Wisconsin Patriots

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Will you publish your local paper's 'letters' address, please?

I keep two e-mail addresses on file;

Advocate Letters to the editor <klambert@greenbaypressgazette.com>

Advocate Editor <cecarlso@doorcountyadvocate.com>

Remember though that they are under no requirement to publish but on their agenda. Like their (POS un-usable) on-line forums, letters from activists and controversy are only grist for their mill and they profit from turning the millwheel and not from publishing our opinions.

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$$

Click to expand...

Letters From Readers: <chris.bennett@lee.net>

His title isn't listed but I know that he is not the editor.

imported post

What ever happened to the county resolutions? Their status seems to be a closely gaurded secret. Gene German implied that they would be presented shortly after July 18th. Two weeks ago. No mention on his web site concerning their status. No mention on the Wisconsin Patriots web site concerning their status. Only a statement that a picnic was cancelled. Seems like everybody "got out of Dodge".

imported post

Seems to me that they couldn't handle criticism or disagreement. I really think that the (their) picnic died over/after my crack about alcohol. It's too bad that it has to be us and them.

imported post

any more news on resurrecting the event?

imported post

Everything seems to have gone silent. The picnic was cancelled and I dont think the Patriots will be hosting another one. I was thinking of organizing one with members of this forum but I dont want to get ahead of myself. If people herewant to organize one they can send me a PM and if enough interest is generated Ill start a thread to organize the picnic, and ill host it myself.

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

Everything seems to have gone silent. The picnic was cancelled and I dont think the Patriots will be hosting another one. I was thinking of organizing one with members of this forum but I dont want to get ahead of myself. If people herewant to organize one they can send me a PM and if enough interest is generated Ill start a thread to organize the picnic, and ill host it myself.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that you want to take this beyond a rant site. Granted, there is good information here but we need to become more organized. I don't know how many PM's you received but we need to make sure that there are enough people involved so arrests aren't feasible. I would also make sure that LE knew of the picnic so we could show that LE is trying to deny our civil rights so recovery for injuries is possible if they decided to bust a few heads. We would also want camcorders going like the people in PA did, and they now have a federal lawsuit filed.

The only intent here is to have a peaceful picnic while exercising our right to bear arms. No handling of guns after they're holstered, not even just to show someone that is interested. Of course the exception would be to use in self-defense but I highly doubt that there would be a problem with a party of 50 armed people. A set of guidelines could be useful for the first event....eliminate as much confusion as possible.

Thanks, S.E.WI

imported post

Getting 50 people sounds a bit optimistic to me, even half that number would surprise me. Also, I don't understand why you'd give prior notice to law enforcement. Maybe notify the press, if it's publicity you seek. With prior notice to LEyou may get a reaction that isn't representative of the "every day" reaction. I don't think it's a good idea to think of the event as a challenge to law enforcement or set up as a "dare." To think that you'd get so many people there armed that "arrests aren't feasible" seems like the wrong approach. I think law enforcement in Wisconsin should be encouraged toview open carry as something acceptable, and not as an activity that intimidates them. Secondly, LE can call out more and more troops from surrounding jurisdictions, and short of fielding a battalion, we aren't going to outnumber them. The open carry movement is made up of everyday people, it's not a paramilitary organization.

Acouple of people with the ability to document the event through video, photos and sound is certainly advisable. By all means if one's rights are trampled, then deal with it in the courts. But don't make it appear (as some people already believe) that people OC just to get busted in order to file a lawsuit. I think a successful picnic would be one that takes place in a public spot, without anyone making a big stink about it.

Before anyone plans a picnic in a public park, ask yourself whether a "park shelter" is a "government owned building." I'd say it is. Better stay out while carryingunless you have permission!

imported post


[align=left]44.51(2)
[/align]
[align=left]"State building" means any permanent structure, which is normally occupied by state employees, wholly or partially enclosed and used for performing or facilitating the performance of the functions of a state agency as defined in s. 20.001 (1), together with all grounds and appurtenant structures and facilities ;
[/align]
[align=left]20.001(1)
(1)State agency. "State agency" means any office, department or independent agency in the executive branch of Wisconsin state government, the legislature and the courts.[/align]

