although we incarcerate more people than any other nation on earth): anything but meaningful restrictions on access to guns and banning the most dangerous weapons.

Supporters of least restrictive gun laws also make the argument that we would be safer with more arming of the citizenry, including teachers, more open carry laws, and fewer restrictions on concealed weapons. As it is estimated there are already more guns in private hands in America then there are people, by that measure we should already be the safest country in the world. In fact, we have the second highest number of gun deaths in the world.

A more rational approach would be the one that has been adopted by other advanced democracies. They ignore any right to bear Arms type of construct, and balancing the interest in of public safety against providing self-protection for responsible citizens, just regulate the sale of weapons and the kinds of weapons permitted.

But back to Billy Liar: at the end of the movie, he finds himself in a position to make an actual grownup choice. Hes met a free-spirited young woman (Julie Christie, in her break-out role) who is ready to meet the challenges of the adult world and who offers him the opportunity to join her and start life on their own. And part of him wants this: to overcome his need for dependency; to have an adult relationship, and to make his own way. Sitting on a train about to leave the station, poised for an entry into an adult future, Billy chooses to leave the train to get some milk to drink (what could be more emblematic of dependency and lack of real agency?), promising Julie there is plenty of time for him to get back before the train leaves.

The audience instantly realizes Billy will not be coming back. True to form, he delays his return, described by one critic as the train leaves the station without him as, . . . shrugging on the platform and settling for the mediocrity he despises and probably deserves. Turns out Billy reserved the worst lies for himself. Seems he is not alone.

Read more:
Letter: Billy Liar: Coming Soon To a Theater Near You The Suburban Times - The Suburban Times

Jerry Nowicki| Capitol News Illinois

In a 4-3 decisionwith a blistering dissent from the Republican minority, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on a question of whether Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Act is unconstitutional.

It was the second time the case of the People v. Vivian Brown came before the court and the second time the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the state statute requiring Illinoisans to receive a permit to legally own a gun.

The majority opinion released Thursday was written by Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and was procedural in nature. It contended that the White County Circuit Court failed to adhere to the Supreme Courts previous2020 rulingin the case, so it once again vacated the lower courts ruling that the FOID Act was unconstitutional.

Previous story: Illinois Supreme Court rules on gun cases, upholds Deerfield ban on assault weapons

Burke was joined in the majority by Democrats Mary Jane Theis, P. Scott Neville Jr. and Robert Carter.

Justice Michael Burke who is not related to the chief justice wrote the dissent, making up 11 of the 21 pages in the Thursday order.

He argued the majority decision was based on a misunderstanding of the record and a misreading of this courts precedents, and that it could keep the defendant in legal limbo for an untold period of years.

The case involves a White County resident, Vivian Claudine Brown, who was charged in March 2017 with possession of a firearm without a FOID card after police responded to her estranged husbands call that she had fired a gun in her home.

Police found the rifle but no evidence that she fired it. Nonetheless, she was charged with the crime.

Previous story: Judge finds Illinois firearm ownership card law unconstitutional as applied to 1 resident

But a circuit judge in White County threw out the charge, ruling that the fees and forms required to receive a FOID imposed an unconstitutional burden on Browns Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in her own home.

But it was an alternative ruling made by the same court without prompting from Browns legal team that allowed the states high court to decline to rule on the constitutional grounds.

That alternative ruling contended that the Illinois General Assembly, when it passed the FOID Act, never meant for it to apply in the home, because if it did, it would mean anybody with knowledge of a firearm and exclusive control over the area where it was kept could be construed as possessing the gun.

As a general rule, courts decline to rule on constitutional matters when a case can be decided on other grounds.

Because the circuit court ruled on an aspect of the FOID Act pertaining to state law, the Supreme Courts 2020 decision vacated the order pertaining to constitutionality and sent the matter back to White County to permit the normal appellate process to run its course.

The ruling was essentially a win for Brown, but her legal team contended it wouldnt stand up to an appeal. Thus, Browns attorneys filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the inevitable loss on appeal would delay clarity in the case.

The circuit court agreed and reinstated the charges. Browns attorneys then filed a new motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds,which the judge upheld, finding that any fee associated with exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense within the confines of ones home violates the Second Amendment.

