Financial Liability for No Guns Allowed signs? GRPC Notes #3

Background

Chunk Klein, along with a few others successfully challenged the status quo on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ohio several years ago. This challenge led to the passage of a concealed carry law in Ohio. Until that time there were no provisions for concealed carry in the Buckeye State and those that openly carried a sidearm were often charged with something akin to "disturbing the peace" or "inciting a panic". There was nearly no way a citizen in Ohio could legally exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms without running afoul of the law.

Ultimately the state Supreme Court ruled that those in power could not have it both ways;

No statutory allowance for concealed carry and punishment for open carry.

It had to be one or the other

Since there were no provisions in statute that recognized concealed carry without penalty, the only way for citizens to "legally" exercise their Right to bear arms was to openly carry them on their person and NOT be subject to arrest, punishment intimidation and harassment.

This decision amounted to a cease and desist order on Ohio law enforcement charging those who openly carried a sidearm for personal protection with a crime.

From that decision large numbers of Ohioans held "Open Carry Walks".

Right to Keep and Bear Arms supporters across the state held very peaceful walks, in major population centers, while openly carrying sidearms. These walks were informative and brought national attention to the issue. They were also heavily monitored by the many law enforcement agencies.

They Still didn't get it

While there were no overt acts by Peace Officers to prevent or intimidate the exercise of a pre-existing Right recognized in both the Ohio State and Federal Constitution there were several reports that citizens leaving the walks were singled out and covertly set upon by Peace Officers engaging in tactics of intimidation.

I do not believe that there were any arrests, but several citizens reported that after leaving the march they were singly accosted, detained and investigated for exercising a Right that the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio had recently affirmed.

Even someone that barely eked out a passing grade in a High School Government class should realize the implications of that action and be appalled by it.

What part of;

The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio mandated that the open carry of a firearm in the state of Ohio is a legal activity affirmed by the Ohio State Constitution.

did they not understand?

What those few officers did is the same as stopping a person for, "driving the speed limit", "properly using turn signal devices" or "making a complete stop at a stop sign/light".

As noted above the Supreme Court decision and the open Carry walks ultimately led to the passage of Concealed Carry in Ohio. A provision in the law, and in many other states as well, allows those responsible for private property to post signs that deny employees and consumers the ability to legally carry a firearm on their premises.

Although the Politically Correct term for these areas is "Gun-Free Zones", legally armed law-abiding citizens refer to them as "Victim-Disarmament Zones". The rightful conclusion is that since armed criminals by virtue of their job description do not obey the law the only people who comply are "defenseless law-abiding victims".

A Book on the Subject

Since that time Chuck Klein has written a book entitled "Guns in the Workplace", A Manual for Private Sector Employers and Employees.

It is not an understatement that this book should be read by everyone one that owns their own business. Additionally business owners should make it required ready for their entire Human Relations Departments if their business is large enough to require one.

As I have oft stated in the past, should I encounter a "No Firearms allowed sign" in my travels I, as a law abiding citizen, will respect the wishes of that management and not patronize their establishment.

It is not a protest or boycott on my part;

It is simply an expression of respect for the Rights of that property owner/manager and my own ethical standards on obeying the law.

Klein's book, edited by William M. Gustavson Esq., is an excellent "how to" manual for those that are struggling with the idea of employees and consumers legally carrying firearms on their property. The book carefully examines both sides of the decision to allow it or not.

The most interesting aspect that I gleaned from the book concerns the financial liability that a business may incur if they decide to prohibit the legal carry of firearms on their property.

Klein indicates that should harm occur that could have been prevented had that person been in possession of their legally carried firearm, the business could be financially liable in a civil action brought by that person or person/s survivors for failure to provide or allow for adequate protection.

In essence by denying a person, that is legally able to carry a firearm, from possession of a firearm on that property that business is acknowledging that they have assumed responsibility for the safety and protection of, not just the firearm owner but, all persons that either work or patronize the premises.

Klein writes that in some states statutes have been written "exempting" businesses from such liability when they declare their property a "Gun-FreeZone". He points out however that courts generally do not favorably view a for profit business being free from liability for intentionally restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to provide for their own safety and protection.

