oak1971
Regular Member
imported post
Be interesting to see how this turns out. I would love to be able to walk about heeled.
Be interesting to see how this turns out. I would love to be able to walk about heeled.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Intent to open carry in Milwaukee
- Thread starter Parabellum
- Start date
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
apjonas wrote:
apjonas wrote:
Or are you looking for my explanation of the exceptions, quibbles, to my general statements?
WIG19
Regular Member
imported post
Some here are starting to sound like wailing antis, attributing the most sinister of motives to others (the original poster, NRA, WCCA, WGO) in absence of substantive facts. Every organization has a particular agenda they're pursuing - as you all should know even the Brady Bunch are out of business without people who want to be vested in victimhood. This particular thread has become a nutroll. I wish Para the best of luck and hope others can regain their focus of what the original intent of the thread is.
Happy trails with your circular firing squad.
Some here are starting to sound like wailing antis, attributing the most sinister of motives to others (the original poster, NRA, WCCA, WGO) in absence of substantive facts. Every organization has a particular agenda they're pursuing - as you all should know even the Brady Bunch are out of business without people who want to be vested in victimhood. This particular thread has become a nutroll. I wish Para the best of luck and hope others can regain their focus of what the original intent of the thread is.
Happy trails with your circular firing squad.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Then the group selling the satisfactions to the infringments is benefitting. Follow the money.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
Then the group selling the satisfactions to the infringments is benefitting. Follow the money.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Since it's inception the NRA's battlecry has been that it is the figurehead for the protection of our second amendment rights. It has thrived by asking us to pay for that protection by incessantly begging for money over and above our membership fees. It's cry for money has been tolerable because the NRA has until the past couple of years taken a "no compromise" position on the second amendment. In the past couple of years it has been upsetting to many of us members that it is softening it's position. It is softening it's position by suggesting that there is room for compromise between the pro-gunners and the anti-gunners. Two recent examples was it's initial objection to the Heller case going to the U.S. Supreme Court. It weasle worded it's way out of that situation by reporting that it's position on Heller was falsely represented by a "clerical" error. The second compromise is it's suggestion that there is room within the interpretation of the second amendment to accomodate the requirement of certification and training.
The NRA has a reason for compromising. If the Supreme Court finds the Heller case to the favor of us pro-gunners it takes away a lot of the NRA's thunder and it's battlecry. To counter the NRA it must find other means to maintain it's revenue. Perhaps by suggesting that certification and training has a place under the second amendment the NRA positions itself to take a big role in that certification and training, thus maintaining it's bottom line.
As I have said before, every action and position the NRA takes is to the benefit of it's survival.
All of that bashing having been said there is something to say in support of the NRA. There are many pro-gun organizations politically active, however, the NRA has been sucessful in elevating itself to the top of the ladder. It has amassed by far the largest membership. It has become recognized by the anti-gunners as their most formidable opponent. It has become the political icon of gun ownership. It has the most active, influential and successful lobby team in Washington D.C. And so, in spite of our individual dislikes of some of it's practices and positions the NRA is really the only politically effective weapon we have to keep the anti-gunners from eating us alive.
My opinions.
Final note: Too much bickering. This is a discussion forum not a venting forum.
Since it's inception the NRA's battlecry has been that it is the figurehead for the protection of our second amendment rights. It has thrived by asking us to pay for that protection by incessantly begging for money over and above our membership fees. It's cry for money has been tolerable because the NRA has until the past couple of years taken a "no compromise" position on the second amendment. In the past couple of years it has been upsetting to many of us members that it is softening it's position. It is softening it's position by suggesting that there is room for compromise between the pro-gunners and the anti-gunners. Two recent examples was it's initial objection to the Heller case going to the U.S. Supreme Court. It weasle worded it's way out of that situation by reporting that it's position on Heller was falsely represented by a "clerical" error. The second compromise is it's suggestion that there is room within the interpretation of the second amendment to accomodate the requirement of certification and training.
The NRA has a reason for compromising. If the Supreme Court finds the Heller case to the favor of us pro-gunners it takes away a lot of the NRA's thunder and it's battlecry. To counter the NRA it must find other means to maintain it's revenue. Perhaps by suggesting that certification and training has a place under the second amendment the NRA positions itself to take a big role in that certification and training, thus maintaining it's bottom line.
As I have said before, every action and position the NRA takes is to the benefit of it's survival.
All of that bashing having been said there is something to say in support of the NRA. There are many pro-gun organizations politically active, however, the NRA has been sucessful in elevating itself to the top of the ladder. It has amassed by far the largest membership. It has become recognized by the anti-gunners as their most formidable opponent. It has become the political icon of gun ownership. It has the most active, influential and successful lobby team in Washington D.C. And so, in spite of our individual dislikes of some of it's practices and positions the NRA is really the only politically effective weapon we have to keep the anti-gunners from eating us alive.
