Attacking public, Assembly set to pass ability to limit items, such as guns, flags, and even cardboard tombstones in its meetings


On the agenda for Tuesday’s Anchorage Assembly is an ordinance rewrite that gives the Assembly chair the right to prohibit items she deems to be a danger or distraction from the room where the Assembly meets.

Although not stated explicitly, this would mean that the chair could take away the American flags, or signs that sometimes people bring into the chambers to wave in protest, since clapping is not allowed. It could also mean she could prohibit firearms from being brought into the Assembly chambers. Currently, they are allowed on city property.

The chair could also prohibit the use of Guy Fawkes masks that some members of the audience are wearing to comply with the Assembly’s mask rule for its meetings. At the meeting illustrated above, the public brought cardboard tombstones for businesses that had been driven out of business by the former mayors’ lockdown orders in 2020 and 2021. These items could be ordered removed, under the proposed ordinance.

At a recent meeting of the Assembly, the leftist media and some Assembly members expressed horror when a man who was arrested for making a disturbance in an Assembly meeting was discovered to also be packing a sidearm. The ordinance gives broad authority to the chair to prohibit firearms or even belt knives worn by many working class men and women.

The agenda item is Ordinance No. AO 2021-117, “an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 Rules of Procedure for Assembly to codify additional Rules of Procedure for the Assembly and Presiding Officer to promote the efficient, safe and orderly conduct of Assembly business, Assembly Chair LaFrance, Assembly Vice-Chair Constant and Assembly Member Perez-Verdia . 14.B.1. Assembly Memorandum No. AM 771-2021.”

The ordinance gives the chair the right to change the seating chart, and this action is seen as a direct hit at Mayor Dave Bronson.

In past meetings, Chairwoman Suzanne LaFrance has attempted to remove Bronson from the upper dais, where he has a bulletproof guard around him, to a lower level.

Symbolically as much as physically, this would place him beneath her and without the kind of protection she enjoys. It would also allow the Assembly to observe over his shoulder what he is reading or the conversations he is having with his staff during the meeting.

The ordinance also allows the chair to shut down Assembly members who are making what she sees as “dilatory” motions, points or order, or requests for information. This section of the ordinance is clearly aimed at Assemblywoman Jamie Allard, an outspoken conservative who typically has many audience members in her corner during meetings. Allard has used motions, points or order, questions, and other techniques to bring out important points, much to the irritation of the nine liberal members of the Assembly.

The revised ordinance language says:

The chair shall have the authority to make rulings, subject to being overruled by vote of the assembly, to promote the efficient, safe and orderly conduct of Assembly business. That authority shall include:page2image1029417632page2image1029417984

Establishment of a seating chart, arrangement of chambers. The chair shall have the authority to establish a seating chart for individuals participating in an Assembly meeting, and to prescribe how the physical space of a premise used for an assembly meeting may be used.

Prohibited items. The chair shall have the authority to prohibit members of the public from bringing dangerous or distracting items to Assembly premises, or to require an item to be removed from Assembly premises if it is being used to create an actual disturbance.

Removal for actual disturbance. The chair shall have the right to order a person to be removed from a meeting for creating an actual disturbance to the meeting.
Direction to security. The chair shall have the right to direct security guards at Assembly chambers, in furtherance of Assembly meeting purposes.

Signage. The chair shall authorize signage posted at Assembly meetings, related to the Assembly meeting.
Safety rules. The chair may adopt rules to promote the safety of members and attendees of assembly meetings.

Dilatory motions, points of order, and requests for information. The chair shall rule out of order motions, points of order, and requests for information that are dilatory. 
Non-germane requests for information. The chair shall rule that a request for information is out of order if it is not germane to the pending motion or public hearing.

Recess. The chair may temporarily recess a meeting for convenience, to restore order, or to resolve a technical issue. Committee assignments. The chair shall appoint assembly members to subcommittees of the assembly, and appoint a member to chair, or members to co-chair, each subcommittee. Office assignments. The chair shall assign members office.

Read the ordinance at this link.

The entire agenda is at this link.

The meeting starts at 5 pm on the ground floor of the Loussac Library. It can be watched, with difficulty, at the Assembly’s YouTube channel.



AO 2021-117

Page 3 of 16page3image1029363968

Direction to municipal clerk. The chair shall provide direction to the municipal clerk.

2 12.


