Selectmen Continue To Drag Feet On Guns
5+ 8+ weeks, two five Selectmen’s meetings, and still no removal of Tamworth’s unlawful and unethical written threat to fire employees packing heat, so to speak, for self defense on town property.
Most recently, Selectman Willie Farnum stated that he still thinks the town policy is a legitimate and enforceable rule. When asked if he and the Board of Selectmen were willing and interested in pursuing defending their disarmament of New Hampshire residents through lengthy and expensive legal proceedings at the taxpayer’s expense, Farnum stated he would not be willing to go this route and the matter is apt to “be resolved in favor” of peaceful and responsible gun toting town employees. Farnum continued that had he known it was going to be such a contentious issue, he “probably wouldn’t have put that in there”. Farnum stated, rather vigorously, that the Selectmen have been busy with other matters for the past 5+ 8+ weeks and that’s why they haven’t taken care of the problem yet: busy with urgent government tasks including seizing a woman’s property from her, paying the town’s “welfare director”, and many tax levies to sign off on – give those Selectmen a break, they’ve got a lot on their plate for goodness sake!
Selectman John Roberts did not stick around after the meeting for the discussion, nor has he stated anything further on the matter publicly since his initial comments expounding upon how he views gun owners, who have never caused a problem, as a threat and a liability to the town, and at the subsequent Selectmen’s meeting, stating the matter would be reviewed at some vague point in the future. [Update: John Roberts reportedly stated to a reporter for the Carroll County Independent that the Selectmen would take up the issue again when Tom Abugelis returned back to being a full-time Selectman in October - as of this writing, it's October and Tom Abugelis is back at tonight's Selectmen's meeting] It is our understanding of town politics that folks inclined to vote for Willie Farnum would respond with incredulity as to why anyone, especially town employees, would need a gun at all. However, it would seem that John Roberts would have the most to lose, from a political perspective, by alienating his voters who have a sincere objection to politicians in positions of power and control that see gun owners as a threat and a liability, especially as he is willing to speak out publicly in support of restricting those gun owners in circumstances that he and the town government think they have control over.
What happens if Selectman Farnum, Selectman Roberts, and Police Chief Poirier think they control more than just town employees on town property in the future, as has shown to be the case in other big-government jurisdictions? Would peaceful and responsible gun owners be any less of a threat and a liability in their eyes? This is the crux of the issue, and if the Selectmen and Police Chief are going to hold the view that peaceful and responsible gun owners are a threat and a liability, they ought to at least think twice in the future about acting and speaking out upon these odd views – removing their unlawful employee policy would be a good first step towards showing they understand resident’s objections to their negative view of gun owners. Dodging the matter Reflecting upon the matter for 5+ 8+ weeks is a politician’s way of handling issues: either stick to your guns, fellows, and publicly state that the unlawful policy will be staying on the books, or bite the bullet, and remove it.