Large Turnout Jams Talk On Gun Use Hearing


PDA






romma
August 15, 2006, 09:24 AM
It was amazing to be apart of such a gathering. http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7f9c2579-f4e6-4de8-916e-e671d72a20e3 Montville — The Town Council was forced Monday night to remove from its meeting agenda a resolution calling for a public hearing on a proposed firearms ordinance after the turnout exceeded the capacity of council chambers.
After speaking with the fire marshal, council Chairman John Geary notified audience members who were standing that they would have to go into the hallway so the meeting could get started. “We're not going anywhere!” one man shouted.

Another chided the council for not conducting the meeting in a larger room, saying, “Were you that shortsighted and didn't think that people were going to show up?”

Geary threatened to cancel the meeting after the crowd refused to leave. Order was restored, however, once the council voted 6-1 to reschedule the meeting in a different location. No site or time for the meeting was set.

The capacity of the council chambers is 108. Scores more than that showed up for the meeting.

Raymond Occhialini, the town's fire marshal for 19 years, said it was the first time that a town meeting had to be canceled because the turnout exceeded the meeting room's capacity.

The proposed ordinance would prohibit any discharge of a firearm, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot or bow and arrow outdoors within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling or building that houses people, domestic animals or livestock. It also would prohibit the discharge of firearms in areas designated as nature preserves or conservancies, public parks or hiking trails, school grounds, public highways and any other public place.

Minors under 16 would be allowed to discharge weapons in an authorized shooting range and in the presence of a parent, legal guardian or qualified instructor.

Anyone who violated the ordinance would be fined $90 per violation.

The ordinance states that it does not “prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership and self defense.”

•••••Guy Flatley, a resident who vehemently opposes the ordinance, said it was proposed after a neighbor complained to the mayor that Flatley fires a weapon in his back-yard target range.

“This is a neighbors' dispute,” said Flatley. “That's all it is. This ordinance takes our rights away. Nobody here is in favor of this ordinance. They all want to speak and share their views. They should drop the whole ordinance.”

But John Dufrat, the neighbor who complained to the mayor, said it was a matter of “public safety.”

Dufrat is the chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve, which is adjacent to Flatley's property. He said that people who walk through the preserve could be at risk if a bullet strayed from the target range.

“It's common sense not to blast a weapon near someone's home,” Dufrat said.

Many in attendance Monday felt that the proposed ordinance would violate their constitutional rights.

“It ain't going to fly,” said resident Howard Riske Jr. “I'm opposed to it. Does this mean that the police department can't discharge their weapons?”

Another resident, Mark Henderson, said he felt the ordinance violated his constitutional right to bear arms.

“They (the council) knew this was going to happen,” Henderson said of the large turnout for the meeting. “They should have set this meeting in a bigger place. I'm here because I want to see this stopped before they take away more of our rights.”

Councilor Ellen Hillman said she, too, opposes the ordinance, which she said she considers unconstitutional. She said the ordinance is vague and needs to describe in more detail which weapons could not be discharged.

Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said that when he suggested the ordinance, it was never intended to take away people's constitutional rights.

“That was never the intention,” he said. “I've always seen it as a public safety issue.”

If you enjoyed reading about "Large Turnout Jams Talk On Gun Use Hearing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
August 15, 2006, 10:49 AM
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said that when he suggested the ordinance, it was never intended to take away people's constitutional rights.

“That was never the intention,” he said. “I've always seen it as a public safety issue.”Famous first words.

romma
August 15, 2006, 11:05 AM
Creeping incrementalism at it's finest.. The Mayor lost control of the meeting before it began. Ellen Hillman is the only Council Member to oppose this ordinance. No one in the towns memory has been shot engaging in target practice on their property. So let's make everyone safe. We will protect you for your own good! It's for your protection! You need us to tell you what's best for you... Don't you know?

Art Eatman
August 15, 2006, 11:15 AM
"He said that people who walk through the preserve could be at risk if a bullet strayed from the target range."

I can see it now:

"Hmmm," said the bullet to itself, "I don't want to hit that target; I think I'll just stray on over to this nature preserve and see if I can find a human."

Art

beerslurpy
August 15, 2006, 11:21 AM
Awesome. I love it when the peasants get all uppity and start becoming involved in government.

