Well, well, well. Yet another righteous righty-tighty at the foot of Pike’s Peak exposed as loving the naughty side of life.
This week, El Paso Sheriff Terry Maketa was caught with his pants down and shirtless-selfie on by the CS Gazette. Yup, that Terry Maketa. The guy who just loves guns and conservative values and guns and Republicans and guns and three women in his office and using public funds for stuff he, um, needs. Did I mention guns and refusing to uphold state law regarding gun registration because Maketa thought it was — immoral?
This is the guy who couldn’t say enough bad about our immoral Colorado community and how liberals were the problem and gun-grabbers were from hell and, well, this missive from the El Paso Sheriff’s Office homepage pretty much sums it all up:
We also need to be focusing on our children and the influences they are exposed to and who and what is shaping their conceptual and analytical skills. (Whatever the hell that means — DP) They should be exposed to positive role models that increase their respect and appreciation for human life. They should not be consumed with influences or activities that devalue a human life….Instead of the Federal Government, mainly Congress, continuing to engage in activities of which they have no authority and erodes our constitutional rights, we should focus on criminals and those who are most likely to commit acts of violence and not target the law abiding patriots of our nation.
Read Gazette reporter Dave Phillips very long and very damning story here. then decide whether Maketa is the kind of role model he had in mind. Pretty easy to see why Maketa is so interested in making sure he’s always armed, because clearly, he’s dangerous.
— Dave Perry, editor
lol…love it!!!….its a sigh of relief to know that the rest of
Colorado realizes what us progressive thinkers in springs have been
putting up with for years…yes we are truly surrounded by i d i o t s
“…please “pray” for us
Um… you might want to re-write your spleen venting OpEd. There is no gun registration in Colorado.
Dave Perry,
If you can’t even manage to correctly specify the Colorado law that Maketa said he would not enforce, then why the hell should we pay any attention to your tabloid bad mouthing of people?
I’m kind of confused. Since when have sheriffs been given the authority to determine whether or not a law is or isn’t constitutional, whereby refusing to enforce the rule of law. I must of fallen asleep when they were able to ignore and overrule the legislative branch then grandstand in front of a camera declaring they collectively deemed the law unconstitutional and void until an actual Court, possibly years down the road, agrees with them. But if the Court disagrees with a street deputies ruling what happens next? Succession and civil war over background checks at a gun show and a limit of 15 rounds per magazine? Why are sheriffs even involved in this issue? Would those new laws somehow jeopardize public safety and increase crime? Also, the 2nd Amendment states in the first few words of the 200+ year old amendment that the arms are for WELL REGULATED militias. Do sheriffs now operate local militias?
And why is some complete and utter lying sociopath so concerned about the 2nd Amendment when he could careless about his employees 1st, 4th, and 5th
Lance, your confusion is excusable. Perhaps thorough reading of the law might help; perhaps not. Regardless the County Sheriff is charged with upholding the Constitution of the USA. Laws the sheriff considers as a violation of the Constitution cannot be upheld by the same. This is why nearly all of Colorado’s County Sheriffs have united against the state statutes. (Don’t fall asleep next time; pay attention and you may not look as ignorant).
As for the 2nd Amendment, you are partially correct. The right to bear arms is guaranteed to citizens in part for the purpose of maintaining a ‘well regulated militia.’ However the presence of or lack of that ‘well regulated militia’ in no ways invalidates the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms.’ SCOTUS has said so.
Finally as to our Sheriff down here, I concur with your sentiment IF the allegations are true. It would seem that he is a liar and a narcissist at the very least, and potentially a criminal with regards to his workplace discrimination and the possible misappropriation of funds and malfeasance. Hopefully the entire truth of the matter will be exposed. And in that you answered your own question; a liar is likely also a hypocrite. There is your why.
What law? This is none.
I get they take an oath to support the constitution. The is/was a publicity stunt. The court already told them, as sheriffs, they have no standing, right, or authority to challenge (in Court) the law.
