Responding to Mr. Moores article about O-C

imported post

this letter to the editor is in todays Lakeland Times

I want to respond to this opinion and I need help with wording.

Could we please work together on this and come up with an appropriate responce to further our cause and why waiting for another governor to be elected is not an option.

Thanks.

Don't muddy the waters
[font="TIMES, SERIF"]To the Editor:

The topic of "open-carry becoming a gun-rights issue" in the Jan. 20 issue of The Lakeland Times did a good job ofraising some of the questions which relate to the complex topic of gun rights.

As usual, like almost any discussion of this issue, the article raised as many questions asit answered.One can certainly see how overzealous police action such as that taken against Brad Krause of West Allis does nothing at all to solve any problem, but rather just fuels the anger of gun-rights advocates, distracting everyone from a sane discussion of the true merits of firearms regulation.

One topic which couldhave appropriately been mentioned along with the open-carry discussion was the issue of how that compares to concealed-carry laws.

Michigan, one of your neighbors, has settled that issue quite well by allowing concealed carry by those who have received the proper training andqualify in other ways as well. In fact, most of those who have that permit do not carry concealed guns around all the time, but they enjoy the right to do so if they see fit.In fact, the greatest benefit they enjoy from their status is the ability to purchase a firearm and take it home that same day, avoiding the otherwise necessary waiting period.

Personally, I see this as far more preferable than having folks wander throughout the community openly packing heat in a holster on their belt.Open carry, although it does have a nice ring of liberty bells in the background, draws attention to both the firearm and to the individual carrying it. How can an individual move about through the community's stores, offices, restaurants, and bars while ensuring that the firearm he or she openly carries does not come into the wrong hands?On the other hand,a concealed firearm is just that - concealed. It neither draws attention to the carrier nor to the firearm being carried.

I maintain that Wisconsin would be far better off pursuing a comprehensive, well-thought-out concealed carry law than by pursuing the open-carry option any further.

And all involved should avoid such blatant miscarriages of justice as exemplified by the West Allis Police Department.This just muddies the waters.

Wendell Kurr

Freeport, Ill.

[/font]

imported post

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=11&ArticleID=9047&TM=52905.87

Neither Mr. Kurr nor, that I recall, Mr. Moore raise the issue of waiting for another governor to be elected.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

...[font="TIMES, SERIF"]Personally, I see this as far more preferable than having folks wander throughout the community openly packing heat in a holster on their belt.Open carry, although it does have a nice ring of liberty bells in the background, draws attention to both the firearm and to the individual carrying it. How can an individual move about through the community's stores, offices, restaurants, and bars while ensuring that the firearm he or she openly carries does not come into the wrong hands?On the other hand,a concealed firearm is just that - concealed. It neither draws attention to the carrier nor to the firearm being carried...[/font]

Click to expand...

I know you didn't write the letter, but here is what I would say (privately) to the letter writer. Maybe it will help you craft a response:

Idon't see how denigrating OC is a positive. Why mention it at all if your mention of it is going to be negative?I don't think that approach is going to make any converts either. OC=bad, CC=better?

CC isn't a right, and neither is OC in WI it would seem. Why mention "gun rights" as if they exist there? Better, IMHO, to say that gun rights in WI are a sham, a political manifestation only, and that Wisconsonites deserve better.

imported post

+1

OC isa right, carrying concealed under your criterea requires state licensure and therefore is a priveledge.

imported post

I beg to differ with BB62 but open carry of firearms in order to exercise the activities contained in Article I section 25 is in my opinion a Wisconsin state constitutional right. The Wisconsin supreme court has said as much in Hamdan. The Court said in Hamdan that there are two manners of carry, visible and hidden. It further states that the state legislature has made the concealed carry prohibition statute a strict liability and that only a peace officer can go armed with a concealed (hidden ) weapon. The Court also warns the State that if the State prosecutes for one manner of carry it must provide an alternate manner or yield to the amendment (Article I section 25). Cases such as Hamdan, Cole, Kieth, Frye, Vegas and Fischer are all concealed carry cases and they prove that the State does indeed intend to continue to prosecute concealed carry. By default open carry is in fact a constitutional right. As I have said times before. Our problem is not with the right or lawfulness of open carry. It is the unequal recognition of that right by law enforcement. Under the present umbrella of the concealed carry prohibition concealed carry will never become a "right" at best it will become a "privlege". A privlege full of rules, regulations, restictions and controls.

imported post

Well said.

imported post

Lammie,

I agree with what you said, and respond only to discuss right v. privilege. I'm pretty sure you use "right" to mean something that is inalienable and unrestricted and "privilege" to mean something that can be given (and taken away) at the discretion of the government.

One sees those two uses commonly, but I just want to point out that the distinction is not commonly used in the law. For example, the U.S. Constitution has a privileges and immunities clause and (in the 14th Amendment) a privileges or immunities clause. The "things" that are considered the privileges in those clauses generally are what one might think of as rights. Moreover, most any right that you can name is subject to certain government restrictions (making it look more like a privilege in the common vernacular).

imported post

I don't wish to get involved in a discussion of "right" and "privilrge". We went down that road ad naseum months ago. Below is the definition obtained from Wkipedia encyclopedia.


A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

this letter to the editor is in todays Lakeland Times

I want to respond to this opinion and I need help with wording.

Could we please work together on this and come up with an appropriate responce to further our cause and why waiting for another governor to be elected is not an option.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could clarify exactly how you hope to respond to this person? Do you approve/disapprove of his letter? Do you support what he's writing or wish to correct him? An idea of where you would be coming from would help.

imported post

jrm wrote:

Lammie,

I agree with what you said, and respond only to discuss right v. privilege. I'm pretty sure you use "right" to mean something that is inalienable and unrestricted and "privilege" to mean something that can be given (and taken away) at the discretion of the government.

