Hubbard mayor speading lies to deter people from carry guns into city library.

[Not A Victim]

http://whotv.com/2015/12/15/hubbard-will-note-vote-on-banning-guns-on-city-property/

Mayor Simmerman said it was a matter that had already been studied and no action was already determined before the Iowa Gun Owners came to Hubbard. The mayor said that the library is a gun-free zone due to the state law prohibiting guns near a school. He said the City will take no action to erect any signs, since the city is not involved in the issue.

Their exit no such law in Iowa. I'm guessing the law Simmerman is misinterpreting is the 1000 feet penalty enhancement zone. Somebody in Hubbard needs to challenge the mayor over this. If it were illegal to bring guns into the Hubbard city library then why wasn't the man who was found with 2 handguns on his person charged with anything?

 

[davidmcbeth]

An individual suffered a medical issue, and while this person was being treated it was discovered they were carrying two loaded handguns on their person. This caused concern on the library board and staff members about having guns in the library..from OP linked story, post #1

OK, these people should be fired immediately ! Public officials who have no regard for the rights of the public should not be public officials.

They have no right to their jobs...termination is the only solution for employees like this.

I'm assuming that the library is manned by public employees (unlike in CT where many libraries are actually private corporations).

I'm getting to have a hard-line viewpoint of public employees who have no respect for our rights.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Somebody in Hubbard needs to challenge the mayor over this.

How do you propose we challenge him? He's not erecting "no guns" signs, there was no ordinance proposed, and the person found with firearms on the property was not charged with a crime. All he did was make a stupid and demonstrably false statement to the press. That does not mean we should not inform him of his false statement, but other than that what means do we have to challenge him?

 

[BB62]

How do you propose we challenge him? He's not erecting "no guns" signs, there was no ordinance proposed, and the person found with firearms on the property was not charged with a crime. All he did was make a stupid and demonstrably false statement to the press. That does not mean we should not inform him of his false statement, but other than that what means do we have to challenge him?

(my bold above)

Well, according to the article: "The mayor said that the library is a gun-free zone due to the state law prohibiting guns near a school."

What do you do?

First, after making sure you're on solid legal footing, in an e-mail which you CC to all members of council, the city's top lawyer, and the reporter who posted the article - you ask the mayor for a clarification and/or retraction of his statement.

If he doesn't respond, you follow up, copying in those same people.

Assuming the mayor doesn't respond, or responds negatively, you go about organizing and publicizing (to the original reporter and to every other member of the media you can contact), an open and/or concealed carry event. Maybe it would be best for it to consist of just you and someone else walking into the library. You'll have to decide that - but choose wisely.

The point is, you can embarrass the Mayor and get press coverage putting the lie to his statement. After all, the reason for the event, which you will repeatedly make clear, is that the mayor refused to either back up (with a legal citation) or retract his untruthful statement.

 

[davidmcbeth]

How do you propose we challenge him? He's not erecting "no guns" signs, there was no ordinance proposed, and the person found with firearms on the property was not charged with a crime. All he did was make a stupid and demonstrably false statement to the press. That does not mean we should not inform him of his false statement, but other than that what means do we have to challenge him?

I challenge public officials who are elected: 1) on election day by working the polling places, 2) objecting to nominating petitions before the ballot is even made, 3) and by collecting documents and records that demonstrate that the elected official should not be in public office at all and providing access to these records to the public.

If you can change the election by 2-10% then you may have just kicked out the candidate from winning public office.

I do this and have done exit polling ... in my last election that I provided argument to the voters about a candidate's unsuitability, 7% of those I contacted changed their anticipated vote from the candidate I was there to object to to the candidate's opponent.

And I do not limit myself to those who are in my voting jurisdiction. If I see a race wherein I could see help to tip the scales to defeat an anti then I'll prepare and go to their polling places.

As to the subject matter of what I bring up to the voters, I do not speak to them about gun issues as most are set in their ways about their viewpoints on guns - so I seek out other issues that would resonate better with the voters. But I go after antis for the most part.

Going out and telling voters that this mayor misspoke on a gun issue will not sway too many voters. Show people that the mayor has a bunch of secret meetings and/or tries to hide public records is something that the voters are concerned about. Go for an issue that almost every voter would agree upon and show that the politician shows disdain regarding this issue then you'll have a good argument to make come election day.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

I challenge public officials who are elected: 1) on election day by working the polling places, 2) objecting to nominating petitions before the ballot is even made, 3) and by collecting documents and records that demonstrate that the elected official should not be in public office at all and providing access to these records to the public.

If you can change the election by 2-10% then you may have just kicked out the candidate from winning public office.

I do this and have done exit polling ... in my last election that I provided argument to the voters about a candidate's unsuitability, 7% of those I contacted changed their anticipated vote from the candidate I was there to object to to the candidate's opponent.

