Fact check: Who are the members of the Utah 50501 Group

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, specific membership information for the Utah 50501 Group is extremely limited. The sources provide minimal details about the organization's members:

• Micheal Andaman is identified as the applicant for the city permit for the 'No Kings' protest ^[1]
• Two other unnamed organizers were mentioned as being listed in previous city communications and permits for Utah 50501 events, but their names are not provided ^[1]
• A military veteran served as a "peacekeeper" and safety volunteer with the organization, who was involved in a shooting incident, but this person's name is not disclosed ^{[2] [3]}

Multiple sources were blocked or inaccessible, preventing a complete picture of the group's membership ^{[4] [5]}. The available information focuses primarily on the aftermath of a shooting incident at a "No Kings" protest rather than providing comprehensive membership details.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant missing context about the Utah 50501 Group:

• The national 50501 organization has completely severed ties with the Utah branch due to violations of their strict no-weapons policy following a fatal shooting at a protest ^{[2] [3] [6] [7]}
• The Utah chapter has been officially disowned by the national organization for disregarding their "nonnegotiable values" ^[3]
• The incident involved a "peacekeeper" who was part of the organizer's security team firing shots during the protest ^[3]

Alternative viewpoints that could benefit from limited transparency:

• Law enforcement agencies might benefit from keeping member identities private during ongoing investigations
• The national 50501 organization benefits from distancing itself from the Utah branch to protect its reputation and maintain its no-weapons policy stance
• Individual members may benefit from privacy protection given the controversial nature of the shooting incident

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and straightforward, simply asking for factual membership information. However, there are potential issues with information availability:

• Deliberate opacity: The lack of readily available membership information may be intentional, either for privacy protection or to limit accountability following the shooting incident
• Organizational disavowal: The fact that the national organization has cut ties with the Utah branch ^{[2] [7]} suggests the Utah group may no longer be operating under official 50501 authorization
• Source accessibility problems: Multiple sources being blocked ^{[4] [5]} raises questions about whether information is being deliberately restricted or if there are technical issues preventing access to relevant data

The question itself does not contain apparent misinformation, but the scarcity of available information suggests either intentional privacy measures or potential efforts to limit transparency following the controversial shooting incident.