Klein goes on to reference the Federal Liability Statute (USC Title 42 , Chapter 21, Sub chapter 1) that;

...... causes to be subjected, any citizen or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proceedings for redress ...

In other words the federal law will trump the state law and businesses that post their properties relying solely on the state statute to protect them could still be liable for financial losses.

Intentional Acts are not covered by most Policies

This has led many to believe that we are covered by the "well that is what I have insurance for" axiom.

Again Klein cautions those responsible for making the "Gun-free Zone" decision to consider;

Most insurance policies have an exclusionary for "intentional acts" committed by those covered by the policy.

Preventing the exercise of a Right by a property owner/manager is an INTENTIONAL ACT.

If faced with a large monetary suit it would be reasonable to expect that any insurance company would divest themselves of any financial obligation by asserting that the covered party "intentionally" violated the terms of the policy. In this event, not only would the owner/manager be financing two law suits (one against themselves for deprivation of a right and the one they would need to bring against their insurance carrier for non-coverage/payment) any and all monetary cost/award would fall squarely on the assets of the policy holder.

Should the business, that the insurance company successfully bails on, be a corporation, limited liability or otherwise the business might be financially challenged or even ruined, but personal possessions of the owners might remain un-effected.

Conversely if the entity in question is a "Sole Proprietorship" or other "unprotected entity" any of the personal property assets of the owner, such as vehicles, jewelry, homes and other personal property would be subject to forfeiture and/or liens.

As evidenced by Chucks book there is important serious consideration that must be done by any property owner/manager when making the decision to post a property as a "Gun-Free Zone" or not.

As far as this issue is concerned I, and every law abiding firearms owner that I know, respect the decision whether it is to allow or deny. That is their Right.

I would suggest that anyone faced with the enormous responsibility of deciding this issue to not take it lightly, read Mr. Klein's book, consult jointly with legal counsel and insurance provider/s for advice and make the most responsible decision possible based on that information.

If that decision is to post "No Guns Allowed" signs and it is grounded in the best legal advice and a WRITTEN GUARANTEE OF COVERAGE conformation letter from an insurance provider then I will respect that.

Should the decision be to not post any signs at all or even post "Citizens legally carrying firearms welcome" signs (as some businesses do), I will respect that as well and show my appreciation for the recognition of a Right by patronizing the establishment.

As a final note I followed the progress of Klein's lawsuit and the resulting open carry walks when all of that took place. It was not until this years Gun Rights Policy Conference when Chuck was one of the featured speakers that I finally got to meet him.

What's a dazzling Urbanite like you doing in a rustic setting like this Kenn?

Subtitle; GRPC Notes #2

Look over there, eating at the table near the back corner it's a Black man and he has a gun.

No need to worry folks it's only Kenn Blanchard, Firearms Instructor, Gun Rights advocate, Motivational Speaker, Preacher and author of Black man with a Gun.

I had been corresponding with Kenn for several years before I met him in person. If memory serves it started when Kenn reached out to me regarding an idea he had for a firearms education training program.

My wife and I were fortunate to finally meet Kenn several years ago at one of the Gun Rights Policy Conferences.

On the Cutting edge with Kenn

At this years GRPC Kenn was a featured speaker, on the Exploiting New Communications Technologies Panel. Waxing eloquent on Podcasting, Kenn re-iterated the need, using modern technology, to reach out to those that avail themselves of devices like Blackberrys and i-pods. Many of todays younger generation do not read news papers or magazines only getting their information via the electronic media. Since my DNA is only about 36% geek I was understand with the concept, but had not realized its potential.

I guess it goes without saying that he has been producing his own Podcast for nearly a year now. Over the last few days my internet research has been greatly enhanced while listening to past episodes of the Urban-Shooter Podcast. In fact I'm still listening as I write this missive.

Conversations with Kenn

During conference breaks Kenn and I tried to catch up on old news and get current with new. I am sure our conversations sounded like short media sound bites to anyone eaves dropping but we understood what we were saying and covered a lot of gun rights ground.