My opinions.
Final note: Too much bickering. This is a discussion forum not a venting forum.
Mr. Greg
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Pointman wrote:
If anything, as a precursor to any open carry walks, we should do some open holster walks. I'm the leader of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at my college, and there are nationwide Open Holster Weeks where we wear holsters to class to protest our lack of ability to carry. It really does bring the issue into the spotlight, and spurs a lot of conversation.
Pointman wrote:
Are you serious? That's hilarious.
If anything, as a precursor to any open carry walks, we should do some open holster walks. I'm the leader of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at my college, and there are nationwide Open Holster Weeks where we wear holsters to class to protest our lack of ability to carry. It really does bring the issue into the spotlight, and spurs a lot of conversation.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Really off the wall thought, what about an open holster day at the high school level. PETA and the like USE high schools to further their cause, should/could we? I'd bet that would even make national news. Thing is, we don't want to set back the progress we are making.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
My suggestion wasfor "holster only," and was just thata suggestion asevery other "group" out there is trying and succeeding at influencing our young people, otherwise they would all know open carry is legal and so would their parents. These other organizations are changing the course of our nation by directly affecting our youth, is it not our responsibility to try and reverse the trend?
Pointman wrote:
I could swear I've seenminors participating at theUSPSA shoots, and theUSPSA rules do NOT specify an age limit. I accept that I might be wrong, but I'm fairly sure.
ADDED---
Anyway, this whole holster thing should probably be another thread leaving this one for what is happening to Para.
My suggestion wasfor "holster only," and was just thata suggestion asevery other "group" out there is trying and succeeding at influencing our young people, otherwise they would all know open carry is legal and so would their parents. These other organizations are changing the course of our nation by directly affecting our youth, is it not our responsibility to try and reverse the trend?
Pointman wrote:
I could swear I've seenminors participating at theUSPSA shoots, and theUSPSA rules do NOT specify an age limit. I accept that I might be wrong, but I'm fairly sure.
ADDED---
Anyway, this whole holster thing should probably be another thread leaving this one for what is happening to Para.
imported post
Parabellum wrote:
Sub-section?? :question:
I'll say it again...
Section 105-34 City & County of Milwaukee ordnance says:
It is unlawful for any person to go armed with a firearm in public (on or about the person) unless the firearm is unloaded and fully incased. The case must be zippered, buttoned, ect. completely and no part of the firearm can be exposed.
165.85 states the only exception is if you are a peace officer, private investigator or security person (while on duty), and poses a valid, current firearms "Blue Card" issued by the Department of Regulation & Licensing under the authority of the Wisconsin Dept of Justice.
This applies to any town, city or community that decides to use it.
http://cc.milwaukee.gov:81/isysnativ...rl8cd/2/hilite
You usually can walk down the side of a highway in a rural area, up north, ect., while engaged in lawful hunting and get away with without getting arrested.
You will be arrested and charged for D.C. under 947.01 and found guilty. I've personally arrested and know of dozens of people who have been CONVICTED.
I've gotten in a few arguments over this issue on several other boards and I was right every time. If you don't believe me, then I challenge you to go armed and walk down a public street, park, city/county property, etc. Walk past a police station while your firearm is on your hip openly displayed. See how far you get. Then again just go to a district station and ask a police supervisor there.
:shock:You all can cry all you want about it being unconsitutional fact remains that firearms and their use and posessionare regulated
Parabellum wrote:
Sub-section?? :question:
I'll say it again...
Section 105-34 City & County of Milwaukee ordnance says:
It is unlawful for any person to go armed with a firearm in public (on or about the person) unless the firearm is unloaded and fully incased. The case must be zippered, buttoned, ect. completely and no part of the firearm can be exposed.
165.85 states the only exception is if you are a peace officer, private investigator or security person (while on duty), and poses a valid, current firearms "Blue Card" issued by the Department of Regulation & Licensing under the authority of the Wisconsin Dept of Justice.
This applies to any town, city or community that decides to use it.
http://cc.milwaukee.gov:81/isysnativ...rl8cd/2/hilite
You usually can walk down the side of a highway in a rural area, up north, ect., while engaged in lawful hunting and get away with without getting arrested.
You will be arrested and charged for D.C. under 947.01 and found guilty. I've personally arrested and know of dozens of people who have been CONVICTED.
