Voters Vote Yes, County Says No

Khyber writes in with a story from Montana, where residents of Missoula County voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language. The move has resulted in a flood of disaffection among voters, especially young voters. "Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.

Re:Link?

[BW_Nuprin]

As a former Missoulian, I can absolutely guarantee the officials that the people of Missoula did NOT misinterpret the language on the ballot :)

It's not like there is really there much else to do in Montana, anyway.

Here's a link

[GuyMannDude]

I found this story [newwest.net] doing a Google search. From TFA:

The tone of the hearing shifted when Van Valkenburg said that he had proposed the amendments because of a "gut feeling" that Missoula voters were not "detail-oriented" enough to understand the complete scope of the initiative.

I think the only ones who failed the "detail-oriented" test are the slashdot editors who posted a story that references an article and a blog but failed to provide any links.

GMD

Re:Short answer:

[linkedlinked]

If I recall, the exact same thing happened in Ann Arbor, Michigan, not too long ago. Marijuana is already decriminalized, and 57% voted for medicinal legalization. I went to one of the rallies (there were plenty) outside the courthouse to protest the city council's overturning of the matter.

Re:WTF No Link??

[saforrest]

There are no links to the actual news story... surely this was covered in the local paper or something???

A Google News search revealed this story [newwest.net] which elaborates on the details in the article summary.

Some articles

[j1m+5n0w]

There was no link in the story, so here's some that seem to be relevant.

An article [newwest.net]

relevant Google news search [google.com]

Link

[FlyByPC]

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt [missoulian.com]

Man -- and I thought *I* was lazy. But too lazy to Google it? Wow.

I was there

[steampoweredlawngnom]

That meeting just reinforced my opinion that voting is pointless. There were 30 or so people who implored the commitee and commissioners not to amend the initiative, and 5 people ask them to amend it, 3 of which were law enforcement, one man was very, very elderly, and one man who actually claimed that "it was much harder for me to get off pot than marijuana."

The county prosecutor opened the meeting by telling us that we did not understand the initiative, to which many of us, myself included, assured him that we read the initiative in its entirety, and did understand it. When everybody was done speaking, he came back up and told us that he disagreed with us, and that we still did not understand the initiative. In addition, he showed us a map showing how the votes were distributed, and told us that since most of the votes were centered around the "metropolitan" area of Missoula, and not so much in the surrounding areas of the county, that it was not fair to voters to have this initiative.

I really enjoy living in Missoula for a number of reasons, but the local government is not one of them.

For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic.

Links to the full story

[steveness]

Discussion of the initiative:

Article [missoulian.com] in local paper.
The actual initiative [missoula.mt.us]

The current story [missoulian.com].

You're welcome.

Link to article and text of measure

[viking80]

Measure (This is actually short and readable. Maybe you will place it on the ballot in your county?)
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/Election/Marijuana_Ii nit.pdf [missoula.mt.us]
Article
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt [missoulian.com]

huh?

[AusIV]

the government is so far removed from the ppl they don't even try to make it look legit anymore.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? First, nobody told the voters they got to choose the law, they simply got to advise the council. If they're not happy with the way the council took their advice, next election they can replace the council.

it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.

State != feds. If a state has a law contradicting a federal law, the federal law overrules. By definition, the fed ignores state laws - it's not their job to enforce them, and federal laws take priority. This was a county level law. Corruption in one county (and I'm not saying this is a case of corruption) is hardly evidence of corruption on a state or federal level.

Same behavior new state

[bhalter80]

This is the same behavior exhibited by the Massachusetts legislature in 2000 when the tax payers voted on a binding referendum to lower the state income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. This time period was during a $1B annual surplus but the legislators stated that it was not finacially wise for the state to lower the tax rate and that the resulting decrease would not significantly benefit the tax payers in terms of cold hard cash. As it was a binding referendum the legislators simply passed a bill the next day to raise the tax rate back to 5.3%

Re:Link?