Thus, the state appealed the rulingback to the Supreme Court, leading to the Thursday ruling in which the majority decided the lower court had no authority to reconsider the case after the Supreme Courts 2020 ruling.

When a cause is remanded by the reviewing court with instructions to the circuit court to enter a specific order, the reviewing courts judgment is, with respect to the merits, the end of the case, and there is nothing which the circuit court [is] authorized to do but enter the decree, the court wrote, quoting other case law.

If the lower court were allowed to make changes to the Supreme Courts ruling, the majority wrote, it would set a precedent upending our hierarchical judicial system.

The dissent from Michael Burke, however, argued that the majority asserted finality of its ruling while also suggesting that the proper place for review is now an appellate court, which is itself a lower court.

In reality, the judgment of the circuit court was not a judgment of this court that was final and conclusive on all the parties because this court declined to reach the merits of the statutory analysis and only vacated the circuit courts judgment on procedural grounds, Michael Burke wrote in the dissent. Accordingly, the trial court was free to reconsider the merits of that ruling, and nothing about it doing so upends our hierarchical judicial system.

Michael Burke argued that the majoritys supposition that Brown received complete relief when the circuit court vacated her charges was faulty, because the legal reasoning backing that decision is unlikely to hold up upon appeal.

Thus, he predicted, the case will ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court on the constitutional basis, only after a significant delay to Browns detriment as the case moves through the appellate court.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government that is distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Read the original post:
Why the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on constitutionality of FOID Act again - The State Journal-Register

When I entered teaching in 1974, schools held fire and storm drills for the safety of students and staff. They still do because one never knows.

By the time I retired from education thirty years later, teachers were also instructing their students on what to do if an intruder was in the building. This was an awareness of potential danger that did not previously exist. I remember explaining to my students how to hide and stay quiet if an event occurred. There was no delusion about real danger on their part or mine.

It seems incredible that such extraordinary measures have to be taken to protect kids at school from maniacs with weapons. Something changed.

Our gut reaction to the mass shooting of innocents in Uvalde, Texas, is to rush out and somehow stop such insanity, but unfortunately much of the response exploits disaster while little changes in our tragic and violent national psyche.

I want to be fair here, but I also want readers to understand everything.

Whenever a tragedy like Uvalde happens, liberal politicians, pundits and big media rush in with their demands for gun reform. Thats fine--theyre within their rights--but there is truth beyond the shouting, finger pointing, and impassioned theater. The fact is events like this can force the right to the defensive, a desirable result for the left in an election year. Their camp is clearly prepped to work that angle for their voice is too instantaneous and too in unison for it to be otherwise.

President Biden, for example, immediately blamed the gun lobby for Uvalde. Of course a big part of the stated lobby is the National Rifle Association, an old and powerful organization that leans right and donates moolah to Republican candidates for office. The left sees the NRA as a nettle in its side and lets no tragedy escape without accusation aimed at it. Democrats would love to end the NRA and the power it wields with voters, states and candidates. Tragedy lends purpose, but it also affords opportunity to diminish a political rival.

When Joe Biden tells listeners the Second Amendment is not absolute, he is misleading them. His side absolutely wants to end the protection the amendment affords citizens because without it their radical endeavors would be much more certain of success. The whole truth is the NRA is determined to preserve the Second Amendment contrary to leftist wishes, and thats a big reason Beto is bent and Uncle Joe is in the pulpit.

Of course Biden knows the Second Amendment is absolute. It is part of the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to bear arms just as the First Amendment guarantees the right to protest. Its intent is to help protect citizens from the tyranny of oppressive government, but it gives no one the right to shoot another person. One does not allow the other.

The left sees election opportunity in linking gun possession with abortion as key issues in its offensive against the right. Liberals believe this duo is a winner for them in contrast to the ever rising cost of living compelled by their lousy, self-serving leadership. It defines a cause and an emotional connection to voters while separating the left from the right. It provides cover and distraction.

What they do is manipulative and exploitative. The practice should stop but wont because it works.

