As a signer I hereby request a public apology from you for public Bullying.
Words written in a public forum degrading persons who have real compassion
about this article is disrespectful.
Our Town Hall is not the same as a government buildings. This is used for many
different uses not just state and federal uses.
One employee decided that the Constitution, Second Amendment, was something he
opposed. He asked that a ban be done because he felt unsafe. Nothing has been
done to secure safety in the building or him. My rights granted me by the
forefathers of this country have been taken away because of FEAR that is not
based on fact. Nothing has been done to make this building any safer.
With all this said slandering and Bullying has no place in this town. This is
2016 and there are laws against Public Bullying.
Diane Miller
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 29, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Miryam Ehrlich Williamson
<miryam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miryam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Let's talk about Article 24 on Monday's annual town meeting warrant.
It's a petition article, signed by 13 citizens, three more than required to get
it on the ballot. It's blatantly not legal, and the selectboard could have
chosen not to accept the petition. But they wisely accepted it, rather than
get into a spitting match with the man who originated it, Adam Holloway.
A self-described Libertarian, Holloway is the man who described democracy on
The L as "mob rule." ([The-L] Re: Strategic Analysis, Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016
10:18:13 -0400. His user name is Yahoo, and I won't argue with that.) When I
asked what form of government is better, he stayed silent.
The petition article forbids the town (and a lawyer-like list of pieces of town
government) from enacting (and a lawyer-like list of verbs) that "would violate
the fundamental and constitutional rights of the town's citizens."
Here's what's not legal about it:
1. The town is already forbidden to do what the article wants to forbid it to
do.
2. It's meant to be retroactive to the date of Warwick's incorporation. The
legal term for this kind of law is ex post facto. Where was Yahoo's lawyer when
he really needed him? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United
States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal
laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
So what's this about? The selectboard's banning of firearms from the town
hall, that's what. So what does the Supreme Court say about banning firearms
from a government building?
On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a federal appeals
court decsion upholding the right of the US Postal Service to ban firearms from
post offices and their parking lots (Bonidy et al v. U.S. Postal Service et al,
10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-1374.) The appeals court cited a
2008 Supreme Court ruling (District of Columbia v Heller), quoting a sentence
(edited here to remove irrelevant material) that says, ""[N]othing in our
opinion should be taken to cast doubt on [...] laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In other words, the selectboard was entirely within its rights to do what it
did that emotionally charged night.
Someone closer than I am to Yahoo and his fellow petitioners (but who didn't
sign the petition himself) told me that they deny that the town hall is a
government building -- because private events are sometimes held there. (When
you're finished laughing, please read on.)
This is giving Libertarianism a bad name.
When the moderator calls for a motion on Article 24, the selectboard, whose
members normally make all motions on warrant articles, can remain silent and,
if none of the signers rises to the occasion, the town meeting doesn't have to
deal with it at all. The moderator can wait a decent interval move on.
If the motion is made and seconded, then anyone can offer a motion to pass over
it. The motion needs a second, can be debated, and requires a majority vote to
pass.
Yahoo and the other signers may be too embarrassed to do this themselves. At
least three of them were at the last selectboard meeting when I asked for an
explanation of the article and they all sat there dumb as posts (dumb means
silent, folks. No insult intended here.) They didn't even have the, um,
courage, to explain themselves.
Maybe some kind soul will spare them from having to admit just how wrong this
article is.
Miryam
Miryam Ehrlich Williamson
<miryam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miryam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To unsubscribe write to
warwicklist-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:warwicklist-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
with Unsubcribe as the subject. To manage your subscription go to
www.freelists.org/webpage/warwicklist<//www.freelists.org/webpage/warwicklist>
To visit the list archives go to
https://www.freelists.org/archive/warwicklist/ If all else fails write to ;
warwicklist-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:warwicklist-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
