letter to Rep.Lois Landgraf re: Town Hall to discuss 2nd Amendment

 see below the flier that has been circulated to soldiers on Fort Carson (talk about trying to cater to ONLY one group of constituents)

Rep. Landgraf:

I am a gun owner and want to give you some things to think about before you provoke more hysteria and fear-mongering among your constituents, under the guise of “discussing” 2^nd Amendment rights.  I am also one of your employers (constituents).  As such, I am extremely disappointed in you that you would promote more ignorance and blind extremism, rather than reasonably and objectively evaluate each aspect of this issue.  Right now, gun owners have an opportunity to be part of the solution and help write sensible laws.  With great freedom comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. Rather than create more hysteria, you, as a representative, have an opportunity AND responsibility to carefully and objectively evaluate all associated issues and to help your constituents understand them.

First, I am a gun owner and my husband thinks that I need to get a concealed carry permit because of the “fallout” I receive for speaking out FOR sensible gun legislation.  This merely proves the point that gun regulation IS CRITICAL because I GET TO SAY WHAT I HAVE TO SAY (see the 1^st Amendment) without having to worry about other irrational, extremist gun owners who BELIEVE their 2^nd Amendment right includes the right to harass me or threaten politicians.  Your 2^nd Amendment rights DO NOT supersede MY 1^st Amendment rights.  Your 2^nd Amendment rights do NOT give you, or anyone else, the right to threaten anyone else; hence, the need for regulation, because I HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE MY LIFE WITHOUT FEAR or worry. 

I am a gun owner and am extremely embarrassed by the obscene narrow-mindedness and lack of compromise exhibited by many gun owners, and, as a gun owner myself, do not want to be associated with that insanity.  Personally, I am concerned about any citizen with these blind, extreme views.

Let me educate you on a few things:

The current bills address assault weapons, background checks, domestic violence, magazine sizes, etc.  Not one of these jeopardizes ANYONE’S 2^nd Amendment rights, and, let’s put the facts on the table: there are still thousands of guns and accessories that people can buy.  In addition, NOT ONE PIECE OF CURRENT LEGISLATION addresses the FACT that more people die to hand guns every day than to anything else: Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others WITH A GLOCK 9MM HANDGUN.  People die daily to hand guns, but no one has entered this into any discussion on bills.  I disagree with laws that prohibit concealed carry on college campuses, but we must evaluate and reflect on the current state of society.  

Second Amendment rights DO NOT SUPERSEDE anyone else’s CONSTITUTIONAL right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” and this conservative Supreme Court justice authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns, but also ruled, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (this does not include give ANYONE the right to threaten anyone else’s life, be it a politician who is working on gun legislation, or a private citizen who is invoking his or her 1^st Amendment right to speak about the issue).

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court wrote in United States V. Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further explanation:

“Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."”

“The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:”

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

United States v. Warner (1993):

US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling regarding Warner, who was caught in Utah with a machine gun and convicted on possession of a machine gun. Warner appealed on the basis the Utah constitution allows its citizens to bear arms, and therefore he is exempt based on 922(o)(2)(A), "under authority of the State." However, the court overruled this, citing the Farmer case saying machine guns were not meant to be in private hands, and although the Utah law gives permission to own automatic firearms, it did not grant him authority.

The 1994 “assault weapons” ban was a direct result of the shooting of President Reagan and Press Secretary Jim Brady (and two others).  After being disabled, Brady and his wife became active lobbyists, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 as a result of their work.  The 1994 assault weapons ban was not a stand-alone bill. It was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, an anti-crime measure, and voters largely accepted the basis for a ban on the production of assault weapons, according to news reports at that time.  Furthermore, President Reagan, who was an NRA member, supported the 1994 bill: here’s the link to his editorial explaining his position at that time. www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html.  He made these statements in 1989 after Patrick Purdy fired more than 100 rounds from a version of an AK-47, killing five children and wounding 30 others at a school:

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

Retired General Colin Powell stated this:

“The American people want to see something done, and it is not a threat to the Second Amendment.”

“A message I’d like to see get out is: ‘we’re not taking away your Second Amendment rights,’” Powell said. ”I believe in the Second Amendment, I have guns in my home, I am prepared to protect my family, but I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone buying guns is checked—what is objectionable about that?”

