Concealed weapon concerned parade goer

rcav8r said:

.....I would suggest that Mr. Granvold read the bill of rights again. Y'know, that document that also gives him the right of free speech? .....

Click to expand...

I have a comment. The Constitution gives us neither the right to bear arms nor the right of free speech. It affirms these rights which already exist and prohibits them from being infringed upon.

Now I heard either in this blog or elsewhere that there is a decision being made at the state level that OC/CC should be banned from 'special events.' That seems a very broad subjective term. There is a danger that anti gunners will use it to make all public events 'special.' That would mean our local county fairs too won't it?:question:

Law abider said:

Now I heard either in this blog or elsewhere that there is a decision being made at the state level that OC/CC should be banned from 'special events.' That seems a very broad subjective term. There is a danger that anti gunners will use it to make all public events 'special.' That would mean our local county fairs too won't it?:question:

Click to expand...

Though some treat it so, OCDO is not a blog. A Government Accountability Board staff attorney is trying to justify prohibiting gun carry at polls for an election being a "special event". Special event is objectively defined in the statute, including being open to the public. Elections are not open to the public that includes felons, illegals, minors and foreigners.

§ 943.13(1e)(h) “Special event” means an event that is open to the public, is for a duration of not more than 3 weeks, and either has designated entrances to and from the event that are locked when the event is closed or requires an admission.

§ 943.13(1m)(c)3. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a special event if the organizers of the special event have notified the actor not to enter or remain at the special event while carrying a firearm
or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the special event grounds or building used as a parking facility.

Interceptor_Knight said:

I have a comment. The Constitution gives us neither the right to bear arms nor the right of free speech. It affirms these rights which already exist and prohibits them from being infringed upon.

Click to expand...

Good point. Will reword the letter.

Interceptor_Knight said:

I have a comment. The Constitution gives us neither the right to bear arms nor the right of free speech. It affirms these rights which already exist and prohibits them from being infringed upon.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Interceptor Knight, for putting these rights in their proper context. It is a point that bears repeating to the sheeple.

Many public places? Like where? And you can't use public buildings as an excuse. That part of Act 35 needs to be addressed and fixed so no government body can post. Stupid liberals. :banghead:

DocWalker said:

They were so happy he was OCing they had a parade....

Click to expand...

LOL

whiny bedwetter said:

"There was a man carrying at gun at the corner of Madison and Main Street during Sunday's parade, which was crowded with families and small children. Concealed Weapons are not allowed in post offices, Hospitals, and in many public places. The city council needs to add "All public gatherings" including parades to the list of prohibitions. This was, I'm sure, very traumatizing for both children and and adults. Why did this individual feel it was necessary to carry a weapon to a public celebaratory event attended by many families and young children?"

Click to expand...

Your draft seems good so far, with the inclusion of "rights aren't given, they're protected".

Mention preemption (city ordinance can't be more strict than state law), so that the city council trying to prohibit the peaceful exercise of protected civil rights at a public gathering such as a parade would not only be a waste of their time & your money but could cost more when someone is wrongfully arrested & wins a suit against the city.

"crowded with families and small children"
He doesn't think his family is worth protecting? I'd protect any child.

"very traumatizing"
Did police notice people running away, screaming, fainting?
Did the person have a large clear area around himself?
If not, I think the only person traumatized by seeing an inanimate object was the writer. Maybe he should stay in his own home, so he doesn't see police & military. Don't watch the news either.

"Why do you need to carry a gun to X?"
a) why do you need to exercise your 1A rights of freedom of assembly & speech at X?
b) what's wrong with the peaceful exercise of protected civil rights?
c) which other rights do you want to take away?
d) can you guarantee my safety at X? Bad things happen wherever & whenever criminals want them to.

right now i am in a very 'me' phase of life , i can clearly see this topic is about me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g



"Why do you need to carry a gun to X?" Cause he lets us.

why do you need to exercise your 1A rights of freedom of assembly & speech at X? I dont mind it much.

can you guarantee my safety at X? yeah, pretty much, that's the concept, and the bad guys know it. if they dont they find out quickly here.


no more X-in about me on here now MKE.

Law abider said:

Now I heard either in this blog or elsewhere that there is a decision being made at the state level that OC/CC should be banned from 'special events.' That seems a very broad subjective term. There is a danger that anti gunners will use it to make all public events 'special.' That would mean our local county fairs too won't it?:question:

Click to expand...

Why sweat it...I haven't met an anti-gunner yet; that I couldn't out-shoot, out-vote, or out-stomp...have you???

