You don't know that...you are jumping to conclusions w/o any facts. The guy says he supports the 2nd amendment, whoppie-doopie. As he said, Obama says this too.
How does he stand on carry is the question .. the board does not consider the right to own assault weapons. Many people who own ARs support our horrible permit processes.
The rules do require at least one lawyer, you are correct on that point.
What has he done for CARRY? Nothing that I see. Maybe he has .. please let me know what he has done for CARRY. I objected to the requirement for the BR check fee, the need to include MV records, arrest information, etc. and have been successful in getting the objections heard and ruled upon (mostly in my favor). Your man did not.
And they railroad everyone ! You have not figured that out yet. How can a cop represent his town? He can't, it requires the town consul to appear, not a cop. I have not seen anyone object to this point and it is a very serious one that has multiple ramifications. In addition to the town consul needing to file an appearance, it also costs the town $$$ (more than a cop showing up so if a town wants to play their games then it will cost them $$) for the lawyer, and it helps to insure that someone may be held accountable for harassing people who should have had their permits issued long ago.
I have an objection to the town's questionnaire filing pending because the town did not file an appearance. This will be ruled upon. I'm sure the board will just say "that's the way we do it" and ignore case law -- even with 2 lawyers on the board.
So, before you say my opinions are off the wall, wait and see ...
So if you have facts to offer in respect to the guy not only being pro-2nd but being pro-carry and his ACTIONS to limit the garbage process that we get subjected to (a process that takes too long and that local authorities play games with and that the board plays games with) please provide them.
I have an open mind but I don't say ! hooray ! just because the guy has an AR. 2nd amendment issues are written in court opinions that are easily understood by most folks so a lawyer on the board is not needed to talk about the 2nd amendment-we have courts to do this.
I sat through several hearings when the only real question that the board should have examined is the appellant's gun rights (does he or does he not have them) instead of asking 10,000 irrelevant questions of a poor guy before them. The board acts like a second prosecutor even though Chapter 54 is very clear on what questions they can ask...and this is with at least one lawyer on the board...do you think that your man is going to offer up objections to his fellow board member's inquiries?
We'll see is all I'm saying (not seeing anything he did for carry or permit processes...).
I don't even think we need permits to carry. Keep and BEAR arms ... as the judge in the Moore v. Madigan case said.."what do you think bear means? Its not to carry in your home or on your property"...you should listen to the audio on the Illinois case ... that judge is humorous at times. So in this respect, your man and my opinion clearly differ (otherwise he would not be on the board).