  1. Why do we have rules in public places? Because immature clowns abuse their privileges and can’t handle acting civil like adults. This is nothing new. The clowns will cry about their freedumbs, only to exemplify the very things they protest.

    • So, John, you feel that members of the public protesting the overreaching and onerous mandates of an out-of-touch, radically extremist assembly is “abusing their privileges”? Like, maybe the “privileges” of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and being able to petition their government regarding grievances? Those are not ‘privlegese”, John, those are RIGHTS — or used to be rights, anyway, before your communistic woke bedfellows declared war on everything decent, honest and rational.
      What a pathetic and cringe-worthy apology for the ass-embly’s official abuse of power, and the obvious demonstration of tyrants fearful of the righteous anger of the peasants over whom they lord their increasingly capricious and unfettered power. But like all abusers and their co-dependents, John, you attempt to victim-blame those who stand up for their themselves. You clearly have no shame whatsoever.

      • JEFFERSON, it is you who has no shame. You support wearing full-face Guy Fawkes masks when conservative crazies wear them. This is done while they — and you — decry wearing a mask that covers ONLY nose and mouth.

        However, when anti-Authoritarians like Anonymous and Antifa wear those same masks you shriek “Communists,” “radical extremists;” thereby wallowing in your fetid, false rhetoric — like a pig in mud.

        You, Jefferson, sit atop the absolute apex of authoritarian hypocrisy.

        • Sophie,
          As usual, your reply is nonsensical and purely emotive, without any rationality or logic.
          Yes, I support protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks, IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. That is the difference between them, myself and you, Sophie: the element of choice, of freedom. You, on the other hand, are the only one trying to MANDATE your choices onto everyone else. Your political agenda is purely one of coercion.
          Moreover, I would not condemn violent rioters like BLM and so-called ANTIFA (who are actually NOT “anti-fascist”, but purely fascist themselves) for wearing masks — I would condemn and have condemned them for their intolerant, their violence, and their wholesale destructive rioting that resulted in hundreds of burned and looted businesses and governmental buildings last year.
          So actually, Sophie it is you and your irrational and hysterical radical leftist brethren who sit at, and literally define, the apex of hypocrisy and tyranny. The evil that you represent needs to be purged from this earth, or civilization itself is doomed, much less freedom.

          • JEFFERSON: Once again, your raging Faux-Choice hypocrisy illuminates the evil, inhuman, nihilistic, narcissistic, UNPATRIOTIC posture and acts you and your monstrous cohort inflict on American society and human civilization.

            Your positions on vaccine mandates, reproductive rights, and gun control nakedly display the gnarled, deformed, dishonest philosophy buttressing your Authoritarian beliefs — from your OWN hand:
            “..the element of choice, of freedom…[?] …[y]ou, … are the only one trying to MANDATE your choices onto everyone else. Your political agenda is purely one of coercion.”

            As far as you’re concerned, the right to control one’s body and health; the right to secure the safety of self and family from endemic random acts of kinetic violence resulting in the mass murder of American progeny is the province of extreme right-wing, White, male America. ALONE.

            No others have entitlement to the SAME “choice,” the SAME “freedom.” We must do as bid, lest we ‘be purged from this earth…”

            You, Jefferson, exemplify negative transference. Serious therapy is necessary.

          • Sophie,
            Your rambling, completely nonsensical, and entirely incoherent diatribe above is so fundamentally irrational that there is no logical way in which to respond to it, other than to say that I deeply pity you and your ragingly intolerant and self-righteous delusions.

      • So Jeff, you are accusing 9 assembly members, duly elected and some having repelled recalls, of being tyrannical when they push back against the hooligan actions of Bronson, Demboski, and others. That sounds like democracy, not tyranny. None of what the assembly is doing will prevent anyone from exercising their privileges, and they are privileges duly granted to us by our government, they will simply have to do it in a respectful and appropriate manner instead of attempting to try to highjack assembly meetings, thereby depriving everyone else from exercising their same privileges.
        Yours is an elitist position that says only those with whom I agree should be heard.