Some of topics of discussion included Nebraska Senator Ernie Chambers and the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson. It seems that we, as are a lot of people are perplexed about their position on gun control.

Concerning the Reverends Al & Jesse, Kenn espouses the same views that I also hold with Senator Chambers. The gist of which is why we haven't been hearing these leaders condemn the actions of minority criminals or stand up for personal accountability in the minority community. Rather they never waste a media opportunity to call for more government control and the disarming of the very law abiding citizens they claim to represent.

Racist roots in Gun Control

In fact most if not all of this nations gun control laws are rooted in racism. I am not unfamiliar with the subject having written The original Gun Control laws were racially motivated and still are in 2004. There are a lot of hard working Americans in Senator Chambers district and if the statistics are accurate, they more than anyone would benefit the advantages of concealed carry laws. Unfortunately Senator Chambers opposes the citizens of Nebraska being able to protect themselves when they are away from their homes.

Kenn tells it like it is and anyone that has an interest in Gun Rights would do well to check him out. Do your self a favor and listen to some of his podcasts while your at it.

GRPC Notes #1

The 22nd Gun Rights Policy Conference was held this past weekend at the Draw Bridge Inn in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky which is just over the Ohio state line near Cincinnati. In following posts I hope to write more commentary on topics addressed by the various speakers.

Gun Control laws Kill people

On Saturday morning Larry Pratt (Gun Owners of America) opined gun control laws contributed to the Virginia Tech tragedy. That observation is confirmed by a number of faculty and students from Virginia Tech. I will respectfully disagree with Larry on one salient point;

It is not the laws themselves that contributed to the event they are only words on a page. Rather it is the people responsible for the creation and enactment into law of those written words that contributed to the massacre.

Of course the Mainstream Media never reported that.

Faculty and Students (over age 21) with legally issued Virginia Concealed Carry Permits affirmed that had they (in different places, at different times obviously) been able to legally posses their firearms on campus any number of lives would have been saved.

You can Monday morning armchair, wail and gnash your teeth all you want to, but these folks lived through it, they were there they ought to know.

Back in April I penned a missive on this blog entitled Reflections on a Tragedy. In it I discussed being aware of what is going on around you and some things to do if you find yourself in a similar situation. In the comments section I was taken to task for a few of the remarks I proffered.

How would people be conditioned to respond to a massacre? should they be given 2 weeks of basic training before, say, high school?

The answer is no and I think I elaborated on that point fairly well throughout the rest of that post. The essence of which is to be cognizant of what is happening around you. Get your eyes off the ground, unscrew that cell phone from your ear and PAY ATTENTION. Paying attention (Situational Awareness) allows you in most cases to spot trouble from a distance and avoid it. No one needs special training.

Quit acting like a victim.

Bad people in honing their craft recognize by repetition certain traits that clue them into who is an easy target and who is not. They didn't have a boot camp to teach them that, it is a skill they develop naturally. (unless they get caught and get a full scholarship to Criminal U.)

Likewise people that refuse to be victims just as naturally develop their own set of skills.

It is called Situational Awareness.

You also said:

"c) They were raised to believe that it is the Governments job to protect them."

Is this not what we pay taxes for?

In answer to the first question it is an absolute and unequivocal No.

I thought the reason we paid for police and military was so that they could "protect the homeland".

The Military may protect the Homeland from foreign aggression but under most circumstances they are prohibited from enforcing civilian law.

As for the Police I have addressed this in the past as well;

Peace Officers are under no legally required duty or obligation to protect citizens as individuals. Law Enforcement organizations by definition exist only to protect the public as a whole. (crowd control, accidents, public disturbances, reckless endangerment).

Bowers v. Devito

(There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf.

Warren v DC

In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.

And that isn't the only one folks there is nearly a dozen more.

Note: Again as I have said before, Police Officers are some of the most dedicated, under paid and over worked people I know, and there is not one I know that would hesitate to put their life on the line for a fellow citizen.

There are some caveats that go along with that though;

They have to know you need them - if you cannot complete a 911 call how the hell are they going to know you need help or where you are for that matter.

