iTuesday evening in Redding, hundreds of concerned, curious citizens arrived early to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors vestibule outside the board chambers. The expectant crowd crammed together to secure seats inside for a politically polarizing popular agenda item: R4, a Second-Amendment resolution sponsored by Redding gun-seller/Shasta County Supervisor chair Patrick Jones.

Soon after Tuesdays board agenda became public, agenda item R4 became the shorthand nickname for Jones proposed resolution.

Citizens gathered outside the Shasta County Board chambers in anticipation of the meeting to decide the fate of agenda item R4.

There seemed little gray area; people were either passionately for R4 or vehemently against it.

(Click here to read journalist R.V. Scheides story about the Second Amendment, what happened with Jones resolution and the meetings outcome.)

The audience contained the usual cast of such now-familiar ultra-conservative local personalities as the Plumbs (if the 1rst Amendment doesnt work, weve got the 2nd Amendment), the Rapozas (the time has come for 51 State of Jefferson devotees) and the Gallardos (citizen journalists/identical twins), who came bearing party balloons.

Richard Gallardo untangles patriotic party balloons as KCNR radio host Win Carpenter joins others waiting to enter the board chambers.

The list goes on. There was Lori Bridgeford, the anti-vax citizen journalist; Kathy Stainbrook, cheerleader for the lie-based recall of former Dist. 2 Supervisor Leonard Moty; Woody Clenenden, Cottonwood Militia leader; Lani Bangay, Patriot State of Mind co-host; Mark Kent and Win Carpenter, KCNR radio co-hosts: Bob Holsinger, failed Shasta County Clerk candidate, and many more.

However, this meeting was unique for its considerable number of relatively rare faces, many of whom carried anti-R4 signs, some of whom were last seen inside the chambers protesting Shasta County Health Officer Karen Ramstroms baseless 2022 firing.

Citizens attended a spring 2022 Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting with signs that protested her dismissal.

A folding table outside the board chambers held anti-R4 petitions signed by people, some of whom were unable to stay for the meeting as there were no more available seats.

Judging by the comments and the crowd, there seemed about a 50/50 split between those who were in favor of R4 and those who were not.

Before the board proceeded any further regarding the resolution, Jones asked for Shasta County Counsel Rubin Cruses input on whether those whod accused Jones of having a disqualifying financial conflict of interest he sells guns were correct.

Cruse put Jones mind at rest. Cruse said that in order for there to be a disqualifying financial conflict of interest, the boards decision must have a material financial effect on Jones that is distinguishable from its effect on the general public.

Some might dispute Cruse on that point, and argue that a board-approved Second Amendment resolution would absolutely financially benefit Jones, starting with the fact that fundamentally, Jones Second Amendment resolution is about guns. Jones sells guns in his family-owned Jones Fort, one of the best-known North State gun stores, a firearms community staple thats been in business for more than 50 years.

Jones Fort gun shop

A recent Google search of Shasta County gun store put Jones Fort in second place. Jones Fort receives free publicity every time a news story mentions Jones occupation as a gun salesman at his family-owned gun store (A News Cafe is guilty as charged). Jones couldnt buy better advertising than what he gains at no charge as a board chair with a lifelong gun-store affiliation. The more guns he sells, the more money he makes.

Also, Cruse mentioned the general public in his disqualifying-financial-conflict-of-interest litmus test. But how many people out of more than 182,000 Shasta County residents sell guns from namesake businesses?

Maybe this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, but Rickert leaves the board chambers and recuses herself from voting on anything remotely related to her ranching business.

Alas, that theoretical debate is moot. Cruse provided the final word as Shasta County Counsel: No, Jones Second Amendment resolution does notpresent a disqualifying financial conflict of interest for Jones.

From left: Shasta County Dist. 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye, Dist. 5 Supervisor Chris Keltstrom, Dist. 2 Supervisor Tim Garman and Dist. 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert.

Eventually, Jones addressed the meetings main event: his long-awaited Second Amendment resolution, which Jones said was two-and-a-half years in the making.

Perhaps youve already heard that by the meetings end, Jones Second Amendment resolution wasnt approved. However, the resolution wasnt completely rejected, either. Rather, the resolution is now in limbo, thanks to a decision made by Crye, something so unexpected that it caught approximately 99.999 percent of the spectators by surprise.

Nope. Didnt see that one coming.

Todays post wont get into the weeds of Jones resolution, since A News Cafe journalist R.V. Scheide already covered the big picture.

A standing-room-only crowd awaited the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting that would vote on the controversial 2nd Amendment resolution sponsored by Supervisor Patrick Jones. Photos by Doni Chamberlain

More than 30 citizens commented on R4. Some people brought signs that detailed their opinions.

Although roughly two-thirds of the commenters said they were in favor of Jones resolution, the majority of them seemed ignorant of the Jones intentions for the resolutions. Some speakers waxed poetic about the virtues of guns. A few offered well-worn phrases proclaiming guns dont kill people; people kill people. Others addressed mass shootings. Yet others went off on tangents about arming teachers.

Even Siskiyou County resident Jess Harris, who introduced himself as affiliated with the Northern California Rifle and Pistol Association, missed the point of Jones resolution. Instead, he focused on the benefits of self-defense.

A lot of this has to do with protecting our way of life, Harris said. I know Sacramento doesnt get it, I know San Francisco doesnt get it. I dont care. I dont care what they think. They dont live here. We do. The Second Amendment is not up for interpretation tonight. (Hear his complete comments at 3:09:47.)