Creeping Incrementalism
August 15, 2006, 01:14 PM
In rural areas of California that I know, if there's no ordinace against shooting, the Sheriff's Dept. will just bust you for "disturbing the peace" if a neighbor with more political clout than you complains about you shooting on your property.

Norton
August 15, 2006, 01:23 PM
Perhaps when they have the next meeting someone will bring a complete cartridge saying that it strayed from the neighbor's property after being fired :banghead:

romma
August 15, 2006, 01:43 PM
at least fighting the good fight here. Pretty amazing to see the biggest Town Council meeting in at least 19 years is about gun rights. The mayor was bewildered and dumbfounded.

Thefabulousfink
August 15, 2006, 02:26 PM
Good on you!

The forces of tyranny and nanny-ism must be confounded at every turn.:D

Phetro
August 15, 2006, 02:49 PM
“This is a neighbors' dispute,” said Flatley. “That's all it is. This ordinance takes our rights away. Nobody here is in favor of this ordinance. They all want to speak and share their views. They should drop the whole ordinance.”

But John Dufrat, the neighbor who complained to the mayor, said it was a matter of “public safety.”

Know this: it is always the agenda prefaced with "but" that the media wants you to accept. I.e., "Some people like guns, but many believe they reduce safety." Beware.

Dufrat is the chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve, which is adjacent to Flatley's property. He said that people who walk through the preserve could be at risk if a bullet strayed from the target range.

“It's common sense not to blast a weapon near someone's home,” Dufrat said.

Quotes like this are always included for emphasis--to make the loss of rights seem like a no-brainer good idea. Behold the shepherd's guile as he herds.

Many in attendance Monday felt that the proposed ordinance would violate their constitutional rights.

“It ain't going to fly,” said resident Howard Riske Jr. “I'm opposed to it. Does this mean that the police department can't discharge their weapons?”

Note three things:

1. It says "many," when in fact "most" is apparently accurate--misleading.
2. Out of all the dissenting voices, they picked one who said "ain't," trying to create the impression that those who favor liberty are unsophisticated. I ain't impressed.
3. The person quoted mentions the police department. What about the CITIZENS? Why aren't people quoted mentioning THEM? This is meant to create the impression that if the law allowed the police to keep their liberty, and took it away from the citizens, the dissenters would support it.

Another resident, Mark Henderson, said he felt the ordinance violated his constitutional right to bear arms.

He "felt?" No. It DOES violate his right to bear arms. Print THAT.

“They (the council) knew this was going to happen,” Henderson said of the large turnout for the meeting. “They should have set this meeting in a bigger place. I'm here because I want to see this stopped before they take away more of our rights.”

Councilor Ellen Hillman said she, too, opposes the ordinance, which she said she considers unconstitutional. She said the ordinance is vague and needs to describe in more detail which weapons could not be discharged.

See the pattern? This is meant to create the impression that the law is fine--it just needs a little clarification.

Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said that when he suggested the ordinance, it was never intended to take away people's constitutional rights.

“That was never the intention,” he said. “I've always seen it as a public safety issue.”

Meant to desensitize the reader to the ordinance, believe the mayor is benevolent, and convince the reader that the ordinance will at all improve "public safety," whatever that is. Did anyone actually GET SHOT? Nope. Prove they're in danger of it. Then you have a case. The "stray bullet" BS is just that: BS.

CTD99
August 15, 2006, 02:52 PM
We just passed a CCL here in NE scheduled to start 1/1/2007. The State Patrol is formulating training classes as we speak..... I mean type.

Norton
August 15, 2006, 02:59 PM
1. It says "many," when in fact "most" is apparently accurate--misleading

You got that right. When we have the annual "gun day" hearings in Annapolis the pro-gunners outnumber the anti-gunners by more than 10 to 1. Who do you think gets the quote in the paper? Yup....the VPC spokesperson :cuss:

PinnedAndRecessed
August 15, 2006, 03:12 PM
I attended a meeting at the Modesto Junior College before they shut down their firing range. Also standing room only.

They had old women screeching that guns terrify them. Not all the old women were old women. Some were whiney men.