Personally I believe we can preserve the Second Amendment while seeking effective ways to protect kids and shoppers from the horror of a crazed mind. Part of that is a national determination to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Obviously that isnt easy, but constitutional rights have to be protected too.

I know beyond doubt if Democrats succeed in eliminating sales and/or ownership of AR-15s as they demand, they will count that as a victory and then go after whatever firearm they designate next. Elimination of all firearms is their real goal, and they are disingenuous when they claim differently to gain momentary political advantage.

I have seen what happens to countries where citizens are stripped of their means of self-defense, but we have all seen what can happen when deadly weapons end up in the wrong hands.

Larry W. Anderson is a retired educator.

Link:
My Word: The whole truth | Opinion - The Maryville Forum

By Rich Moniak

Jeff Lowenfels was at the bottom of my short list in the special primary election to complete Congressman Don Youngs term. Then Alaska Public Media asked all 48 candidates if theyd support a ban on the manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, as defined in the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. And Lowenfels won my vote with his unfiltered honesty.

Absolutely he replied. Military style, semiautomatic weapons were not contemplated by the second amendment, but even if they were, Id be in favor of the bans.

Lowenfels isnt he only one who understood banning such weapons is necessary to turn back the ugly tide of mass murder in this country. Within the 50-word limit imposed by APM, Santa Claus offered the most comprehensive answer. But hes not competing for a full term. And its unlikely Congress will take any action on this issue between the special election and the start of the next session in January.

Now, its hard to write Santa Claus in a sentence about politics without explaining the two-term councilman and current mayor pro tem from the city of North Pole legally changed his name in 2005. YES IF AMENDED (emphasis original) began his reply to the question. He then pointed to loopholes in law and called for additional changes.

One problem with the original law is it banned 18 specific weapons and similar models that had two specific features. But gun manufacturers could evade the laws intent by making slight modifications to those. The law also allowed the resale of any banned weapon that had been manufactured before it went into effect.

Its no wonder that studies of the bans effectiveness found little to no measurable reduction of the crimes it targeted.

Adam Wool, a Democrat who currently represents Fairbanks in the state House of Representatives, believes we need to limit access to these types of weapons but the details matter. However, he wasnt suggesting those loopholes be closed because the ban that was previously in law was acceptable. The problem now is its different political landscape.

His response, as well as those from Chris Constant, Mary Peltola, and Al Gross, displayed one critical difference. There are too few candidates on the left with the courage to state an important factLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It does not include a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Those words were written Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion of the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller. It represented the first time in American history that the constitutional right of an individual to keep and bear arms was not connected to service in a militia. Scalia, the original originalist in interpreting the Constitution, went on to defend the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Simply put, Congress has the constitutional power to ban the ones in question.

Constant qualified his support for doing so by stating We have to carefully navigate the Second Amendment.

Without mentioning assault weapons, Peltola said she supports the creation of a bipartisan congressional committee tasked with bringing common sense gun legislation that respects our 2nd amendment rights.

Gross didnt let the Second Amendment get in his way of supporting universal background checks. But he thinks that and a nationally standardized interview with local authorities constitute an appropriate level of scrutiny for anyone who wants to buy an AR-15.

Those positions concede too much authority to the Second Amendment.

And to Republican candidates who argue a national ban on assault weapons, or any other reasonable restriction on gun sales and ownership, violates it.

Michael Gerson referred to such beliefs as somewhere on the far side of laughable ignorance.

A former senior policy adviser to President George W. Bush and the Heritage Foundation, Gerson isnt one of the 48 candidates. In the conservative commentary he writes for Washington Post, hes free to speak his conscience.

Thats a challenge for candidates seeking public office. But voters who want sensible gun restrictions should think twice before supporting a candidate who is afraid to declare that the Second Amendments rights are not absolute.

Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Heres how to submit a My Turn or letter.

Read more from the original source:
Opinion: How the Second Amendment informed my special election primary vote - Juneau Empire

Warner: It's hard to call oil and gas clean when it contributes to climate change.

Ganahl: I think we all care about clean air, land and water, and if we have the strictest regulations for producing it and we need it to live our lives. It affects the poorest in our economy right now; If they can't afford to drive to work or drive to their childcare facility, drive to see their parents in a nursing home. These are the day-to-day issues that folks are facing. We are not ready to go all-renewable right now.

