Second Amendment and Gun Control

Article by Gary Kent

Republicans have been adept at using the Second Amendment and gun control to manipulate their base. The pipedream that the S.A.F.E. Act might be repealed has been a useful smokescreen for incompetent politicians for four years. The gun control “slippery slope” idea is another notion that may not pass the smell test. What does it say about the “slippery slope” that the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse?

A cursory look at the Second Amendment might suggest it gives “the people” the right to keep and bear arms. “Arms,” not muskets. How are “arms” defined today? Are we to believe there should be no limit to the “arms” we may keep and bear? Would devotees of an expansive reading of Amendment 2 argue it gives all individuals the right to possess “arms” such as grenade launchers and Stinger missiles?

Amendment 2 states this right “shall not be infringed.” But the background checks supported by the vast majority of those polled are an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms! What part of the words “shall not be infringed” do the many N.R.A. members who favor background checks not understand?

Is having and driving a car a “right?” Cars are potentially deadly weapons. They and the drivers who drive them can kill people. How many of us question registration, licensing, vehicle use taxes and car insurance? Most don’t question any of those restrictions. Few would argue that, at some point, judges shouldn’t be allowed to revoke the right/privilege to drive.

One of the biggest myths used by some ostensibly sincere defenders of the right to keep and bear arms to mislead voters is the goofy notion that “democrats” want to take our guns away. There may be some who do, but I do not know any of them personally. After all, democrats are Americans. We know our history. We share American traditions. We revere what the Constitution actually says. Consequently, we respect the role firearms have played in our national existence. We know the utility of firearms for hunting and self-preservation. Just as many republicans, we know their capacity to inflict damage and suffering must be respected and, within reason, guarded against. Just as cars, guns require responsible users.

The idea that “democrats” want to take our guns away is baseless, period. It is fiction perpetuated by those seeking to use the issue for political gain.

The Constitution is often selectively cited to further one’s political agenda. Baloney aside, it was written because the folly of out of control states’ rights was threatening to destroy a new nation. Contrary to what many choose to believe, the Constitution was meant to greatly increase federal power while affording protection and a greatly reduced role for the states.

Those who know the Constitution certainly are aware of the 10th Amendment. As I recall it, powers not granted the federal government, nor prohibited the states, belong to the states and the people respectively.

People who know the Constitution are also aware of loose construction. It wasn’t dreamed up by big government bureaucrats or activist Supreme Court judges. It cannot be stated emphatically enough that loose construction was anticipated by the Constitution’s authors and built into the document that it might better stand the test of time.

People who hang their hats on the 10th Amendment should carefully read Articles 1-7. Gun rights advocates should note, as well, that even if Amendment 2 had nothing to do with the right of individual, ordinary people—versus those who are part of a “well-regulated militia”—to keep and bear arms, to this democrat, Amendment 9 certainly has to be viewed as protecting such a right. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that gun ownership was protected by the Ninth Amendment, even though, just as with innumerable other rights, gun ownership is not mentioned specifically. That is the beauty of loose construction. Without it, the Ninth Amendment is just one part of the Constitution that would have no meaning. It would not be there if there was no reason for including it.

Serious Proposals

Article by Gary Kent

“These aren’t serious proposals,” protested Jeb Bush. Bombing “the _ _ _ _ out of them” and finding out if sand “can glow” were some of the things that Bush was referring to.

But, to Donald Trump and “TrusTed” Cruz, they are serious proposals for ridding the world of ISIS.

Jeb might want to insist that–as would-be standard bearers for the G.O.P.–Trump and Cruz should be required to cost out and detail exactly what their “solutions” would involve. After all, it is a test republicans often expect when a democrat proposes an action.

For such sensationalist prescriptions as bombing “the _ _ _ _ out of them” to work, it would be necessary to have ISIS sympathizers from around the world travel to a designated location in the Syrian Desert. This includes ISIS cell members in Hamburg, Brussels, London, Rome, Tripoli, Minneapolis and elsewhere. The alternative would be carpet bombing places like Hamburg to make sure “the _ _ _ _ is” bombed out of them. That could get messy.

Presuming—as Trump and Cruz must—that they all have the same death wish, ISIS followers should jump at the opportunity to achieve martyrdom.