Numerous speakers emphasized that they were strongly in favor of the Second Amendment, but strongly opposed to Jones Second Amendment resolution.

Im not against the Second Amendment, said one woman. But I am against our county government being the interpreters of the Second Amendment.

Stainbrook received loud cheers of approval when she said Shasta County should play by Gov. Gavin Newsoms rules and make Shasta County a Second Amendment sanctuary region.

Chair Jones interrupted one womans comments when she mentioned her disappointment in the board majoritys recent vote to ditch the Dominion voting machines. Jones scolded her for being off topic. However, never was heard a discouraging word from Jones when Lori Bridgeford veered sharply off topic and referred to several key former county road block employees by name who either no longer work for the county or will soon leave. Likewise, it was radio silence from Jones when Bridgeford promoted the militia.

Were all part of the militia, Bridgeford said. So when this street jungle happens, when it hits the fan and the collapse happens and the shelves are empty and trains through town blow up whatever were on our own.

Conservative radio host Mark Kent saw another benefit for Jones Second Amendment resolution.

Mark Kent.

The state needs you unarmed and obedient how else are they gonna control you? Kent said. I think you guys need to get this thing in place for no other reason than just give the middle finger of defiance to all these people who are trying to take our rights away.

On and on it went.

Ultimately, as speaker Judy Salter reiterated, nobody in that room was against the Second Amendment. On that point, everyone agreed.

Watch the entire Feb. 21, 2023 Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting here.

More evidence of chair Jones selective, double-standard admonitions arose when speakers Missy McArthur and Salter each made references to feelings of discomfort to imagine guns inside the board chambers.

Jones piped up and schooled McArthur and Salter. He said the resolution discussion wasnt about firearms in the countys administrative building, and perhaps they were unaware that properly permitted people were carrying weapons at that very moment during the meeting.

Jones message garnered raucous, sustained applause and hoots of approval. But Jones wasnt finished.

So Im very happy to hear that youre in support of our Second Amendment resolution, Jones said, clearly enjoying the dig. Back in the audience Salter corrected Jones.

I do not support your resolution, Salter countered, as Jones talked over her thank you Judy and literally turned his head and attention to the next speaker.

Redding resident Ray Thomas, president of the Five Counties Central Labor Council, was one of several speakers who cautioned the supervisors that adopting Jones resolution could embroil the county in costly, inevitable litigation.

Ray Thomas.

Thomas began by reminding the supervisors of previous emails hed sent them that outlined potential labor-relations issues that would surely follow the adoption of Jones resolution. Thomas spelled out just one example.

You would not only be in violation of over 30 provisions of your nine labor agreements, you would be in violation of governmental code 35.04, Thomas said. (Hear his complete statement at 3:04:51 on the streaming video.)

Jeff Gorder.

Retired attorney and former Shasta County public defender Jeff Gorder delivered a lively impassioned speech steeped in legal explanations.

This strikes me as not about the Second Amendment, Gorder said of the R4 resolution.

Everybody agrees we all support the Second Amendment. We support the First Amendment, we support the Fourth Amendment. Lets have resolutions that everybody supports all the amendments. What this is about is Patrick Jones is trying to have it so that the board of supervisors will be the determinant of what is constitutional. Mr. Cruse is trying to save the board from legal jeopardy. I guarantee you that if the board votes against the redlined edition, it will be clearly unconstitutional because many of you dont seem to understand that we are a rule-of-law nation; that the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. Not the board of supervisors; the judiciary. So, what youre trying to do is unconstitutional, Mr. Jones.

Gorder then directed his next comments to supervisors Crye and Garman, men he hoped were independent thinkers.

I would just caution you, dont go down the road of Mr. Jones and Mr. Kelstrom, Gorder said. Its only going to lead to bad things.

Some members of the crowd heckled Gorder, who responded with a chuckle.

Im just here to tell you that Ill come out of retirement and sue the county if this resolution is passed with the language as it stands, he said. Its going to cost you money, just as its going to cost you money with the Dominion voting machines.

Approximately half of the audience laughed, while the other half shouted and booed.

Out of left field, Jones rudely quipped, as Gorder left the lectern, There once was a lawyer I thought I liked, but I was wrong.

Approximately half of the audience clapped and cheered, while the other half shook their heads and half groaned.

(Go to the 3:45:10 mark of the meetings recording for Gorders full statement.)

After more than an hour of public comments, Sheriff Michael Johnson approached the lectern. Before the meeting, there was much social-media speculation about how the sheriff would react to Jones Second Amendment resolution. Would he show up? Would he speak? Would he side with Jones? Would he reject or accept the resolution?

Johnson did speak, and when he did, he performed an artful verbal tightrope walk; as if balanced over a tank of sharks, trying with all his might to not fall in. Johnsons a confident speaker. Tuesday he was a one-man good-cop bad-cop who frequently tossed chum nuggets into both sides of the tank. His comments had something for nearly everyone.

He started with bold statements in which he described himself as a staunch Second Amendment advocate. He received instant applause when Johnson said he supported Shasta County being a Second Amendment sanctuary county. In fact, Johnson recalled that while he was Andersons police chief he tried to get the NRA to make Anderson a Second Amendment sanctuary city.

Johnson talked about his sworn oath to follow and enforce laws, but he did not talk about the fact that by its very definition, a Second Amendment sanctuary region does not recognize or obey restrictive gun control laws.