If they were true strict constitutionalist they what take the amendment at face value. The reason it was written and the context of what the authors meant (and wrote) were state rights to have armed militias. This Country took that stance as well for many, many, many, decades.
And excuse the typos. Once I paste it won’t let me edit (my iPad).
I understood your point despite the typos. iPhones, iPads, Kindles and other tablets exist to frustrate web surfers and writers.
But after the revolution they were simply individual citizens with arms who could be called up at a moment’s notice to serve in a militia. Again, SCOTUS has declared that the absence of a militia does not counter the amendment. Your reason sounds nice but it is not borne out by legal precedent.
You need to re-read the Second Amendment. Nothing in it says that arms are just for the well regulated militia. In fact, it specifically says it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms.
Maybe you ought to re-read it and open your mind.
Are going to start foaming at the mouth and flinging insults like most.
The 2nd Amendment as written authorized: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment’s sentence structure is clear not just the context. Look at the sentence structure. The 2nd Amendment was the right of the states to arm their militias and for those members to maintain arms. But, “gun right” right supports only want to focus on the information after the comma. The information after the comma supports the actual sentence.
The 2nd Amendment was view for a 100 years plus decades as pertaining to what it says, armed militias. It was never viewed, meant for, or pertained to individual rights. Between 1876 and 1939 the Supreme Court refused to rule that the amendment protected individual rights outside of militias
1) I have not flung any insults at you.
2) What part of the sentence structure is confusing you? The first 13 words are a construct called an absolute phrase, IOW a participial phrase with an object that is not the subject of the clause to which the phrase is attached. Such phrases stand outside the grammar of the clause to which they are are attached and do not create, modify, or restrict the subject of that clause. Instead, they act adverbially via the predicate of the clause to provide non restrictive background information regarding the action. Non-restrictive phrases are offset by commas as in the case in the Second Amendment. In simpler terms, the first thirteen words do not create the right or tell us when the right exists, they give us one reason the pre-existing right is to be protected.
As for who has the right, the subject of the clause is modified by the prepositional phrase “of the people” telling us exactly who has the right and then clarified by the appositional phrase “to keep and bear arms” telling us exactly what the right is. Nowhere in the sentence does it say the right or the militia to keep and bear arms.
Think of it this way, “A well regulated engine being necessary to the operation of an efficient vehicle, the right of the people to keep and use tools shall not be infringed.” This sentence has exactly the same structure. To read this sentence the way you read the Second, the sentence means that engines have the right to keep and use tools.
The above is not just my view, but the view of dozens of professors of English and linguistics from colleges and universities across the US including UCLA, Stanford, BYU, etc. and even from Oxford in the UK. Don’t believe what I wrote? Go ask one for yourself.
Of all the US Supreme Court cases issued since the beginning of the country, they have referred to and quoted from the Second Amendment/right to arms more than 40 times and in all but one instance their opinion supported the individual right reading of the Second.
BTW, the right of the states to militias was spelled out in the Constitution itself.
Also, most cases that went before the US Supreme Court were challenges against state or local laws. Until the adoption of the selection incorporation policy of the US Supreme Court in the 1940s, the US Supreme Court held that the first 8 amendments were only restrictions on the federal government and could not be applied as restrictions on state and local governments, therefore it routinely held that there was no standing to challenge a state firearm law in federal court.
Ummm…. No. It’s is a dependant clause relying on the beginning of the sentence. It does not complete a thought. Why? Because it’s a dependant clause it is relying on the information before the clause (militias). Dependant clauses either modify the independent clause. If you don’t believe me go call
one of the people you listed.
The 2nd Amendment never was intended by our Fore
Father’s to do anything other than give the states the right to form and maintain a militia. Just read history and case law if you don’t believe what the 2nd Amendment actually says. It’s clear as mud. The Courts, until 2008, saidthe same thing.