And I do not limit myself to those who are in my voting jurisdiction. If I see a race wherein I could see help to tip the scales to defeat an anti then I'll prepare and go to their polling places.

As to the subject matter of what I bring up to the voters, I do not speak to them about gun issues as most are set in their ways about their viewpoints on guns - so I seek out other issues that would resonate better with the voters. But I go after antis for the most part.

Going out and telling voters that this mayor misspoke on a gun issue will not sway too many voters. Show people that the mayor has a bunch of secret meetings and/or tries to hide public records is something that the voters are concerned about. Go for an issue that almost every voter would agree upon and show that the politician shows disdain regarding this issue then you'll have a good argument to make come election day.

And since these methods have worked SO WELL in Connecticut, keeping gun grabbers and other anti-freedom types from infesting the legislature and occupying city councils and town boards, preventing them from wreaking havoc on the laws of your state... now you're recommending that citizens of Iowa use the same methods there, as well???

Sure, Iowans need to challenge the mayor who said he's not going to pass any additional gun laws, by digging for dirt on him and making it public before the next election. Sounds like a winning strategy - I strongly urge all Iowans to do so, thus ensuring the benefits of unlimited freedom in a mostly rural state! (/sarc)

SMH...

 

[color of law]

An individual suffered a medical issue, and while this person was being treated it was discovered they were carrying two loaded handguns on their person. This caused concern on the library board and staff members about having guns in the library..from OP linked story, post #1

OK, these people should be fired immediately ! Public officials who have no regard for the rights of the public should not be public officials.

They have no right to their jobs...termination is the only solution for employees like this.

I'm assuming that the library is manned by public employees (unlike in CT where many libraries are actually private corporations).

I'm getting to have a hard-line viewpoint of public employees who have no respect for our rights.

True and I agree. But, I have tried to hold our trustees feet to the fire for years. With little success. 60,000 residents and two or three show at meetings. Typical public response is not in my backyard. In your neighbors backyard is OK. The why I look at it is the residents diverse everything they get. At least the trustees know I'm not the guy to mess with. I play for keeps.

 

[davidmcbeth]

And since these methods have worked SO WELL in Connecticut, keeping gun grabbers and other anti-freedom types from infesting the legislature and occupying city councils and town boards, preventing them from wreaking havoc on the laws of your state... now you're recommending that citizens of Iowa use the same methods there, as well???

Sure, Iowans need to challenge the mayor who said he's not going to pass any additional gun laws, by digging for dirt on him and making it public before the next election. Sounds like a winning strategy - I strongly urge all Iowans to do so, thus ensuring the benefits of unlimited freedom in a mostly rural state! (/sarc)

SMH...

Well, in the last election of members of the general assembly, I was able to swing the vote about 4% from an anti candidate to a pro candidate. The anti lost by about 3%.

But I get your point - CT is a major anti state. The loss of one in a sea of hundreds may not seem like much but it (the loss of an election) has had an immediate effect. Now all the members of the legislature refuse to provide the public their public records.

Which makes even more fodder on election day. I could go to any polling place during an election of a member of the assembly and provide the records showing that the candidate refuses to provide ANY public records that the member (or committees, committee clerks ~ they have claimed that any person involved with the legislature does not have to provide public records that they have to the public) has and refuses to show the public his/her public records no matter what the subject matter is.

And what polling place do I go to at 6am, when polls open? The polling place of the candidate. With my video camera rolling, I barrage the candidate with questions. Last time, the candidate just left the polling place about 3 minutes after arrival due to my posing questions with a camera in the candidate's face. Then I'm happy to play the recording voters who were interested in watching or listening to the encounter.

Even on election days when the ballot does not have members of the general assembly on the ballot, I am there informing people of members' refusal to comply with our state laws. Again, I go to the polling place of a politician with camera in hand ... when they go to vote, I'm there. So some voters get to hear the message more than once. I invite members of the public to call up the member and demand that they comply with our state laws. And many, when I contact them one-on-one agree to follow the law but then do an about face later.

 

[Tucker6900]

I wouldn't be too concerned with it. He can be as wrong as he wants, but unless the residents of that city decide he needs to go, he'll stay right where he is at.

On a side note, a nice open carry trip to the library should suffice to clear things up. They will do one of three things. Call the Sheriff, who will (or should) inform them that there is no law forbidding carry near a school. Call the Sheriff who will ask you to leave, and take it up with the mayor. Call the Sheriff, who will arrest you. I dont think you would even need a lawyer for your defense, as the law is pretty cut and dry. Then...payday.

Once the residents realize their mayor stole yet another $50K out of their pockets to pay for his mistake, they'll think twice about reelection.