Johnson briefly made the pro-R4 folks happy when he said he was in favor of the Second Amendment resolution. However, their elation soon evaporated when Johnson clarified that because of the potential legal ramifications to the county, he was only for the Second Amendment resolution version with the redlined edits suggested by county counsel and staff. Almost as an aside, he reminded the group that California already does recognize citizens rights to bear arms albeit with proper permitting. Johnson said hes personally not afraid of CCW-permitted gun owners, because theyve been vetted by his office.

I know that they are responsible citizens that have gone through the process, and have firearms and will be my backup be your backup, Johnson said. God forbid we need them to.

Pro-R4 folks loved that line. Anti-R4 folks winced.

Johnson made a pitch for people to go through the training and obtain a CCW permit. He explained why permits were necessary, namely to ensure the safety of all citizens, and to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.

The pro-R4 folks werent thrilled to hear what Johnson had to say next about the issue of open carry, a topic especially popular during the 2022 election debates. Johnson said he would not allow open carry until it was deemed legal by the courts, but if the day arrived when open-carry was deemed constitutional, then hed welcome that ruling.

Johnsons closing statement was the first of two particularly stunning declarations made that evening.

But first, some context: Supervisors Kelstrom and Jones (unsure about Crye) have openly boasted their refusal to apply for a CCW permit. They say its their God-given right to carry guns without the governments permission.

With that fact in mind, the unpermitted supervisors had rude awakening with Johnsons next statement.

Make no mistake about it, the laws that are on the books are on the books, Johnson said. If you carry a gun loaded or unloaded, open or concealed without a permit currently, the Shasta County Sheriffs Department will enforce that law. You will be arrested. We will take your gun as evidence and you will be prosecuted. That is hard and fast right now.

Cue crickets. At least until Jones snapped out of it, put the sheriff on the spot and took him to task.

By now, anyone whos listened to Jones speak for any length of time knows that when Jones says, with all due respect that what follows next is probably anything but. Jones, who apparently considers himself a legal scholar, pushed back against the sheriff.

No constitutional right has to have a permit, Jones argued, to loud applause. Logic would say that concealed weapon permits are not a constitutional right. Its not a constitutional right. No permit.

Johnson waited until Jones was finished.

Thats your interpretation, Johnson said, which prompted Jones assertion that eight of the nine circuit courts agreed with Jones.

Johnson replied that he didnt see anywhere in the Constitution where it says people can open-carry or concealed-carry. So it went, back and forth, until Johnson said he wouldnt debate it; that theyd have to disagree.

When Jones asked if any of the other supervisors had further questions, only Crye spoke up. He told Johnson he appreciated him being there. Not exactly a question, but it would be one of Cryes last noncontroversial statements of the night.

You didnt have to come, Crye said to the sheriff, stating the obvious.

Moderate applause followed Johnson as he exited the board chambers, only for him to be quickly buttonholed in the hallway for several minutes by Terry Rapoza, who gave the sheriff a booming what-for about the Constitution.

Newly appointed Dist. 1 Supervisor said he struggled with the R4 agenda decision. Photo by Doni Chamberlain.

At last, after County Counsel Rubin Cruse had painstakingly combed over the redlined resolution chapter and verse, line by line, and patiently responded to all Jones queries, questions and lawyer-splaining, it was nearly time for the supervisors to decide upon Jones Second Amendment resolution.

Crye, whos already demonstrated his tendency to be consistently incongruent, offered yet more evidence that his words and claims often dont jibe with his actions. Likewise, Cryes frequent lofty descriptions of himself are sometimes diametrically opposed to his actual persona and track record.

Exhibit A: Cryes opening statement about the R4 decision.

Ive never cowered from a fight on a purpose I felt strongly about, Crye said.

See original here:

Gun-Selling Supervisor's 2nd Amendment Resolution Polarizes Citizens. (Will Unpermitted Weapon-Toting ... - A News Cafe

What is the nation's greatest public health threat?Axios, an online political publication, commissioned a survey by Ipsos asking this and other health questions. The opioid crisis (26%) and obesity (21%) took first and second place overall. That should be no surprise, for they are dire problems, directly or indirectly responsible for much suffering and hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. Opioids in particular, despite being smaller than the others, are alarming for their sudden onset.

What is astounding, however, is what is evident when breaking down the survey answers based on political affiliation. It is Republicans alone who make opioids and obesity the top two concerns. Democrats have entirely different priorities than the average respondent.

RED STATES CAN LEAD THE WAY IN PROTECTING MARRIAGE

Among Republicans, the greatest threat to public health is "opioids/fentanyl" (37%), followed by obesity (25%) and cancer (17%). Those are all reasonable answers that reflect serious health problems.

A plurality of Democrats, on the other hand, lists "gun or firearm access" (35%) as the No. 1 threat to public health.

Of course, "gun access" is not a health problem not a disease, not a condition, but a constitutional right that can be taken away only through due process. At least 37% of households take advantage of that right, according to the survey. Gun access also does not cause diseases or deaths. People can use guns to cause deaths out of malice, self-defense, a desire to self-harm, which actually is a health problem, and carelessness.