Warner: You've heard over and over again that people are concerned about the price of gas. And your answer to that is, let's get more reliant on this thing whose price fluctuates?

Ganahl: I believe we should have an all-of-the-above approach. I think it's too far, too fast to stop energy production in Colorado and I think the steps that have been taken that have decimated our energy industry here are not appropriate for our state, for our smaller communities, and honestly, for the people of Colorado. I hear loud and clear that they are not okay with what's happening to the energy industry here.

Warner: It is a global commodity, though. The price of oil and gas is dependent upon more than what happens in Colorado. Would you say that's true?

Ganahl: I agree, but I don't think it's an either/or. I think it's an and/both.

Warner: Tell me what else you've been hearing about inflation. You said the price of gas. What else?

Ganahl: We just traveled 19 counties in six days across the Western Slope, and I heard loud and clear that affordable housing is a huge issue, whether it's finding employees or just being able to live their lives. The folks that have lived in these small towns for a long time and can't afford the property taxes, can't afford the rising cost of living in those small towns.

One-fourth of the cost of new housing is due to regulations, fees and permits, so that's a way that I can help being governor: by leading a charge to reduce those and make it more enticing for developers to produce affordable housing in these smaller markets, but also in the Denver metro area.

Editors note: A 2021 report by the National Homebuilders Association placed the average national price of a new home at $394,000, with $93,870 of that spent to comply with regulations during development and construction phases.

Warner: Do you have a sense of what specifically you would remove in terms of those costs or that regulation?

Ganahl: Well, let's look at the Marshall fire and what happened up there. I moved out of Superior, down to Douglas County, a few years ago. I used to live in Rock Creek, which was affected. A dear friend of mine lost her house in the Marshall fire in Spanish Hills. The cost to rebuild is so much more expensive because of the new building codes. I get they have great intentions: they're very green, they want people developing houses that will last into the future and be good for our environment.

Warner: And won't burn down again.

Ganahl: Right, yes. But it's not OK if they can't afford to rebuild and right now people that lost their homes are really struggling in Superior, Louisville, Boulder County, and a lot of them can't rebuild. They're either under-insured or they can't afford the new prices for building again. That's an example of a way that we can take pause and think maybe we're going too far, too fast and we can be more conservative about our approach.

Warner: You have called for two big changes in state finances. You promised to eliminate the state income tax, which you would phase out during your four-year term, and you vowed to cut the state gas tax in half. You've said you can do that and still build roads and provide other services. The state income tax brings in about $9 billion a year, and the gas tax raises $600 million a year. What would you cut to make up for that loss of revenue?

Ganahl: The state budget has doubled in the last decade to $36 billion. The size of our government has grown by almost 25 percent in [Gov. Polis] term, adding over 4,000 full-time employees to the agencies.

Government has grown too much. I think one of the most important things we can do is reduce the size of our bureaucracies, our agencies, and put decision-making over people's lives, businesses and families back in the hands of Coloradans. I think that we can attack fraud and waste and also look at the return on investment in the dollars that we are spending. A lot of folks talk about zero-based budgeting and I'm not saying that we should go there, but we can certainly take that approach and say, What do we need to get done through our state government? What do we need to provide as far as services and care for the people of Colorado? and then back it out and see if there are ways that we could cut the spending.

Editors note: The states budget has almost but not quite doubled over the last decade. The 2011-12 budget was $19.75 billion, including all funds. The 2021-22 budget is $36.6 billion, a 185 percent increase. A similar trend holds up when looking at general funds only.

As for Polis term, the overall budget from 2017-18, the year before he took office, was $28.8 billion, its now $36.6 billion. Thats about a quarter. The states general fund, or operating budget, has also grown by more than 25 percent.

While the states payroll has grown by roughly 4,000 people, that is not a 25 percent increase. The state has more than 60,000 employees.

Warner: Government has grown too much, you say. Give me an example.

Ganahl: Yes. Well, I think if you talk to the moms and dads that dealt with the quarantines and mandates that came down from the public health departments through COVID, many are very uncomfortable with the power that [those] departments and those agencies had.