[align=left]I doubt the park and its facilities meet this requirement. I found it by clicking the WI Statute 941.235 History annotations. 1979 Chapter 221 Page 1058. "City", or "County" could just be substituted for "State" and we have an accurate (or at least very plausible)definition for what constitutes a "public building". [/align]

[align=left]This kinda throws out the idea or a restroom (at a rest-stop on a highway)being a public building into which it is a crime to enter with a firearm. But it also implies that the grounds outside of actual public buildings are also off-limits, just like the public building itself. [/align]

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

[align=left]44.51(2)
[/align]
[align=left]"State building" means any permanent structure, which is normally occupied by state employees, wholly or partially enclosed and used for performing or facilitating the performance of the functions of a state agency as defined in s. 20.001 (1), together with all grounds and appurtenant structures and facilities ;
[/align]
[align=left]20.001(1)
(1)State agency. "State agency" means any office, department or independent agency in the executive branch of Wisconsin state government, the legislature and the courts.[/align]

[align=left]I doubt the park and its facilities meet this requirement. I found it by clicking the WI Statute 941.235 History annotations. 1979 Chapter 221 Page 1058. "City", or "County" could just be substituted for "State" and we have an accurate (or at least very plausible)definition for what constitutes a "public building". [/align]

[align=left]This kinda throws out the idea or a restroom (at a rest-stop on a highway)being a public building into which it is a crime to enter with a firearm. But it also implies that the grounds outside of actual public buildings are also off-limits, just like the public building itself. [/align]

Click to expand...

Would you care to put that interpretation to the test at Miller Park? I don't see anything in the statute that defines "public building" by reference to another statute. The definition appears to be within 941.235, i.e., ANY BUILDING OWNED OR LEASED BY THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE. Do you think they cared about rest room breaks? The statute wasn't designed to make life convenient for gun owners, quite the opposite.

941.235 Carrying firearm in public building. (1) Any
person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or
leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) This section does not apply to peace officers or armed
forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or
to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city,
village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any
county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding
s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this subsection, peace
officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−
certified commission warden.
History: 1979 c. 221; 1991 a. 172; 1993 a. 246; 2001 a. 109; 2007 a. 27.

imported post

Miller Park is a place where alcoholic beverages are "sold and consumed" which is a separate restriction. 941.235 is irrelevant.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Would you care to put that interpretation to the test at Miller Park? The stadium?Isn't itClass B licensed?I don't see anything in the statute that defines "public building" by reference to another statute.It doesn't define it at all, it leaves it open and vague. History annotation 1979 c 221, I would contend that by your definition they own every building in the state, after all don't you pay the state a yearly rentfor YOUR house?The definition "appears" to be within 941.235, i.e., ANY BUILDING OWNED OR LEASED BY THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE. I can understand the purpose of this statute to be prohibiting entry into the State Building, or City Halls, or even Police Stations and other city works buildings, but an officer will really be pushing it if he arrests someone for entering a bathroom while openly armed because its a government building. To deny a citizen the right to relieve himself at a public restroom because he is openly armed would fail a constitutional challenge because there can be no criminal intent meant by simply entering a bathroom not attached to any other facility. What is the states interest in stopping an openly armed citizen from entering a bathroom? None or negligible. But a citizen has the constitutionally protected right to be openly armed for any lawful purpose(using the John). And before anyone starts with the "why do you need to be armed to use the bathroom" thing, using the bathroom fits "any other lawful purpose" so we can be armed at that time. Do you think they cared about rest room breaks? No, but I doubt thats what they had in mind.The statute wasn't designed to make life convenient for gun owners, quite the opposite. I don't think it was meantto be as overreaching(although it might actually be) as your interpretation makes it out to be either. And either way it would fail a constitutional challenge.

941.235 Carrying firearm in public building. (1) Any
person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or
leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) This section does not apply to peace officers or armed
forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or
to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city,
village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any
county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding
s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this subsection, peace
officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−
certified commission warden.
History: 1979 c. 221; 1991 a. 172; 1993 a. 246; 2001 a. 109; 2007 a. 27.

Click to expand...