        • “So Jeff, you are accusing 9 assembly members, duly elected and some having repelled recalls, of being tyrannical when they push back against the hooligan actions of Bronson, Demboski, and others. That sounds like democracy, not tyranny.”
          I cannot speak for Jeff, but in my opinion the issue is not pushing back against hooligans. It is arbitrarily vesting power in a single individual without any test of reasonableness applied. It is allowing the Assembly Chair the power to cut off testimony at a whim if they feel it is “dilatory.” And, what standard is presented to determine what is dilatory and what is not? (HINT: There is none, it is at Chair discretion).
          Can the Assembly Chair read my mind? Do they have an advanced copy of the testimony I am presenting? No to both questions, but if they do not want to hear from me, they can cut my testimony short simply because I did not immediately get to the point.
          There is no test of reasonableness applied either. The Chair can choose to expel someone from the chamber for any act they (and they alone) determine to be disruptive. Disruption could be physical actions, noise, or simply wearing clothing the Assembly chair does not like.
          Where is the opportunity to challenge the decision of the Chair? (HINT: It does not exist.)
          Giving a single individual unlimited authority to determine who can testify at an Assembly meeting, or what they can bring into the meeting, or what they can wear is tyrannical. Giving a single individual the ability to stop testimony before the speakers point is made it tyrannical.
          You talk about democracy like the US, AK, or Anchorage have a democracy. We do not. And, I thank my lucky stars every day for that. There is no difference between a democracy and mob rule. When 50.01% of the voters get to impose their will on the remainder of the population, it is mob rule.
          Yours is a position of naiveté, optimistically assuming the people we elect are never going to abuse the authority provided them.
          Last question for you HE. Would you still be defending this if Dave Bronson or Amy Dembroski were Assembly Chair instead of in the Mayor’s office? Please be honest.

        • Homo, you display your profound ignorance yet again, as well as your statist political brainwashing, by trying to equate fundamental rights with mere “privileges”. The right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to petition one’s government are not “privileges.” they are rights, and are certainly not “granted” by government, but inhere in all of us by virtue of our nature.

          • Tell the people of China, Russia, Belarus, etc. etc. that these privileges are “rights” when in those places the only ones who have “rights” are those who hold power. Tell that to black people in the deep south, or immigrants from Muslim countries, or single mothers who are struggling to keep their heads above water.
            They are privileges granted to us by the laws that govern our nation. You might think they are God given, but try taking that up with the Politburo. Or, if you’re black, any local Sheepdip, Alabama county sheriff.

      • Protest is great. Violent threats, incivility, and general disruption of the public process is not welcome. And has no place in our government. If you want to have a tantrum, feel free to play in traffic. See how well the drivers respect your act.

      • I think he meant with rights come responsibilities. Disruption for disruption’s sake doesn’t accomplish much in the way of showing how we respect each other’s a civilized society. If we didn’t have any rules of order, it devolves into anarchy and chaos. I daresay stepping up to the podium without the props will go a lot further in influencing the listener than what might be perceived as an attempt at intimidation. Vots the current ones out if you don’t like their policies. But leave the dog and pony show at home where you are certainly free to act out to your heart’s content with no government interference. In public places rules are in place to protect everybody’s rights, not just the disruptors.

    • OF WHICH RULES ARE YOU SPEAKING? Robert’s Rules (for private clubs), Mason’s Manual for keeping meetings Constitutional and approved by Alaskans and/ or the US Constitution? Are they all identical?

      • So the Congress of the United States of America is a “private club” to you and your ilk?

        You make it harder and harder by the moment to trust my fellow Alaskans.

        If not for the Constitution and its establishment of the three pillars of our republic — (Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive) — there would be no democracy. We would still be under a monarchy.

        That’s really what you want, though:
        “One Nation, under White Spureme Authoritarian Rule.”

          • Public forum, G. If you don’t THE truth and REAL facts because I easily turn your own words and beliefs against — then you should leave. It WILL happen again.

        • I’m sorry. You seem to think we live in a democracy?
          We do not, and thank God for that. The difference between democracy and mob rule depends on what side of the decision you support. What if 50.01% of the population of Anchorage voted to confiscate all of Sophie’s assets, and throw her into the Inlet? Would that be OK with you because it is a decision made democratically?
          No, we live in a representative republic. Our elected officials are there to represent the wishes of their constituents. And, if they do not represent those wishes for a significant enough of them, they get removed from office.
          And, yes, Congress is now a “private club.” It ceased to be true representatives of the people when they started paying them to be politicians.

          • CBMTTek — Be careful:

            The statement, “And, yes, Congress is now a “private club.” It ceased to be true representatives of the people when they started paying them to be politicians,” shows — irrespective of your insistence –you don’t know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Specifically, a constitutional republic under Lockean democratic principles (“American democracy” for short) and a representative republic, as established under a ruling Roman Senate — allegedly chosen by the people — before Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

            Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials sworn to protect their interests.

