You are only empowering his actions by not resisting them.  Come on people!  This is the same group that can stand in front of a semi truck, but you can't ask one guy to leave your meetings?  I can understand completly you discomfort with him, that said if he is not someone you want at your meetings, simply ask him to leave.  You have a whole group there, surely that is enough to stiffen everyone's resolve?

"si vis pacem, para bellum"

This post is documentation of Jeff's public activities. It is important background in terms of reasoning for discomfort with his presence at the meeting.

It is not normal to carry signs that advocate the use of violence. - nor I argue should it be encouraged on the part of the community.

Of course some will want to interpret this post as public humiliation. However, it is aptly documented that Jeff was present at a PMR rally with his "Job Well Done" sign. That is for the record.

I have no problem exposing what Jeff does. Let's see the truth. Yes, he should have been asked to leave the meeting, and this post gets to the heart of why.

This is not public humiliation. Public humiliation would not be acceptable. An example of public humiliation would be making fun of someone's appearance or someone's employment, or someone's education. Jeff's behavior has been entirely public. Frankly Jeff's public behavior has been offensive to me. I shudder to think that I am alone in my disapproval of some of the things that Jeff has said and done.

Again, it is important to understand this in terms of how his presence at a PMR meeting would be interpreted.

I may show up to the meeting on the 16th. If this frightens anyone of PMR (which it shouldn't) please change your venue or lock the doors before I get there.

Again, good job on covering the meeting Jeff. Obviously you were very well behaved, and I'm really not sure what else could have been asked of you.

Was this meeting open to the public or not? If it's open to the public, then you can't complain (well, actually, you can always complain -1st amendment, but you wouldn't have grounds to complain) if a member of the public shows up. If it was a private meeting, then only members or those invited (to put it simply) have a right to attend.

I wasn't at the meeting in question, so I can't speak for what Jeff did or didn't do while present. I should probably go read his report after posting this, so I can be better informed of the issues here. But anyone holding a public meeting should realize that what they say may be subject to public scrutiny. That's the nature of doing things in the public. If you don't want public scrutiny, hold private meetings. I find it hard to imagine anyone involved in that level of political activism not having considered that if they have meetings open to the public, their meetings could be visited/reported beyond the group. Perhaps you could clarify the basis of your complaint?

the same folks who are now attending and talking about attending PMR meetings are folks who are clear about their affection for firearms.  The brutal efficiency of gun-fanciers who go off the deep end is pretty clear everywhere it happens. 

Lots of the folks who come to these meetings for reasons that align with the goals of the organizations are probably very uncomfortable with the presence of their political opponents in these brainstorming sessions.  

I think the real goal with establishing a presence like Jeff's at these meetings is intimidation, not citizen journalism.   

I thought Jeff's reporting on the meeting was fair and balanced (no pun intended)

That doesn't change his history in the community.

His motivation is yet to be disclosed.

I wasn't at the meeting but I thougth Jeff's report/blog on this meeting was pretty good.

I just finished reading through Jeff's post and the comments and I think this blog was created for no other reason than to try and discredit Jeff or to garner support to limit who can attend PMR meetings.  Or, to try and deny Jeff from attending.

I don't find his signs, statements or anything else to be oppressive or intimidating anymore than I find Drew Hendricks, Robert Whitlock or Pete Bohmer's rhetoric to be intimidating or oppressive.  

With all this publicity I just might have to attend the meeting on the 16th to see what all the fuss is about.   

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.