They have to be free to respond - there are only so many Cops on duty at any one time if they are busy assisting a problem more serious than yours they can't immediately respond until they have control of that situation.

Should I tell my disabled grandmother or my 2 year old niece that it's up to them to stop the next 9/11 or the next VA Tech massacre?

Yes you need to tell your disabled grandmother and the parents of your 2 year old niece that they are without a doubt responsible for their own safety.

Do you honestly think that when you call government sponsored dial-a-prayer (911) that a cop is going to be instantly teleported to your assistance.

Exactly how realistic is that?

Get real folks when something bad happens to you it won't matter whether you are a disabled grandmother or someones 2 year old niece Peace Officers will not be there. The average response time, providing they know where to go, in Lincoln, Nebraska is on the order of 7-15 minutes. If I were to bet on it I would say 10-12 minutes.

Even if you can get a call to a police dispatcher and even if your cell phone is GPS capable how much harm can come to you in 7-15 minutes? Oh and 911 calls do on occasion fall through the cracks.

Chances are you were not practicing situational awareness and never saw it coming. In that case the cell phone you are so sure will receive that teleported Cop will be bitch slapped from the side of your head before you can even dial the 9 in 911.

Then what are you going to do? Bleed? Die?

10 minutes, hell 1 minute alone is a very long time in a violent situation.

Understand this;

Even if you completed a call to 911 you are ON YOUR OWN until any kind of help can arrive. The lives and safety of you and your family depend solely on what you do in those precious moments.

Just Co-operate and you won't get hurt

That may have been good advice a long time ago, but times change and so does advice. Todays robbers, muggers and rapists are becoming more violent. In an increasing number of crimes modus-Operandi appears to be "Immediate physical violence". This is done to establish control, exert dominance and reduce the likelihood of resistance before the demand of credit cards/cash/keys/vagina is issued.

Don't believe me? How about the media? Everyday there are news stories from somewhere in the United States that read (or words to the effect);

The Victim - I was not even aware of the thug until they walked up and stabbed/shot/knocked me.

I fail to see how a potential gun shootout between a killer and one or more usually un-trained vigilantes is going to make schools, workplaces, etc. safer and think this is a totally unrealistic option. It's typical libertarian pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that has no basis (that I'm aware of) in reality.

I reject the words untrained and vigilante in that statement. Does that mean anyone with a fire extinguisher is a wannabe fireman? A first aid kit a wannabe Doctor? A spare tire a wannabe auto mechanic? The firearm is is just another safety precaution that people with concealed carry permits know how to employ but hope they never need to.

No, citizens that have a state issued Concealed Carry Permit do not have the untold hours that sworn Peace Officers have.

Why? Because they don't need it. DUHHHH!!!!

Peace Officers are charged with RESPONDING to situations that they have too little knowledge of. When they arrive they know not the difference between the good and the bad. The training they receive is what helps them sort the wheat from the chaff.

As private Citizen with a concealed firearm do you honestly and truly believe that you need 100,000 hours of training to recognize the thug/s standing right there in front of you wielding a ball bat/knife/gun belligerently requesting your wallet/vagina/car keys is or is not a danger to your life.

Please tell me you are not that dense. Is it really that hard to understand or do you finally get it now?


On a side note, I hear about the potential for vigilantes to step up and stop these types of massacres, but I'm not aware of it having ever happened. Do you know of any instances where it has actually happened?

It would be easy to slough this one off with;

Since legally licensed law abiding citizens are forbidden from carry on Americas campi and by definition they obey the law and leave their firearms etc...

The real answer is yes it has happened, but almost never mentioned in the Mainstream Media.

Here are three examples of just incidents that took place at schools complete with Lexis-Nexis search results:

Appalachian School of Law - Grundy, Virginia 2002

Pearl High School - Pearl Mississippi 1997 and A Middle School - Edinboro, Pennsylvania 1998

Ever wonder why most of these "School Shootings" end in suicide?

Because it is an integral part of their plan from the start.

1. Acquire arms and ammunition (usually illegally)
2. Select a location that will allow for a headline grabbing large body count. (places where no one else will be armed schools/posted malls/concerts etc..)
3. Commit suicide either by own hand or by cop.
4. Die knowing that if not in life in death 15 minutes of fame will be achieved. (Just to insure that fame next day express papers and video to the media prior to commencing the act) (Gee thats never happened has it?)