[kenb215]

I found it here: http://digg.com/politics/Voters_Appalled_Over_Forc ed_Amendment_to_Marijuana_Law_Passed_by_the_People [digg.com]

It's Cannabis, not marijuana

[essence]

The correct name is Cannabis. Marijuana refers to cannabis sativa strains originating in Mexico. There is also cannabis indica, which is lower in THC (the 'high') and higher in CBD (which is more beneficial in some medical cases, such as cataplexy).

There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.

Re:Link?

[tomhudson]

tis a problem with heavy pot smokers, they tend to forget things ;-)

Are you referring to the poster, or the slashdot editors?

http://www.kcfw.com/montana_news.php?id=01723a93ff e12ca09070c26c8713da13 [kcfw.com]

The big problem many people said they have with last night's decision is that it undermines what the voters said they wanted last November.

During last night's hearing, a number of people protested the amendment saying commissioners don't have the power or the right to change the initiative but they did anyway. County Commissioner Bill Carey was the one dissenter in last night's vote. He said the commissioners do have the power to amend the initiative but he doesn't think they should have. He said it should have been given a chance. "I believe we should have implemented the initiative the voters approved. I suggested we should have given the initiative the voters approved a chance and if after a year or so, there really were problems, we should make amendments then," he said.

Carey said he hopes voters aren't too discouraged by last night's vote and he urges them not to give up on the democratic process.

I hear that everyone else was going "like .... bummer, dude!"

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. They call it the "Politics" section.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[value_added]

One could argue that voting issues certainly fall under 'Stuff that matters'.

I'd suggest that the only thing that "matters" for anyone keen on the subject is good music and lots of brownies. ;-) That said, there was a recent program on The History Channel on the subject that I found interesting. From a Wiki article on the Legal Issues of Cannabis [wikipedia.org]:

Until 1937, consumption and sale of cannabis was legal in most U.S. states. In some areas it could be openly purchased in bulk from grocers or in cigarette form at newsstands, though an increasing number of states had begun to outlaw it. In that year, federal law made possession or transfer of cannabis without the purchase of a by-then-incriminating tax stamp illegal throughout the United States by passing the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. This was contrary to the advice of the American Medical Association at the time.[2] Legal opinions of the time held that the federal government could not outlaw it entirely. The tax was $100 per pound of hemp, even for clothes or rope. The expense, extremely high for the time, was such that people stopped openly buying and making it. The decision of the United States Congress was based in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.

The key to criminalisation was the way in which Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 [wikipedia.org] was written and passed.

The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equalling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions. Violations of proper procedure could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance.

The bill was passed on the grounds that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death". Today, it is generally accepted that these reasons were fictitious; in 1951, Anslinger himself claimed that he had no evidence to support such a thesis. However, new reasons had emerged by then, which pushed through a bill that superseded the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.

To rephrase the above, if you wanted to deal in the stuff, you needed a tax stamp. Which required possession of the stuff. Which was ... wait for it ... illegal.

It's hardly surprising that in the decades since, the laws concerning cannabis are just as tortured and contradictory, especially when considered against the background of yet another new study that suggest alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous [guardian.co.uk]

That's why we have an Electoral College

[Fuyu]

What happened in Missoula County is similar to how the Electoral College works. Voters in the US do not directly elect the President and Vice President, but choosing the electors. Electors are members of the Electoral College who actually elect the President.

From http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral -college/faq.html [archives.gov], "In the early 1800's, the term 'electoral college' came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as 'college of electors.'"

"It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes."

Why do we have an Electoral College? Because back in the 1800's, it took too long to count the popular votes. In addition, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a /electcollege_3.htm [about.com] "The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.

On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.

As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system."

Re:you are contradicting your own point

[maxume]

I know it can be hard, but if you look at the words that he said in order, without deleting or inserting anything, the ones towards the end of the post say:

"For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic"

Looks like he voted to me.