“Extremists who think they need to protect themselves from the government need to be countered by diplomatic calls for gun control, the panel agreed.” (emphasis mine).

“The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact. You can own guns legally,” (emphasis mine). “But the American people have been devastated by what’s happened at Newtown and elsewhere.”

Retired General Wesley Clark stated this in 2003:

“I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated this recently:

”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

We are not the safest nation on earth-in fact, we fall way below many countries

True “gun grabbers” are few; it is not even possible to “get all the guns.”  Reinstatement of the 1994 assault weapons ban, along with other bills to improve background checks and limit ammunition purchases and magazine sizes does not infringe on anyone’s 2^nd Amendment rights.  The politician, the domestic violence victim, and the vocal private citizen each have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

As stated on the Independent Firearm Owners Association’s (IFOA) website (www.independentfirearmowners.org):

The Second Amendment, regardless of the era – during the days of Madison and Jefferson or today – is about two words: “freedom” and “responsibility.” It never was about hunting or types of firearms.  In fact, it’s not really about firearms.

We CAN preserve the 2^nd Amendment AND keep people safe, if we are smart, responsible, objective, and reasonable.  It is YOUR JOB to be smart, responsible, objective and reasonable.

Rev. Renee L. Ten Eyck

Here's part of Landgraf's response on Facebook. It appears that money has more value than lives:

My letter to editor response to recent letter re: 2nd Amendment

Response to Al Sweet's recent letter about Gun rights

Gun rights

-I am a gun owner who grew up in a hunting family and, I am terribly embarrassed by the extremism and lack of compromise exhibited by many gun rights activists, and, as a gun owner myself, do not want to be associated with that insanity.  Personally, I am concerned about any citizen with these extremist views, and I am not sure I want him or her in the same room with me when he or she is packing a .357.
As Sen. Mike Johnston of Denver stated: "What is before us is not a constitutional question but a policy question."
Mr. Sweet conveys his disdain, but does not give any facts. He opposes Obama (and state gun control efforts) because of his personal feelings about the POTUS, not because Obama has actually done anything to take away 2^nd Amendment rights,  but because of continued conspiracy and hysteria that someone, anyone, is coming for all guns…
What Mr. Sweet states are not facts, but his interpretations, wishes and beliefs. Here are some facts:
In Presser v. Illinois, (1886)- states CAN regulate gun ownership
The Court noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States."
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court wrote in United States V. Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Further explanation:
“Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."”
“The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:”
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

United States v. Warner (1993) –
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling regarding Warner, who was caught in Utah with a machine gun and convicted on possession of a machine gun. Warner appealed on the basis the Utah constitution allows its citizens to bear arms, and therefore he is exempt based on 922(o)(2)(A), "under authority of the State." However, the court overruled this, citing the Farmer case saying machine guns were not meant to be in private hands, and although the Utah law gives permission to own automatic firearms, it did not grant him authority.
As for Mr. Sweet’s descriptions of Civil War battles-he is justifying the point: those were battles that took place PRIOR to United States v. Miller, and those battles have no bearing on current day society or court precedents that were established long AFTER the Civil War.
When it comes to discussions on hate groups, yes, there were laws implemented to try to keep guns away from former slaves that have since been overturned, but the statement Mr. Sweet made that “The 1994 “assault weapons” ban was aimed at the Koreans who successfully defended their businesses during the Rodney King riots” is patently false.  That legislation, which was packed with loopholes, was a direct result of the shooting of President Reagan and Press Secretary Jim Brady were shot (as well as two others).  After being disabled, Brady and his wife became active lobbyists in the gun control arena, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 as a result of their work.  The 1994 assault weapons ban wasn’t a stand-alone bill. It was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, an anti-crime measure, and voters largely accepted the basis for a ban on the production of assault weapons, according to news reports at that time.  Please, show your credible sources to support your statement.  Furthermore, President Reagan, who was an NRA member, supported the 1994 bill: here’s the link to his editorial explaining his position at that time. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html.  He made the following statement in 1989 after Patrick Purdy fired more than 100 rounds from a version of an AK-47, killing five children and wounding 30 others at a school:
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”
Yes, America has implemented many racist laws since its inception, to include laws trying to keep guns away from minorities.  That does not negate my position that we are not truly managing current gun access of hate groups even though the government is often tracking and following the activities of some of those members.  It isn’t until something bad happens that we act (case in point: the shooting of the Sikh gurdwara in Wisconsin. That shooter had been followed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the government for a decade).
Retired General Colin Powell stated this:
“The American people want to see something done, and it is not a threat to the Second Amendment.”
“A message I’d like to see get out is: ’we’re not taking away your Second Amendment rights,’” Powell said. ”I believe in the Second Amendment, I have guns in my home, I am prepared to protect my family, but I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone buying guns is checked—what is objectionable about that?”
“Extremists who think they need to protect themselves from the government need to be countered by diplomatic calls for gun control, the panel agreed.”
“The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government, but the reality is the government isn’t coming after you and the Second Amendment is intact. You can own guns legally,” Powell said. “But the American people have been devastated by what’s happened at Newtown and elsewhere.”
Retired General Wesley Clark stated this in 2003:
“I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated this recently:
”I spent a career carrying typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”
“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look — I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want — we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”
Mr. Sweet’s following statement is ‘loaded:’
“America IS one of the safest nations on the Earth. The myth that we have a high GUN HOMICIDE rate is based on the misuse of the number for overall GUN VIOLENCE. If one removes suicides, accidents, and justifiable shootings the US GUN HOMICIDE rate has been consistently under 4 per 100,000 and not the 10 per 100,000 that the gun grabbers claim.”
All I can say to this is true data show that