            In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
            In a pure republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

            Therefore, the United States, while a republic, is best described as a representative democracy with constitutional restraints of Senate and Judiciary,” or a federal presidential republic with the aforementioned constitutional restraints.

            [I]f we can keep it.”
            — Benjamin Franklin

          • Sophie:
            You make a lot of assumptions about what I know and what I do not know. Mind reading really is not your strong point.
            Yes, Congress has become a private club. Regardless of the sources you cite. Spend some time working on Capital Hill. The “representative democracy with constitutional restraints of Senate and Judiciary,” you mention can exist, and Congress can be a private club simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive.
            While I think it is VITAL that you get educated, you also need to raise your nose out of the books and take a look around. The difference between a liberal and a conservative is the liberal wants to live in the world the way is “should” be, and the conservative lives in the world the way it really is.
            And, our so-called elected representatives have ceased to represent us. It is not because of money, power, influence… etc… it is because of the rules that Congress has placed on how they go about their business. Either become an insider of the private club, or get Marjorie Taylor Green’d.

  2. I do not believe the Assembly has the authority to stop someone from carrying a handgun into the chambers. From the classes I’ve taken for my concealed carry permit, the lawyers have stated that they cannot override or tighten the State’s law; only Federal and State buildings are prohibited from carry concealed. Same goes for any business in town even if they post a sign banning firearms. They can ask you to leave if they find one and then you must or be trespassed.

    • JJ: I hope your assessment of the Assembly’s authority is wrong, but I’m not doubting you. Handguns should not be allowed at Assembly meetings. Its obvious to see why. Far-right conservatives (like commenters here) HATE the Assembly. Far-right conservatives probably lean toward supporting the private militia like Oathkeepers. Angry, arrogant and anti-government men and women with handguns seething in the audience at a liberal-leaning Anchorage Assembly frightens the hell out of me.

      • “the private militia like Oathkeepers. Angry, arrogant and anti-government men and women with handguns seething in the audience at a liberal-leaning Anchorage Assembly”…
        Ha ha ha! Thanks for that entertainment. Love the adjectives and verbiage there.

      • Evan, I pack a Glock whenever I venture into Los Anchorage. I do so for many reasons, but not the least of which is that it is my right to do so. How does that grab you? As for your ignorant rant concerning “Far Right” leanings, perhaps you should take some time away from your anthropological editing gig and read just a bit of Madison’s Copious Notes and further your understanding of the genius of our Constitution. Sadly Evan, you appear to be scared by many things, being afraid of patriotic Americans should not be one of them. You might however want to gain a healthy fear of totalitarians.

        • Schenker: Good advice about taking some time away from my anthropological editing gig cuz there’s like zero income. Oh well. You know what, I AM afraid of some things; you among them because if I walked by your Wasilla compound and triggered the motion sensors, I might get shot, cuz, you know, freedom and liberty and all that.

          • Evan, I do not live in Wasilla.
            As for motion sensors we are pretty low tech, my English Springer Spaniel , Max might greet you with some barking, which is his way of saying welcome.
            We believe in Liberty, justice and the code of the west out here Evan. You are welcome to drop by anytime and visit.
            M is cooking a batch of Christmas Cookies 🍪 , come on out and let’s have a frosting party! Maybe even a nip or some Baily’s and coffee.
            Merry Christmas 🎅 Evan!

      • Stop projecting. Millions of conservatives carry millions of guns every day and hurt no one. Just because you have violent tendencies doesn’t mean we do.

        • I’ve got news for you: millions of liberals carry guns. We don’t fetishize them like conservatives.

          We don’t pass off automatic weapons and semi-auto rifles and guns as “weapons of sport” so we can justify owning weapons of warfare. Weapons specifically engineered to destroy another human being ON A BATTLEFIELD.

          Second Amendment liberals respect the Constitution AND human life.. That respect underlies the purpose of Gun Control legislation: To save the lives of the BORN. Born children who now must learn “active shooter”drills from kindergarten throughout their educational years — including university. All because you conservative gun lunatics want your weapons of war.

          You call yourselves “pro-life?” If your gun-loving pose weren’t so ironically disgusting in its far-reaching, life-destroying implications and results, it might be laughable.

