• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ok, yeah I'm new...and a nancy boy.

Landose_theghost

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Hey NPH, I don't blame you for being scared to OC in GB, I know the cops aren't the friendliest around these parts. But hey, if you want to meet up and go OC'n let me know. It's about high time GB throws their hat into the OC ring anyways. Who knows, we may even start a movement in our City...win,win situation my opinon. Let me know meantime!
 

MJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

If you need to have a permit or license it is no longer a right, I know some people think that other states with CCW are much better but in most cases it is no longer a right to bear arms there it is a privilege in many. I am just very happy there was no compromise trading open carry for CCW and both should be legal. Without a permit, license, training, insurance, drug test, dna sample, fingerprints, RFID card, etc etc.

The only things I would warn someone about when open carrying is be wary of school zones. Also it can be difficult when driving, they adopted laws from the hunting regulations that state firearms must be unloaded and cased in a motor vehicle. I get out of the vehicle and lock it then set the case on or in the trunk or bed of the truck while holstering or shouldering the gun. It can be touchy as far as someone saying you brandished a weapon but they might do the exact same thing just seeing a holstered or slung weapon, that has happened to me. As long as it is always pointed in a safe direction there should be little to worry about. If you open carry a rifle I would always be sure to keep it slung or shouldered if it doesnt have a sling.

You do not have to be scared to bear arms, it is your right and it is totally legal. I have been open carrying for many years and in many places, the only time I have had a problem was someone calling the police saying there was a man with a gun in a store. The officer came in and tracked me down, he approached and asked whats with the gun. I replied that it was a CZ 75 in 9mm and I did not see a sign prohibiting firearms at the store, only no smoking and that patrons wear a shirt and shoes. He said it was not the store calling but a customer and they got worried. I told the officer that is something he would have to take up with whoever complained because I am not breaking a law or causing a distubance of any kind. He said thanks and have a nice day, that was the end of the story. This was years ago when the issue of open carry and law enforcement violating the law was blurry, I think most departments got the recent memo and will follow and enforce the laws correctly for the most part.

I have had quite a few people approach me and ask if I was a cop or fed or whats with the gun, some are quite shocked that it is legal and dont know the laws which is sad. Mostly it is younger people, quite often the employees of gas stations.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Pointman wrote:
When you drive a car you should know the laws and perhaps carry insurance. I don't see the difference when a person carries deadly force and intends to use it if required.
The difference is the difference between the privilege to drive a motorcar and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that is enumerated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and that "shall not be infringed."
 

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:
privilege to drive a motorcar


Driving a motorcar is not a privilege. Its a right. The supreme court even verified that.

I know most of your government publication/drivers ed manual, etc says its a privilege. But its not.
Citation, please. I'm not aware of any topic in the constitution that states or implies that the use of any conveyance is a right.
 

MJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

You do have a right to travel freely among the states and under your own power. But I really do not think there is a right to operate a motor vehicle, if you do not have your vehicle registered you will be fined, if you do not have a valid license you will be fined. These are contacts and there are fees, no matter what the courts say that makes it a privilege.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. It's been a few years since my law classes but if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus can be taken away/controlled by the government much more willy-nilly than rights can be. Again if I recall correctly, the case was related to an implied consent case. I can research it further if anyone really wants to know.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gbu28 wrote:
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. It's been a few years since my law classes but if I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus can be taken away/controlled by the government much more willy-nilly than rights can be. Again if I recall correctly, the case was related to an implied consent case. I can research it further if anyone really wants to know.
On the contrary...

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/

Bell v Burson
For many years, government considered a driver's license "a privilege — not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Note: Were it not for Bell, it is doubtful that the California DMV today would provide hearings to contest DUI license suspensions. See also, Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test.
 

MJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I understand what you are saying with the right to contest a suspension and the right to have access to a drivers license. I still do not believe it is a right to operate a motor vehicle, by my own standards of what a right means.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocate//o, 416 P. 2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights.” Teche Lines v. Dan forth, 12 So. 2d 784, 787 (Miss.—1943). See also: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
 

MJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:
The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocate//o, 416 P. 2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights.” Teche Lines v. Dan forth, 12 So. 2d 784, 787 (Miss.—1943). See also: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

Like I said no matter what the courts say my opinion is that it is not a right.

If you do not register your vehicle and pay the fees you will be fined. If you do not pay it you might loose your license, in some states I think it is even illegal to not be insured.

