Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 'Regulating the Discharge of a Firearm', Lee Turonie Assistant Legal Counsel Wisconsin Towns Ass.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.wisctowns.com/Regulating%...20Firearm.html

    [Excerpt]

    A survey of the relevant law involved
    Towns with village powers can regulate to place restrictions on the discharge of a firearm. If your town does not have village powers your town cannot restrict the discharge of a firearm. Let me emphasize that you can create none of the local regulation that I describe in this article unless your town has village powers.
    The whole point of having village powers is to have the ability to regulate in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Therefore, a town with village powers may regulate to restrict the discharge of a firearm so long as its regulation is for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. This specific ability is even recognized explicitly in the statutes:
    Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22(3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.§ 66.0409(3)(b).

    In addition, I will note that the following is already a crime (Class A misdemeanor):
    While on the lands of another, discharges a firearm within 100 yards of any building devoted to human occupancy situated on and attached to the lands of another without the express permission of the owner or occupant of the building. “Building” as used in this paragraph includes any house trailer or mobile home but does not include any tent, bus, truck, vehicle or similar portable unit.§ 941.20(1)(d).

    Crimes should be reported to a local law enforcement agency, such as the county sheriff if you do not have a local police force. So if you are comfortable with the protection afforded by what is already illegal you need not create further local regulation.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    The WTA is one of the most CORRUPT PACS in Wisconsin, and they are 100% taxpayer funded.

    Their purpose is NOT to help the citizens, but rather to help the local boards maintain CONTROL!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Support The 2nd wrote:
    The WTA is one of the most CORRUPT PACS in Wisconsin, and they are 100% taxpayer funded.
    I didn't know that.

    http://elections.state.wi.us/categor...6&locid=47

    I guess I still don't know that. Or are you stating that they are an illegal committee?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Towns Association (WTA) is a non-profit, non-partisan statewide organization created under s. 60.23(14) of the Wisconsin Statutes to protect the interests of the state's 1,259 towns and to improve town government. In 2007 WTA celebrates it's 60th year of service to town governments and the state's 1.7 million town residents. The association is organized into six districts and is headquartered in Shawano. WTA relies on regular district meetings, an annual statewide convention, publications, participation in cooperative training programs and other means to support the goal of keeping grassroots government strong and efficient in Wisconsin.
    From my point of view, this equates to a PAC. State sanctioned, and government funded, but a PAC non the less.

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    • lacking in integrity; "humanity they knew to be corrupt...from the day of Adam's creation"; "a corrupt and incompetent city government"
    • corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; "debauch the young people with wine and women"; "Socrates was accused of corrupting young men ...
    • bribe: make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence; "This judge can be bought"
    • crooked: not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive
    • containing errors or alterations; "a corrupt text"; "spoke a corrupted version of the language"
    • defile: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon; "sully someone's reputation"
    • alter from the original
    • touched by rot or decay; "tainted bacon"; "`corrupt' is archaic"
      In which of the above ways is this organization corrupt? And what's your basis for claiming corruption?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Corrupt ==> dishonest.

    interests of the state's 1,259 towns
    not the interests of the people.

    improve town government.
    not the rights of the individual.

    support the goal of keeping grassroots government strong

    again, "strong government," instead of a strong electorate.

    When the WTA supports changing the clerk, the keeper of the official records, to an appointed position, so she answers to government (board) not the people, then they they are advocating against you right to vote and be herd and this is dangerous in my opinion.


    Added:

    When they are advocating for stronger government restrictions on firearms (use), and telling the local boards how to (legally??) impose restrictions that could limit/end hunting, is also dangerous.

  7. #7
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Support The 2nd wrote:
    Corrupt ==> dishonest.

    interests of the state's 1,259 towns
    not the interests of the people.

    improve town government.
    not the rights of the individual.

    support the goal of keeping grassroots government strong

    again, "strong government," instead of a strong electorate.

    When the WTA supports changing the clerk, the keeper of the official records, to an appointed position, so she answers to government (board) not the people, then they they are advocating against you right to vote and be herd and this is dangerous in my opinion.


    Added:

    When they are advocating for stronger government restrictions on firearms (use), and telling the local boards how to (legally??) impose restrictions that could limit/end hunting, is also dangerous.
    Oh give me a break. There's nothing above where they "advocated" stronger restrictions on firearms. They merely explain the law and what powers the towns have or do not have under the law. Do you prefer that the elected board members operate in ignorance of the law? A lot of town governments are pretty small operations and really quite unaware of what they can do or must do, or cannot do! The towns association is providing them with factual information, just like the Wisconsin League of Municipalities does for cities and villages. The "interests of the people" are better served by town governments that are well-informed.

    By reversing the words "government strong" to "strong government" you are changing the meaning of the sentence. Subtle, but fallacious.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thank you Shotgun.

    I would not trust User=13784 to be anything but an agitator and disruptor.

    Without our Town Clerk we could not function given the turgid law that we have to live under.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Aren't Town Council members and functionaries elected?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The election of Town Board members is regulated by statute. I suspect that we wouldn't agree on what is a 'functionary'. Board members are elected while functionaries under the purview of the Board are hired/appointed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Got it Doug; sure I was using the term incorrectly. Thanks.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Thank you Shotgun.

    I would not trust User=13784 to be anything but an agitator and disruptor.

    Without our Town Clerk we could not function given the turgid law that we have to live under.
    agitator: one who stirs up public feeling on controversial issues.

    disrupter: to throw into disorder.

    I agree, I am an agitator, but by definition, almost every poster her is also.

    As to a disrupter, I do not believe have have tried to disrupt anything. I simply pointed out that the WTA is not always a friend of the people.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    First off I have no clue why they added in the 100 yard rule since that only applies to a person discharging a firearm while on "someone elses land" or "on public". If I shoot a gun on my land and there is a house within 100 yards there is no crime being taken place, so why add that? In a way I guess they are trying to inform towns so that no statute infraction occurs, but who and why would want a rule like that in the shotgun only zones (Guessing the above was written in corelation to the new rifle allowed areas). I mean is this the peoples voice or the small group of people in the local government that is ill-informed or just trying to stick it to the people and state? I ask this because due to many tests Shotgun slugs are in most cases more dangerous! SO why?



    Ben

Posting Permissions

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