          • “We don’t fetishize them like conservatives.”
            Neither do conservatives. At least none that I ever met.
            “Weapons specifically engineered to destroy another human being ON A BATTLEFIELD.”
            You mean like shotguns?

          • One example of hundreds Sophie.
            Please tell me, what item that can be used as a weapon was not created for battlefield use, specifically to destroy the enemy? Knives? Maybe, but cutting tools as we know them today exist because of war, not because of chefs. Hammers? Nope, stone age tool. First ones were certainly used to kill others, not to build.
            Engineers got their name because they build siege and battle engines. War machines.
            In fact, almost every advance in human history happened because of conflict, actual or potential, between enemies.

          • CBMTTEK: Quite a specious argument you make. It’s on the level of “Do you believe transistors responsible for murders and suicides corresponding to cyberstalking?” Technology is and will ever be a two-edged sword.

            I lived in the very real world of federal politics for many years. I worked in the White House, drafting briefing material for President Clinton, working to advance Secretary (First Lady) Clinton’s health care legislation, the 1994 Crime Bill, and the successful nomination of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court. After leaving the White House, I worked in positions where I drafted leading-edge critical infrastructure legislation that our Congressional delegation passed to great effect for Alaska. Critical infrastructure with ongoing importance to both Alaskans and the Department of Defense.

            My nose has been “out of the books” and working for the betterment and well-being of Alaska my entire working life.

          • That was one of the more ignorant comments ever posted here. Bolt actions were weapons of war by design, but are now the most common hunting rifles. Semi autos are not weapons of war used by any military. Full autos are! Are you that thick???

          • CHUCK: Why, no. As a matter of fact, I’m swimmingly slender, thank you. You, however, have a HUGE molasses problem…”Thick” enough in which you’ll drown.

            The M4 Carbine, a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle, is the STANDARD weapon of the U.S. Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (based at Fort Wainwright and other Armed Services’ core fighting brigades during the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. The M4A1, fully automatic assault rifle has been used by the SEAL teams and other Special Ops Forces since introduced in 1994. Glock 19, Sig Sauer P226, and the HK45C are all SEMI-AUTOMATIC handguns in use by core combat and JSOC personnel.

            Hope that molasses washes off (not really) — Tough luck, CHUCK…

          • “CBMTTEK: Quite a specious argument you make. It’s on the level of “Do you believe transistors responsible for murders and suicides corresponding to cyberstalking?” Technology is and will ever be a two-edged sword.

            Oh… you worked in the Clinton WH. So? Does that somehow make you an expert on any topic in any way?
            Glad to see you worked on the 1994 Crime Bill. That is the one that resulted in a significantly higher number of blacks getting incarcerated. Well done. (HINT: Talking about your failures does not make your argument more powerful.)
            “…specious argument…”
            OK, prove what I said wrong then. Please demonstrate where the overwhelming majority of advances did not come out of warfare and/or defense?
            Again, pointing out an exception does not disprove the rule. Provide an overwhelming number of items we have today that were not created for, or based on military needs?

      • Nice choice of words Evan. In your vocabulary is there a right or only “far right” ? What is the difference in your alleged mind ?
        Nice how you also framed the assembly “left leaning “……. Adorable.
        If you don’t work at the infamous ANCHORAGE Daily far from the news…….. you definitely could.

        • MJD: Thanks for the nice words. But wait: alleged mind? Like I don’t HAVE a mind but someone, maybe me, has alleged that I have a mind? I’m confused, maybe the result of having a mind? I dunno. HELP!

    • We need Constitutional rights restored and remedied for once in those chambers. Half the state’s population have had Constitutional rights taken by this Anti-Constitution bunch of stipend receiving with sworn oaths to DEFEND Constitutional rights (not baby-talking decorum) public servants.

  3. I’m having a hard time coming to terms with the idea that possessing firearms, cardboard tombstones, and/or flags of whatever flavor will contribute to the ability of the assembly to conduct business. These things seem to be meant to obstruct, rather than facilitate, their progress.
    Now, if one’s sole goal is to obstruct, then I can see why one would want to be allowed to bring these items to the meeting. Why not a reindeer (to celebrate Christmas), or perhaps the crucified corpse of a religious zealot (to celebrate Easter), or maybe a bazooka to emphasize one’s right to keep and bear arms?
    C’mon people. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. If disruption is your thing, I can understand why the assembly might want to restrict certain items from their meetings. Try bringing a handgun into a federal building or onto an airplane. If they can be restricted there, why can’t they be restricted at other gatherings where tempers, or emotions, may run high.
    At a certain point, it can come down to the assembly restricting activities that prevent it from doing its job. Cut ’em some slack. There are many other ways to communicate your points of view to them.

