We have been invited by Councilman Kennedy to share our opinions regarding the changes to firearms regulation “necessitated” by the passing of HB-650:
Public Notices
Public Notice Regarding Firearms
11/10/2011
The Garner Town Council has called a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 in the Town Council Meeting Room located in Building B at Town Hall. The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comments and input about amendments to Garner’s Town Code regarding §18-1. Discharge of firearms; seizure of firearms; applicability of section and §18-2. Weapons prohibited on town property. These changes are necessary as the result of the Governor signing 2011 House Bill 650 (the “Castle Doctrine”) and the need to modify the language in our ordinances to comply with state law. All interested citizens are encouraged to attend and will have an opportunity to present oral or written comments. Handicapped persons needing assistance or aids should contact the Clerk’s office at 773-4406 or jbass@garnernc.gov prior to the meeting
Observation of, and participation in, these proceedings are important to ensure that local town councils do not act to limit the liberties recently recovered by the passage of HB-650.
The text below is a copy of recent correspondence with Councilman Kennedy. Because it is an e-mail chain, it is in reverse chronological order (initial item at bottom)
You may draw your own conclusions about the Councilman’s tone and demeanor:
Mr Kennedy
You claim that I am being fed misleading or incomplete information. You also allege that “my monitor” behaved in manner that you perceived as threatening.
And, through conscious omission, you neglect to address the substantive issue: my belief that the Garner council will attempt to dilute or circumvent the liberties recovered under HB650.
So let’s address these items, and keep score, shall we?
1. Misleading or incomplete information – your communications to me made no mention that the public discussion regarding HB 650 was postponed until after council elections; the “monitor” wanted you on record ahead of the election … minus one
2. Reference to “my monitor” – to the best of my recollection, at least in this lifetime, I have never held title to or property in men; therefore your claim than anyone is “my man” is vaguely humorous … minus two
3. Threatening behavior of “monitor” – I did some research and learned the identity of the person who questioned the council; he is someone with whom I have spoken on several occasions and whose integrity I admire … minus three
4. Neglect to address substantive issues – just as the council was unwilling to address this topic before the election, you did not address my belief that the council intended to dilute or circumvent the liberties recovered under HB650; this confirms my belief that you are a cowardly lot and are most probably working the agenda we fear … minus four
As you are not scoring many points, perhaps we should address the heart of this issue:
All men have certain unalienable Rights as a consequence of their humanity. Some of these Rights are specifically enumerated in the Articles of Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Right to defense of one’s life, with the tools of one’s choosing, is principle among them. Try as you like to abridge or infringe, an increasing number of us understand the definition of “unalienable”.
We accept the responsibility to act in accordance with rules for a civil society. We will not encroach upon others or their property. We will not initiate force against others but reserve to ourselves the use of force, including deadly force, in defense of self and family … regardless of the location where we may be assaulted.
We will not surrender a Right in return for a grant of privilege. Many would rather carry the brand of “outlaw”.
Who would you rather face on the playground or the athletic field: an armed criminal who ignores your rules because he intends to initiate force and do harm; or an armed, responsible citizen who ignores your rules because your infringement attempts to strip him of his ability to defend his life and defeat that criminal?
Think carefully as you craft your ordinances, and know you will endure our scrutiny.
Hans Mentha
—–Original Message—–
From: Buck Kennedy [mailto:BKennedy@garnernc.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:00 PM
To: Hans Mentha
Subject: RE: HB 650
Mr. Mentha:
Obviously you did not attend the last Council meeting where one of your “monitors” approached Council in a rather inappropriate manner to ask (i.e., thinly veiled demand) our stance on the issue…two weeks prior to the public hearing. Your “monitor” appears to be the same person that is feeding you misleading information or at least providing only a portion of the correct information.
I can stand the heat and I am not leaving the kitchen. The threatening attitude of your “monitor” is not appreciated and does nothing to elicit support from Council. Perhaps you do need to come and monitor the “monitor.”
You are still invited to attend and participate in the pubic hearing on 11/22.
Buck Kennedy
________________________________________
From: Hans Mentha [hmentha@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Buck Kennedy; ‘Chris Williamson’; Ronnie Williams; Kathy Behringer; Ken Marshburn; Jackie Johns; grantraceysingleton@earthlink.net; Hardin Watkins; Rodney Dickerson; Eric Copeland
Subject: RE: HB 650
Mr Kennedy
Many are writing out of concern that we believe the Garner Council intends to expand the grounds withing parks which are defined as Playground or Athletic Field in order to limit the areas where “carry” will be allowed under HB650.
Whether this is your intent will be clearly determined by upcoming Council action.
If you are concerned that we are monitoring, and consider our careful attention to be some sort of threat, you need to look for another line of work.
Hans Mentha
Frequent Visitor and Customer of Garner Businesses
—–Original Message—–
From: Buck Kennedy [mailto:BKennedy@garnernc.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:59 AM
To: Chris Williamson; Ronnie Williams; Kathy Behringer; Ken Marshburn; Jackie Johns; grantraceysingleton@earthlink.net; Hardin Watkins; Rodney Dickerson; Eric Copeland
Subject: RE: HB 650
Mr. Williamson:
It is hard to determine whether your last sentence is some sort of threat or that you traditionally follow the action of our Town Council. Let’s assume it’s the latter.
However, from what you have written in your email…or copied from some web site…you may not be aware that the Town does not propose to limit your right to carry a concealed weapon in our parks! Please understand the basics of the proposed ordinance. The Town plans to follow the provisions of HB 650.
At present, our ordinance does, in fact, restrict your right to concealed carry on any town owned property. What the proposed ordinance does is to remove the restriction on concealed carry on park property. No one seems to have noticed the proposed ordinance is less restrictive than the ordinance currently in force. Instead, all of the emails I have received…95% of which are copied from the web site…indicate the sender is apparently unaware of the fact that the proposed ordinance is less restrictive.
Having said all of this…what the proposed ordinance does restrict…if adopted…is the right to carry a concealed weapon on the immediate playground area or on an athletic field…on park property. Such an exception is also provided for in HB 650.
How the Council will act on November 22nd is dependent upon the arguments presented by both the proponents and the opponents of the proposed ordinance.
Please do “monitor” what the Council does by attending the public hearing and participating in the debate by explaining your position during the period in which the public is invited to speak…during the public hearing.
Buck Kennedy
Councilman
________________________________________
From: Chris Williamson [chris@nocrash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Ronnie Williams; Kathy Behringer; Ken Marshburn; Jackie Johns; grantraceysingleton@earthlink.net; Buck Kennedy
Subject: HB 650
Dear Council Member:
I am writing to urge you to respect my right to self protection in city parks. The new law laid out in HB 650 mandates that you do so. It has been established that predators and other violent felons target defenseless citizens in places where the law abiding are not allowed their God given right to self protection.
In the years since its passing, the Concealed Carry law has shown those exercising that right to be sane, sober and law-abiding. Examine the facts rather than fabricated worst case scenarios and you are bound to reach the same conclusion. I will be monitoring your actions via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.
Respectfully,
Chris Williamson