Warner: I mean economically. Where has the government grown too much that you think it's eating up people's dollars?

Ganahl: I believe the transportation department has become overreaching, and it's doing more urban planning and development and more oversight over small business owners, which I don't think is the appropriate role for that department.

I believe that small business owners are being suffocated right now by lots of regulations and taxes. Take the bag fee, the delivery fee. The delivery fee just came through: it's 27 cents additional to deliver someone food. I don't think the restaurant owners knew that was coming. Obviously, our family has some barbecue restaurants and we're pretty involved in that industry, and it was a shocker. It was done through the transportation bill, actually, and those fees get passed on to customers. Right now our customers, the people of Colorado, need to be able to afford to buy groceries and buy gas and get housing, and anything that we can do to reduce fees and taxes and regulations so that prices go down is going to be my priority.

Warner: I hear you talking about growth and oversight and regulation. I don't hear where you would get $9 billion and another $600 million in savings.

Ganahl: It's reducing waste, reducing the size of government, the agencies, the spending that we're doing right now those 4,000 full-time employees that were added. It's eliminating any pork or pet projects in the budget right now. It's also competitive bidding, and making sure that when we build roads and create projects that we have to pay for through our state government funding, we're making sure we're getting the best prices. It's also cutting loopholes and corporate favors and then moving TABOR refunds to income-tax reductions and doing that in a permanent way so that we can slowly reduce the income tax over time.

This isn't something that's going to happen on day one. It's going to take time to do this. But if you look at the other states that have done this, they attract tremendous amounts of business, far more than states without zero income tax. And that tends to make up for a lot of the revenue lost.

Warner: Just to name a few of the areas the government has grown: transportation, behavioral health, new preschool and free kindergarten programs. You've invoked transportation, but in terms of the mental health investments and the expansion of early childhood education, do you agree that spending should have increased in those areas?

Ganahl: I have been doing tons of meetings and tours and trying to figure out how we fix our broken mental health system in Colorado. There are so many good-intentioned people and organizations trying to fix this, but right now we have one of the highest suicide rates for children in our country. It is broken.

It's very complicated. It's something we have to do through our schools, through our families, through the mental health system. Right now, it takes four or five months for a child to get in for an introductory appointment. I talked to one of the heads of Children's Hospital and they said they have never seen numbers like this. Honestly there's a couple things that are high priority: No. 1 is getting more workers here in the mental health space; They have a huge shortage.

Warner: How would you do that?

Ganahl: Well, you can incentivize folks. As a regent at the University of Colorado, I can create more programs and certificates and avenues for folks to get the ability to help that way, especially in rural Colorado. Also, accessibility to mental health [care] is a huge thing that I'm hearing right now. It's very difficult, it's not affordable, even with your insurance. So lots of things to fix on that front and I'm working

Warner: I hear you describing a problem that has been well-described and I would love to hear more about how you get there while you're shrinking, presumably, state funding.

Ganahl: I don't think we need to spend more money, per se, on the mental health issue. I think it's very siloed and segmented right now. There's not a lot of efficiency, there's not a lot of collaboration. Thats how I approach things as a CEO and a business leader: bring people together and talk about how we work together. That's something that's happening a lot in education, specifically higher education where we've got lots of different nursing programs competing with each other, when we need to work together to make sure that we're not duplicating efforts. I think that's happening in mental health care, also. Then you look at the homelessness issue: That plays into the mental health conversation, as well.

Warner: That's a tough one. Do you want to share an idea you have towards combating homelessness?

Ganahl: Well, we've got to have compassion. This is a really tough issue and there are folks going through really difficult times right now. But, I also think we have to have some tough love and clean up our streets. Right now, small businesses are shuttering in Denver, people aren't going to Rockies games or going out to dinner in Denver because of the homelessness issue and the tents, the needles, etcetera. What can we do to have those folks go to shelters, instead? There are a lot of organizations ready and willing to help.

And then getting tough on fentanyl and drugs. My dad was a police officer; I'm a law and order girl. From talking to law enforcement in our state, we've got to get back to keeping bad guys in jail and getting them off the streets and keeping them in jail if they're going to repeat offend.