1875- Cruikshank ruled the 2nd Amendment was
meant to restrict the federal government from infringing on state rights to
regulate guns.
1940- (Miller) 2nd Amendment preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia.
Justice Burger- 2nd Amendment meant for a
well-regulated militia.
I could go on and on. Read factual history leading up to 1790 thru 1940. You and many other fervent gun people, and the Court in (Heller), were duped.
“Ummm…. No. It’s is a dependant clause relying on the beginning of the sentence.”
OK, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. First, I was explaining the beginning of the sentence IOW the first 13 words. Somehow you got side tracked to the last 14 words.
Second, a dependent AKA subordinate clause can only exist with an independent clause. Therefore, you would be arguing that the first 13 words are an independent clause. Two serious problems with that.
1. A clause has a predicate and a predicate requires an action or finite verb. There is no predicate nor action/finite verb in the first 13 words.
2. An independent clause can stand on its own without any dependent clauses. The first 13 words cannot stand on their own. In fact, on their own they would be considered a fragment.
Therefore, the first 13 words are not a clause, independent or otherwise and thus the last 14 words cannot be a dependent clause.
Now, if you were trying to claim that first 13 words are a dependent/subordinate clause, a very common mistake, you would still fail. One reason you would fail is #1 above. The other reason you would fail is the lack of a subordinating word such as “since” or “because”. In other words, the first 13 words would have to be written “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state”. And even then, the sentence would still read the same way previously detailed, not creating, modifying, or limiting the subject of the independent clause, but rather giving one reason why the pre-existing right is not to be infringed.
I have discussed the sentence construction with dozens of bona fide experts in English, grammar, and linguistics and universally they have rejected the dependent/subordinate clause idea.
You are correct. I made an assumption without referring back to the actual text. A major brain fart. I had in my mind the first part was an independent clause (complete sentence).
Regardless, the argument doesn’t change. Refer to what it says, history, and case law just as the Supreme Court confirmed in 1939.
Since I can’t sleep due to gout I will continue. The reality is you and I will never agree. One site site one side and the gun rights site says another.
To help, study why the 2nd Amendment was written. It’s crystal clear. To me and many others, by courts for 100 years plus decades read the amendment for what it said and what it meant. I honestly cannot grasp why any person thinks the end of the sentence is different from the first.
Below are some creditable sources (Law Library of Congress and USLA.
EXCUSE SPACING
And this site sucks with an iPad
In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.
Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.
Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. Several of the post-Miller lower court opinions are discussed here (PDF).
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
UCLA law School
(2) It was held that the second amendment of the constitution, declaring that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” was equally limited in its scope.
F. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894)
[Miller challenged a law banning the carrying of dangerous weapons on the person.] In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts. And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court.
I. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900)
The Court concluded that the Jury Trial Clause wasn’t incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus didn’t bound the states.] In Presser v. Illinois, it was held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear arms, is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. It was therein said, however, that as all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government the states could not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Both Presser and Cruikshank did not state that the Second Amendment only protected a right of the militia or a collective right. In fact, both of them support the individual right reading. What they did was exactly what I have explained a couple times now — state that the Second was only a restriction on the federal government, which was the situation for all of the first 8 amendments at the time. Same for Maxwell. This was another incorporation case and never said that the right was collective right.
Please, take some time and study up on 14th Amendment incorporation and the US Supreme Court adoption of selective incorporation. Then you will start to understand why your argument falls apart.
Prime example…. This is from Cornell and the NRA says the opposite….