    • It make sense to me, the assembly really wants no one in the assembly while they have their meetings so they can continue to take our rights away without our comment. Taking signs, flags, guns, no religious symbols, stuff a rag in your mouth, arrest you on the way out the door is just the first step. I’m guessing here, but I would presume pitchforks won’t be allowed either ?

    • Have you ever served in a combat zone defending this country? I carry a weapon because I have, and have been trained on the correct usage. Have you? I’m more worried about the unstable citizens attacking the assembly then the law abiding citizens. Walk around downtown you can find them all around. The assembly has no right to restrict the activities of the public from expressing there first amendment rights in a public forum. The assembly job is pretty simple, public safety, roads, parks and rec, and school funding. Not moral discipline of those they don’t agree with.


      • You can provide testimony by Zoom, providing a safe environment to conduct public business has nothing to do with morality. We have not had a war defending our Country since WWII, you must be quite old.

      • In actuality, the job of the assembly is to do its job. If demonstrators insist on preventing them from doing so, the assembly has every right to remove them from the meeting. That DOESN’T mean that those demonstrators are being stifled, it’s very clear that they are able to express themselves at different times and places, but it DOES mean they do not have the “right” or “privilege” to highjack meetings.

        • Assembly meetings are not for efficiently accommodating the corporate business of the municipal corporation a non-living person. The living persons with Constitutional rights who pay for the public amenities have the right to assemble to speak animatedly, persuasively to each other. Much of the servant bloviating work I (“see” telephonically) can be done during the business day by the executive branch. The nine have excised all free human participation but watching. THE word “assembly” meeting means assembly by the public to uninfringed speak to each other not them where they listen and are instructed by the public. They can bring a sandwich also. Basics.

    • No. There is not. They do not return phone calls. They block email. They are misusing law enforcement at their dog and pony shows. The word “US Constitution” is a foreign, unknown idea to them and terms they never use. Even Jamie Allard is crawling in with them. I do not approve of totalitarianism. It is the anthithesis of our former hopefully Alaskan republic.

    • There is a good chance these items are intended to disrupt and obstruct.
      That is not the issue here.
      What is the problem with this ordinance is it provides a single person with the authority to enforce any restrictions, without any test of reasonableness, or any discussion. “Dilatory” actions? Who decides? Relevant commentary? How do you know what I am saying is relevent until I finish?
      But, this change gives the Chair the authority to shut down any testimony at any point if they feel it is delaying in any way. Delaying what? I ask. From what I can tell, it is delaying the inevitable Yes vote. In other words, it does not matter to the Assembly what the public wants, they are going to do whatever they want.

  4. Since the Peace sign has caused more mental disturbance in the populace since illegal drugs as designed, will the Peace sign be banned too?
    Not on your life.

  5. This infringing service is not consented by and of the people nor requested. Show the public assembly servants have been delegated consented Constitutional authority to accomplish this task. Infringing and delimiting the meeting of the public among themselves in public facilities is as much for the public to speak and persuade each other. These are not public meetings where the public merely watches. The servants are there to hear from the deliberative sovereignty, we the people (public).

  6. Those of us who carry a weapon on a regular basis have harmed no one. We, unlike the loony left, can control ourselves.

    • A firearm is a powerful, lethal weapon. Those who choose to carry are exercising a privilege that is of great power. With great power comes great responsibility. Many of the comments here in support of the right to carry seem to think that responsibility is of secondary importance or not important at all. I sincerely hope everyone who carries knows the depth and breadth of that responsibility and practices it religiously.

  7. You know what? The REAL people of Anchorage need to take over the assembly meetings and get her out if there! Good grief she us a tyrant, bully who seems to think she can control all of you! Sick, sick, sick!

    • Sorry you don’t believe in government. Who gets to be the leader after you violently depose the elected government? Someone of your choosing or does anybody else get a say? Maybe you should put you in charge. The idea of a mob seizing control of the government, then dictating what unelected persons are in control at the point of a gun doesn’t seem like a very constitutional act in defense of a constitution.

