While still not having as much information as possible, I think the issue should be tabled by the NRC for another year to enable a more thorough due diligence by the agency. Now, if the NRC simply wishes to allow the agency staff to recommend their own personal feelings with what I would consider very limited due diligence, then I guess it should pass. It seems ridiculous and even I must question the approach to the recommendation when 1) the agency appears to wish to distance itself from social issues and 2) pick and choose when they wish to reference what others states do or allow. The seeming inconsistency of message from the agency appears to result then in what possibly could be staff's own personal preference. Is it fair, not in my opinion, but I would not feel like I ethically followed a process with what I know as of this moment. That said, I think it passes with revision. If the agency in the future denies support of a weapon request, i believe it should be strongly appealed and believe there is a lot to base an appeal on. I'm still reading through some things and have asked for a call from the agency as a follow up to my email and their response but haven't gotten one yet.