Milwaukee-based school security expert: authorities look for intent to violate 1000 ft school zone

imported post

i hear ya!

in union grove the memorial day parade starts at memorial park (right next to the high school) with a gun salute! so now they are carrying in a school zone AND discharging a firearm within a school zone.. on public property no less.. then they walk down main street to memorial cemetary.. passing at least 2 more schools.. im not sure if they are within 1000' or not though.. all with a police escort!

im sure i would have a police escort if i carried over there also.. but i would be cuffed and in the back of the car.. not walking down the street throwing candy :cuss:

maybe thats the ticket.. throw candy = no felony? :lol:

imported post

An what about Flynn in Milwaukee?? Will he be "taking down" the vets as they open carry in the parade? I say we submit an application to enter these parades. Tell them strait up, it is to make a political statement, and what we intend to do. We will walk the parade route, just like the vets. We will hand out the candy and the pamphlets para worked on. Might be a $200 - $300 entry fee. If they deny us entry, but other groups can "carry firearms" then we can go after them on that front.



As a side note, and not wanting to make a fake 911 call, but how would they handle a 911 "man with a gun" call if somebody were to make such a call from the parade route??? Wouldn't that in effect force Flynn to "take down" the vets?



I watched a parade last year, where the Laos vets carrying AR-15's, must have been 15 to twenty in that parade, and they went within 1000' of a school.

Again, not anti military or anti vet here, just using that as an example...

imported post

I am guessing here, But I think the school zone restriction was put into law to try and up the charges against the criminals that would consider a drive-by or taking a gun into a school. The statute is obviously flawed because it restricts the rights of the law abiding citizen.

Does anyone think we would have better luck getting the wording modified instead of it being struck from the books outright.
For instance, if a criminal is caught with a firearm within the restriction zone, that zone trespass could be a charge modifier to increase both incarceration and fines.

if we ask for it to just be removed, the anti's will have a much more valid position to fight back with their "We need to protect our children" cry.

We need to offer wording to be changedin the statute that for the law abiding citizen this restriction does not apply, but for someone that has lost their right to own a gun, it increases their charges against them. This will give the police bigger and better charges to use against a criminal, keep the anti's happy (to a point) and protect us from mistakenly crossing that 1,000' border by accident and getting nicked for a felony charge whitch would take any and all rights away from us.

Anyone?

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

We need to offer wording to be changedin the statute that for the law abiding citizen this restriction does not apply

Click to expand...

That's what Hamdan seems to stand for already.