The second-most common way to die by gunshot, after suicide, is in the commission of a crime. Crime also isn't a health problem. But even if one treats it as a health problem, it does not mean that guns cause crime. Democratic prosecutors who go easy on dangerous criminals cause crime. Even though mass shootings are exceedingly rare, even many of them can be placed at the feet of prosecutors for example, the Michigan State University shooter would have been in jail or at least deprived of his right to own firearms had he been properly prosecuted for previous crimes and not allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor. The man who roamed the East Coast shooting defenseless homeless people was likewise let off the hook by a liberal prosecutor in northern Virginia, allowed to plead his way out of a kidnapping and attempted rape charge. Such examples abound.

The fentanyl and opioid overdose issue is a genuine and serious health threat. Opioids are extremely addictive, and addiction is common because they have been so dramatically overprescribed. Fentanyl is a deadly threat, far more potent than anything people had seen before. Opioid overdoses killed more than 100,000 people between April 2020 and April 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Likewise, those who gave obesity as the answer are spot on, given the appalling rate of death due to heart disease, the nation's leading killer, complications from diabetes, and other obesity-related ailments. Cancer is the second-leading cause of death.

But every Democrat who claims that the biggest health problem is "gun access" is burying his or her head in the sand on matters of health. Whether this is due to President Joe Biden exacerbating the opioid problem or to ideological hatred that other people have gun rights, 35% of them answered this question as if they did not live in the real world. That's generously assuming that it is reasonable to consider COVID-19 the nation's most serious health risk in 2023 a dubious proposition, to which another 9% of Democratic respondents subscribe.

It is at least heartening that almost as many Democrats cited real health threats, such as opioids, obesity, and cancer (43% combined), as the most serious health problems facing the nation. But it is clear that Democrats' thinking has been deeply infected by the fallacy that everything is political or that woke Twitter is real life.

Indeed, maybe more people should have offered "social media" in answer to the survey's main question.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

See the article here:

The Second Amendment isn't a public health problem - Washington Examiner

One man at the supervisors meeting held up a sign saying "Hey white nationalists fascists, stop killing us" at the top of the sign.

There was barely any standing room inside the packed board chambers during the first nighttime Shasta County Supervisors Meeting of 2023. Many hot topics were discussed, ranging from the Palo Cedro Town Center Specific Plan to the California Conservation Corps. However, one of the biggest items on the agenda, drawing in the large crowd, was the item related to the Second Amendment Resolution.

The resolution was not approved but voted to be brought back to the agenda at the March 14th meeting.

KRCR

Properly permitted visitors can carry their weapons onto county property, however, licensed county employees cannot. Supervisor, and Owner of"Jones' Fort" Gun Store, Patrick Jones wanted to change that and brought a resolution to the board prohibiting officials from enforcing any law deemed "unconstitutional," in regards to the Second Amendment.

However, after hours of discussion and public comment, it did not pass: two yeas and two nays with an abstention from Kevin Crye. Instead it was voted on to be brought back so that Supervisor Crye could speak with his lawyer. The vote was made to bring back the item for a possible vote on March 14th.

The resolution was initially drafted and submitted by the California Rifle and Pistol Associationin collaboration with the Shasta County Gun Owners. County staff also revised the resolution to make sure it does not exceed the board's legal authority.

Patrick Jones address the crowd before pubic comment about the resolution he brought forward.{{ }}

This is not the first time an item like this has come up.The board considered adopting a similar resolution almost two years ago. However, Supervisor Joe Chimenti, who was the chairman at that time, pulled the agenda because of the 2021 Boulder Colorado mass shooting, which occurred just a day prior.

During Tuesday's meeting, the public shared mixed opinions. Some held signs saying, "No! On R4!" Some shared their opposition with the board about supporting the second amendment but not the resolution.

Others shared they believed this resolution was the right move and urged the board to vote for it.

The supervisors board room was full with only standing room left.{{ }}

A group of concerned residents are speaking out against the proposed amendment. The Shasta County Citizens for Stable Government filed a cease and desist letter to supervisors Tuesday morning.

According to the Brown Act, agendas for public meetings of governing boards much accurately describe an issue and the actions to be taken, the group said in a release. While the proposed resolution has been heavily edited by Shasta County Counsel, the group expects the board majority will ignore most, if not all, the changes recommended to ensure the document is legally compliant."

Read more here:

Shasta County Second Amendment resolution pushed to March 14th - KRCR

Letters to the Editor| South Bend Tribune

At the risk of sounding jaded, callous and cynical, the solution to mass shootings seems simple to me.

1)Change Congress, and

2) Change gun laws

Nothing will change until American voters vote the rascals out of office who are bought by the NRA and elect congressmen(and women) who want to change the laws.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a weapon but does not guarantee the right to own a military-style assault rifle.

Dave Rohrer

Plymouth

I read recently that state Rep. Tim Wesco has authored a bill to make voting by mail in Indiana harder. I guess the 23 measures that our Secretary of State advertised that had made our elections safe and secure are not enough. We need to take even more measures to make voting even harder. I do not remember hearing or reading that there was any voter fraud in Indiana, so why is Indiana falling for conspiracy theories or is it just an excuse to actually make voting harder?Being a property-owning white male, I am among the people the Constitution gave the right to vote to originally. I am disappointed that one of the only two major political parties we have is doing everything it can to make voting harder. Every person over the age of 18 who has not committed election fraud should have easy access to vote for the government representation they want.

Don't worry, I will figure out how to photocopy my drivers license to send in with my application to vote absent. Because I plan on always being out of town on Election Day, and voting by mail is easier and more secure or at least it has been before the Republicans came along to change the laws.So, after you make voting by mail insecure, what is next? Voting Democrat? I wish I was able to move away from Indiana; this state is becoming increasingly hostile to fairness and equality, as the only people with a voice are fearmongering conspiracy theorists.

