• 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.

Greenfield Meeting TONIGHT (June 15th), we need people there...

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
imported post

This is a cross post to the Greenfield Common Council meeting tonight, June 15th from the Hot Topic Forum, and it is was also brought up in the "What's Next" thread by Brad_Krause at Mon Jun 15th, 2009 04:57 am....

however, if you are just reading the WI forum and aren't in every thread you might not know about it... we need to get people at this meeting to stop this legislation...

So this is a new thread to inform everyone... please go to those thread and reply so we can keep all of this information in the same place.

I realize this is a repost of information, but people need to know about it...
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I think the meeting went well, but it is hard to say.

I think about 9 people spoke out, all against the proposed law. None for.

Interesting, I thought Linda Lubotsky said that this proposal was all started at the request of the Police, not any store owner. Also, I do not know why she felt the need to tell us that she does not own a gun (at this time). When she looked over the copy of 66.0409 (that I had to give her?) she acted like she had never seen it before. In fact, at the end, Thomas Pietrowski held it up and told us all he never knew that such a Statute existed! Thomas even looked to be a bit mad about not knowing any of the facts about the open carry laws. Linda had to ask one of our forum members what Open Carry looks like:what:... I guess none of them looked any info up on any of this. Roger Pyzyk (the City "Attorney"), looked to be a bit red in the face for most of the show, I guess I would too if I were him...:cuss:

In the end... Because of Thomas Pietrowskis' help (IMO), and the rest of us that went, it is being put off for more research. I do not know what the next date will be for it... I do think that Thomas Pietrowski might be a friend on this, but itwas the first time I have seen him. Have to start working on him...

Saw a few people from the forum, but don't like name dropping...

This was a first for me. Never went to a City meeting before. I guess I owe it to this movement. Just makes me feel more "American". Better news, now my wife wants to start to go to moreCity meetingswith me. Keep that fire burning!

On a side note, I don't think the board even knew that I had on an empty holster, until I had to give them a sheet of paper. None looked freaked out to me...
 

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
imported post

Good job guys. I wonder if they'll still cover these "events" on the local news now that both cities have all be shelved these idiotic ordinances. Someone who attended the city meetings should write a thoughtful letter to the editor at the Journal-Sentinal.
 

patriotguy

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
102
Location
, ,
imported post

My understanding is that the police department (do not know who specifically) asked that this ordinance be created because they did not feel that the disorderly conduct or trespassing ordinances were sufficient.

Linda Lubotsky did her "research" yesterday, which entailed calling the state to find out what statutes were involved. It seemed to me that the three alderpersons were completely unprepared for this discussion, but were prepared to vote for this if many of us did not show up to speak. Credit to Lubotsky for hanging out after the meeting to talk to us and get a better understanding of OC and related issues.

Before the meeting they were discussing 941.235 and 941.237 as the two main statutes affecting the discussion. I was really surprised that the city attorney allowed them to even get to this point, in light of 66.0409, and the potential legal problems they could face if there new ordinance was enacted. Isn't it his job to understand the lawyer stuff, and protect the interests of the city?

I appreciated meeting everyone on our side. Not surprising, everyone was well spoken, knowledgable and respectful. We need to do the same thing tonight in South Milwaukee.
 

patriotguy

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
102
Location
, ,
imported post

Problems with multiple postings - Mike, please feel free to delete multiples.
 

J.Gleason

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

WI Patriot wrote:
I was really surprised that the city attorney allowed them to even get to this point, in light of 66.0409, and the potential legal problems they could face if there new ordinance was enacted. Isn't it his job to understand the lawyer stuff, and protect the interests of the city?
In this day and age not many citizens go to the meetings anymore. So he probably didn't think he had anything to worry about. I am sure he will have more to say next time, maybe. Sounds to me like this is the only job the guy has. He probably does not have a very lucrative practice.
 

patriotguy

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
102
Location
, ,
imported post

Just looked at Greenfield's municipal code. The agenda of the meeting last night stated that they wanted to "...amend Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code to include the following state statutes regarding firearms:..."

The issue is that Chapter 10(1) violates state statute 66.0409:
10.01 Weapons.
(1)Discharging and carrying of firearms and guns prohibited. (Cr. #1412) No person, except a sheriff, constable, police officer or their deputies, shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun within the City or have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control, unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container, provided the City Council may permit the maintenance and use of supervised rifle or pistol ranges or shooting galleries. This subsection shall prohibit hunting within the City.


I don't know how they can go forward with this.
 

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
imported post

Thanks to all that showed up, I wish I could have been there. It would be nice to put some faces to names one of these days. =)
 

J.Gleason

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

WI Patriot wrote:
I was really surprised that the city attorney allowed them to even get to this point, in light of 66.0409, and the potential legal problems they could face if there new ordinance was enacted. Isn't it his job to understand the lawyer stuff, and protect the interests of the city?
In this day and age not many citizens go to the meetings anymore. So he probably didn't think he had anything to worry about. I am sure he will have more to say next time, maybe. Sounds to me like this is the only job the guy has. He probably does not have a very lucrative practice.
 

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
imported post

Thanks to all that showed up, I wish I could have been there. It would be nice to put some faces to names one of these days. =)
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

First off thank you to all who showed up! I wish I could have been there but I got off of work at 6:40. I have written to tmj4 and Fox 6 but it seems like they could care less...... I'll look forward to going to the next one if there is one, maybe even ask off of work early. Hey Magenlude remember we also are doing an adopt a highway program, and we go out and clean on the 27th. I believe it's under hot topics.



Ben
 

patriotguy

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
102
Location
, ,
imported post

BJA wrote:
I have written to tmj4 and Fox 6 but it seems like they could care less......
Fox 6 was there, but I didn't see anything in the newscast about the meeting.
 

Doug Huffman

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

WI Patriot wrote:
I don't know how they can go forward with this.
What officer of what jurisdiction is charged with enforcing State statute against a subdivision (a county or municipality) of itself?

You cannot be preemptively prevented from speeding or from yelling "fire!" in a theater, how would you prospectively prevent the state (small 's') from violating a preemption statute.

I ANAL but believe that once the preempted ordinance is enacted then someone must gain legal standing to go through the appeal process.

How is public policy made? In my microscopic instance I wrote an ordinance against the interest of many special-interests. They biotched to the heavens but they pay their garbage tipping fees. I'm up for re-election in the spring, then we'll balance the pros and the confidence men.
 

J.Gleason

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

We will have to keep a close eye on this so the council does not try slipping it in on another meeting when our members or people who support our cause are not present. Do Not trust these people!
 
Top