As with anything where other people are involved, disagreements spring up. I've stayed out of the politics of the place because that's not why I bought in, and I get into enough scraps down here in Flatland. But now it looks like a fight to the finish is being forced on me and I won't be able to remain sidelined.
One of the Board members just sent this out via the Ranch's e-news update:
Rules for Firearms
A couple of month ago there was an incident on the ranch involving a gun. When we checked the ranch rules we found we had no written rules dealing with the use and caring of firearms on the ranch.
Earl [the Board president--DC] gave me the task of coming up with some rules for the safety of all.
I have scheduled the dance hall for a meeting of all, who are concerned with the issue. The next board meeting has been change to 24 Sept. 10 A.M. So I have reserved the dance hall for 12 Noon, 24 Sept. to have a meeting. We have several owners who are interested in attending the meeting, but I would like to get as many owners as possible to attend and participate in the debate. I would like the rules that we give to the board for review to be a consensus of a large group rather than just a few.
I would appreciate it if you would run an article to let all the owners know about the meeting. I will have a list of what I think the rules should be, but that will only be a base to start from. I will chair the committee and will try to get a secretary to take notes. All who attend will be members of the committee.
My reply:
The last thing we need is politically correct hysteria limiting the right of rational free Americans to keep and bear arms on what is their own property. One “incident” is hardly cause for infringing on my rights. That’s the same excuse well-meaning (or sometimes subversive) fools use for imposing “gun control” on society at large, and the results are always the same: the goblins have what they want when and where they want it, and the “good” people are helpless.
One incident out of the 15 years I have been an owner. This is an urgent problem? If some moron did something stupid or evil with a gun, that has no bearing on me and I will not be penalized for it. Punish him—severely-- and be done with it.
You should know, the California Penal Code prohibition against carrying a loaded firearm provides an exception for a temporary residence or campsite.
Finally, unless the Ranch is willing to guarantee my protection and that of my family while there—including from bears and mountain lions—where the directors know we have a recurring problem—it seems they are setting us all up for a big liability should something happen if people are forced to obey some artificial prohibition.
Don’t open this door. There is no need to. It will only cause more divisiveness and not solve a thing.
If someone is brandishing a gun, there are already laws against that. If someone is recklessly endangering someone with a gun, there are already laws against that. If someone is threatening someone with a gun, there are already laws against that.
What more does Earl want?
And one other thing—if you do pass a prohibition, I’ll ignore it and carry what I want when I want. It’s not like anyone will know for sure—just like always.
The implications--if such rules are imposed and allowed to stand--reach far beyond the borders of Ranch property. I have some ideas on where I want to take this and will post updates as they happen. In the meantime, suggestions on legal avenues to explore and cite references will be appreciated.
3 comments:
Seriously, I note in his missive to you that in his mind this is a done deal. He makes no provision nor acknowledges the possibility that the "jumping off place" of his proposed rules might be rejected. He does however make provision for additions to them.
Whether his confidence is the arrogance of a man that is used to getting what he wants without opposition or he has reason to know he already has support for restrictions, I can't say. You, knowing him, would be in a better position to judge whether or not he has already campaigned behind the scenes and before the meeting to gain an assured outcome, and whether or not the meeting is just a dog and pony show to fool the owners into thinking they had a choice.
As stated, I can't judge that, not knowing the people involved, but the tone of the letter to you didn't sit well, just seemed off. Also made my BS meter peg out. Maybe it was the assumption by him that a meeting would only strengthen his hand, that the more owners he had present the stronger his support. It seems a little too naive to me to be honest. It just makes me think he expects a walkover. That kind of confidence in a vote of disparate interest holders causes me to suspect a fix.
I think you might be well served to allow for that possibility as you attend the meeting.
You may want to poll others to see if they have been campaigned.
Don't know if this helps you. or if it just seems arrogant and off point, but I thought I would share my discomfort about the message with you, in case, you are more trusting than I. :)
--And one other thing—if you do pass a prohibition, I’ll ignore it and carry what I want when I want. It’s not like anyone will know for sure—just like always.--
Hehe. I hope he wets his pants thinking about it.
Guess I didn't make it clear--he wrote to the person who puts out the Ranch e-newsletter, not to me. I responded to them.
I haven't heard back from him (yet). I have 3 questions I'm going to put to him:
1. What was the "incident"?
2. What rules does he propose that he has evidence to believe would stop such incidents from happening in the future, and what is that evidence?
3. What are his qualifications for drafting such rules? A hint on the direction I'm going with this can be found here.
Post a Comment