Howard Turner

Elkhart

Recent news shows we have more than 50 mass killings across our country this year. We are in the 21st century, and still have barbaric behavior in the USA. Contrary to political rhetoric, this indicates we are not the greatest country in the world, but compete with Second World. People are being killed by semiautomatic weapons in groups, there are daily shootings in our cities and even a 6-year-old shoots his teacher.

Current gun rules are too shallow to be useful. Many in Congress are practicing hypocrites by what they do and dont do to make our country better. Leadership? What happened to respect? Many describe themselves as right to life, yet do nothing to diminish this problem of losing lives. The Second Amendment is 232 years old, antiquated and irrelevant. A reason to have a gun is to kill someone.

With all such killings, they have one thing in common: the tools they use are guns. To help solve this problem, we need to remove these tools from our society. Can we do it? It might be difficult but we are the USA and we can do anything if we wish. As a country, are we safer with no guns or if all of us have guns?

Tom Nowak

South Bend

More here:

Letters sound off on gun violence and voting - South Bend Tribune

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Excerpt from:

COLUMN: Protecting our Second Amendment rights | Free ... - ECM Publishers

In Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the federal law preventing domestic abusers from possessing firearms is now void. Thats thanks to a recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Rahimi, in which the court clearly indicated discomfort with the conclusion the Supreme Court forced it to reach.

A court order barred Zackey Rahimi from stalking a former girlfriend and from possessing a firearm. But Rahimi demonstrated spectacularly that he still had a gun. Within a two-month period, he fired multiple shots into the home of a narcotics customer, shot at the driver of a car involved in an accident with his car, returned after leaving the accident scene to fire more shots at the drivers car, shot at a Texas constables vehicle, and fired multiple shots in the air when a friends credit card was declined at a restaurant. After a trial court rejected Rahimis claim that the Constitution entitled him to keep and bear his gun, he pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 922, which makes it illegal for those under court orders like his to possess any firearm orammunition.

Even if prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal, the Fifth Circuit ruled earlier this month, the statute violated the Second Amendment. The court reachedor was forced to reachthat conclusion in a troubling way.

For most of our nations history, the victims of domestic violence were entitled to little legal protection. In 1874, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the assault and battery conviction and $10 fine of Richard Oliver after he came home drunk, criticized the bacon and coffee, cut two four-foot switches, and whipped his wife. The court wrote: We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina. But it added: If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty, nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forgive and forget.

In the last two decades of the twentieth century, public officials became less inclined to draw the curtain. In 1994, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which contained the language the Fifth Circuit struck down. The court noted that this law embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society, but it said a recent Supreme Court decision tied its handsNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which the Court handed down one day before it overruled Roe v. Wade.

Before Bruen, eleven federal courts of appeals had agreed on a standard for judging whether firearms restrictions violate the Second Amendment. This standard would have allowed judges to take account of the interest of domestic-violence victims in not being shot. But Justice Thomass opinion for the Court forbade judge-empowering interest-balancing. It declared that judges may consider only the Second Amendments text and its history.

To justify a firearms regulation, the government now must prove that this regulation is consistent with the Nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. And to make this showing, the government must point to analogous regulations that were in place before 1900.

The Courts scavenger hunt standard seems likely to mark the end of many firearms regulations. In June, a special session of the New York legislature enacted a new firearms law to replace the one the Supreme Court struck down in Bruen. But a federal judge provisionally held twelve provisions of this new law unconstitutional, including its prohibitions of carrying concealed handguns at airports, zoos, parks, bars, buses, churches, theaters, and political demonstrations.

Another federal judge wrote of a federal statute that outlaws the possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number: Certainly, the usefulness of serial numbers in solving gun crimes makes [this statute] desirable for our society. But he then held the statute unconstitutional.

A third federal judge put the issue this way when, a few months before the Fifth Circuit ruling, he became the first to strike down the federal statute protecting the victims of domestic violence: Domestic abusers are not new. But until the mid-1970s, government interventionmuch less removing an individuals firearmsbecause of domestic violence practically did not exist. The judge observed that, although the historical tradition of disregarding domestic violence was likely unthinkable today, the Supreme Court had made this tradition decisive.

Its sometimes the duty of courts to strike down salutary and well-intentioned laws that violate the Constitution, but the current Court is interpreting the Constitution in a new way. The interpretive doctrine of originalism championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and others emphasizes that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original public meaning of its texthence the term originalism. But Bruen identifies no prevailing public understanding of the Second Amendments text at the time of its enactment. Instead, it focuses on whether a particular sort of firearms regulation was in place at that time or shortly thereafter, and it treats the failure of early legislatures to act as determinative of the amendments meaning. In fact, the failure of a legislature to approve a regulation provides almost no evidence that this regulation would be unconstitutional or that anyone thought it would be. If early American legislatures didnt require background checks or outlaw gun possession by the mentally ill, those omissions neither establish nor indicate that these regulations violate the Second Amendment. Its far more likely that legislators simply saw no need for them or saw no way to implement them. The Court appears to have missed the distinction between declining to act and lacking the power to do so.

The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have construed the Second Amendment to require continued adherence to a long tradition of legislative inaction, however shameful this tradition and however determined to end it the peoples elected representatives eventually became.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has promised to seek review of the Fifth Circuit ruling. The Justice Department may soon give the Court an opportunity to establish a more historically justified and less peculiar interpretive standard.

Read this article:

This Isn't Your (Founding) Fathers' Originalism - The Bulwark

Luis Valdes| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Only three states fully prohibit the open carry of firearms by citizens, and I bet youd be surprised to hear Florida is among them. Yes, we frustratingly find ourselves in the company of New York and Illinois on this issue. And Republican leaders, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, appear poised to keep it that way under the misnamed constitutional carry bill that is expected to pass this session.

Gun owners saw right through the faade when House Speaker Paul Renner threw a press conference at the end of January to celebrate introduction of the constitutional carry bill.

On the one hand, it does go a long way in restoring the rights of our residents and visitors alike to carry arms in public for self-defense without a permit. On the other hand, the bill falls short of every constitutional carry law in the country by quietly omitting the right to carry openly. So our leaders are trying to appease one side and fool the other.

I drove eight hours to testify at a hearing earlier this month on the current bill, and walked away ecstatic when witness after witness demanded the addition of open carry. In contrast, when pressed about open carry afterward, sponsor state Rep. Chuck Brannan (R-Macclenny) apathetically stated the bill is what it is as filed. Meanwhile, Brannan's sentiments were shared by Florida Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples).

This indifferent attitude is standing in the way of what the majority wants and are united in demanding.

Republicans, who are members of the party that champions the Second Amendment, hold a supermajority in our Legislature. Instead of taking insignificant baby steps they hope will appease their base, they should take the large leaps for freedom which they have promised the voters. Lawmakers in more politically divided states have introduced and passed the very policy we are demanding and guess what it's popular!

Forty-seven states have open carry on the books in some fashion, including 25 via authentic constitutional carry laws. Even Hawaii, a Democrat supermajority-run state whose entire economy relies on tourism, has open carry.

The same old arguments about bad people getting guns and Wild West shootouts materializing in the streets will be raised, but we have a mountain of evidence from other states to refute these claims. And to clarify, this legislation has nothing to do with acquiring firearms rather it only authorizes those who already own firearms legally to carry them in public without government permission.

Now is the chance for Gov. DeSantis to once again step in and snag victory from the clutch of defeat by the members of his own party in the Legislature. While hes catching some flak over other Second Amendment missteps, DeSantis can prove the doubters wrong with this issue by demanding open carry before anything gets his signature.

We dont want watered down legislation. We want the great leap that other states have taken, which will put Florida at the forefront of liberty on another critical issue and far away from New York, Illinois and Washington, D.C. Im urging Floridas leadership to get it done the right way!

Luis Valdes is the Florida state director for Gun Owners of America, a nonprofit, grassroots lobbying organization. He is a former police officer and detective.

The rest is here:

Floridians want open carry, and lawmakers should listen to them - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

When The New York Times tweeted out a photo of shotgun shells last December as art to promote an editorial arguing that America needs another ban on popular, semi-automatic rifles, anyone with even a little firearms knowledge laughed.

If the editorial board at The New York Times had the gun expertise to quibble, they might have tried to weasel out of the gaffe by noting there are quite a few tactical shotguns made to look and function something like the AR-type rifles on the market todayand, certainly, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would be happy to point out that such shotguns have almost always been included in any proposed assault-weapons ban.

But then, a semantic game like that would make the Times ignorance even funnier. It would be like that Monty Python skit about the dead parrot. When a dissatisfied customer returns to a pet shop after recently buying a parrot that actually had been dead for some time, the shop owner tells him the dead bird is just resting. The skit keeps getting funnier because, even as the customer insists, as well as clearly demonstrates, that parrot should be pushing up the daisies, the pet-store owner just keeps right on insisting it is only resting.

Like the shop-owners unflinching persistence in the skit with the dead parrot, the mainstream medias plainly obvious ignorance of firearms and everything to do with the Second Amendment is, nevertheless, often tossed at us with a straight-faced insistence that, regardless, they are right about everything. They continue to insist that theyre right even as the policies they embraceso-called bail-reform laws that allow caught criminals to walk right back onto the streets, woke prosecutors who refuse to prosecute violent criminals and moreare clearly harming law-abiding citizens.

Is It Just BecauseThey Can Get Away With It?This ignorance of guns posing as informed righteousness is so pervasive among the gun-control elite that former President Barack Obama (D) didnt realize he was about to make a fool of himself in 2013.

Obama responded to a question asking whether hed ever fired a gun by saying, Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

Former President Barack Obama (D) once had this photo taken to prove hed shot a gun. Look closely, and youll see why this photo was mocked.

At first, his reply sounded like it had just the right amount of you-dont-know-me savoir-faire to not only deflect the question, but to make the person who asked it look like foolish. But then it turned out that Obama couldnt back up the claim.

Someone soon called his bluff. On CNN, then-Rep.Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) challenged Obama to prove he had shot a gun by showing everyone a photoshe even challenged him to a skeet-shooting competition.

With Obamas man card in question, he responded.

A few days later, the White House released a photo of Obama skeet shooting. Only, it was a very odd photo. The over/under shotgun he was shown shooting only had an extended choke in the top barrel. There could have conceivably been a flush choke in the bottom, but that would be odd, as skeet is typically shot with the same choke in both barrelsand skeet does require doubles. Obama also holds the shotgun nearly parellel to the ground and he looks uncomfortable with it. Still, in the photo, gas can be seen shooting from the shotguns top barrel, so yes, he certainly shot the gun, at least once.

