[JP4]

I have never been to a meeting like this before. It wasn't quite what I expected but it was interesting. There was a lot of weasel behaviour going on. I recall reading earlier that this statement had to jump through several hoops to make it to this process, and yet when it came time do discuss it it was immediately up for amendment. Is that how it is supposed to work? If that is the case, what is the point of having a committee recommendation?

As to the language being changed from no confidence to opposes because no confidence could be used in an election - isn't that the point? Opposes allows the sheriff to continue on with the "Aw shucks, I am just following the law" approach.

I was disturbed that Don Dauscher (sp?) came out and said he was a lawyer and law professor and then putting forward a very one sided version of Heller and Nordyke. His version of these cases was not rebutted.

I listened to Anderson talk about good cause and make it seem like the sheriff was being very fair and that she was just following the law. I had never met him before and I found myself thinking that if what he was saying was true, then he himself was violating the law when he signed the renewal of my now intended to be revoked as of April 13 CCW. He didn't comment on his own time as acting sheriff and how he applied the policy.

The pro speakers did a good job in focusing on the larger picture which I appreciated. More so because the first hour of the meeting focused on rebuilding the party and the fact that a lot of people think the party doesn't represent their values anymore.

In the end it looked to me like it was a vote between those who wanted to send a message the party platform on the second amendment means something and those that were more concerned about the election chances of a party candidate regardless of her adherence to a party platform.

I am very thankful that the people involved took the time to bring this issue up and keep it alive.