Re:Well, welcome to a republic

[SheldonLinker]

Many states in the United States are replublics. Some (I have no idea how many) are hybrid republics and democracies. One such state is California. In California, one can petition to have a measure put on the ballot. Once sufficient signatures are gathered, the measure goes on the ballot. If the measure is submitted to the ballot as a proposed law, then 50%+1 voters can make it a law, although the law can still be overturned by a supermajority of the legislature, I think 75%. However, if the measure is sumbitted to the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment, and it passes (I think the number then required is 60%, but I'm not sure), there's nothing the legislature can do about it. This is how, in the so-called "Proposition 13 revolution", we took away the legislature's ability to levy tax at all.

In California, legislators and the governor must also be wary of a second democratic power: The power to recall any or all of them. When ex-governor Grey Davis pulled a stunt similar to the one described above, his term as governor was terminated abruptly.

So, what can you do about it if you live in a republic? You can move to a democracy, or you can only vote for people who promise to turn the republic into a democracy.

Re:huh?

[Crudely_Indecent]

...nobody told the voters they got to choose the law,... State != feds. If a state has a law contradicting a federal law, the federal law overrules.

Please, allow me to direct you to the Bill of Rights. The 10th amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, the federal government claims all rights and allows the people to obey... But it isn't just the federal government, Governor Rick Perry tried to mandate the HPV vaccine to Texan girls without proper legislation... It's only natural for county government to follow the examples set by the larger government bodies... Why listen to the people when don't want to?

We've dealt with [wikipedia.org] this same problem before. So did the French [wikipedia.org], and with a particularly nasty device [wikipedia.org].

Re:It's Cannabis, not marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct name is Cannabis. Marijuana refers to cannabis sativa strains originating in Mexico. There is also cannabis indica, which is lower in THC (the 'high') and higher in CBD (which is more beneficial in some medical cases, such as cataplexy).

There are also hybrid strains.

Most of the 'stuff' you get on the street would consist mostly of indica since it's much easier to grow, flowers in a shorter period of time, grows much shorter (and thus is easier to grow indoors) and has much higher yields.

It's also worth noting that sativa produces a very thought-provoking "in the head" kind of psychedelic high while indica produces the "pothead" high where you feel glued to the couch.

The vast majority of marijuana strains out there that are grown and sold (in North America, or places where it's illegal anyway) are hybrids. It's very rare to get a 'pure sativa' or 'pure indica' strain unless you go somewhere where people grow and breed the stuff selectively and legally (the Netherlands etc.) But growers who do so illegally and for profit generally prefer strains that are mostly indica for the reasons stated above.

Of course many growers have absolutely no idea what they're growing since the seeds were pulled out of a bag bought on the street, or they got a cutting/clone from a fellow grower. But thanks to the Internet you can now order seeds from breeders who tell you what you're getting.

Assuming the seed banks are giving accurate information about what they're selling, you can have a look through their ordering catalogues and you'll see that strains that are pure indica or pure sativa are almost non-existant, though there are some that come close.

Search for "marijuana seed bank" on Google and you'll get tons of seed banks.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics anywhere can affect us all. The original laws in this country that established the legal grounds for criminalizing marijuana possession and usage were funded by the lumber/paper industry and the cotton industry. They made donations to elected officials as well as paid for prejudiced research on marijuana. This process should sound familiar to you.

It wasn't marijuana they wanted to get rid of though but hemp, by focusing on marijuana propaganda they got hemp production in the US stopped as well as imports of hemp. Similar tactics have been repeated many times. Hemp had many uses at the time, including the production of paper and cloth, in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp. Hemp would potentially be a great resource atm for replacing many hydrocarbon products currently used, so you can bet that the oil companies might join in any attempts to legalize hemp production. Hemp has a wide range of very good uses if you bother to research for them. Far too many to discuss here.