Warner: Betty Bullard, a listener from Colorado Springs, submitted a question about fentanyl. She said, What kind of plans do you have to try to get this under control? What do you think will work? It's not under control. What are you going to do to get it under control: To work with the legislature and come up with something that will work?

Heidi, let me just add that the legislature did pass fentanyl legislation in the last session. Did it go far enough?

Ganahl: No. In fact, it made things worse, according to the law enforcement officials I'm talking to. Because it makes it more difficult to prosecute dealers and distributors of fentanyl. Also I think we should have zero tolerance for fentanyl possession. It's so dangerous to our community, to our state, to our families.

One of the most impactful moments on the campaign trail was when I was at an event and a mom came up to me, put in my hand a little wood ornament with a picture of her daughter, who was probably 15 or 16, and said, This is my daughter. She was having a bad day. A friend of hers gave her a Xanax and it was laced with fentanyl and she died that day. It had just been a few months before that. I'm hearing those stories over and over again.

Editors note: The bill includes a defense for people who dont knowingly possess the drug. But they can only use that defense if they go to trial, and it can only be used to downgrade the felony conviction to a misdemeanor not to beat the charge altogether.

Warner: But wouldn't her daughter have been prosecuted under your zero tolerance policy? There are a lot of people who have fentanyl who don't know that they possess it.

Ganahl: No. There's the ability to have common sense, but also the ability to be tough, and our law enforcement doesn't want to put 16-year-olds or their friends in jail. They want to put the guys that are on the street dealing drugs in jail and they're having a very difficult time doing that. We've got to back our law enforcement, we've got to back the ability for them to have some tough love for some of these folks on the streets that may not have bad intentions. But it's flowing into our schools and communities, whether they like it or not.

Warner: On the subject of crime, what do you think can be done to reduce the number of mass shootings?

Ganahl: Oh, it's heartbreaking. I can't stand watching one more TV program highlighting another shooting. It's terrible. And it goes deep, right? This isn't an easy fix. We've got to look at the cultural underpinnings: what's happening to society around mental health and why these people feel the need to do this and get attention this way. We need to have a serious conversation about how to keep our kids safe when they're at school, or if you're at the grocery store or at a concert. That may mean taking some tougher measures on hardening up our facilities and making sure that we have [school resource officers, or SROs,] in schools. I don't think it was appropriate to take SROs out of schools. It means preventing gun violence, but respecting rights and respecting the Second Amendment rights.

Warner: You've floated a few ideas there. One is that you want to bring school resource officers back. In Uvalde, TX, we saw 13 police officers in the school, having responded to the shooting there, and it didn't do anything. Is that really a solution?

Ganahl: Well, what I know from being on Gov. Hickenloopers School Safety and Youth in Crisis Committee, is that school resource officers aren't just police officers that stand in the building; They build relationships with those kids. They have an eye and ear to the ground about what's happening in the school and which kids are having trouble and struggling. I think we probably had 50 different school resource officers talk to us on that committee and it really just warmed my heart, the relationship that they had with those kids.

What happened in Texas was terrible. That is not what we learned from Columbine and some of the other shootings: You've got to go in right away and deal with it. We also learned that on the school safety committee. But one of the most important things I learned from that committee, and why I created a school safety pilot program, was that every school is different and we have to go in and assess each school. It could be a cultural problem, it could be a facility problem, it could be a training problem. We can't just pick one solution to affect all schools.

Warner: On the subject of school resource officers, children of color receive that police presence in a very different way, often, than white students. Theres a big concern about the school-to-prison pipeline and that putting more law enforcement in school criminalizes childlike behavior. Is that a concern of yours?

Ganahl: From the conversations that I had on the school safety committee and with parents who have lost children or been involved in schools that have school shootings: that is not the message I hear. They are terrified, they want more protection, they want more policing and more support. And they want attention paid to this issue for more than a couple days after a shooting.

We've got to keep this conversation alive, so I've created a five-point plan that I will institute as governor. One of those things is an accountability dashboard. One for the schools in the district, so that parents know what they're up against and what's happening in the schools. Right now, that's not very transparent.