1. We are not the safest nation on earth-in fact, we fall way below many countries
2. You cannot separate the data on the overall matter of gun deaths in America (unless you are analyzing a specific category).  Whether it was intentional or accidental is irrelevant when looking at the overall “big picture.”
3. True “gun grabbers” are few; it’s not even possible for anyone to “get all the guns.”  Reinstatement of the 1994 assault weapons ban, along with other bills to improve background checks and limit ammunition purchases and magazine sizes does not infringe on anyone’s 2^nd Amendment rights.

Yes, Mr. Sweet, the NRA would seemingly have a duty to be part of the solution, but it is not. The NRA represents the interests of only the gun manufacturers, not the individual gun owners. I once had a membership, and discontinued it.
Even former President George HW Bush resigned his lifetime membership (www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html)

Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman is the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association (IFOA) (www.independentfirearmowners.org).  Here is information about Feldman and his book:
Richard Feldman, a former top lobbyist for the NRA, reveals the primary goal of
the organization today--and it isn’t protecting the Second Amendment--in RICOCHET: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.
“He explains how the NRA's inflexible positions have placed the nation's most prominent representative of law-abiding gun owners in increasing opposition to law enforcement, gun makers, and moderate Republicans. The upshot is that the NRA is not an effective advocate for its members' interests. Obsessed with fundraising, scare-mongering, and wielding political power, NRA leadership undermines commonsense solutions that would protect gun owners' rights while reducing accidental shootings and gun violence.”
“Ricochet … is a wake-up call for gun owners who cherish their Second Amendment rights. The message is that the NRA has betrayed your trust and misused your hard-earned donations…”
As stated on the IFOA’s website:
Understanding the 2nd Amendment
The Second Amendment, regardless of the era – during the days of Madison and Jefferson or today – is about two words: “freedom” and “responsibility.” It never was about hunting or types of firearms.  In fact, it’s not really about firearms.
We CAN preserve the 2^nd Amendment AND keep people safe, if we are smart, responsible, objective, and reasonable.

Rev. Renee L. Ten Eyck

 http://www.epcan.com/editorials/you-said-it.html

 

El Paso County Sherriff's Office and the Nat'l Sheriff's Assn notice:

As a progressive gun owner, I have this to say regarding the EPSO and the Nat'l Sheriff's Assn notice:

The NRA doesn't represent the individual gun owners, but most don't know this-the NRA represents only the gun manufacturers.

I am a gun owner, and believe that gun owners have a DUTY to be part of the solution to prevent tragedies. It is not enough to scream about 2nd amendment rights, as that amendment was created during a time when militia members had to bring their own weapons to battle, and there was no such thing as an automatic of any kind.