Marijuana prior to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act had many medical uses and the American Medical Association opposed the passing of this act. This was mentioned by at least one other poster here but they didn't go in depth on it and neither will I for the purposes of this post other then to suggest everyone research a bit.

As I and others have stated here before, the only way we can change the current path of our government is to retake it from the current power structure from the local government on up. To do so requires the education of our fellow citizens and ourselves on what is really going on, on how it really should be and how to get it there. Therefore the events in some small town where the citizens have tried to reclaim their government (or some large city, or some other state) are of interest to us all, particularly when it involves governmental roadblocks to such repossession.

Will you ignore it when they come for those in Misoula, because your not from Misoula? (reference to the oft repeated quote) Btw, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hemp farmers and Jefferson was a big advocate of its uses.

Re:Follow the money

[spiritraveller]

It is only logical that a county attorney would want to continue prosecuting these cases, otherwise he might have to cut staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks.

I can't say exactly how things work in Montana, but generally a "county attorney" is the guy who advises and represents the county commission on the legal effect of proposed ordinances, their constitutionality (or lack thereof), and sometimes represents the county in civil cases.

Usually, the person who prosecutes criminal cases--representing the state rather than the county--is called the "district attorney".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Happens all the time

[dkleinsc]

For an example of a polar opposite state legislature, check out New Hampshire:
- 435 Representatives for roughly a million people.
- Pay for representatives is $100 per year.
- The legislature is very much part-time.

It's considered the most represented population at the state level in the US. When I was living there as a teenager I knew 4 state reps personally, including a guy who worked as an elevator operator. Say what you want about the area, it does have a government that represents its people.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[shitdrummer]

Then came the US Government WWII "Hemp For Victory" campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkroOQT-84Q [youtube.com]

Lots of historical info in that video.

Shitdrummer.

Call or Write

[Anonymous Coward]

Fred Van Valkenburg
    [phone]
    [e-mail]

County Commissioners
    [phone]
    200 W. Broadway St, Missoula, MT 59802

Bill Carey
  [phone]
  644 Cleveland St, Missoula, MT 59801

Barbara Evans
  [phone]
  808 Whitaker Dr, Missoula, MT 59803

Re:It's Cannabis, not marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.

cannibis americanus and cannibis ruderalus

Re:Why I don't vote

[Joebert]

Hey, I'm an American pal.

That means I'm free to use any argument I want to make up my mind, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or not your opinion it is.

If you want me to vote, you're going to have to pay me to do it, just like any other work.

Re:A similar thing happened in my town

[DrJimbo]

You can read the full text here [state.nm.us]. Some highlights:

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the national security agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, duly constituted by congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 113C, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions, which under Article VI of the United States constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the president of a United States citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law;

[...]

You know, pretty much the usual stuff you would impeach someone for.

Missoula County Commissioners' Office Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

My own thoughts about the futility of the Democratic process aside, one of the most beautiful things about said process is the fact that it's politicians are notoriously spineless.

If every person posting in indignation where to say, express their thoughts directly to the Missoula County Commissioners' Office, who knows what could happen?

oops, whats this?

Missoula County
Board of County Commissioners
200 W. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59802

Main Office Telephone Number: 406-258-4877

COMMISSIONER: JEAN CURTISS
Contact Person: Jean Curtiss
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: mailto:[e-mail] [mailto] (or) [e-mail]
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210

COMMISSIONER: BILL CAREY
Contact Person: Bill Carey
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: mailto:[e-mail] [mailto] (or) [e-mail]
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210

COMMISSIONER: BARBARA EVANS
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: mailto:[e-mail] [mailto] (or) [e-mail]
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210

Parent is WILDLY inaccurate

[swid27]

In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."

In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.

That's flat-out incorrect. The Legislature didn't throw the term limits out, the courts did, as Nebraska's first two attempts at a term limit law also imposed term limits on federal representatives, something the State of Nebraska has no jurisdiction over. The third time, they limited it to state officials, and (SURPRISE!) the courts had no problems with it. I don't know how you can say that they "refused to leave" when every legislator who was term-limited out did indeed leave after the 2006 election.