    • Most guns used in criminal acts or homicides are handguns. Look it up. The FBI and DOJ keep those stats and are available to the public.. Once again you spout leftist propaganda. In this short verbal exchange you have repeatedly done so. And by the way, the AR15 is not a weapon of war. An M16 is. More leftist propaganda. And what’s the difference between killing an unborn baby and a born baby? The laws of the land have convicted people for murder who harm a mother and kill her unborn baby.

  8. The Anchorage Assembly main interest is controlling the unwashed ‘deplorables’. Instead of taking up issues that would help the people of Anchorage, they are obsessed with playing the game of ‘nobody is going to tell us what to do’. Ugly and destructive. They will do anything and everything to obstruct the Bronson administration. Why? Because they despise the fact that a conservative mayor had temerity to win election.

    Why do the people of Anchorage keep electing these fools to run their city?

  9. Jen: That’s true if you exclude all those who carry and have harmed others and can’t control themselves. What’s that one guy’s name: Kyle … Kyle – dangit – Rittenhouse! That’s it! Rittenhouse!. What about him?

    • The kid who was attacked by a mob?
      The same mob which was engaging in a riot?
      The kid who shot people in self defense? One of the attackers how pulled a gun on him first?

      That kid?
      Don’t be intentionally dense.

    • Kyle Rittenhouse.
      Yes, he carried.
      And he was physically attacked. He took extraordinary effort to deescalate the attack, evade the attack, and fianally to flee the attack. His attackers pursued him, and after one of them pointed a gun at his head, he used his firearm in self defense.
      Perhaps you did not know that Kyle Rittenhouse was there carrying medical supplies with the intent of providing first aid to anyone injured during the “mostly peaceful” protest. He was there with several people, and was planning on providing security if needed.
      Kyle Rittenhouse is an example of why one should carry the tools they need to defend themselves, and a really poor example of someone unable to control himself.
      But, I am sure Facebook told you the opposite, and you spend zero seconds reading about the evidence presented at the trial, so please declare I am wrong and you are right.

      • CBMTTek. No Facebook here. And I probably read six maybe seven headlines about him. So, ya got me; I’m no expert.

        But I was responding to Jen who said, “Those of us who carry a weapon on a regular basis have harmed no one. We, unlike the loony left, can control ourselves.”

        Unfortunately, there are hundreds of examples that counter Jen’s claim. Rittenhouse is one of many

        • I think you need to respond to the intent of what Jen said, not the specific words used. Yes, there are hundreds of examples where someone carrying a firearm (or other self defense weapon) have harmed others. In nearly 100% of those cases, the person carrying the gun was well within their rights to use deadly force in self defense. Your statement seems to lump justified use of deadly force into the same basket as first degree murder.
          Yes. There are hundreds of examples. And there are also several million CCW permits issued nationwide. Pointing to a small percentage of cases (the overwhelming majority of which were justified shootings), and painting the entirety of the gun carrying community with the same broad brush is disingenuous at best, and deliberately lying at worst.
          Pro Tip: If you are not an expert, please try not to act like an expert when making a point. If you do not know, keep your comment to yourself. If you are unsure, say so.
          One more suggestion. Try carrying a gun for a bit. Your reaction will probably be surprising to you. Odds are, you will not get more aggressive. You will get more passive. Less likely to get into a confrontation. Do not worry, it happens to all of us.

    • Evan, did you miss the whole court case? The one where Kyle was judged innocent, and was determined to have acted in self defense. You know, that verdict. Seems like him and Nick Sandman are going to put some of your favorite Pravda sources out of business once the defamation lawsuits are complete.

      As far as the assembly, this is nothing more than kabuki theater, to take the public’s eye away from their latest actions on voters rights. April’s coming and they cannot distance themselves from the last 18 months, fast enough.

    • You mean the young man who was recently unanimously acquitted for defending himself in Wisconsin when the mob raged all around him and law enforcement did little to stop them? The young man who was in legal possession of his weapon? If you’re scared of people like him, don’t riot, destroy property, hurt innocent people, and attack the police.

      • I mean the man who is described this way by a reporter covering Americafest: “The 18-year-old, who has gained the status of a hero in parts of the conservative movement, was welcomed with a deafening round of applause”. Killers are not heroes to me.