So, why didnt Obamas White House call in an experienced shotgunner to make sure they got it right? Why didnt The New York Times seek just one fact checker who could help them get basic firearms details right? Why dont all of the outlets that pretend that popular semi-automatic rifles are a big problem (when rifles of all types, according to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, are used in less than 3% of homicides each year) at least try to get this stuff right? Why didnt New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) consult county sheriffs or a myriad of other people who are knowledgeable about guns, crime and our constitutional rights before hastily writing and signing the Orwellian-named Concealed Carry Improvement Act?

These questions go on and on; indeed, whenever a mainstream-news outlet dives into issues related to firearms, gun owners see less-humorous versions of the mainstream medias wanton ignorance of guns, coupled with obnoxious preaching about what laws must be passed to punish lawful gun owners, on display.

Its impossible for an informed person not to notice that gun-control proponents want to take away Second Amendment rights, even though they dont understand the difference between a rifle and a shotgun or a semi-automatic and a machine gun. Politicians like President Joe Biden (D) say they are for the Second Amendment, but then, in the next breath, they tell us the Second Amendment doesntdespite what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Heller (2008)protect the ownership of commonly owned firearms. They refuse to look at the data showing that the citizens who lawfully carry concealed basically dont commit crimes, and then, in the same series of talking points, they tell us that lawful gun ownership is fueling a crime wave.

Now, the entire reason for this willful ignorance of an important topic cant just be that they dont think they have to get this stuff right, as few in popular culture or the mainstream media will call them out on it; after all, they must find some of these gaffes embarrassingthe Times tweet with the shotgun shells ended up on top of Fox News webpage!

Surely, part of the explanation is they see themselves as the college-educated class, the new smart set, and so they just assume they know more than those deplorable gun owners possibly could. But that cant be the whole answer, as again, they dont likely enjoy playing the fool.

What Lies Beneath This IgnoranceIve probed for answers to these questions many times when interacting with mainstream news journalists around tables in congressional hearings, on media junkets to visit government agencies and even during a long wait in the White House press room. Ive often found that the power structure of their workplace hierarchies insists that they stay in step with a gun-control orthodoxythey are less likely to be promoted if they dont adhere to the tenets of gun-control politics. This is the explanation Stephen Hunter, the author of the Bob Lee Swagger series of thrillers and a now-retired Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic for The Washington Post, gave me when I interviewed him for my book The Future of the Gun.

But, along with this self-protective reason for conformity from the mainstream-media members Ive encountered is often a smug expression, a contempt-loaded shrug, a snarky smile or an I-know-better-than-you disdain. They are sure they are rightso certain they dont need to even debate the point. So insecure, actually, they view debating this issue as slumming or even as dangerous. Or, perhaps, they sense their own ignorance, and so shy away.

What this comes down to, as far as they are concerned, is they are right and enlightened therefore any counterpoints they might encounter are simply the opinions of extremists, or even just thoughts from the less-educated; after all, a majority of college graduates voted for President Bidens campaign promises for more gun-control (indoctrination in academia has had its impact) in 2020.

Now, a lot of opinion writers and social scientists have explained this political conformity by noting that many Americans prefer to stay in news bubbles, echo chambers, or information silos. They explain this by noting that those on the left watch CNN, PBS and MSNBC and read, say, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times; whereas those on the right watch Fox News and Newsmax, listen to talk radio and read a growing number of conservative news sites. Meanwhile, adding to this bifurcation of national opinion is the fact that social-media algorithms spit out certain politics to target users who have shown they like particular points of viewthese algorithms are designed to get more clicks by feeding people what they like to consume.

All of that is true up to a point, but, as Barton Swaim recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, when you look at the country as a whole, this echo-chamber explanation has its limits.

The fact is, the left controls much of popular culture today; therefore, the gun-control-promoting bubble is just about everywhere they go. If a gun-control supporter is exposed to a competing opinionor just the plain facts on crimeits likely from some CNN talking head or an NPR show host mocking the opinion or simply talking it away; typically, these show hosts call anything they dont understand or agree with on guns extreme, and, just like that, its swept from their minds.

Even if a gun-control proponent runs into a gun owner in a store, sporting event or restaurantwhich must happen all the timegun owners tend to be quiet about the fact that they own, and perhaps carry, firearms, so the gun-control backer wont even know they are in the company of a gun owner.

In contrast, someone who appreciates their right to keep and bear arms runs into anti-Second Amendment opinions everywhere they go. Its on TV. Its constantly on the networks nightly news. Its on the local news. It was blaring on CNN in airport terminals as we waited for flights until the CNN Airport Network shut down in 2021. Now and then, even sports casters repeat it before games. Hollywood films and shows are full of it. YouTube, Facebook and more censor gun ads, but not the gun-control point of view. A gun owner, or anyone who appreciates this basic freedom, cant just hide in a gun-rights bubble.

This enables the gun-control elitist to actually think their views are enlightened, even though they are so often uninformed, as their point of view on the Second Amendment is championed in all the smart and snarky places across popular culture. So, then, given that their views, by their definition, are enlightened, why should they bother to try to understand those with actual experience with guns?

This impasse can be frustrating for anyone who appreciates their right to ownor to potentially defend themselves withmodern and popularly owned firearms because not only are gun-control groups insisting that the good armed citizens in our society are, despite all evidence, actually bad; and not only are they actually insisting that the real bad actors (the criminals in our society) are mostly just misunderstood; but they also insist on all of this with the raised chin and haughty smile of a superiority complex.

