Hatboro to vote on Lost and Stolen

[Kb! Bob]

Any word on the Hatboro vote??

[c3prret]

No vote, no nothing right now. Wasn't on the agenda tonight. They were asked what happened to it, Not exactly sure what they said but something about "propoganda" and the bill.

[son of the revolution]

No vote, no nothing right now. Wasn't on the agenda tonight. They were asked what happened to it, Not exactly sure what they said but something about "propoganda" and the bill.

Huh ?

Are the minutes of the meeting available ? Or will they be shortly ? I'd really like to understand the context of that statement. All though I suspect the "propaganda" their refering to is going to be attributed to the Pro 2A Crowd, afterall we all know the Anti Gunners are all saintly paragons of virtue and honesty and would NEVER stoop to such disengenious things

[c3prret]

When it was brought up at the end I was about braindead from the earlier discussions. It was removed from the agenda I believe on Friday. They did use "propoganda" but I got the impression that it was the part where it doesn't do anything. The minutes as far as I can guess have to be requested under freedom of information. Will try in a couple days.

[-JD-]

Theoretically, they should be posted here: http://www.hatborogov.com/council_minutes.html, but they are already months behind.

[Dannytheman]

No vote, no nothing right now. Wasn't on the agenda tonight. They were asked what happened to it, Not exactly sure what they said but something about "propoganda" and the bill.

Great to have you on board.. Can you call your borough office and inquire to where it sits? The Borough Secretary should be helpful.

[shiloh]

I doubt if you'll see anything in the meeting minutes about this. As c3prret said, this proposed ordinance was removed from the agenda before the meeting, at the request of Mayor Norm Hawkes, who had originally proposed it. Council VP Nancy Guest told me Hawkes pulled it off the agenda because the mayor knew a majority of council was opposed to it and he didn't want it to publicly fail. He tried instead to get council to pass a "compromise" resolution requesting the state Legislature to address this issue, but that was only proposed on Sunday for last night's meeting, and again, a majority of Council saw that for the propaganda from MAIG that it was, and so Hawkes withdrew that from the agenda as well. Nancy Guest told me she will never vote for an ordinance like this and neither will a majority of the council.

Council members also have gotten a lot of calls and letters from people opposed to the ordinance -- including, I'm sure, lots of folks from this board. So thanks to everyone who helped get this defeated, and to the majority of Council members for refusing to support it. Hope it does not see the light of day again, but it may -- will have to keep working on Hawkes to stop his MAIG nonsense.

[son of the revolution]

I doubt if you'll see anything in the meeting minutes about this. As c3prret said, this proposed ordinance was removed from the agenda before the meeting, at the request of Mayor Norm Hawkes, who had originally proposed it. Council VP Nancy Guest told me Hawkes pulled it off the agenda because the mayor knew a majority of council was opposed to it and he didn't want it to publicly fail. He tried instead to get council to pass a "compromise" resolution requesting the state Legislature to address this issue, but that was only proposed on Sunday for last night's meeting, and again, a majority of Council saw that for the propaganda from MAIG that it was, and so Hawkes withdrew that from the agenda as well. Nancy Guest told me she will never vote for an ordinance like this and neither will a majority of the council.

Council members also have gotten a lot of calls and letters from people opposed to the ordinance -- including, I'm sure, lots of folks from this board. So thanks to everyone who helped get this defeated, and to the majority of Council members for refusing to support it. Hope it does not see the light of day again, but it may -- will have to keep working on Hawkes to stop his MAIG nonsense.

Does this mean we get to chalk this one up in the WIN catagory for common sense and following the law as written ?

What I mean is, since CeaseFire PA likes to crow about the numbers of towns that have enacted this, what we need to do is start tabulating the towns that have rejected it. Particularly since Radnor is still an open question. If it starts getting out that X number of towns have supported L&S, while Y number have rejected it, it makes it much more difficult for CeaseFire to spin that its a " common sense measure " with full support of every municipality where its been brought up. It doesnt really matter if CeaseFire was actually involved in Hatboro or not. Whats important is that we start publicizing those municpalities that have rejected it so we start to achieve parity with CeaseFire's claims.

[shiloh]

Does this mean we get to chalk this one up in the WIN catagory for common sense and following the law as written ?

What I mean is, since CeaseFire PA likes to crow about the numbers of towns that have enacted this, what we need to do is start tabulating the towns that have rejected it. Particularly since Radnor is still an open question. If it starts getting out that X number of towns have supported L&S, while Y number have rejected it, it makes it much more difficult for CeaseFire to spin that its a " common sense measure " with full support of every municipality where its been brought up. It doesnt really matter if CeaseFire was actually involved in Hatboro or not. Whats important is that we start publicizing those municpalities that have rejected it so we start to achieve parity with CeaseFire's claims.

It's sure is a victory from where I sit, even though no formal rejection vote was taken. CeaseFire most definitely was involved in the Hatboro ordinance. According to the article posted at the beginning of this thread Hawkes was passing out CeaseFire propaganda when he proposed this ordinance. It is possible that this could be proposed again in the future, but at least four of seven Council members are solidly against it. So I'd say yes, let's chalk one up in the win column -- and keep working on others.

[NikeBauer21]

Does this mean we get to chalk this one up in the WIN catagory for common sense and following the law as written ?

What I mean is, since CeaseFire PA likes to crow about the numbers of towns that have enacted this, what we need to do is start tabulating the towns that have rejected it. Particularly since Radnor is still an open question. If it starts getting out that X number of towns have supported L&S, while Y number have rejected it, it makes it much more difficult for CeaseFire to spin that its a " common sense measure " with full support of every municipality where its been brought up. It doesnt really matter if CeaseFire was actually involved in Hatboro or not. Whats important is that we start publicizing those municpalities that have rejected it so we start to achieve parity with CeaseFire's claims.

That may be a key to success. People like to see numbers. It's time we start feeding them real, common-sense numbers. People believe all of the info the anti's feed them, so it's time they get some real numbers to feed on... and help put CF back a few steps.

I don't know what effect it would have, but it couldn't hurt from the way I see it.. Get a list of ones that either have not enacted anything (because they are smart enough and know better), or ones that have rejected it (because they realized they should know better, and it would be career murder)