Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
Cease Fights
To the editor: In your editorial of March 13th you continue vour "fight” for gun control laws, after they have been twice voted down, and jump on Mr. Atkins, Mr. Welch, and me by name. I urge you to cease your “fights” which only set neighbor against neighbor in this County. Espouse full and responsible public debate on issues of general interest - YES. Set neighbors to "fighting” each other - NO. I know that the proposed ordinances and their proposed implementation would have violated our Constitutional guarantees in Amendments II and IV of the National Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It is not necessary to split hairs over fine points of law with anyone to conclude this. Any interested citizen of this County can re-read these two crystal-clear Amendments of the supreme law of the land and arrive at his own cob- ' elusion. „ ' ..
No, I do NOT think that laws which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons violate the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Whether kept and borne in your coat pocket or in an open holster or gun rack, they are still kept and borne. And they may be kept and borne, whether loaded or unloaded. For my part, I’d even go along with an ordinance requiring a splotch of red fiouiescent paint on the stock or grip should you be interested in adding that ordinance to your shopping list. The guns will still be kept and borne - whether loaded or unloaded.
Your attempt to compare searches and seizures under the proposed ordinances with drug searches and seizures under School Board policy is precisely the type of false analogy against which the writer cautioned you and other gun control advocates at the Court House hearing on March 5th. And it is a very ripe red herring, besides.
No Member of the School Board not any employee of the Board is a law enforcement officer. In fact, the 'new drug policy specifically prohibits Principals from attempting in any manner to interfere with, or to influence, the performance of his duties by a law enforcement officer. The Board is not empowered to apply statutory criminal sanctions for drug offenses nor does its policy jurisdiction extend beyond school property, school buses, and schoolsponsored events. For example, the Principal may not cany out a search and seizure in a vehicle parked across from the schools on Route 211. (If anyone parks
80.1%