Warner: Do you mean in terms of security, or in terms of behavioral health?

Ganahl: Like incidents, violent incidents things that are happening in the school that parents would want to know about related to crime and disruptions and any trends that are going on. A dad in Parkland who lost his son at the Parkland shooting started this in Florida. It's a desire for transparency so we know what we're dealing with, because you can't manage what you don't measure.

On the flip side, as governor I've got to be accountable and transparent with the people of Colorado. This has to be one of my top issues: making sure our kids are safe. So, I'm going to talk about it once a month in a press conference. I'm going to have specific metrics that I will track to make sure we're moving the needle. We'll talk about the funding that we're providing, the programs that we're implementing and the ways that we are going to make this a top priority and keep our kids safe at school.

Warner: You mentioned guns and the Second Amendment. As we sit here today recording this, Congress is considering a package of bills to reduce mass shootings. Among other things, it would encourage states to adopt red flag gun laws. Colorado already has a law like that: With a judge's approval, firearms can be temporarily removed from people who are a threat to themselves or others. Do you think Colorado's red flag law should remain on the books?

Ganahl: I do have a question about the constitutionality of it and I do think there's room for some shenanigans that can go on with that law, like if people are falsely accusing someone of having issues that they shouldn't have a gun. We have to be very careful about Second Amendment rights.

Warner: Do you have evidence of shenanigans or is that just a fear you have?

Ganahl: I've heard stories. Yeah, it's one of our conversations.

Warner: But that's why a judge is involved, right? A judge would get involved if there are shenanigans.

Ganahl: Hopefully. Yes. I think that it's a bigger issue about what we are going to do to make sure that gun rights are preserved, but we also are being safe and keeping weapons out of the hands of mentally ill folks.

Warner: Those with mental illness are much more likely to be violent against themselves if they're violent at all. I think there are some who would hear that and say youre scapegoating people with mental illness in talking about mass shootings when the problem is that an 18-year-old can go in with an AR-15 and do a lot of damage in a little bit of time. How would you answer that?

Ganahl: To your point, most of the damage done is to themselves, if a person is having mental health issues. That goes to the rising suicide rates that we have in this country and something that we have to address here in Colorado, especially around our kids. Again, this is a bigger issue. It's about mental health; It's about connection; It's about isolation; It's about what's happening in society overall. And I don't think COVID helped that. Thats nobody's fault. It's just a tragedy that's come in the last couple years.

Warner: Is it about the AR-15 and being in the hands of young people?

Ganahl: Well, folks have been able to buy long guns for a very, very long time even 18-year-olds and this is a burgeoning issue so I dont

Warner: Would you put an age limit on certain guns? Beyond the ones that exist already, as you've acknowledged.

Ganahl: Yeah. I'd have to consider that. I think it's more an issue of society and what's happening. Again, we've got to be really careful about protecting Second Amendment rights in this country.

Warner: Several Republican voters we spoke to believe strongly in school choice. Are there options parents don't have today in Colorado that you would like them to have if you were elected governor?

Ganahl: Absolutely. Sixty percent of our kids in Colorado can't read, write or do math at grade level right now. And I'm sure you saw the report that came out of Denver Public Schools that five percent of African American and Hispanic kids can read at grade level. That is a tragedy and that should not be happening in Colorado or anywhere in this country, so we've got to do whatever we can to fix this problem. We've got wonderful teachers. We've got some funding issues. The way education finance works in our state is wonky, at best.

Warner: Some of it is locked into the state constitution, by the way.

Ganahl: I think the most important thing we can do is give power back to parents to make good decisions for each child. I have four kids: They each learn very differently and one of them has dyslexia and we could not get the help we needed in the public schools.I did have the ability to get tutoring and put her in a different situation that was better for her, and she's thriving. I want every parent to have that opportunity and be able to have access to funding, to do different things for their children if they need to.

Warner: Charter schools, vouchers what would the Ganahl Administration bring in?

Ganahl: I've been a huge advocate of charter schools. I was on the founding board of Golden View Classical Academy, I helped launch Ascent Classical and I tried to open one up in Boulder Valley School District. It wasn't successful, even though we had 700 kids signed up for that school. So I think charters are a very important part of the conversation and we need to make it much easier to start charter schools in this state.