Because the people kept on sending out petitions to get it back on the ballot and voted on, the legislature decided to fix that. They made all sorts of new rules on the petition process, cutting the time to circulate petitions in half, doubling the required amount of votes, using nefarious methods to reject signatures, etc.

Those changes you speak of only happened AFTER the final success of the term limit initiatives. Don't conflate to the two together to show evidence of some evil plot.

Once you let someone be a full-time politician, the power goes to their head. The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent. Show me someone who's a life-long politician and I'll show you a crook - party need not matter.

Re:Link?

[karmatic]

First off, it doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but rather the right of the people.

Furthermore: (10 USC 311)

311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, fine - the right of all able-bodied males between ages 17-45 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds good to me.

Re:Link?

[dbrutus]

Every state has a military code. They're pretty much all modeled after a suggested federal code. Militias outside the National guard, specifically the unorganized militia are a staple in all of the one's I've looked through. Try reading the actual law instead of just somebody's talking points. Most decent public libraries have a state code, read yours instead of being led around by the nose. The relevant section won't be more than a page or two.

Re:Link?

[Wyatt Earp]

However, according to US Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311 Militia: composition and classes,

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

So, everyone who is 17 to 45 are part of the militia of the United States of America per Federal Law and entitled to own and bare arms.

Re:Link?

[fyngyrz]

The second amendment does not apply to normal citizens. It applies to organized militia

You're entirely incorrect. The "milita" is the unorganized collection of armed citizens that were available to call up. Also, the 2nd amendment does apply to "normal citizens." Both of these errors in your position are addressed, exposed, debunked, and disposed of in the following March 9th, 2007 court decision:

Parker v. District of Columbia [uscourts.gov]

That's the actual decision, in PDF. Absolutely required reading for collective right theorists (which is where your ideas are found.) The court explains, very clearly, that the individual rights position is the valid one, and precisely why, including what is wrong with attempting to use the prefatory clause to qualify the operative clause.

you live in an ivory tower

[circletimessquare]

you revel in thought experiments. you have a wonderful list of what ifs. you're probably a student (or if you're an adult, that's just scarier) and so you have no real world experience with trying to make money and live a life. and so you can consider these ideas as sound when they are obviously crackpot, simply because you are so naive and earnest. so anarchy makes sense to you, in your perfect little hermetically sealed bubble, apart from the daily worries of the average person

unfortunately, how the human beings in your delightful experiment actually behave is different than you project. you want me to provide assertion for this. this is like asking me to prove to you that digestion results in shit: it should be your common knowledge already, such that if you don't know the fundamental aspects of the subject matter, then the issue is less that i will not prove it to you, and more that if you even have to ask for proof, it shows out of touch with reality you are, to ask such a foolish question

anarchy doesn't work. if you need to ask why, you're seriously deluded, and not worth the time explaining it to, because anyone who would need such explaining is already out of touch with simple rational persuasion

look, i'm certian you're a very positive, earnest little clueless fellow. why don't you write some more polemics, have some flamewars with some better adjusted folk, have a few brainstorming sessions with a few other deluded fools, and go squat in some abandoned building, or whatever gives you a hard on about your grand utopian scheming. you're not the first of your crackpot utopian kind, and you won't be the last

but i'm sorry, that you are so out of touch with essential human nature that you lack the fundamental understandings of why anarchy is pure hell, and you certainly are not worth the intellectual charity effort on my part to try to open your eyes to simple common sense and basic fundamental reality that a kindergartener could appreciate

good luck to you fruitcake. say it loud, say it proud, provide some entertainment for the us well-adjusted folk

xoxoxoxoxoxox

Re:Link?

[Pope]

"Well-regulated" in the parlance of the times generally means "well-equipped."