austinrealtor wrote:
Other than the concerns expressed above, I am thankful for Ms. Alice Tripp's lengthy and detailed account found via 06nop's link. She did a wonderful job explaining TSRA's side of things
I finally had time to read it, and found it rather lacking. She did not make an effective argument at all. Since Mr. Cotton was in on the conference call, perhaps he can explain it better, but Mrs. Tripp's argument seems to be: "Boedeker didn't say that to us, so it never happened."
She simultaneously posits that Boedeker wasn't an involved party at the Thursday meeting (it was between APD and the landlord),
and that he was the one who capitulated and agreed to all the restrictions. Or, at other times, she seems to argue that it was an issue between APD and the property itself, under nuisance statutes.
I don't see that she ever pointed out that a municipality is prohibited from circumventing the intent of the state preemption law: they can't use zoning or other laws to restrict ownership, possession, or sales of firearms, as APD did here (by threatening to shut down the show via nuisance laws).
Her counter to Boedeker's claim cites an APD officer who has worked door security at the Saxet shows for several years, who was only aware of one arrest, but no claims of illegal sales. I'm not sure what the point was; if her source was correct, then APD had no reason to pressure the show to restrict sales to FFLs.
I normally wouldn't comment on typos and misspellings, but since this is an official TSRA article, I do expect better: better writing, better editing, and better arguments.
I hope Mr. Cotton will weigh in. I respect his opinion a lot, and I find it hard to believe that he would stand by this article as written. (If he has other facts to add, that's a different matter.)