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Getting 50 people sounds a bit optimistic to me, even half that number would surprise me. Also, I don't understand why you'd give prior notice to law enforcement. Maybe notify the press, if it's publicity you seek. With prior notice to LEyou may get a reaction that isn't representative of the "every day" reaction. I don't think it's a good idea to think of the event as a challenge to law enforcement or set up as a "dare." To think that you'd get so many people there armed that "arrests aren't feasible" seems like the wrong approach. I think law enforcement in Wisconsin should be encouraged toview open carry as something acceptable, and not as an activity that intimidates them. Secondly, LE can call out more and more troops from surrounding jurisdictions, and short of fielding a battalion, we aren't going to outnumber them. The open carry movement is made up of everyday people, it's not a paramilitary organization.

Acouple of people with the ability to document the event through video, photos and sound is certainly advisable. By all means if one's rights are trampled, then deal with it in the courts. But don't make it appear (as some people already believe) that people OC just to get busted in order to file a lawsuit. I think a successful picnic would be one that takes place in a public spot, without anyone making a big stink about it.

Before anyone plans a picnic in a public park, ask yourself whether a "park shelter" is a "government owned building." I'd say it is. Better stay out while carryingunless you have permission!

Click to expand...

I sadly have to agree with you on the 50 people. I think there was a group of 40 that walked around a town in MI without incident. I too question a park setting but I'm not a lawyer. If LEknew about what we were doing then they could at least ask anyone that complained to tell them exactly what our actions were. If LE got the answer, "well...they're walking around with guns on their hips." LE wouldn't have to waste their time to check on it. If someone said we were waving our weapons around then they should ask the person complaining to meet LE near our location so the person or persons could be charged with making a false police report. We're not looking for trouble and I don't think LE would be as likely to bother us. This is our right to do this but we also understand that people are not use to this and want to save you in LE from wasting your time. This isn't a "dare" because it is our right.

The MI walk: everyone met at a diner then they just walked on public sidewalks. Check out the reports on the home page here.

We'll get there and we need to vote Doyle out. If we did we would have CCW now.

imported post

Para, if you asked me, I'd say nearly EVERY law which places a restriction on "keeping and bearing arms" should be found to be unconstitutional. But I'm probably slightly more of a realist than an optimist in today's world. The reality is, like it or not, there's been no sweeping declaration nullifying all of these stupid laws and until there is they still are in effect. I don't think the definition of "public building" is vague in this law. Either a building is owned or leased by a government entity, or it is not. That is about as clear as it can get. Now it may not always be immediately clear if a particular building is owned or leased by a governmental entity, but I'll guarantee you the answer is either a "yes" or a "no." I highly doubt that the first thing the police will think upon seeing a person enter Miller Park with a gun is "But this place has a Class B liquor license!" Now the DA might want to pile that on to the other charges later, but as I said, I doubt that it would be the first reason the cops jump all over somebody.

Teej, if you really believe that the "alcohol restriction" is the main issue, and that "941.235 is irrelevant." Then you are welcome to put your legal theory to a test by taking a rifle or shotgun into Miller Park because the alcohol restriction does not apply to long guns. Give it a try! And if the cops just say to you "It's a good thing that's a long gun buddy!" then I will be forced to agree with you.

imported post

S.E. WI, I don't think a "park setting" is so bad. It's just a question of use of park buildings. Outside picnic tables, chairs or blankets are not buildings, so there's no problem using them.

Now theoretically one can get proper permission to carry guns inside government buildings, but what are the odds it will be granted? Maybe if the chief of police is a good buddy, otherwise no.

imported post

OK, so it's not 931.237. However, it still doesn't come down to .235.

Prohibited Items
The following items are among those not permitted in Miller Park:

• Alcohol
• Bags (larger than 16" x 16" x 8")
• Brooms/broomsticks
• Cans
• Hard-sided Coolers
• Glass Containers
• Laser Pointers
• Noise Makers
• Sipper Bottles and Thermos Bottles
• Throwing Items
• Tube Chip Cans
• Weapons

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

S.E. WI, I don't think a "park setting" is so bad. It's just a question of use of park buildings. Outside picnic tables, chairs or blankets are not buildings, so there's no problem using them.

Now theoretically one can get proper permission to carry guns inside government buildings, but what are the odds it will be granted? Maybe if the chief of police is a good buddy, otherwise no.

Click to expand...

Sorry to chime in on your discussion here, but I have kinda a silly question for you.

If by chance that a restroom facility in a Park is considered a government building, is it possible that one of the parties who would like to attend the event/picnic, may have a camper on a pickup or a travel trailer/fifth wheelthat has a restroom in it?