NO TRAGEDY is a simple, one-issue ordeal. Every situation must be analyzed.

As a gun owner I think it's our duty to regulate and be safe-law enforcement does this, the military does this, and even public gun ranges control access and shooting privileges. As should we. (how many shootings are there on military installations going back through history?)

Lets look at the state of our culture -I was reading recently about the spike in gun sales after the Aurora shooting and then again after the POTUS won reelection- buyers often tend to be of the mindset that they're in constant danger (despite the fact that the FBI and NCIS state that violent crime is down compared to recent years) and because they also believe that every shooting and every democrat will use the event to take away all guns, when that has NEVER happened ever-no one has ever even suggested taking away ALL guns, so that's just craziness to go out and buy things you may not need and may not have the money to invest in. Insanity. My husband told me that several of his soldiers wanted to buy guns after Obama was reelected, based on lies and rumors, even though Obama has made clear he would never take away all guns-my husband had to council those young soldiers that even though they want to run out and buy guns, they can't afford to do so and must prioritize their bills.... see what insanity and lies do to people? We even, here in our area, have lying radio commercials that lead people to believe that the government is going to take all their guns, when educated people, such as city counsel members, county commissioners, and law enforcement officials should all know and speak the FACTS rather than promoting fear mongering among those who are NOT educated to the facts.

We can't just call everything a mental health issue. Lets discuss hate groups-the guy who shot innocent people at the Sikh gurdwara (temple) in WI. Should we deny fire arms to all who are members of faith/race-based hate groups who are known to be aggressive historically? I don't hear anyone screaming for bans on weapons to KKK members or other white supremacist group members who "could" behave in such a deathly way.  The guy who shot Gabby Giffords AND 18 others-politically motivated? He is believed to be incompetent, but speculated to dislike all politicians regardless of their affiliation.

If more guns made things safer America would logically have the lowest murder rate on Earth-but we don't, and we must, as gun owners, reflect on this and hold our society responsible.

I am a gun owner who loves to shoot. I'm a retired veteran who grew up in a hunting family and am married to an active duty soldier who has more than 22yrs. There's a reason the Army "trains as they fight." I'm a woman who believes that all women can benefit from training with handguns because of how the achievement can benefit and empower them-but not everyone is inclined to learn and train with weapons.

We must also consider the fact that Ronald Reagan supported the 1994 Assault weapons ban, after he and Brady were shot, and that many state supreme courts have upheld state level assault weapon bans as constitutional.

The right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment, but it is not absolute and lawmakers have introduced a series of common-sense restrictions. For instance, in the Heller case, the Supreme Court found that while a handgun ban is not constitutional, because handguns are in “common use,” a machine gun is not and therefore could be restricted. An assault weapon equipped with a clip that can shoot hundreds of rounds would likely fall into the same category. As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

Also, as a gun owner, lets just put the cards on the table... not one of us keeps an assault weapon on the living room wall, or in our car, for that matter, loaded, let alone readily accessible. Many folks keep all firearms locked up or in a place that it would not be readily accessible if someone broke into our homes, So to say we need assault weapons is pure... balderdash.

As a gun owner, I believe we can preserve the 2nd amendment, but ALSO keep people safe. And it is our duty to do so.

We can't buy an M1Abrams tank, and battlefield small arms have no business in our homes either (yes, my husband and I differ on this matter); battlefield weapons, obscene amounts of ammunition, and massive magazines are not necessary in our homes (though, admittedly, they're a lot of fun to shoot, and larger magazines are preferable-who wants to reload constantly)- we MUST reflect on this now.

Stephen King stated in his book, "...pro-gun forces in this country...must accept responsibility, recognizing that responsibility is not culpability   (I disagree, not acting makes us culpable.) They need to say, 'we support these measures not because the law demand we support them, but because it's the sensible thing.'"

I am personally disappointed with the EPSO for blindly trying to cater to the voters rather than taking a logical and responsible and sensible stand on this issue. Just because taking the responsible and sensible stand would be difficult, doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.


Rev. Renée Lynn Ten Eyck
published in the El Paso County and Fountain Valley News