Now, surely, a gun-control purist on the editorial board of The New York Times and like publications can conceivably have their anti-Second Amendment belief system rattled to the core by any criminal who tries to break into their home, attempts to carjack them, robs them on the street or otherwise shows them firsthand that the police cant protect them instantaneously wherever they are. But, without such a confrontation (and we dont wish that on anyone), a gun-control-believing elitist can just assume they are right.

So, What Can We Do About This Impasse?Gun owners do need to mock gun-control elitists in the media and in politics, at least a little. Teasing them with memes or sly and funny remarks and critiques with links to the facts (such as to articles at A1F.com) on social media can be helpful, as this is the language they understand. Anecdotally, it feels to me like this is happening more on Twitterthanks Elon Muskthan it used to, which is a big deal. But a light-hearted approach is best. No trolling or meanness, pleasethat isnt helpful. Gun-control supporters actually need help. They need an education. It is easy to be turned off by harsh and snarky ridicule, but a lighthearted poke can make someone stop and thinkmaybe even click on a link.

There are millions of new gun ownersmany bought guns for self-defense when riots exploded in 2020. These millions of people need to learn how to be responsible gun owners. They need to learn how to use this freedom and they need to learn about this freedom. Every breakthrough to an individual who once thought the mainstream-media narratives on guns were, despite all the evidence, right, is a small step in the right direction. This is a civil-rights movement, after all, and the NRA is the association leading the way. Let people know this by telling them to join and by pointing them to NRA resources, such as nrainstructors.org.

This needs to be a nonpartisan issue again. And it can be. Even HBOs Bill Maher recently noticed that the far-lefts politics, which includes a hatred for the right to keep and bear arms, have become so obnoxiously woke that theyre not funny anymore. They are preachy. They are dishonest. They insist on a narrow orthodoxy thats stifling. This has made non-woke shows and movies that treat guns like tools, not as talismans of evil, such as Paramounts Yellowstone, feel so good. Such examples are freeing, as they are not restricted to a body of lies.

Such is how, over time, the mainstream culture can swing back to something more reasonable on this fundamental issue. It has happened before in America. There are, conservatively, over 100 million law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. right now. Thats a lot of potential influencers.

See more here:

Why the Mainstream Media Refuses to Learn Anything About Guns ... - America's 1st Freedom

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.(KRQE) Theres a push in the roundhouse to essentially ban private militias in New Mexico. In the past few years, weve seen controversy as armed and uniformed paramilitary groups showed up at protests, and along the border. This bill is partially in response to what happened in Albuquerque in 2020 when a group calling themselves the New Mexico Civil Guard got involved in the Oate statue protest.

The state constitution prohibits private paramilitary activity, but today New Mexico doesnt have a law thats tailored to effectively preventing paramilitary groups from mobilizing for acts of intimidation and violence, says Mark Baker, Albuquerque attorney and expert witness for the bill.

House Bill 14 defines a paramilitary organization as a group with three or more people associating under a command structure. It stops people from publicly patrolling or drilling as a paramilitary group, interfering with government operations, pretending to be peace officers, or intimidating other people.

The discussion also cited an incident when a paramilitary group was stopping and detaining people on the Mexican borderexperts saying that case led to federal charges, but not state.

No one from the public spoke in opposition to this bill, but Republican Representatives John Block and Martin Zamora voiced their concerns about Second Amendment rights and how much latitude this would give prosecutors. Im thinking of rural areas. It may be a very long time until police can get there to the scene. And [an] insurrection that happens, people start storming a building and good Samaritans, Madam Chair, Representative, who may or may not be armed are protecting that building and the public employees within itI think that this could potentially charge them when theyre just trying to do a civic duty as an American to protect their fellow Americans, Block said.

The bill calls for charges ranging from a misdemeanor to a first-degree felony depending on the severity of the violation.

Baker said this law does fall within constitutional parameters, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that paramilitary activity can be regulated by the states. It also falls within constitutional parameters. Justice Scalia in District of Columbia vs. Heller recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right; in that decision, cited an 1886 case noting that private paramilitary activity can be regulated by the states, Baker said.

The bill passed the House Government Committee on a six to two-vote. It heads to the House Judiciary Committee.

View post:

Effort to ban paramilitary groups from mobilizing in New Mexico progresses through Roundhouse - KRQE News 13

The state Board of Higher Education is formally opposing amendments to the higher education funding bill, concerning how payment of non-renewed college presidents is handled.

This comes after some Legislators questioned the package given to former NDSU President Dean Breschani. Breschani was paid for the remainder of his contract, and became a tenured professor at NDSU.

In response, the House passed an amendment to HB 1003, saying the University System has to reimburse NDSU for that agreement something Chancellor Mark Hagerott says would be a big hit to the central office budget. A second amendment would require approvals of those kinds of agreements by the states Emergency Commission, and the Legislatures Budget Section.

Hagerott told the Board this is an erosion of the Constitutional authority of the Board.

"This is not how to transition long-serving, or even short-serving, presidents," Hagerott said. "I've talked to several senior legislators, and people in other branches of government involved in the Emergency Commission, saying 'That's the Board's job you need to defend yourself. We can't get into that business.'"

The measure will now be in the state Senate and the Board is hoping the amendments will be removed there.

Read the original post:

SBHE: Amendments to the higher education budget bill would ... - Prairie Public Broadcasting