Peace Officers as a rule can not stop something like that.

Not that they don't want to, because I know every single one of them does. Unless the "shooter" attacks a Police Station it is almost always over before they get there. To survive it is up to the people there to defend themselves until Peace Officers can arrive.

It always seems to me these issues are dealt with by gun freaks from a hypothetical viewpoint (not based in actual history or reality). If you can give me a couple of examples where gun owners have actually been able to repel a mass murderer as he was engaged in a killing spree, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.

There are lots more examples based in actual history or reality, I just gave you three and they all involved Schools. Now you didn't know that because you didn't see it in the Mainstream press. Like so many people you must believe; If it isn't on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN etc.. that it can't, didn't or won't happen. Honest law abiding citizens with firearms use them to protect themselves and families everyday in the United States, but since most of the Press is so bias against guns they will not report that. They can't. It goes against every thing they believe in.

Now I have a question for you;

How can they (the Media) justify their anti-gun mantra in they report the over one million times a year that firearms in the hands of private citizens save lives, stop crimes and bring mass public shootings to a screeching halt?

So much for gun freaks with hypothetical viewpoints aye?

I hope you paid particular attention to the results of the Lexis-Nexis search in those stories. You never knew those incidents were stopped by armed private citizens because the Media in order to protect their agenda REFUSED to tell you. Fair and Balanced? I think not.

The Mainstream media is largely anti-gun and it should be obvious from just those few examples that they are loathe to report on anything that puts firearms in a positive light.

I hope that some what lays to rest the idea that Law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits are untrained vigilante gun freaks with hypothetical points of view.

I also hope it opens some eyes to the fact that;

Peace Officers WILL respond to your rescue, even though they are not required to, as soon as they know where you are and what the problem is. But from the onset of the crime committed against you until they arrive, which in some cases can be minutes or even hours, you are on your own. For the continued well being of yourself and family you must be prepared to act.

Laws do not stop anyone from committing a crime.

Laws are obeyed only by those that are predisposed to societal conformity anyway. They exist then ONLY as a punishment for those that are not so inclined.

GRPC Discussion on Politics and the Two Party System

When I got back from the Gun Rights Policy Conference I noted that I would post on some of the topics discussed.

Two Party System

Whether the United States Government was ever designed to be to be a two or multiple party system is no longer the point. The two party system is so deeply entrenched in our Representative Republic form of Government that most people think it is unlikely that a third party will ever make a make an integrated difference.

The question posed to one of the panel of speakers;

Why hasn't the Libertarian Party made a better showing than candidates elected to a few local and state offices and what can be done to change that?

The answer;

Rightly or wrongly the United States Government is a very entrenched two party system and it is becoming obvious that will not change anytime soon.

The discussion continued with the following suggestion from one of the panels speakers;

Use the current system to get Libertarian candidates elected from within.

If Libertarians registered with the party that most closely represents their platform they will have the resources and clout to elect like minded candidates.

Think about that for a minute.

Does it really matter if there is an R, D or L after the name of the person as long as that representative votes the way you want them to?

There are enough people that consider themselves Libertarian that if they re registered into one of prevailing two parties they would be a force to be reckoned with. Working from the inside Libertarians would have the party resources to get candidates of their choice elected.

Just some thoughts for consideration that were expressed at the 2006 GRPC.

Now for my take;

As probably most have surmised I am a registered Republican. I can identify with a number of issues on the Libertarian Platform, but I regularly refer to myself as a Constitutionalist. The fore going advice makes a measure of sense to me. Consider that the Liberal faction of the Democratic Party is elated to have the Libertarian Party around. It truly can be argued that every vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote not cast for a Republican. Every vote not cast for a Republican increases the chances of a Liberal taking an office.

Yup I hold my nose and pull the lever for the lessor of two evils when necessary.

I like getting books in the mail

In a previous post I mentioned that we had attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference last week and what a pleasure it was for the wife and I to see old friends.