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
Again, the idea that the court adopted a collective right reading in Miller is not correct and even just a couple years after Miller a circuit court said as much. You have to read more than a little snippet of the case. The “absence of evidence” was because Miller could not present any arguments, in fact, IIRC he was dead. Had he been able to present arguments, it would have been easily shown that such a firearm would be used as a combat arm. And again, the courts words focus on the firearm, not the right and based on the court’s statement, if it were formulating a general rule, then black powder muzzle loaders would not be protected by the Second Amendment and M-16 assault rifles would be. See my previous quote from the circuit court case. The Miller case was the closest the US Supreme Court ever came to endorsing the collective right reading, however, they stopped short of actually doing so. The other 38ish cases where the Supreme Court quoted or referred to the Second Amendment/right to keep and bear arms all support the individual right reading.
HINT: The reason I am so able to readily refute your claims is that I HAVE studied the case law, history, and grammar of the Second Amendment for a few decades. That is how I knew what I did about both Cruikshank and Miller.
I figured something was up. I do honestly believe, like many, the entire sentence refers to a militia. I’m not anti-gun, but when you look at history and what the amendment says, IMO, it leads to one conclusion.
Yep. One conclusion — that your position is incorrect.
“The 2nd Amendment never was intended by our ForeFather’s to do anything other than give the states the right to form and maintain a militia.”
Incorrect. The Constitution itself already gave the states that power, reiterating it with the Second Amendment would be unnecessary and redundant.
“Just read history and case law if you don’t believe what the 2nd Amendment actually says.”
Already have, which is why I know you are incorrect.
“1875- Cruikshank ruled the 2nd Amendment wasmeant to restrict the federal government from infringing on state rights to
regulate guns.”
Cruikshank was, as I mentioned, a case decided not on whether or not there was an individual right, but rather on whether the first 8 amendments restricted state and local governments. Please READ Cruikshank and you will see exactly what I am talking about. In fact, the Cruikshank decision is actually very supporting of the individual right reading and does not support the militia or collective right right one iota.
As for the Miller decision, please remember that Miller never made it to court and for the most part the court was disposing of the case in the “absence of evidence”. Had he been present, the usefulness of the firearm in a militia would have been easily affirmed. In fact, even directly following the Miller decision a Circuit court ins Cases vs US adamantly rejected that the US Supreme Court was formulating a general rule.
“Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called “Commando Units” some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,–almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,–is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result. Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line.”
As for the comments of Justice Berger, which were not in a decision, remember that this was the same guy who answered his door in his underwear and toting a revolver.
Sorry, but the only one who has been duped is you.
Well at least he’s honest and has great integrity. Plus he loves the Tea Party and the NRA.
Every good law enforcement leader ought to fight for guns rights (and family values). Ecan’t comprehend why any
Its good that they are investigating. Photo does not help.
At least Dave Phillips story was concise and well written based on the facts as he knows them. Yours was written from obvious glee about a man you obviously don’t like. Whatever Maketa’s illness is, his arrogance and any other moral issues he may have, he, his family and El Paso County now have to deal with. “We also have to be focusing on our children and the influences they are exposed to and who or what is shaping their conceptual and analytical skills. (Whatever the hell that means -DP) Are you seriously, as an editor saying that you don’t understand that sentence? That gives you even less credibility.
I have read better commentary from junior high school students. Does the Aurora Sentinel really consider this waste of x’s and o’s to be worthy of their publication? If so I know some elementary students who are better thinkers and better writers. Shall I have them submit an application for employment, Aurora Sentinel?
Hiistory is replete with scoundrels who were effective while wearing other hats. General David Petraeus comes to mind, as does presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and a few other people who couldn’t keep their pants zipped. Petraeus did the right thing by resigning. Bill Clinton survived his little soiree into the broom closet but still remains a tarnished (some might even say immoral) human being. It remains to be seen what Sheriff Maketa will do — at best the accusations have rendered him ineffective as a leader. In the meantime, it’s no surprise that people on the left launch ad hominem attacks at people they disagree with. What is surprising is that a newspaper editor would do it, although I suppose — since he’s from the Denver area — he couldn’t help himself. Keep your nose where it belongs, Editor Perry, and let The Gazette and El Paso manage what goes on in this part of the state.