One old woman/whiney man said the range is near where he jogs. He said he was terrified one morning because he found a bullet. He held up a brass case.

None of their arguments were sound. So they appealed to the EPA regs and lead contamination. The trustees voted to close the range. All except one trustee who abstained because the proceedings were already fixed.

All of us in attendance knew that, anyway.

IIRC, there was an implicit agreement in the closure. The MJC trustees never did live up to their end. All they wanted was to close the range since guns are obviously bad.

This was, BTW, in **********.

Kim
August 15, 2006, 03:27 PM
"The proceedings were already fixed". That makes me angry. I remember the first time I was told such a thing. It had to do with a Hospital Board meeting. I was a physician at that hospitial and there was some disagreements going on. The head honcho, rich banker, political big frog in a little pond was having a "discussion " with me one day. He said it did not matter what would be said at the meeting as the board had already "talked" and the decision already made. So in other words just shut up and know what is good for you. This is the way things work around here. Now shoo you are taking up space in my expensive office. Needless to say they lost a physician after that. I left and have never looked back.

TallPine
August 15, 2006, 05:09 PM
"The proceedings were already fixed". That makes me angry. I remember the first time I was told such a thing.
We had the same thing happen in the little podunk town in which we used to live. There was a public comment meeting for the "proposed" draconian dog ordinance (things like it was illegal for your dog to have puppies inside city limits) and after an hour plus of heated comments against the new ordinance, one of the council members blatantly stated that the council had already voted to enact the ordinance and this meeting was just to satisfy a law requiring a public meeting before it took effect - IOW a public comment meeting where the council a priori intended to ignore all opposing public comments :fire:

I was stunned speechless that a council member would actually say that in public :eek:

We moved out of town a few months later (btw, ask me sometime why I basically don't like people :( )

Autolycus
August 15, 2006, 06:20 PM
Tallpine I would have sued since they broke the law by voting before they discussed it.

TIZReporter
August 15, 2006, 06:27 PM
Everytime we hear the term "public safety" we should be demanding the facts which have lead to a problem.

Often the facts can be the emotional rhetoric of some anti-freedom politician with an agenda.

TIZ

hillbilly
August 15, 2006, 06:35 PM
Yeah!

Score one for the peasants.

Keep it up!

hillbilly

TallPine
August 15, 2006, 07:49 PM
Tallpine I would have sued since they broke the law by voting before they discussed it.
Yes, you are correct - but I had other things on my plate at that time and we really needed to get out of town for other reasons. Now that my house has long since been sold, I guess I can say all kinds of awful things about that town.:(

The deal was that they had voted this ordinance in already, when the city attorney informed them that they were in violation of the law because they had not held a public comment meeting. So then they were holding the public meeting as a formality, not intending to change their position no matter what.

My feelings are that they need a lot more than a lawsuit :evil:

Brett Bellmore
August 15, 2006, 08:34 PM
They've got an even better scam with tax increment development districts, like the one they passed around here: The public votes whether to have one, and only THEN does the county decide how high the tax is going to be.

And the best part? While we could have forced a meeting to discuss the matter, they told us up front they weren't going to pay any attention to what we said, but that they WERE going to add the cost of holding the meeting to the tax they levied...

trapperjohn
August 15, 2006, 09:56 PM
New Londond Ct. Isn't that the town kicking people out of their homes to increase their tax revenues??

I think we pretty much know what that town thinks about civiel rights!

Johnnybgood
August 15, 2006, 11:13 PM
needs to impeach their elected officials or have a night of tar and feathering to set them straight.:evil:

Deanimator
August 16, 2006, 11:36 AM
IIRC, there was an implicit agreement in the closure. The MJC trustees never did live up to their end. All they wanted was to close the range since guns are obviously bad.

The same thing happened with the NASA range in Cleveland.

The Environmental Health guy was an anti-gunner. He just kept ordering lead tests until he got the result he wanted. I worked for the environmental testing and remediation company that did several of the tests that didn't find a problem.

carpettbaggerr
August 17, 2006, 12:59 AM
“It's common sense not to blast a weapon near someone's home,” Dufrat said.

That's because a '..CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot or bow...' can cause so much damage. :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Large Turnout Jams Talk On Gun Use Hearing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!