I've gotten in a few arguments over this issue on several other boards and I was right every time. If you don't believe me, then I challenge you to go armed and walk down a public street, park, city/county property, etc. Walk past a police station while your firearm is on your hip openly displayed. See how far you get. Then again just go to a district station and ask a police supervisor there.
:shock:You all can cry all you want about it being unconsitutional fact remains that firearms and their use and posessionare regulated
Mr. Greg
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Bunker,
Despite you saying that applies to the county of Milwaukee, the actual ordinance you list only refers to the City of Milwaukee. I searched Milwaukee County Municipal code and coldn't find any reference to this, either. Mind showing me where it states that Milwaukee ordinances apply to the surrounding suburbs, as well as the rest of the state? Your link does not work, by the way, I found your ordinance, only mentioning the City of Milwaukee, here.
Parabellum's arrest occurred in the Town of West Milwaukee, not the City of Milwaukee.
Furthermore, elsewhere in the forum we have a letter from a La Crosse LEO that acknowledges the legality of Open Carry, so I don't think its just "alongside a highway up north" that you can "get away" with Open Carry.
Bunker,
Despite you saying that applies to the county of Milwaukee, the actual ordinance you list only refers to the City of Milwaukee. I searched Milwaukee County Municipal code and coldn't find any reference to this, either. Mind showing me where it states that Milwaukee ordinances apply to the surrounding suburbs, as well as the rest of the state? Your link does not work, by the way, I found your ordinance, only mentioning the City of Milwaukee, here.
Parabellum's arrest occurred in the Town of West Milwaukee, not the City of Milwaukee.
Furthermore, elsewhere in the forum we have a letter from a La Crosse LEO that acknowledges the legality of Open Carry, so I don't think its just "alongside a highway up north" that you can "get away" with Open Carry.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Bunker wrote:
Bunker: Please see the thread On La Crosse. The Sheriff and the DA BOTH acknowledge open carry IS LEGAL.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/11470-1.html
Further, on that thread is an email from the Eau Claire city attorney acknowledging these statutes are unenforceable. I respectfully suggest a better attorney.
Bunker wrote:
Bunker: Please see the thread On La Crosse. The Sheriff and the DA BOTH acknowledge open carry IS LEGAL.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/11470-1.html
Further, on that thread is an email from the Eau Claire city attorney acknowledging these statutes are unenforceable. I respectfully suggest a better attorney.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Bunker wrote:
Yes, but certainly NOT by any local or county ordinance, including the one you cited, unless it is no more stringent that state law.
Bunker wrote:
Yes, but certainly NOT by any local or county ordinance, including the one you cited, unless it is no more stringent that state law.
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
Mr. Greg wrote:
I also OCed my pistol around the Fox river area today for 15 minutes...got a few odd looks when I said "how you doing" but most people didn't even notice, even when walking right past my wife and I.
Mr. Greg wrote:
I have been carrying my empty holster all over Waukesha whenever I go out. You would be amazed at how many people never even notice. I also have a SERPA level 2 paddle...the paddle keeps the holster well fitted to my side.
I also OCed my pistol around the Fox river area today for 15 minutes...got a few odd looks when I said "how you doing" but most people didn't even notice, even when walking right past my wife and I.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
I agree, alot of people don't seem to notice an empty holster. I've worn one countless times as a matter of convenience, or to be more precise, to avoid the inconvenience of removing it. Only a couple of times have people clearly noticed it, and it's usually kids that do. Could itbe that kids just aren't as good as adults when it comes to pretending to not notice?
I agree, alot of people don't seem to notice an empty holster. I've worn one countless times as a matter of convenience, or to be more precise, to avoid the inconvenience of removing it. Only a couple of times have people clearly noticed it, and it's usually kids that do. Could itbe that kids just aren't as good as adults when it comes to pretending to not notice?
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
Please tell us more; names, dates, locations or case numbers of any of these arrests leading to convictions? I have not seen any cited in the WI threads that were not associated with some other unlawful conduct. Not a single conviction has been presented without the additional baggage attached. I am not interested in prohibited persons, drunkards, delinquents, drug traffickers or armed robbers arrested for carrying firearms. Someone give this thread an example of a conviction resulting directly from carrying a holstered firearm without any other unlawful conduct involved.
Bunker wrote:
Please tell us more; names, dates, locations or case numbers of any of these arrests leading to convictions? I have not seen any cited in the WI threads that were not associated with some other unlawful conduct. Not a single conviction has been presented without the additional baggage attached. I am not interested in prohibited persons, drunkards, delinquents, drug traffickers or armed robbers arrested for carrying firearms. Someone give this thread an example of a conviction resulting directly from carrying a holstered firearm without any other unlawful conduct involved.
Bunker wrote: