Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: First draft letter to Stoughton city council

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252

    First draft letter to Stoughton city council

    Critique, please!

    Dear Council Members,
    As you know, an ordinance to to ban weapons in city owned buildings has been proposed and will be coming to the city council for a vote. I urge you to vote NO on this proposal. Please take the time to read this. It is lengthy, but well worth your time.
    First:
    As a matter of principle, its immoral for the city government to deny a citizen their constitutionally guaranteed HUMAN right to self-defense in buildings that the very citizen pays for through their taxes. Those are not private buildings, they are government buildings, but a government "of the people". Ultimately they ARE the people's buildings. If we embrace a government "of the people" how can we deny citizens a constitutional right to carry in their own buildings? Its immoral. They mayor doesn't own the building. She didn't pay for it. The city council doesn't own the buildings. They didn't pay for it. The taxpayers paid for it.
    Second:
    I would ask the council members if they honestly believe that a sign will stop a deranged lunatic from coming into the city hall with a gun. In an era of growing frustration with government, the potential for a lunatic on a shooting rampage does exist (we saw it in Florida at a school board meeting, we saw it in Missouri) A deranged shooter will ignore the sign and every law-abiding person inside will have left their means to defend themselves in their car.
    I might pose the question to the council, if some lunatic is unable to pay their property tax bill and decides to go on a suicidal shooting rampage at the city council meeting, do you want to be sitting where you are with no means to defend yourself or would you wish that someone in that room stop the threat and save lives?
    I would tell them "god forbid what happened at that board meeting in Florida or in Missouri happens here", but if someone lunatic comes in and points a gun at you and starts shooting. As everyone dives under the desk, in that moment, will you regret that you prohibited EVERY "good guy" in the room from having a gun who could save your life. Will you regret that your signs not only created an environment where should a lunatic come in and start shooting, no one will be able to stop it, but your signs will ALSO give a lunatic a sense of confidence that the city council meeting is a GOOD place to go on a shooting rampage because the prohibition on guns means everyone in there is unarmed.
    Its noteworthy that around the country, deranged lunatic's DO NOT go into police stations and start shooting. They go in schools and universities and school board meetings, and city council meetings where guns are PROHIBITED. I don't think this is coincidence. I think lunatics want easy prey. If they just wanted to die, they could kill themselves. They want to inflict mass casualties before they do. That's why they don't go on shooting rampages in police stations where there are guns that could stop them. They find places where guns are prohibited and they go on a rampage there.
    You could say “but who needs a gun at the library, or junior fair, I mean, there are KIDS there!”, but then simply think of the above paragraph. If you post and prohibit the law abiding from carrying, you create these “target rich” environments.
    Please be compassionate towards the law abiding citizen who would defend themselves from the crime that is seeping into the small communities from cities like Madison and Milwaukee.
    Third
    Why is it the law abiding citizen is the only one who will be affected by this ordinance? As I asked before, do you truly believe that a sign will stop anyone bent on doing harm? Think about this. A criminal isn't going to care about licenses or laws or ordinances. They aren't going to go through the training, background check, and the $50 fee required of the concealed carry license holder in Wisconsin. Open carriers are no different, except they have been legally carrying in Wisconsin for years now.
    Contrary to what the media and anti-gun people have been claiming, there has been no “blood in the streets”, no “OK corral shoot-outs”, no “road rage with gun fire”. In fact, studies have shown that in right to carry states, crimes have gone down.
    Another myth that needs busting, is that a gun owner is going to “play cop”. No. That is not the citizens job. The armed citizen carries to protect themselves and others. It is not their job to pursue criminals, intervene in domestic disputes, or any other job that belongs to the police officer.
    Fourth
    Places with “no weapons” signs posted could make the parking lot a target for thieves, because they know there is a high likelihood that guns would have been left in vehicles because they are prohibited in the building. A city council meeting that lasts several hours in the evening, or a evening at the Jr. fair could give a criminal ample opportunity to break into cars in the parking lot to steal guns left there.
    Lastly, I would point out liability. If the city takes away the ability of the law-abiding to provide for their own self defense while in city owned buildings, but then does not take proper measures to ensure the safety of the people in them, it is a potential liability. In a courtroom, you are prohibited from carrying, but as a safety measure, screen everyone through a metal detector.
    In a public library (or other public building), if they prohibit you from carrying and take away your means to protect yourself, but take no measures to insure your safety, that could represent liability. Other communities in Wisconsin have voted down posting government properties because of this issue.
    Other communities have voted down these proposals because they acknowledged that the signs won't stop anyone with criminal intent, and only affect the law abiding.

  2. #2
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    If possible shorten it up. Politicians have short attention spans. Ohh, is that a nickle?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    "to" is doubled on the first line.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    No one will ever read that. You need to knock that down to one paragraph of about five sentences.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  5. #5
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    No one will ever read that. You need to knock that down to one paragraph of about five sentences.
    Yep. KISS - Keep It Short and Shallow.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    One paragraph???

    I feel a very strong, convincing arguement is needed, since the "safety committee" that passed the draft ordinance in the first place did it without dissent.

    They need to know why this ordinance will be so wrong, especially cause I'm betting the anti-gun police chief probably had a major hand in this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member markush's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kenosha
    Posts
    175
    FWIW I didn't read it all. I read the first paragraph looking for grammatical errors and since all I caught was the to to I read the first sentence of a couple more paragraphs...that's it! Just like the others said, when your wall of letters pops up on their screen they are not going to read it, no matter how well written.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382
    There are several spelling/grammar errors as well as several adjectives that kind of ruin the flow. Definitely shorten as you repeat yourself a lot and maybe think about using bullet points vs a wall of text. If you would like a condensed version I can send one to you. Just let me know via PM. Else repost here and we can all critique it again.

  9. #9
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    A "convincing argument" is worthless if nobody reads it. Way too many words. Boil it down to the core.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    I don't know about one paragraph, but three or four is a lot better than seven or eight.

    I'd probably start by cutting out this:
    I might pose the question to the council, if some lunatic is unable to pay their property tax bill and decides to go on a suicidal shooting rampage at the city council meeting, do you want to be sitting where you are with no means to defend yourself or would you wish that someone in that room stop the threat and save lives?
    I would tell them "god forbid what happened at that board meeting in Florida or in Missouri happens here", but if someone lunatic comes in and points a gun at you and starts shooting. As everyone dives under the desk, in that moment, will you regret that you prohibited EVERY "good guy" in the room from having a gun who could save your life. Will you regret that your signs not only created an environment where should a lunatic come in and start shooting, no one will be able to stop it, but your signs will ALSO give a lunatic a sense of confidence that the city council meeting is a GOOD place to go on a shooting rampage because the prohibition on guns means everyone in there is unarmed.
    and this:
    Another myth that needs busting, is that a gun owner is going to “play cop”. No. That is not the citizens job. The armed citizen carries to protect themselves and others. It is not their job to pursue criminals, intervene in domestic disputes, or any other job that belongs to the police officer.
    I think you may be putting ideas in their head by bringing up the "play cop" subject. Possibly doing more harm than good. Plus, gotta shorten this whole thing up somewhere.

    I like the last part about liability. Politicians don't like liability and actually being accountable for something. That's a pretty big deal in WI's new CC law if you didn't know. Any business can prohibit guns, but if someone gets hurt there due to lack of being able to defend themselves, the business can be held liable. I might toss in a sentence or two about if a person's Second Amendment rights are restricted at a public library, and that person becomes harmed due to the city's gun ban, maybe they will sue the city. Something like that. I'd make sure to have "restricting constitutional rights" and things like that in there.

    edit: lol, you're in WI. I couldn't see the location when in the reply screen.
    Last edited by DangerClose; 03-29-2012 at 12:51 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Use citations to back up claims like immunity is 175.60(21). Only people that can carry in a government building are licensed is 941.235.

    Don't talk about rights. I have found that they don't care about rights when it's 'for the children'.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252

    How about this?

    Dear Council Members,
    As you know, an ordinance to ban weapons in city owned buildings has been proposed and will be coming to the city council for a vote. Please ask yourself the following:
    -It would only affect law abiding citizens. Why would you fear law abiding citizens over criminals who do not obey the law anyway?
    -Do you really believe that a SIGN will stop criminals?
    -It is immoral for a city government to deny self-defense to the very citizen that pays for and owns these buildings. We are a government for the people, after all
    -In the 5 months that Concealed Carry has been in effect in Wisconsin, not one concealed carry license holder has been arrested for any illegal use of a firearm.
    -Last, but not least, liability. Is the city planning to put metal detectors and security guards at all city building enterances? Otherwise, how will the city protect the citizens it has disarmed?Section 175.60(21)(B) and (C ) spells out that those who do NOT post have immunity.
    I urge you to vote NO to the ordinance. Why penalize the law-abiding for a false sense of security?

    (The above questions were in bullet points, didn't transfer well)

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    Dear Council Members,
    As you know, an ordinance to ban weapons in city owned buildings has been proposed and will be coming to the city council for a vote. Please ask yourself the following:
    -It would only affect law abiding citizens. Why would you fear law abiding citizens over criminals who do not obey the law anyway?
    -Do you really believe that a SIGN will stop criminals?
    -It is immoral for a city government to deny self-defense to the very citizen that pays for and owns these buildings. We are a government for the people, after all
    -In the 5 months that Concealed Carry has been in effect in Wisconsin, not one concealed carry license holder has been arrested for any illegal use of a firearm.
    -Last, but not least, liability. Is the city planning to put metal detectors and security guards at all city building enterances? Otherwise, how will the city protect the citizens it has disarmed?Section 175.60(21)(B) and (C ) spells out that those who do NOT post have immunity.
    I urge you to vote NO to the ordinance. Why penalize the law-abiding for a false sense of security?

    (The above questions were in bullet points, didn't transfer well)
    Much better. On the highlighted part, you might want to mention that us law abiding people have passed a background check and provided proof of training (941.235).

    What I mean by that, is if they DON'T post, a person who does NOT have a CCL will not be able to legally carry anyway.

  14. #14
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Thumbs up Nice job!

    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    Dear Council Members,
    As you know, an ordinance to ban weapons in city owned buildings has been proposed and will be coming to the city council for a vote. Please ask yourself the following:
    -It would only affect law abiding citizens. Why would you fear law abiding citizens over criminals who do not obey the law anyway?
    -Do you really believe that a SIGN will stop criminals?
    -It is immoral for a city government to deny self-defense to the very citizen that pays for and owns these buildings. We are a government for the people, after all
    -In the 5 months that Concealed Carry has been in effect in Wisconsin, not one concealed carry license holder has been arrested for any illegal use of a firearm.
    -Last, but not least, liability. Is the city planning to put metal detectors and security guards at all city building enterances? Otherwise, how will the city protect the citizens it has disarmed?Section 175.60(21)(B) and (C ) spells out that those who do NOT post have immunity.
    I urge you to vote NO to the ordinance. Why penalize the law-abiding for a false sense of security?

    (The above questions were in bullet points, didn't transfer well)
    Ding! We have a winner! The only change I might suggest is,
    The ordinance would only affect law abiding citizens. Why would you fear law abiding citizens over criminals who do not obey the law anyway?
    Nice job!
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382
    Much better

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •