NOV 08 Milwaukee Magazine Open Carry Article is Out!

imported post

See attached article - interestingly the Milwaukee Legislative Reference Bureau Manager appears to acknowledge that the Milwaukee open carry ban is preempted by state law.

The article did have one typo quoting a court decision construing the state right to bear arms as the text of that provision.

NOTE: Wisconsin's right to bear arms provision is as follows:

--


Article I, Section 25

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

imported post

The article is terribly written. It's extremely weak and omits quite a few serious facts that would have easily fit in the space provided.


:banghead:

imported post

Except for the misquoting of WI Article I Section 25, I don't really have a problem with the article and consideringsome of usexpected it to be a slap in our collective faces I think the article turnedout pretty well. And the article was "terribly edited" not "written". Omissions would have been and were made by the editor not the writer. All in all I think the article was OK. And people in Wisconsin are finally being exposed to the issue of OC, if nothing else the article accomplishes that.

imported post

After months of nervous anticipation what a dissapointment. Does our cause more harm than good. If it wasn't written as released then the editor of Milwaukee Magazine should be chastised for inappropriate use of his poetic license. It paints a broad brush over all of us by portraying Gonzales as an unemployeed, long haired, wet behind the ears, person with a pencil-thin mustache, an argumentive nature, with a passion for guns and running around carrying "heat". What the hell does a persons appearance have to do with the exercise of what they believe is his/her constitutional rights. What if Gonzales was a bank president in a two thousand dollar suit? Would the specifics and legal aspects of the incident been any different?

The article also portrays the Wisconsin Patriots as some kind of clandestine operation that secretly runs around gathering signatures on petitions to support open carry and has a vow of silence. Some of us don't particular agree with the viewpoints of the Wisconsin Patriots but there was nothing "secretive" about it's mission. It was present at many gun shows and argued it's cause on the radio media.

The article flatly states that the City of Milwaukee's ordinance againt carry of firearms is legal, not that it is considered by Milwaukee political officials to be legal. Anyone that has read the preemption statute knows that the Milwaukee ordinance is not legal and is an abuse of police powers.

The article takes a passage right out of State v Hamdan ( misquotes it as Article I section 25) and then says the State Supreme Court has never addressed the issue.

The article portrays the police as merely doing their job, not that they are unnecesarily harrasing a person for peacefully exercising constitutional rights. At one point the article says that Gonzales refused to answer questions then later says that the police report claims Gonzales was argumentive. How can you refuse to answer questions and be argumentive at the same time? In fact under the Terry Stop law you don't need to give any more than your verbal name and correct address to the cops. The fact that you don't answer questions is a legal right not an expression of defiance.

If Samantha's support of open carry is genuine, and I believe it is, the article takes her support that open carry is in fact legal and waters it down to perhaps open carry may be legal. Obviously the magazine does not strongly support her viewpoint.

After spending many years presenting proposals and arguing contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and learning the need to read "between the lines" I detect an anti-gun sentiment at the Milwaukee Magazine. If the article is not as written and is the result of an editor's magic pencil I would be outraged at having my name attached to it. (my opinion)

In my estimation the only thing of value in the article is that it gives our cause of open carry some needed public exposure and that the Milwaukee law enforcement opinions concerning open carry are not shared by every agency in the Milwaukee political community.

imported post

Thanks for the scan and thanks to Ms. Hernandez for 'consulting' with us in preparing for her part of the article. When I D/L it I noticed the 'cover image' and I read Lammie's comment. So far I echo his concern/criticism. Now I will read the article.

ETA: Read. "Wisconsin Patriots, a secretive gun advocacy group" is a reasonably accurate description and the core of my disagreement with their followers, un-named just like WCCA and WGO. If one allies with these memberships, with whom is one allying? If one subscribes ('underwrites'), to what is one subscribing?

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

When I D/L it

Click to expand...

D/L = ?

imported post

Lammie wrote:

In fact under the Terry Stop law you don't need to give any more than your verbal name and correct address to the cops.

Click to expand...

Huh? Terry stop doctrine does not reach any duty of the person seized to state their name or address, and even under Hiibel, applicable only to states with stop and ID statutes, a person satisfies such statutes merely by stating their name.

If you are going to so sharply criticize a news "story" on a point of law,and they are"stories," somthing designed to sell newspapers, then you should be sure you correctly state the law yourself.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

When I D/L it

Click to expand...

D/L = ?

Click to expand...

Down loaded.

Right, I have no excuse for using acronyms. I have all my time remaining to use, the rest of my life. No reason to hurry.

imported post

After having read the article, I'm not sure who to blame. The author or the editor.

It seems clearly intended to put out the perception that 'while it's a right, it's not common sense'.

Ms Hernandez, care to provide any input?

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

After having read the article, I'm not sure who to blame.

Click to expand...

Blame for what? It is a story that gets out a lotta key facts on the issues - therefore, it is a "good" article - essentially, all articles are "good" for us.

imported post

*

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

And the article was "terribly edited" not "written". Omissions would have been and were made by the editor not the writer.

Click to expand...

The only way you could know that is if you read the original article before editing.


Mike wrote

:Blame for what? It is a story that gets out a lotta key facts on the issues - therefore, it is a "good" article - essentially, all articles are "good" for us.

Click to expand...

This isn't Hollywood, Mike! The old adage of "any publicity is good publicity" does not work for us!

imported post

Mike wrote

:Blame for what? It is a story that gets out a lotta key facts on the issues - therefore, it is a "good" article - essentially, all articles are "good" for us.

Click to expand...

This isn't Hollywood, Mike! The old adage of "any publicity is good publicity" does not work for us!

Click to expand...

Uh, and why not? Works for every other controversey.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote

:Blame for what? It is a story that gets out a lotta key facts on the issues - therefore, it is a "good" article - essentially, all articles are "good" for us.

Click to expand...

This isn't Hollywood, Mike! The old adage of "any publicity is good publicity" does not work for us!

Click to expand...

Uh, and why not? Works for every other controversey.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. And this issue is not a "controversy". It is an assertion of legality and constitutionally protected rights. A debate at worst, but it should not be dealt by us as a controversy.

Given the same amount of space, is this the way an article written by yourself would have come across?

I didn't think so. I rest my case!

imported post

pkbites wrote:

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote

:Blame for what? It is a story that gets out a lotta key facts on the issues - therefore, it is a "good" article - essentially, all articles are "good" for us.

Click to expand...

This isn't Hollywood, Mike! The old adage of "any publicity is good publicity" does not work for us!

Click to expand...

Uh, and why not? Works for every other controversey.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. And this issue is not a "controversy". It is an assertion of legality and constitutionally protected rights. A debate at worst, but it should not be dealt by us as a controversy.

Given the same amount of space, is this the way an article written by yourself would have come across?

I didn't think so. I rest my case!

Click to expand...

No case, no need to rest.

Articles are written about controversies by reporters not experts or advocates - gun carry is always controversial - stories are meantto entertain as much to inform.

Too bad so many Wisconsin gun owners appeared to have failed to stand up and be interviewed and help get their side of the story out.

imported post

*

imported post

Pointman wrote:

Regardless of what human rights supporter spoke up, only one side of the story would be printed. Para's story certainly was not published: "I was shopping for [item] when I was asked to surrender my constitutionally guaranteedrights. Because I was on private property I complied with [the manager] and disarmed before leaving, but I was arrested anyway, at which point my right to privacy was also trampled on. Good thing I didn't say something the officers didn't like, or that right probably would have been taken from me too!"

The title, "Is it legal to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin?" seems to pose a serious question, not be an entertaining, "Twenty Top Shoes of 2008."

The article does not even answer its own question. Any decently edited article would give a definitive answer: "Yes, according to testimony given by Assistant Attorney General Kassel in front of the State Supreme Court, it is legal to carry a loaded firearm, even down State Street in the capitol city of Madison, as long as the person is not prohibited from possessing the weapon."

Jesus Gonzalez does not "have a cause." (see thesub-title)He has a God-given right. What was published isn't an article, it's propaganda.

propaganda: ideas or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.

Click to expand...

Nah, just journalism, showing two sides of a "story."

imported post

Mike wrote:

pkbites wrote:

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote

:Blame for what? It is a story that gets out a lotta key facts on the issues - therefore, it is a "good" article - essentially, all articles are "good" for us.

Click to expand...

This isn't Hollywood, Mike! The old adage of "any publicity is good publicity" does not work for us!

Click to expand...

Uh, and why not? Works for every other controversey.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. And this issue is not a "controversy". It is an assertion of legality and constitutionally protected rights. A debate at worst, but it should not be dealt by us as a controversy.

Given the same amount of space, is this the way an article written by yourself would have come across?

I didn't think so. I rest my case!

Click to expand...

No case, no need to rest.

Articles are written about controversies by reporters not experts or advocates - gun carry is always controversial - stories are meantto entertain as much to inform.

Too bad so many Wisconsin gun owners appeared to have failed to stand up and be interviewed and help get their side of the story out.

Click to expand...

Consider this possible interpretation:

- some folks will be against Open Carry, no matter what, and some of them already know this, and some of them don't.

- some folks will befor Open Carry, no matter what, and some of them already know this, and some of them don't.

- the rest of the people fall somewhere in between, and may or may not be swayed by that article, or any other article. Those are the ones we have to work with.

The people who are against Open Carry, no matter what, don't matter - there's no point hoping they'll change or wasting any time or effort trying to change their minds. This article most likely did nothing to change their minds. The article probably didn't affect much opinion for folks who already KNOW they are for open carry, no matter what.

The biggest benefit is introducing the topic of Open Carry to people who would for be for Open Carry if they only knew about it, or to people who didn't know about it but would be curious to find out.

The articleis what it is. I can't change it. But I'm going to stand for the good in this situation.

imported post

Mike:
I'm not sure why your fur seems to be ruffled. It's true most journalism is aimed at selling articles and entertaining but some journalism is written to help furthur a cause. You posted a thread in May informing us Wisconsin members, especially those in the Milwaukee area, that Samantha was authoring an article supporting open carry, and that we should provide Samantha with our thoughts and experiences. Many members went out of their way to assist her. I'm sure they, as did most of us, anticipated that the benefit of the article was that it would finally give us a media outlet to promote our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. I hope that back on May 16 those were also your thoughts. None of us expected it to be as entertaining as a dog and pony show and have to be read to the tune of here come the clowns. Let's face it, the story bombed.

imported post

When I referred to the requirement to give identification information during a "Terry stop" I was doing so in concert with Wisconsin statutes not the U.S Supreme Court opinion in Terry v Ohio which has become known as the "Terry Rule".

Wisconsin Statute:

968.24

Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

968.24 Annot.

A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identification papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records.; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3)the officer observed that the suspects pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v Black yr 2000.