One sees those two uses commonly, but I just want to point out that the distinction is not commonly used in the law. For example, the U.S. Constitution has a privileges and immunities clause and (in the 14th Amendment) a privileges or immunities clause. The "things" that are considered the privileges in those clauses generally are what one might think of as rights. Moreover, most any right that you can name is subject to certain government restrictions (making it look more like a privilege in the common vernacular).

Click to expand...

Let's look at voting rights. It is technically "restricted" since you can't just show up and vote for anybody at any given time. It has a one-day window with certain hours to be exercised and can be exercised for ANY reason. This restriction would not be found unconstitutional if someone challenged it. On the other hand, one would hope that "shall not infringed" would apply to all circumstances. However it does not as restrictions of locations of carrying arms to my knowledge these place have never been overturned on a constitutional basis. Take government buildings for example...in nearly every state carrying is prohibited there, yet to my knowledge nobody has been successful in challenging it on a constitutional basis.

Speaking of constitutional arguments...how about Wisconsin CC prohibition stating "whoever goes armed with a concealed AND dangerous weapon"--BOTH have to be true. Has anybody challenged the CC law in that by definition a holstered, loaded, legally obtained firearm is NOT dangerous BY ITSELF as it simply sits in the holster?

In regards to the original posting, I can make some arguments as to why OC is superior to CC:
1- Education of the public as good guy gun owners.
2- Faster draw than concealed position
3- Instead of pulling a concealed gun after a crime has been started, one would deter crime before being in that situation.
The list could go on and on. It depends entirely on the circumstance. So people should have the option to CC or OC as they please. This is why you don't OC in a large crowd for instance but OC taking a stroll down a street.

imported post

I'll add, that if Open Carry is as dangerous as the writer seems to imply, then he should be demanding all LEO go around without uniform and concealed only, after all, it "draws attention to both the firearm and to the individual carrying it."

imported post

If open carrying [font="TIMES, SERIF"] "draws attention to both the firearm and to the individual carrying it" [/font]How is it that last summer carrying 90%+ of the time not concealed only 4 people commented about my firearm? Most people don't notice, I don't think the uniformed police officer in line behind me at subway noticed or if he did he didn't care enough to ask to see my permit.(MN requires a permit for carry open or concealed) The only problem I had is I found out that my sister is a hoplophobe and got kicked out of her house and asked not to return armed.

imported post

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Gee, sounds like a right to me. Case closed.

Hamdan basically stated that you can always carry openly (except where specifically prohibited by law from either having a gun at all, e.g., in government buildings under most circumstances; or in some instances requiring it to be unloaded an encased, e.g., inside a vehicle or within a school zone. Hamdan also said that under certain circumstances you can conceal, and they ruled that inside one's business or home are examples of places one may have concealed weapons. So there is a constitutional RIGHT to conceal in those places. Leaving open the possibility of other circumstances or places where there is also that right--- yet to be determined by the courts.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Neither Mr. Kurr nor, that I recall, Mr. Moore raise the issue of waiting for another governor to be elected.

Click to expand...

Dude WTF? Are you just here for confrontation, or to forward our cause? It is hard for me to tell sometimes!
Is it really that hard to figure out that Doyle will never allow Wisconsin residents to have C-C privileges as long as he is in office?

In my response to Mr. WendellKurr's (of Illinois) letter,I would like to easily explain to the readers that open-carry is legal in this state without getting into stuff they are then required to verify by use of a law library or the internet. (I am willing to bet that less than 40% of our residents have internet access in their homes, or even know how to acces the internet at the library)

I need to have a great rebuttal to this Kurr Clown, I am asking for help in writing it in a clear consice and to the point in a short form without citing case-law. Why it is legal, and the benefits.

Can we try this again?

imported post

ss939.22(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded---

imported post

Open carry is not unique to Wisconsin. 44 states have open carry provisions. Only 6 states in the Union do not have a "right to keep and bear arms" amendment in their state constitution. Minnesota is one of them.

imported post

Interestingly the writer brings up Michigan, where there is an increasingly active OC community. Just had lunch last week with 28 of us OC'ng in Kalamazoo. We OC complete with AG opinions and State Police policies.

Carry on.

imported post

This web site may be interesting to some of you.
http://www.gunmap.org

There is one error I noted. Illinois does not prohibit total carry. Open carry is allowed in rural areas. If it were not it would be illegal to carry a firearm for hunting.

imported post

here are two more web sites that may be of interest. In fact may apply to a case we are familiar with.

http:///www.familyrightsassociation.com/info/fbi/fbi_color_of_law.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

imported post

mailto:rmmore@dwave.net
mailto:ray@lakelandtimes.com

Dear Editor and Mr. Moore,

In his 'Don't muddy the waters', Mr. Wendel Kurr opened with the rhetorical announcement that Mr. Moore and "The Lakeland Times did a good job of raising some of the questions which relate to the complex topic of gun rights." Unfortunately Mr. Kurr's rhetoric did nothing to clarify the topic or even to mention the questions raised but one.

In the midst of his exposition of opinion, he does ask, "How can an individual move about through the community ... while ensuring that the firearm he or she openly carries does not come into the wrong hands?"

It is common practice amongst open carriers to use a 'retention holster' that features (often multiple) mechanical arrangements to ensure the gun cannot be improperly removed. Openly armed police officers usually carry their gun in a retention holster. The occurrence of a successful snatch from a legally armed, and open carrying, citizen has never been documented.

Neither the Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States nor Wisconsin's Constitution, Article I, Section 25 make any mention of training or of what might constitute proper training. Indeed, the Second Amendment requires that it "shall not be infringed."

Doug Huffman
Washington Island
Wisconsin