Warner: Do you think they're held accountable enough when they don't succeed?

Ganahl: Oh goodness, yes. I mean, people are going to walk with their feet. If someone puts their child in a charter school, they're being very selective and intentional about where they want their student to go to school. They're going to be the first ones to leave that school if they're not doing the right things for the kids.

Warner: Last year, as CU regent, you sponsored a resolution that would have banned discriminatory or prejudicial attitudes at CU: that an individual because of their own race or gender is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. Now, this measure failed, but reading the language of it made me wonder if in the wake of George Floyd's murder, you, Heidi Ganahl, have done any thinking about your own unconscious biases or racism.

Ganahl: Absolutely. That's a huge conversation at the University of Colorado and in my role in education.

Warner: What epiphanies have you had, personally?

Ganahl: My epiphany is that Martin Luther King [Jr.] was a really smart guy and I honor his words and that's what I was trying to do in that resolution: that we should judge people on their character and not the color of their skin.

Warner: What would you say to folks who think that the resolution was a way of shutting down the conversation that Martin Luther King Jr. wanted the country to have, though?

Ganahl: I would say it's the exact opposite. I was encouraging the conversation and making sure that we're making good decisions for our students and our faculty at CU.

Warner: So, there is no aspect that was meant to shut down discussions of race?

Ganahl: Absolutely not.

Warner: I'd like to talk a little bit about elections and votes. First off, do you believe Joe Biden was duly elected the president of the United States? I ask this because some Republican voters still dispute that.

Ganahl: Joe Biden is our president and Jared Polis is our governor. But, here's the question that I think we need to be asking: why do so many people feel uncomfortable about that election? Why are so many people unsure that their vote matters?

Warner: Well, because they had a former president who kept saying it over and over and over again, despite it not being true.

Ganahl: But, so did Stacey Abrams and so did a lot of Democrats for four years saying, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Trump is not legitimate. There is a lack of voter confidence on both sides, depending on who wins the election. Voting is one of the most important pieces keeping our country together, so whatever I can do as a leader to provide transparency and reassurance and help people understand the process so we can get back to feeling confident that our vote matters, that is what I will do.

Warner: Now, you've made a comparison there between Russian interference in the election and President Trump's false claims of election fraud. Our own intelligence agencies told us there was Russian meddling. That's true. The claims of election fraud from Mr. Trump are not true, court after court after court and his own people have disputed it. That feels like an unfair comparison to me.

Ganahl: So, I think it's both sides and this is how we get into trouble and why people don't trust the media right now, because it's important to listen to all sides of the conversation.

Editor's note: For the past 11 months, a committee of House representatives have been investigating the unsubstantiated claims of election fraud that President Trump made that led to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection on the Capitol. The committee has been releasing their findings in a series of public hearings, which you can find here.

Warner: Russian meddling happened. Widespread election fraud did not. As a journalist, it's very important to me to say one of those things is a fact and one of those isn't.

Ganahl: What I'm concerned about is, how do we move forward? How do we move forward as a country and as a state? And in order to move forward, we have to understand that people on both sides feel uncomfortable about some aspects of our election.

Warner: So how do you answer that?

Ganahl: Transparency, transparency, transparency, and get people engaged in the process.

Warner: Is there enough transparency in Colorado?

Ganahl: No. Now granted, I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I could win, but we can always do better. We can always provide more transparency. We can always get people more engaged by being election judges, poll watchers, teaching them how it works. So this is not a conversation that's over. It's one that's just beginning. And my hope is to get to a point where we all feel really good about our elections again.

Warner: Was the January 6th, 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol wrong?

Ganahl: It was a really bad day for our country, and those that broke the law should be prosecuted and those that were simply protesting should not.

Warner: Several Coloradans have been charged in connection with the events of that day. Some of those charges include impeding officers with a violent weapon and inflicting bodily injury. Do you think that they felt they were working at the behest of President Trump?

Read more from the original source:
Heidi Ganahl, GOP candidate for Governor, would restrict abortion, expand charter schools and get oil and gas 'back to work` - Colorado Public Radio