Subject: Gun Control? Larry, Mike St. Amour brought up this ordinance (gun control) and one other ordinance not because St. Amour and Graebner may or may not be for gun control, but because the PREVIOUS administration had been discussing the possibility of enacting both of these ordinances last year and had never gotten around to them for reasons unknown. I would also dispute your classification of taxpayers who like the current freedom they enjoy with their firearms as "hysterical extremists from the NRA". While you are correct that this gun control ordinance was not on the agenda, the subject was broached by St. Amour possibly as the result of a letter received by a taxpayer showing concern for the possibility of this proposed ordinance getting any traction. Larry, again I think you do a disservice as to the comprehension of the proposed ordinance by those in attendance. They seemed to understand the proposed ordinance very clearly. One gentleman even pointed out that along 7th avenue, where I assume he lives, many of the lot sizes are 250' wide, thus making it impossible to legally target practice on his property, given the fact that 300' had been mentioned by our council people. I am holding my nose as I write this, but I must also defend Ms. Forman. Larry, you classify her statements as "political grandstanding", yet as you will soon discover if committee acts to move on this ordinance, you will not be able to find a seat at the next council meeting. And why do you refer to Mr. Hagaman as a phony man of God? Because he wants to protect his current freedoms to target practice on his own property? Larry, we have disagreed on most things, but again, I think you are way off base on this one. Politicians are representatives of the electorate. Politicians should enact ordinances that the electorate wants. The electorate made their voice heard last November that we did not want dense housing in Mullica. We wanted to maintain our rural character. Mullicans want their guns, we like to hunt, we like to target practice, we like our freedom and we like to be left alone. Larry, I assure you, that you and others that would want to limit gun control are in the minority, at least in Mullica. Two neighbors have a dispute and the old administration is talking about gun control legislation. This and the fact that they just spent about $1500.00 on a Christmas party just goes to show how out of touch some of our local politicians are with the electorate. Remember, politicians that are out of touch are quickly out of office. Politically, the smart thing to do would be not to table this discussion as you say, but loudly pronounce this proposed ordinance as not under consideration, dead, squashed, finished......and do so while holding a 12 gauge shotgun with a picture of Charlton Heston in the background....right next to a Mission Accomplished banner......while Yankee Doodle Dandy plays softly in the room.....now that, my friend, would be an example of crass political grandstanding. Sincerely, Mullicaman

RESPONSE: We are going to disagree on this one also; Graebner brought up the matter as I recall during Committee reports ... and you are correct it was in the context of another Ordinance (Sign Ordinance) that the previous 2007 CORRUPT MULLICA 5 AKA IDIOTS R US apparently had been considering. Honestly, I was aware that a redrawing of the Sign Ordinance was in play ever since a letter from the ACLU arising out of the illegal removal of a 'No Dump' sign by the REPUGS had forced a reevaluation of the extant sign Ordinance...and it under went several re-drawings. Thus the question from Graebener as to what the Committee wanted to do with the proposal in 2007 to redo the Sign Ordinance ... and it seemed to be the consensus that they would move forward in 2008 with crafting a new sign Ordinance.

As for the other 2007 left over Ordinance...while there had been a neighbor dispute regarding the firing of guns on Darmstead Ave, raised by a resident at Town Meetings, I was not aware that this had resulted in an attempt in 2007 to address the issue with a local Ordinance dictating how close to a home, or building one could discharge their guns. My position in the posting was ... as you note, to raise this type of issue regardless of its merit seemed tactically foolish --as there were so many other items that would seem less emotional for the newly elected KEEP MULLICA GREEN AND AFFORDABLE team to deal with. Indeed, were any type of gun control Ordinance to be considered...you are right...there would have been a packed room of upset citizens.

My comments regarding Forman and Hagaman are my opinion which I stand by ... but you are free to see these two in another better light...we will agree again, to disagree. Politicians need to choose their battles if they wish to be effective...and this was a foolish plank to walk out on so early in the new year. The line from J.D. Salinger's 'Catcher in the Rye' is that 'one cannot go through life erasing all the fuck-yous off of bathroom walls' ... one needs to chose one's battles.

And for the record, I am not anti-hunter...I don't post my property and allow hunters on it every hunting season. Yet, I don't find the effort to set some kind of reasonable limit for safety reasons as to how close a gun can be fired next to a neighbor's home to be lacking merit...it is just politically -- at this moment in time, too divisive when there is so much other stuff on the table to be reworked after more than a decade of control by the other Party. I don't care what tune they play ... but this effort, at this time, needs to die...or other things like reworking the zoning to enlarge the acreage in various zones like the Forest that one would need to build in, will not occur. Hunters and environmentalist are most likely to be on the same side in the desire to protect and enlarge the forests of Mullica.

I was going to add some kind of commentary on the NRA, but will save that for another day...but did want to note that the majority in the South wanted slavery and segregation...that did not mean that elected leaders did not have an obligation to do the right thing against the wishes of the majority.