Getting them all in the same place at the same time is the key to this “serious” proposal. That would be a major undertaking. Some would undoubtedly arrive before others. They would need accommodations while they awaited their personalized bombs.

That shouldn’t be a problem, as Trump has a great company that builds nice hotels, provided he can get a major tax break first and declare bankruptcy once they are finished so that it isn’t necessary to pay the construction companies that build them. We would have to check the Syrian bankruptcy laws, which may not have been written by unscrupulous developers.

Aside from the cost of hotel accommodations for ISIS types eager to punch their ticket to the “promised land,” the other major expense would be the air fares to get them to Syria. That could be costly, but if arranging to deport 11,000,000 undocumented people from Mexico is merely a question of “proper management,” I am sure getting 100,000 ISIS types from around the globe to Syria in time for the “party” would be something Ivanka could handle before brunch.

Sorry, Jeb, but you may underestimate your republican colleagues. They are serious and the “solution” they propose could work as long as ISIS cooperates and the taxpayers don’t mind picking up the cost of a few thousand airfares and hotel stays.

Syrian Refugees

Article by Gary Kent

Refugees fleeing the horrific violence and devastation in Syria have been streaming into Europe for months. Some of our N.A.T.O. allies are taking them in by the tens of thousands. Germany, France and Norway are among the countries we expect to join with us in a coalition to defeat ISIS. (The British have been more reluctant to follow us than most, ever since the disastrous venture in Iraq.) How should the United States respond to the refugee crisis?

The Daily News carried a telling cartoon, as well as a great column by Kathleen Parker on Friday, November 20. While acknowledging legitimate security concerns, Parker noted that refusing to allow Syrian refugees asylum was not a great option.

Most experts agree that ISIS wants terrorism to draw thousands of U.S. military personnel into the Middle East. It is widely accepted that jihadists desire to turn sporadic, limited armed conflict into a global war between Islam and the West. To that end, they sought to define the Iraq war as a war against Islam.

The United States is, of course, a nation of immigrants. In part because we have received innumerable benefits from them, we have long made special provision for admitting political refugees. Plymouth colony was settled by such people.

In the days since the Paris attacks, to some degree, politics has appeared to trump good sense. For the short term benefit they hope to gain, many politicians have expressed varying degrees of opposition to accepting even as few as 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States. For comparison, France is reportedly taking 30,000.

We expect our European allies to share intelligence and provide support in the fight against ISIS, but we want to take a pass on reducing ”their” refugee burden.

We justifiably take pride in thinking of ourselves as “the beacon on a hill,” a refuge for the “wretched refuse of your teeming shores,” except when the refugees are Muslim. This is perhaps based on the variously estimated 1-5% of the world’s Muslims who are jihadists.

To The Founding Fathers, religion was officially irrelevant. Do we need to be reminded that the United States Constitution provides that no religious test shall be a qualification for holding office (Article VI, section 3) ? The First amendment strikes yet another blow for religious freedom.

At the pinnacle of Ku Klux Klan activity—which was aimed, in part, at ridding the United States of Catholics and Jews– did we succumb to an impulse to prohibit Protestants from entering the country? Burning churches and synagogues to the ground was, after all, terrorism. While Japanese-Americans fought in World War II, those within the country were put into internment camps. Their children’s photos were purged from high school yearbooks. Did the fact that none of them were ever found to have committed treason teach us anything?

The thinking goes that if you have seen one who happens to be evil, you have seen them all. The rest are evil by association. Stereotyping people never has been useful, but people who ignore the relevance of history—or who do not know it—don’t know that.

ISIS counts on ignorance and weakness, even though it is understandable that Americans are fearful.

In some ways, taken by itself, banning immigrants from Syria as a result of the Paris attacks makes the attacks a smashing success. Those who died, in effect, will have died to further the ISIS agenda. Once we make the blunder of stereotyping Muslims, we are one step closer to accepting global culture war. That is exactly what the jihadists want. Banning Syrian victims of the horrific mess we helped create is a betrayal of who we have historically been. It is a sad commentary on anyone professing Judeo-Christian values. It would be a slap in the face to loyal American Muslim citizens, including those in uniform. More than that, it would be a recruiting bonanza for ISIS.

Inclusion is a source of our strength. Who among us would refuse to be rescued by a person of another religion, race, or ethnicity? In this case, we may find that jihadist terror has conspired to put us in the same “boat.”