IMO, a Park is an ideal setting for such an event/picnic.

imported post

I agree Shotgun. But I think the only way these laws will be voided (short of the legislature doing their constitutional duty) is by constitutional challenges to these laws. The police would jump all over an OCer as soon as someone called 911, it doesn't matter if they are in Miller Park or any other non-prohibited place. And Miller Park is owned by Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball District, Milwaukee Brewers, not the state or a political subdivision of the state.If you are arrested at Miller Park for OC it will bewith Trespass(if you refuse to leave if asked), Disorderly Conduct While Armed, or WI Statute 941.237,not WI Statute 941.235 because it is irrelevant. So short of the "facilities use" issue is the picnic something we can get behind?

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

I agree Shotgun. But I think the only way these laws will be voided (short of the legislature doing their constitutional duty) is by constitutional challenges to these laws. The police would jump all over an OCer as soon as someone called 911, it doesn't matter if they are in Miller Park or any other non-prohibited place. And Miller Park is owned by Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball District, Milwaukee Brewers, not the state or a political subdivision of the state.If you are arrested at Miller Park for OC it will bewith Trespass(if you refuse to leave if asked), Disorderly Conduct While Armed, or WI Statute 941.237,not WI Statute 941.235 because it is irrelevant. So short of the "facilities use" issue is the picnic something we can get behind?

Click to expand...

Para, I love the idea of a picnic. Hell, there's a city park within a block of my house that would be great if there was an interest in the Madison area.

I'm afraid that you'll find that the "Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball District" IS considered a "local unit of government" to use the current terminology. Under state law "municipalities" are not only the obvious things such as counties, cities, villages and towns, but also things such as school districts, sanitary districts, and yes, even the SE WI Professional Baseball District-- which I believe levies taxes, something only a governmental unit can do. It was created by statute as one of a handful of "special purpose" governmental units. I'm not just guessing at this, I know for a fact because I worked for nearly 14 years in a state job that often required determining whether construction projects were private or governmental.

Teej, I'm afraid you're wrong. Miller Park is government-owned building.

imported post

Para, a sweeping constitutional challenge would be wonderful, but it seems unlikely to happen. To constitutionally challenge each individual statute that is disagreeable on a case-by-case basis would be one hell of an undertaking. Trip up just once and fail to prevail-- next thing you're paying a fine, maybe in jail, and have a record. It could take a long long time to have much to show for the efforts. I think sweeping legislation is needed. The court cases that already exist point out the real need to get the laws, and the application of the laws, in line with the constitution. The question is how do you get enough of the lazy-ass ignorant legislators interested in doing that? Our rights have been taken away bit by bit, and we'll probably only regain them bit by bit. I think priorities should be to make our OC rights as clear to our opponents as they already are to us. We need to get rid of worthless and dangerous things such as the "school zone" restriction. We need to get the right to carry loaded accessible guns in vehicles. Just those 3 things would put us in a much better position than we've been in for a long time. Then we can start picking at other stupid restrictions such as govt. buildings, bars, etc. But to violate laws in the belief that you'll prevail in a consitutional challenge seems risky at best.

In your individual case, you clearly (to me and most of us) clearly violated no laws. I think we ought to engage in all SORT of LEGAL activities and put the burdon on THEM to prove they're not legal, rather than putting the burdon on us to prove that any violation of the law was of an ultimately unconstitutional law. Now I might take the other approach if I had unlimited money for fines and attornies, but until then, No.

imported post

Here you go guys:

Chapter 66.0621(1)(a) Wisconsin Statutes---

“Municipality” means a city, village, town, county, commission
created by contract under s. 66.0301, public inland lake
protection and rehabilitation district established under s. 33.23,
33.235 or 33.24, metropolitan sewerage district created under ss.
200.01 to 200.15 and 200.21 to 200.65, town sanitary district
under subch. IX of ch. 60, a local professional baseball park district
created under subch. III of ch. 229, a local professional football
stadium district created under subch. IV of ch. 229, a local cultural
arts district created under subch. V of ch. 229 or a municipal
water district or power district under ch. 198 and any other public
or quasi−public corporation, officer, board or other public body
empowered to borrow money and issue obligations to repay the
money and obligations out of revenues. “Municipality” does not
include the state or a local exposition district created under subch.
II of ch. 229.