Lurchiron said:

Why sweat it...I haven't met an anti-gunner yet; that I couldn't out-shoot, out-vote, or out-stomp...have you???

Click to expand...

heheheheheh.... good one. I'll remember it.

Email from Editor

John,

Thanks. Your letter is within our length guidelines; we should have no trouble printing the whole thing. The only unknown is whether I have to hold it a week because of the PFLAG controversy. We've had about 20 or 30 comments and letters on that alone (along with several website comments on the issue you brought up here).

I'll have to see how it pans out after a few days. But it will run, and I don't see anything on first glance that would need editing.

My 2 bits: I originally had requested my name be withheld, cause I didn't want to be targeted for burglary cause I might have guns, but he said it was not their practice to publish anonymous letters, but I feel strongly enough about this issue that I told him to go ahead and use my name. The comments many from here and on the WCI left on the papers website probably have brought this issue to his attention. So far, not one of the comments has been in support of the hater.

Policy or not, it is clearly their practice to publish anonymous/pseudanonymous material. Welcome to the Nym Wars.

Are children and childish adults traumatized when the see a police officer with his/her sidearm?
What about 05-28-2012 when we have parades and ceremonies to honor our lost veterans, how about funerals of vets where the surviving attend with their M1's, and do a final salute to their fallen comrades?
Does that traumatize this asshat too?

Lurchiron said:

Why sweat it...I haven't met an anti-gunner yet; that I couldn't out-shoot, out-vote, or out-stomp...have you???

Click to expand...

Nutczak said:

Are children and childish adults traumatized when the see a police officer with his/her sidearm?
What about 05-28-2012 when we have parades and ceremonies to honor our lost veterans, how about funerals of vets where the surviving attend with their M1's, and do a final salute to their fallen comrades?
Does that traumatize this asshat too?

Click to expand...

Mrs. Plankton and I will be leaving shortly for the Racine Parade; I hope no one is "traumatized" by our attendance. :lol:

Interceptor_Knight said:

I have a comment. The Constitution gives us neither the right to bear arms nor the right of free speech. It affirms these rights which already exist and prohibits them from being infringed upon.

Click to expand...

^^^^THIS^^^^ , even an avogadro of ^^^^this^^^^. Heck, give me a dozen avogadros of ^^^^THIS^^^^.

This embodies the paradigm shift that is so woefully lacking and desperately needed today. The Bill of Restrictions "gives" us nothing, nada, zip. But only delineates what is in need of protection, IF freedom is to flourish. The only element not specified in the Bill of Restrictions is the need - the absolute need, for the kind of restraint of self that (aka "self-restraint") that comes from the proper fear/respect of God.

Try this one on friends and anti's alike:
"what right do you have to breathe in and breathe out?"

Watch most folks struggle with this one.

Then follow with:
"where does that right come from?"

If it comes from the Creator, then it is unalienable. If it comes from man - if you are convinced by man that it comes from man, then it can and will be revoked in some way, at some time, for some/many.

Carry at will

My wife and I OC'ed at the parade and ceremony today in Elkhorn.

No screaming, crying or gnashing of teeth.

Had a couple good conversations, however, all of them supportive.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I know it's too late to change anything, but when I write articles, I avoid calling someone out by name or even using the word "You," especially in the middle of the article, as it could be construed as a personal attack. In a debate, the idea is to make your self sound more intelligent than the other individual, not to belittle or place blame to them. I probably would have started the rebuttal by referencing the article by his name. Your first two short paragraphs were perfect for this, but in the middle, I would use facts (Which you did a great job of doing with references to laws), not the individual's name.

For example:
"Just because you were traumatized, sir, does not mean anyone else was."

"And just to educate Mr. Granvold, I was open carrying, not concealed carrying. If I was carrying concealed, how would you know?"

Thank you for pointing out the difference between concealed carry and open carry; however, sentences aren't supposed to start with transition words. MKEgal came up with some excellent examples too.

"Did anyone running away, scream, or fainting? I didn't notice an exodus."

"Openly carrying a firearm is not the same as concealed carry, and if I was carrying concealed, which I am also legally able to do, no one would have known I was."

Hope this helps.

No letter printed this week. They concentrated on the PFLAG "issue". But for some reason, they printed Doug Huffman's online comment in with those. WTF?

Letter was printed today, in full, other than date change (I said "a letter writer last week", they changed it to the date of publication).

No link yet.

At the end of the letter, the mentioned there was also online comments, and to check them out.