Do we need more knee-jerk reactions, or more rationality? Do we need to act in our long term self-interest? Or should we respond viscerally– and act impulsively–to please the talking heads exploiting a tragedy and make ourselves feel good in the moment?

This is a test we may not want to fail.

The Rubio Factor

Article by Gary Kent

Marco Rubio appears to be the new republican establishment replacement for Jeb Bush. In order to get the “nod,” he will have to overcome such “heavyweights” as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Dr. Ben Carson.

The Republican Party’s worst nightmare, Donald Trump, just keeps rolling with a new Trumpism every week. Thousands of New Jersey Muslims (or maybe they were Gaza Strip Muslims?!) supposedly cheering the twin towers collapse one week; being able to “feel” a terror attack coming the next. This week he decided we needed to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. until we can figure out “what the hell is going on.” Perhaps when he suggests we should unleash Godzilla on ISIS people will get a sense of how shallow he is. Mocking a reporter with a disability didn’t evidently do it. Saying he would make Mexico pay for the wall after stereotyping Mexicans as criminals wasn’t enough. Saying John McCain isn’t a war hero because he got captured wasn’t too over the top either. Does anyone really think sending 11,000,000 people of Mexican origin/descent back to Mexico would be nothing more than a “management” issue? When reporters challenge him on the implementation of anything, he usually says it is just a question of “management.”

Though he probably won’t be, Ben Carson should be difficult to bypass, as he is good at keeping his ignorance to himself. He is incredibly ill-informed on foreign policy and comes across as aloof without much foundation for his attitude of superiority. Though he is often misinterpreted, he appears too often dismissive of serious concerns. Though not much more of a novice than most of the others in what Reince Preibus calls a “strong field,” Carson’s deficiencies in the foreign affairs arena would likely make him more of liability than George W. Bush.

Ted Cruz proved how ignorant he is with his recent remarks about how he will “utterly destroy ISIS.” He went on with more bluster, saying, “We will carpet bomb them into oblivion” and “I don’t know if sand can glow, but we will find out.” His non-solutions get loud cheers from those who are understandably frustrated. Just as most of the others, he insists the President is incompetent and should “do more.”

Marco Rubio is nearly as scary as the master of the bankruptcy laws. It escapes me how anyone takes this guy seriously.

Some of what Rubio says is every bit as adolescent as Trump. In the first republican debate, Rubio actually said that the reason democrats take the position they do on climate change is that, “They want to destroy the economy.” (Check the transcript) Is that something you can just apologize for while you promise to play nice? What is nearly as bizarre is that no one I know of has asked him what the heck he was talking about. Can you seriously imagine a President who goes into office thinking that half the people he has to govern with want to destroy the country?

More recently, Rubio referred to Vladimir Putin as a “gangster in charge of a country!” Does he think it is okay to speak every thought that pops into his head? Rand Paul reminded him that he—God forbid—might have to dialogue with Putin on a variety of serious issues and might need his cooperation. Paul rightly pointed out that we continued talking to the Soviets throughout the Cold War.

But, hey, the republican establishment appears to be moving in Rubio’s direction. “Any port in a storm,” as they say. As weak as he is, it may be necessary to turn to Rubio to save the party from Cruz, Trump, and Carson. Candidates with experience and good sense are in short supply (Kasich and Bush?)–and not polling well– in this “strong” republican field.

Laquan McDonald

Article by Gary Kent

It isn’t often questioned that those with serious mental health histories should be kept from legally purchasing firearms. As I understand it, polls have indicated 75-85% of N.R.A. members accept background checks despite the argument that—as infringements—they appear to violate the second amendment.

Does it make sense for even a tiny percentage of police officers who may have issues such as paranoia, or bigoted attitudes toward classes of people, to be armed with, and authorized to use, deadly weapons? Is every person who goes into law enforcement necessarily emotionally and mentally “stable?”

The October, 2014, case in which Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke “allegedly” shot LaQuan McDonald 16 times is the latest in a string of incidents that certainly appear to discredit the 99.999% of law enforcement professionals who apparently do their jobs and avoid making such “mistakes.”

McDonald may have been on drugs and evidently used a knife to smash a police cruiser windshield and puncture one, or more, tires. He may have appeared to be disrespectful as well.

Police often deal with some extremely dangerous people, whom they do not know, under very difficult circumstances, very often fraught with grave uncertainty. Police have been shot during routine traffic stops. Their jobs are not easy, and the work is certainly not for everyone. The fact remains that what happened before Van Dyke’s outrageous action hardly excuses shooting someone to death.

For Van Dyke’s attorney to justify his actions by saying he “feared for his life” is suspect at best. His attorney has attempted to put an extremely damning video into “context” by describing what took place before the video recording. He added that video does not always show what actually occurred.

Just as in education and the priesthood, serious law enforcement professionals, interested in advancing and protecting their profession, should demand those whose actions discredit their profession be held accountable.

Van Dyke has done a disservice to the law enforcement community by making it just that much more difficult for the conscientious and overwhelming majority of them to do their jobs well and safely. His actions, and those of the people who attempted to cover them up, diminish the trust essential for law enforcement professionals to do dangerous jobs effectively and safely. Whether we like it, or not, the actions of a few can tarnish entire groups. For Van Dyke to avoid responsibility for LaQuan McDonald’s death, under the circumstances, would merely add to the sense of how hopeless the pursuit of justice in America often is.

Constitutional Sheriff

Article by Gary Kent

Having spoken at length with Judy Larkin, I know that she is sincere in her advocacy of the idea of a “Constitutional sheriff.”

In her recent letter, she begins one paragraph, “Any sheriff who swears to uphold the Constitution and then does not is a fraud.” (See that paragraph and the one beginning, “There are laws on the books like it (the S.A.F.E. Act), and the sheriff must examine these in the light of the Constitution.”)

The procedures we have for passing laws assumes lawmakers read what they vote to approve. I know personally that what should happen doesn’t always happen. The excuse that they didn’t have time to read it before voting is preposterous. Assuming conscientious lawmakers, such a scenario should produce additional “no” votes, rather than, as many suggest, result in passage of a measure that would not have become law otherwise!*

In a nation of laws, laws (that are) on the books remain laws until the courts determine otherwise. That is what the authors of the Constitution expected and provided.

The sheriff is part of the executive branch. As such, he carries out court orders as well as the wishes of those charged with making the laws—the elected representatives of the people.

Though the United States Constitution does not mention “sheriffs” that I am aware of, it does say that the chief executive (the President, Article II, Section 3), “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Organisciak’s answer to the first question asked at the S.C.O.P.E. forum was an answer consistent with our Constitutional system. Don Organisciak was the only candidate who answered the S.A.F.E. Act question forthrightly and in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution.

For that matter, the courts have begun looking at the law and have, so far, decided that it is, with few exceptions, Constitutional. I trust that the ruling will be appealed.

If our system allowed a sheriff to dismiss laws he/she found objectionable constitutionally, he/she, would be placing himself/herself above the law. In our Constitutional system, the role Ms Larkin asserts for the sheriff, in fact, belongs to the courts.

Though Don Organisciak has problems with the S.A.F.E. Act, he was not afraid to say that, as sheriff, in good conscience, he could not say that he wouldn’t enforce it without encouraging disrespect for the law.

Ms. Larkin is entitled to her opinion. I would urge your readers to reflect on where the effective disrespect for the law (and the Constitution) she advocates would lead.

Sincerely yours,
Gary Kent

*In fact, the Orleans County legislature did exactly the opposite in 2010 when they voted “yes” on a resolution disapproving of several State firearms related measures. Rather than read the entire packet of measures provided by S.C.O.P.E., they voted to disapprove a proposed State bill that would have increased penalties for those who injure law enforcement with a firearm in the commission of a crime! Four of your current legislators would not stand in solidarity with those who risk their lives daily for us.

Election Retrospective

Article by Gary Kent

Reflecting on the recent election is somewhat painful for us democrats. It may sting even more once the absentee ballots are counted. At this point, we know that two outstanding candidates, Don Organisciak and James White, were defeated even though great cases can be made for each of them. It was the first electoral experience in the brutal arena of Orleans County politics for each of them. Being a four time loser myself has gotten me used to it, but reality hit them like a train on night of November 3rd.

That said, the candidacy of Randy Bower was a breath of fresh air for Orleans County. The Republican Party has long needed a focus on people. Bower is clearly a ‘people person’ who appears to understand that those who hold office are there to serve all people. As far back as 2004, when the legislative chairperson told me the only thing the people in Orleans County care about is the tax rate, the Republican Party has focused on property taxpayers as if they were the only ones who pay taxes.

Bower’s republican roots and his primary victory made it possible for a message that democrats haven’t been able to sell to finally become viable.

While any republican primary winner is virtually guaranteed victory in Orleans County, the roads to, and from, the primary for Sheriff produced a massive republican voter turnout this year. When the Omniscient Oz decided to give the Sheriff’s crown to Tom Drennan back in May during the Oz caucus, it finally backfired, even though Drennan was in most respects a great candidate. Randy Bower’s people, said, in effect, “Not this time.” The republican wizard wasn’t going to be able to take his subjects for granted this time. Bower forced a primary and won the all-important republican line by 21 votes on September 13th. A little over 30% of eligible republicans voted in the primary.

Normally, a democrat, working with an enrollment base roughly half that of his/her republican opponent, stands little chance of defeating the Wizard’s choice. Not enough people vote for the best candidate. They dutifully vote row B, just as the Wizard has trained them to. Of course the Wizard tells them who (he thinks) is best every year. This year, his choice wasn’t on row B. Such confusion!

One down side to what just happened is that two sets of coattails may have doomed some really capable down ballot candidates. It is likely that close to 50% of republicans came out to vote due to interest in the Sheriff’s race. Many voted for Bower. Many left row B to vote for Tom Drennan. The problem for people like Darlene Benton and Bill Lattin is that, after voting for Tom, many republican voters returned home to row B. Darlene and Bill were on row A. (Though John Belson enjoys a broad base of support and should probably not be pigeon-holed as an insider under the thumb of Apex, I imagine interest in the Sheriff’s race boosted his vote total for the reason mentioned above.)

The Wizard should be careful what conclusions he reaches from the Yates results. Concluding that the town is divided roughly 50-50 on the wind turbine issue based on the results of this particular election could well be a mistake. One might even wonder how much closer the Johnson-Lauricella race would have been had the Omniscient Oz come out in favor of the proposed Apex project before the election.

Wouldn’t it be something if the Omniscient Oz eventually spun off into irrelevance as a consequence of casting his lot with something he vastly underestimates the significance of: industrial wind turbines. Of course, Oz may just be waiting for the right survey.

Sincerely yours,
Gary Kent

Life in the Land of Oz

Article by Gary Kent

Does the Great and Powerful Oz have a secret master plan for Orleans County? Why is he so unwilling to tell us what it is?

Under the Oz master plan, one asset after another is sold, folded into Genesee County, or allowed to founder, or wither. Among these are Medina Hospital, the former County Nursing Home, the Visiting Nurse Service certification, the Continuing Day Treatment Program, our historical institutions, and now, perhaps our environment itself.

The Great and Powerful Oz decided who our next Sheriff would be, by some accounts, 3, or 4, years ago. What would Oz do if he didn’t get his way and his choice came in second, or third? He really thinks he can get away with anything now that he emerged unscathed in 2013. Would The Omniscient Oz eliminate the Sheriff’s Department road patrol? It is one of our finer assets, and you may know how hard it is for the Omniscient Oz to recognize the things that really matter to his subjects.

The Wizard believes that we need to follow the lead of other counties, apparently because he believes Orleans County is no different than any other place. That may be one reason he decided to sell one of the finest long term care facilities in New York State. Though belated improvements have been made with walk in mental health services in the Land of Oz, he initially disregarded the advice of one in-house expert and decreased access to such services by shifting the Continuing Day Treatment Program to Genesee County. Fortunately, he was able to revisit that mistake. Occasionally that is possible.

Among the mistakes that cannot be undone is the loss of the County Nursing Home. Though Mr. Blajszczak, a Land of Oz court jester, thought of it as just an experiment, it is another asset that is gone forever. Of course, to P.B., it doesn’t matter. In fact the only thing that really matters in the Land of Oz are the whims of the Great and Powerful Oz. But, such losses show how pathetically out of touch he is with his subjects.

You see, when you are the Great and Powerful Oz, you do not need surveys. All you need to do is bemoan the lack of them when you need an excuse not to lead. Or perhaps you just need to delay until after an election. Or you may wish to avoid a decision that might reveal part of your master plan. Oz would have his loyal lemmings believe elections are equivalent to surveys. But personalities and the range of issues before voters make elections an unreliable barometer of what your subjects think.

