Town looking at gun policy - Columbia-Greene Media: News

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks

Town looking at gun policy

Board considering letting employees carry firearms

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 12:30 am

CLERMONT — The Clermont Town Board is considering whether to revise its recently adopted Workplace Violence Policy to allow town employees to carry guns on town property.

At Monday’s Town Board meeting, Councilman Ed Kahle read a three-page argument for the Constitutional right to bear firearms, a town resident spoke at length on guns as guarantors of safety and another resident offered a brief opposing view.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 10 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 10 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 518-828-1616. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

13 comments:

  • Joe the Real posted at 8:54 pm on Tue, Dec 11, 2012.

    Joe the Real Posts: 497

    Brian J. Conway has the right idea. Give all 5 Lbs. of musket balls. Or was that "muskrat?"

     
  • Brian G posted at 4:38 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

    Brian G Posts: 40

    God and guns!!! God and guns!!! Ain't nobody gunna come between me and God or my guns!! Nosiree.

     
  • Thewatchfuleagle posted at 12:25 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

    Thewatchfuleagle Posts: 1

    Thank God there hasn't been any need for protection in Clermont --- YET! But, there is no armed officer during trials held at Town Hall; what if someone decides to attack one of our justices? What if someone has a grudge against a Town Board member? Others in the room could also be involved. I'd rather have anyone who has gone through the process of obtaining a license to permit the carrying of a legal concealed weapon to be there to PROTECT those in attendance. That is what the right to bear arms is for ---- to PROTECT ---and it is a RIGHT according to the freedoms granted by law.

     
  • libertylover posted at 10:30 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

    libertylover Posts: 1

    We need more people like Ed, Ray and Evan! Thanks for sticking up for the Constitution!

    The reason we are all losing our freedom in this country is because there is not enough people willing to go the extra mile and fight for what the Founding Fathers gave us.

    The Constitution guarantees our right to life and the ability to protect our life. Without this ability we are defenseless against any criminal or against a government gone very bad such as Cambodia or Russia where the people were slaughtered by the millions and had no way defend themselves.

    The "Workplace Violence Protection Policy" is nothing more than an attempt to chisel away at the 2nd Amendment and disarm the American people and leave them without the ability to defend themselves. And it's not just guns they want to "protect" you from. You can't even carry a knife to defend yourself. For goodness sakes, maybe a rock will be determined to be a "dangerous weapon" next!

    I totally disagree with the post below. More mass murders are going to take place in gun free zones because who is going to take out the murderer? The police? Oh, that worked in Colorado, right? Common sense tells us if there was someone in that movie theater who was armed they would have stopped that gunman before so many people were injured or lost their lives. Ray is right - town hall meetings would be safer if the town board members are armed. What would happen if a disgruntled town citizen decided to start shooting the town board members and the people in attendance? Oh, I guess they should just try to "reason" with the person, right?

     
  • mama-j posted at 6:13 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

    mama-j Posts: 4

    I very strongly agree with the Constitutional stance of Ed Kahle in support of
    citizens' individual sovereignty, ownership of firearms, right to carry licenses, and
    specifically allowing employees of Clermont or any other governmental subdivision to exercise their rights as they see fit.

     
  • libby posted at 8:49 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

    libby Posts: 2

    Thank you Ed, Evan and Ray for defending my individual sovereignty. Well said brianjconway and Kenmat1.

     
  • BIG GUY posted at 7:24 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

    BIG GUY Posts: 5

    I think it is a great Idea that Town employee's carry concealed on and off the job. I will feel safe while in the Clermont, NY area...GOD BLESS AND CARRY LEGALLY.

     
  • woodchuck posted at 12:00 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

    woodchuck Posts: 12

    I'm wondering what specific dangers some people in Clermont are facing that motivates them to want to carry guns? I've lived in Hudson without a gun for 32 years, it's a lot more dangerous place than Clermont, and I'm not feeling the least bit threatened. This issue is bogus-- it's all about a group of scared little men whose testosterone evaporated a long time ago and now they would like to prop up their frail egos by packing a gun and pretending to be somebody.

     
  • tazer posted at 8:14 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

    tazer Posts: 95

    thank you kenmat 1 - thats great news

     
  • brianjconway posted at 6:57 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

    brianjconway Posts: 567

    The militia act of New York in 1775 stated All males aged 16 to 60 are members of the militia. They shall provide themselves with a suitable rifle or musket, 5 pounds of musket balls, 1 pound of powder and an edged weapon. (Large knife, sword, tomahawk, bayonet etc) These were personally owned weapons kept at the mans house. Rome, when a Republic, before it degenerated into an empire had a similiar outlook on personal ownership of weapons as did Greece arguably our earliest democracy. The "birth certificate" of the United States, the Declaration of Independence embodies the belief that certain rights are God given and predate the constitution. It further states that governments are formed among men to secure these inalienable rights The first two paragraphs of that Declaration are very clear on the founders feelings. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, referred to as the Bill of Rights codifies these rights and guarantees them.
    whether or not certain public employees other than police should carry firearms while working can be argued forever but the overarching principal of the right to bear arms is not negotiable. It is the right that secures the others.
    The bill of rights deals with individual liberties and is intended to restrict the power of the federal government to those duties assigned it by the people through their states delegations which wrote the constitution and created the federal government. It is not the other way around. as some in Washington would have you believe.

     
  • stuyvesantview posted at 8:49 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    stuyvesantview Posts: 175

    I just love it when people by-pass research and make statistics up off the top of their head. "Most murders happen in gun-free zones" is malarkey!

    Go to the website of the Violence Policy Center and read their various research reports on states with least restrictive gun laws having the highest rates of death by firearms. Alaska tops the list and NY is actually one of the safer states.

    Maybe Clermont should adopt a policy like Zion National Park: Carrying fire arms in the Park is permitted. Discharging a fire arm in the Park is against the law.

    I think its time to invest in a Kevlar vest if I plan to travel to Clermont.

     
  • Ghentlemen posted at 5:54 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    Ghentlemen Posts: 48

    what happens in Clermont that employees want to carry guns to work?

     
  • kenmat1 posted at 9:31 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

    kenmat1 Posts: 1

    Simply put the town does not have the authority to regulate handguns in any way. PL400 specifically states that a concealed carry license is valid throughout the state regardless of local law.(NYC is a special case). Additionally, in the matter of Chwick v. Mulvey the court set a statewide precedent that NY State is the only governmental agency that can regulate handguns through preemption of state law.

     

Stocks