Among those I mentioned David Kopel who is Research Director of the Independence Institute in Golden Colorado. It is always great to sit and talk with David. I never fail to learn something new and important. If his presentation on Sunday morning is any indication he occasionally takes to heart a thing or two I have to say as well.

I have no idea if he had prepared his Sunday comments well in advance of the conference or not, but as he spoke the wife and realized that much of what he was saying were points that I had imparted to him in our conversations the night before.

Either way it was an honor to have them repeated by such a note worthy scholar as David Kopel.

Thank you David.

Imagine my surprise and delight when I checked the mail today and found a package of books from David. Topically these books are on subject for the conversations we engaged in over the weekend and specifically deal with the History of Firearms Rights in state Constitutions, State Court cases, decisions and case law.

Included are publications from the Notre Dame Law Review, Northern Kentucky Law review, Albany Law Review and Volume 13 of the Journal on Firearms and Public Policy.

Thank you David for unexpected, informative and welcome gift to my Firearms Rights Library. Just glancing through them there is much information that will be useful in working to bring Nebraskas new CCW law current with the other states. Some who have spent the last two decades revising their initial CCW laws.

Gun Rights Policy Conference

As some of you noticed I haven't posted in the last week.

The wife and I just returned from the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina where I participated in panel discussions on the state of CCW in the Cornhusker state.

We were able to renew acquaintances with friends we haven't seen in way too long. Yes we have kept in touch via email or phone tag, but it was great to sit down again and talk face to face with Bob Barr, Dave Kopel, Alan Gottlieb, Phil Van Cleave, and a host of others.

I also had the pleasure of meeting Mari Thompson founder of the Second Amendment Sisters (and several other SAS members), a lady with who I have been trading emails and phone calls with for quite some time. I'm not sure but I get the impression that Mari and the wife were conspiring future plans that ...... well I don't know yet ..... but I am sure I will when the time comes.

Additionally I was pleased to finally meet Kenneth Blanchard. Kenn and I have been corresponding for years and to have him personally sign his book Black Man with a Gun was an honor I won't soon forget.

I also met, shared a panel with and spent a lot of time talking with Kansas State Senator Phil Journey. Phil is largely responsible for getting CCW pushed through in the Red Leg State legislature. We are going to be staying in touch on CCW issues and the wife and I will likely be traveling to visit Phil in the near future.

For those of you that favor open carry and are not aware there is a message board dedicated to the furtherance of open carry. I have been a posting member there for awhile and got to meet the founders of that site. Check them out at opencarry.org Thanks guys ya'll hosted a primo reception Saturday night ... made me proud I am a member of Open Carry dot Org.

Our after conference extended trip took us to Atlanta and Smyrna, Georgia where we had a chance to see the Glock factory and have my two second generation G-23's gone through while we went to lunch. Everyone we met at all the different parts of the factory were friendly to a fault and made us feel special for being there. The armorer that handled my firearms spent nearly an hour after he was done talking to us about Glocks.

During a discussion on after market parts for Glocks such as buffers, recoil springs, guide rods etc.. the Armorer (who asked that his name not be mentioned) told me;

"We test all of the after market parts that are out there, consider that Gaston Glock has a 3-5 million dollar a year R&D budget, if he thought his pistols worked better with a shock absorber type guide rod don't you think they would come with one?"

Yea I agree

He did say though that for those of you that insist on shooting lead bullets in your tactical tupperware KKM and Firestorm barrels are good replacements for the factory barrels.

For the record; All of my Glocks are just the way they came out of the box except for certified Glock parts replaced for wear or updates.

While in Atlanta we were also able to have dinner with friend Scott , his lovely wife Ashely and their bundle of energy Charlie. Thanks for the wonderful time guys Bar-b-cue is always good.

In the next weeks and months I hope to post much concerning the conference and how CCW may shake out in the next session of the Unicameral.

I am also hoping to make some changes to the site as well. During a cocktail party conversation on the internet and Blogging Dave Kopel suggested that I look into adding RSS to From the Heartland. When I get it figured out it I'll get it running.

Thanks Dave ..... I think!!!!