A humble subject of the Great and Powerful Oz, and someone I consider a good friend, suggested something that never occurred to me. He said The Oz may have refused to take a position on wind turbines in northwestern Oz because he may have invited Apex into the Land of Oz in the first place. After all, lands beyond Oz had fallen for what was blowing in the wind. Perhaps I am still failing to comprehend how devious the Oz can be. Perhaps my friend hit on something.

One of Oz’s northwestern prefecture subjects, thinking globally, correctly noted we have only one planet. She failed to act in a locally appropriate way when she wrote that turbines only take up half an acre. Does the Great Oz even understand what a phenomenal asset the environment of his Land is? His subject might want to ‘research’ the wildlife habitat we have all around us in the Land of Oz and what an industrial wind farm would mean to it.

Wind turbines are seen as environment-friendly, and they are, in the right places. The Land of Oz isn’t one of those desolate places that are right for them. But others have made mistakes. Why can’t we? For The Great Oz, any howling from the turbines in Roscoe, Texas, or the barrens of North Dakota, may seem like beckoning from the Sirens of Greek mythology.

Last minute observations….

Article by Jeanne Crane

Once again the Republicans are jumping on the band wagon!!!! You know why??? It’s election time.
Gas prices…we’ve been complaining about that for over 4 years.
Wind turbines…SOS has been asking for the legislature to take a stand.
Welfare fraud…It’s been a problem for years.
Even the raid at the Murray Superette…15 ongoing months.
VOTERS BEWARE!!! These are last ditch efforts for their candidates. It happens during every election cycle in Orleans County.

James White

Article by Gary Kent

There are only two choices on the Legislature ballot this year. There could be seven, and there were five in 2013. Paul Lauricella is challenging Lynne Johnson for the District 2 seat. James White is challenging Donald Allport for the Legislator At-large central seat.

James is committed to good sense approaches such as a responsible phased elimination of the sales tax on home heating fuel. Properly funding Child Protective Services to protect our children is high on his agenda. He believes the Sheriff’s Department should be more involved in welfare fraud cases. Electing the Chief Administrative Officer is another of his initiatives. Right now, trying to determine who is responsible for things like selling the County Nursing Home is like the proverbial question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Additionally, the C.A.O., similarly to the District Attorney, should not become intimately involved in politics. Degrading the environment is not the way to bring economic progress to Orleans County, and James White is firmly opposed to industrial wind farms anywhere in Orleans County. He also backs Paul Lauricella for the District 2 position.

Allport has been coy about blaming the State for everything. His recent stance on Article X may sound as though he is with the anti-wind farm, pro-environment and pro-Orleans County crowd, but he avoids actually taking a position, just as the remainder of his cronies do. James White may be 21, but he has far more vision and maturity and does not hide his opposition to the Apex industrial wind farm project. One has to wonder what the County’s $60,000 a year lobbyist is saying to Albany officialdom.

Allport opposes re-opening the landfill in Albion. He has been active in S.P.O.C. Whether this is out of conviction or political expediency is anyone’s guess. Two years ago, he was present at a public hearing on the proposed stone quarry in Shelby. Was he there to check the political wind direction? He has said, privately, years ago, that he opposes industrial wind turbines. Since then he has heard Mr. Callard’s spiel and may have come under Mr.Callard’s spell. At this point there is no telling where he stands.

In 2010, Allport voted to give the District Attorney a $10,000 raise and a new title to justify it. Well into the following year, the Sheriff and Undersheriff did not even know the position (Public Safety Director) existed! That is the inconvenient truth.

Legislator Allport was one of Chairman Callard’s chief allies in the campaign to strip Orleans County of assets such as the County Nursing Home. It seems that, in his mind, there is precious little that should not be privatized.

For Allport, the S.A.F.E. Act was like a gift from the heavens. He may still be attempting to convince people that it is going to be repealed well into the Apocalypse. He will tell you it is un-Constitutional, but he cannot tell you exactly why, except that it violates the Second Amendment.

It would be interesting to know whether he supports Drennan or Bower for Sheriff.

If you want to see Orleans County respected around the State, James White would be an excellent choice. His election would demonstrate that we are tired of being “played.” The fact that he is 21 would, incidentally, bring positive publicity to Orleans County.