They might call it a right but that is the opposite of what I consider a right. I also do not think CCW by permit or license only is a right.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

I agree- it's probably a matter of semantics. I don't disagree with any of the cases cited and I CERTAINLY wouldn't choose to have the ability to drive to be a privilege but I still take that position. All three of the cases cited are rather old- 1971, 1966, and 1943 if I read correctly. It would be nice to know of the very latest cases and see what they state. For example, Michigan v. Sitz http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html (1990 Supreme Court case) seems to say that vehicle sobriety checkpoints are consistent with the 4th amendment. I would never agree to that position and I think it's completely contrary to individual rights- but yet there it is. The only thing I do know for sure is the law is NEVER black and white. If it were, there would be no need for Appellate and Supreme Courts (both at the state and federal level). Not trying to argue, but I do love a good debate now and again, and hell, I may learn something new.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Like I said no matter what the courts say my opinion is that it is not a right.
Well we are playing semantics here, but a couple of thoughts.

First, as I've said before. Rights are NOT granted by the government, so it REALLY doesn't matter what the government SAYS. WE HAVE as human beings the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. GOVERNMENT has no rights, government has only the power of the people collectively.

I would NEVER NEVER argue with you guys that ALMOST all of our rights are "rights infringed" or "rights denied"

But they ARE rights. (the government is just denying or infringing, and sometimes severely, upon them)

Remember. people in china have the EXACT same rights we have. Theirs are just being denied to them by their government.

Thats the MARVEL of what our founding fathers recognized. They recognized that people ARE free. We are free and the ONLY limitations on our rights are the boundaries which we establish to define where my right ends and yours begins.

I have the right to sing and shout. You have the right to peace and quiet.

Where do those to rights meet? Well.. I do not have the right to sing and shout in your ear, and you do not have the right to NEVER hear any noise other than what you make.

How do we draw the line where your right to peace and quiet ends and my right to sign and shout begins. That is the SOLE role of government (as intended by our founding fathers)

Where our government went WRONG... Where government headed down the road to hell paved by good intentions was trying to legislate to prevent any infraction of each others rights. When government became a nanny instead of an enforcer of the laws we agreed upon.

I have the right to drive. I do not have the right to smash into you. Instead of trying to prevent me from smashing into you proactively by ALL these bullshit driving exams, licensing, FEES, which DO NOT make us any safer, just less free, the government should have stuck to the business of making sure encroachments on rights have consequences.

Its the great myth of nanny government. That without drivers licensing systems we'd have kids jumping in cars and smashing into everyone. We wouldn't. If smashing into someone had severe consequences, people would take responsibility upon themselves to learn to drive and be safe without any government bureaucracy and taxes. They would do so because they KNEW their would be severe consequences to doing so. And as we all know, if kids want to be stupid, jump in a car and smash into someone. THAT ALREADY HAPPENS. Laws do not prevent encroachments on others rights nor prevent crime.

Anyway... off on a rant there.
 

MJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Thats well put, I totally agree with what you said hugh.

I should have said the right to drive or travel is usually infringed upon, or regulated in a way that is questionable. I did not mean to say I dont think it is our right, what I mean to say is they are not treating it as a right.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I mean to say is they are not treating it as a right.
Damn right they aren't.



And after ALL the precedent. After ALL the court findings that driving IS a right. Open up the Wisconsin Drivers Education instruction booklet and THERE it is in black and white that "driving is a privilege"

Government is lying. Government is breeding us into subservience. The very government that was to be a champion of freedom is brainwashing people out of it. From under their nose, and without their knowledge or recognition. (well at least half of the people don't recognize)

Government is no longer protecting our rights. Unfortunately. Its up to US as citizens to protect our rights.

As such its that important to OPEN CARRY TODAY!
 

MJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Maybe one day if we are lucky enough all law enforcement and the DMV will get a memo reminding them of how they have been violating that right for years and should probably stop. Thats actually not very funny and I shouldnt joke.

Its just like the invalid local laws dealing with the right to bear arms, if they are in the books people will believe it.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:
Like I said no matter what the courts say my opinion is that it is not a right.
Well we are playing semantics here, but a couple of thoughts.

First, as I've said before. Rights are NOT granted by the government, so it REALLY doesn't matter what the government SAYS. WE HAVE as human beings the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. GOVERNMENT has no rights, government has only the power of the people collectively.

I would NEVER NEVER argue with you guys that ALMOST all of our rights are "rights infringed" or "rights denied"

But they ARE rights. (the government is just denying or infringing, and sometimes severely, upon them)
The fact is that the only right, according to the Constitution, that shall not be infringed is the 2nd Amendment right.

Here is where they can infringe on the other rights:


Article VI All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Senators, representatives and legislatures as well as executive and judicial officer that have not supported the constitution in accordance with their oath of office should be impeached!
 
Top