        • Who decided Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero? From your post, I think it was the reporter. Not the Amerifest crowd.
          And, I love this: “Killers are not heroes to me.”
          Who are your heroes? The people who let the mob beat them to death? The ones who let home invaders rape and kill their wives and daughters? The military personnel who walk away from their posts, and let the enemy take control of US Military Equipment? Equipment that will later be used to kill women and children?
          The act of killing is not what is celebrated. It is the reason for the action, and the outcome achieved. Kyle Rittenhouse was pursued, attacked, and threatened with death before he pulled the trigger. He was vilified in the press and prosecuted for political reasons. He was labeled a white supramicist by none other than the Future President of the US.
          And, he came out ahead because the facts could not be suppressed. If he is considered a hero in any way, it is because he beat the odds of a system that is stacked in favor of leftist special interests.

      • DAN: It is legal for a minor to carry an AR-15 in Wisconsin because of an exemption in state law for long-barreled rifles. That’s why the jury chose to side with Rittenhouse: Dueling hasn’t been legal in the U.S. since the early 20th century. Now, however, it is. Rittenhouse was, in essence, the victor of a state-sanctioned duel — when everyone is armed, and the first person squeezing the trigger owns the claim of self-defense.

        • “…and the first person squeezing the trigger owns the claim of self-defense.”
          What? That is absolute non-sense. Are you of the mindset that only people carrying guns are armed? If everyone has a knife, or a club. Or has easy access to something that can be used as an offensive weapon.
          Tell me, Sophie, what is the difference between being shot to death and being beaten to death? What if, instead of smashing in the back of your head with a chunk of concrete, I choose to repeatedly smash your head on the sidewalk. Does that make me unarmed?
          You make a whole lot of assumptions in your comment that are not reality based in any way.

    • What’s the guy’s name? The guy who brought a skateboard to a gunfight….. wait, no, the other guy… Gaige…..Gaige….
      Medic! Medic! Medic!!!!

  10. Anchorage is a lost cause. Conservatives sat on their hands while the left took a once great city and turned it into a craphole.
    Anchorage brought this on themselves.

  11. You’ll lose your mind listening to these dogmatic tyrants. Don’t lose your mind. Freemen are at risk anywhere attending “public attacking” meetings. You are physically at risk now to even attend their dog and pony shows. That’s how bad it has gotten in Anchorage.

  12. The “citizens” are the US Constitution oath taken and on public file public servants who receive a stipend from the public trust funds and occupy a defined (not growing) emolument while acting in the public creating public crimes. Private free men have no obligation to defend “the Constitution” in the private. These private men come out to “instruct” the public servants and are arrested during a public speech. These weekly public crimes by “the assembly” are evidence of refusal to defend or even acknowledge US Constitutional rights in the 50th state. President Trump we would like Constitutional rights restored to half the state of Alaska since the Governor demures.

  13. The obvious reality here is this::
    As the deviant leftist 9 know they are going to be voted out at the first opportunity, their goal now is to RUIN.
    Remember, their real motto is RULE OR RUIN!!

  14. Toastmasters is a private club. Robert’s Rules protocols are just right for them. Mason’s Manual is approved by Alaska (legislative branch) to follow to avoid illegal, unConstitutional public group (government) behavior. The nine cling to Robert’s Rules anyway. We are not a democracy. That would be mob rule. We are a republic with rule of American Law that is Common to all. Etc.

  15. To simplify, the nine communist members of the assembly have decided that they can usurp the power of the executive branch entirely, through ordinance.

    • Yes, that is it in a nutshell, M. John.
      But as usual with radical leftists, ANYTHING to increase the power of, and control by, “their side” is fair game, no matter how devious, illegal, unprincipled or unethical.

  16. Our US Constitution expressed and declared the rights of free men as the laid down, settled law of this nation’s creation. The rights if “taken” demand restitution. That is why they are called “rights”. Decorum is not equal to rights; something the girlish rulers cannot notice in this frontier city. Each chewsdee night we are not convening a nation creation along with dinner which is why our Constitutional rights remain in this American republic to this day regardless of what they used to do in the vassal pagan state of Rome. Some have lost their lives defending the US Constitution while others receive public trust funds for a stipend but would not trouble an addled brain cell to feel obliged to defend any or ALL the Rights of their countrymen if they shallowly don’t feel like it or if they are suspicious all others deeply underlive them because they heard a whisper or in print or the foreign fake news product and that is all there is in this bastion of decorums.

Comments are closed.