And I’m not against “gun rights” But let’s get real. Is a 15 round limit and background checks at gun shows bad, unreasonable, or unconstitutional? If so, should we also allow the masses to own full automatic weapons, switchblades, bombs, M60, grenades? It’s the same argument: not infringed.
But again, no one wants to read the whole sentence. The amendment for a very long, long time meant what it said. 100 years and many decades later, we think the end of the sentence (after the comma) is it’s own subject. It was never viewed as such until the gun movement. We need to look at what was actually written and why.
We have an amendment for freedom of speech. Where are the constitution screamers when reasonable and rational people (courts) concluded it has restrictions.
A 15 rd limit is stupid, ineffective, and unenforceable. It is a feel good measure that does nothing but allow the misguided to feel like they accomplished something.
Background checks at gun shows have been the law of this state for many years now and were not the subject of any recent controversy.
Full-auto firearms are allowed. Switchblades should be allowed. Even explosives are allowed.
The whole sentence does not say what you mistakenly think it says. Your approach to the sentence structure fails even the most basic grammatical analysis.
Thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should read history and case law. The 2nd Amendent was meant for militias. Case law supports such, until 2007 or 2008. Read 1940 Miller v. US. They fully understood grammar just like everyone else before that ruling.
And yes, I got the gun show part wrong (should have been universal checks).
And no one cares what you think is or isn’t stupid. And no, you cannot just go pick up a full automatic. That was my point. Infringemen for one thing and not the other.
This was the law of the land until 2007 or 2008 when the Supreme Court changed everything in the Heller case. Below comes from the Supreme Court in 1939. They, like everyone from 1790 and 2007, understood how to read a sentence and what the amendment meant and why it was written.
######################################
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
And forgive any spacing errors due to my iPad.
Again, Miller did not set a general rule and even the Circuit courts recognized that almost immediately. If it had set such a rule, then M-16s would be protected and black powder muzzleloaders would not be protected.
Case law even before Heller overwhelming supports the individual right reading, not the collective right reading.
Full auto firearms are quite legal to own. Anyone in Colorado who is not prohibited from owning a firearm, be it a revolver, bolt action hunting rifle, or shotgun, can own a full-auto firearm. All it takes is filling out a special form and paying a $200 processing fee.
More darn infringement.
Only if you see any and all laws as “infringement”.
So…
If a sheriff in CO lets his personal problems affect his work, then every gun owner throughout the US is at fault?
PLEASE EXPLAIN……..
Dave.. Is this all you have? A selfie of a guy, who just happens to be conservative (in a conservative county), without his shirt on? Seriously? If you’re gonna go after the sheriff of El Paso County for not enforcing the recently passed, unconstitutional, anti-2nd Amendment laws in Denver (which has already cost two of your Dem buds in the state legislature being recalled), then you’d better get busy with your ad hominem rants, because over 50 other sheriffs in Colorado did the same thing! This is a pro-gun state, by and large. What Denver and Boulder do is not representative of the whole state. You really DO need to move to Boulder and work for the Daily Camera or something. You’d feel more at home with all your liberal, fascist, gun-hating, Christian-hating, BIG government loving, hippie friends. In case you’ve forgotten, there are a LOT of registered Republicans here in sunny Aurora, AND plenty of elected officials including the Mayor of this fine town (and his two predecessors), and oh.. Congressman Coffman (and his last two or three predecessors at least). Neighboring Centennial is even more Republican. And, they didn’t get elected, and re-elected by accident or some random fluke. So, you’d be wise to stop insulting so many of the Aurora Sentinel’s readers with your sophomoric rants.
A selfie and numerous text messages. Read the linked Phillips article — it is pretty damning and far more factual and better written than the OpEd drivel written by Dave Perry.
Thanks for calling this out. We Who Live in El Paso County And Aren’t Nuts are not used to our “newspaper” speaking the truth about anything, so it’s great to see that good sense prevails elsewhere.