Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: LaCrosse Tea Party

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    LaCrosse Tea Party Linky

    Check out the VIDEOS tab, got some good ones


    Hey, It's Riverfest too. Good times for the whole family.



    Does LaCrosse ban guns in parks?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    I have searched the entire online version of La Crosse city ordinances.

    http://www.cityoflacrosse.org/index.aspx?NID=583

    The City of La Crosse Wisconsin does NOT prohibit the posession of firearms at all, and thus only the five (5) state prohabitions reply.

    Carry on!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Just got off the phone with Jake Speed, the Tea Party coordinator, and he's very excited about the upcoming event. He expects an min of 1500 people but is planning for 2500-3000.

    He's also extended invitations to Dan Kapanke, Mike Huebsch, Jennifer Schilling as well as a few other local political figures. If they show up they are to show up to LISTEN but they may be given a chance towards the end to respond to what they witnessed and are advised to not give stump speeches.

    This is very much a grass roots project and he is looking for a stage. So far we have a car trailer to get those that speak above the crowd a little but if anyone has access to a stage type platform please PM me or contact Jake through the Tea Party link.

    Carry on!
    Fully intend to.



    Edit to clarify a couple things with the politicians.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    I have searched the entire online version of La Crosse city ordinances.

    http://www.cityoflacrosse.org/index.aspx?NID=583

    The City of La Crosse Wisconsin does NOT prohibit the posession of firearms at all, and thus only the five (5) state prohabitions reply.

    Carry on!
    10.03 RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND SWIMMING POOLS.

    (D) USE OF WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
    The use of air guns, sling shots, firearms, and explosives and weapons of every character is strictly prohibited.


    I really hope I don't have to use it.

    But.......The penalty I'll get for violating this ordinance will be far less then the penalty I'll get for not using it if I should I'm sure.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Woodchuck wrote:
    10.03 RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND SWIMMING POOLS.

    (D) USE OF WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
    The use of air guns, sling shots, firearms, and explosives and weapons of every character is strictly prohibited.


    I really hope I don't have to use it.

    But.......The penalty I'll get for violating this ordinance will be far less then the penalty I'll get for not using it if I should I'm sure.
    That ordinance would be unenforceable under the preemptive statute. It is more restrictive in that there are more city parks, playgrounds and swimming pools then there are state parks, playgrounds and swimming pools. Therefore it can not be enforced. They can try, but they will lose and they know it. The thing about these ordinances is the city governments never planned for anyone to challenge them, that is why they have been on the books for so long.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Whats really more strict

    Gun must be unloaded and encased (impossible to use if you can't carry)

    or

    The use of a gun is prohibited. (can carry, just don't use)



    I don't think this falls under the preemptive law at all.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Woodchuck wrote:
    Whats really more strict

    Gun must be unloaded and encased (impossible to use if you can't carry)

    or

    The use of a gun is prohibited. (can carry, just don't use)



    I don't think this falls under the preemptive law at all.
    Yes it does fall under the preemptive statute. You have the right to Open carry and the fact that there are more city parks than state parks makes the ordinance unenforceable.
    If you had a state park within your city limits the city could impose an ordinance banning fire arms within the state park that is all. The fact that there are more city parks than state parks period would infringe on your 2nd amendment rights in that it would be more restrictive to the areas in which you could carry a fire arm. That still would not eliminate anyone from being arrested if they were to unholster the fire arm outside an act of self defense.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Woodchuck wrote:
    Whats really more strict

    Gun must be unloaded and encased (impossible to use if you can't carry)

    or

    The use of a gun is prohibited. (can carry, just don't use)



    I don't think this falls under the preemptive law at all.
    Yes it does fall under the preemptive statute. You have the right to Open carry and the fact that there are more city parks than state parks makes the ordinance unenforceable.

    What the heck does the number of parks have to do with anything

    If you had a state park within your city limits the city could impose an ordinance banning fire arms within the state park that is all.

    No such ordinance is needed, OCing on said state park would be illegal under state law, would it not. A state park is a state park regardless of weather or not it's in city limits.

    The fact that there are more city parks than state parks period would infringe on your 2nd amendment rights in that it would be more restrictive to the areas in which you could carry a fire arm.

    Please cite your source for this
    Don't take me wrong on this post or any other today. I'm not questioning for the sake of argument, I'm questioning because I'm really questioning the legality of the statements. Just because either 1 of us "believes" something to be true doesn't mean it is. Nothing personal, just trying to get facts str8. I may very well be wrong, I really hope I am, that would mean more freedom for the people.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Carry on Wood Chuck, hope you find your answers.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    it specifically states "The use of" not the possession or carry of.

    So as long as I/You do not use your firearm, I see no problem.

    Since it specificall states no slingshots, doing a bart simpson with having it in your back pocket should then be legal also.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I met Mr Jake Speed (coordinator) today at his home print shop and he's really excited about the event.


    We (everyone that reads this) have been invited by Mr Speed to have a presence there and we will have a table handing out Wisconsin Gun Right info. Come on down, holster up your favorite sidearm and join us.

    Mr. Speed is voicing a strong support of our cause. We hope many of you will join us to support 2 big causes at 1 event.

    I know at least 2 of us will be open carrying.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Bump to top

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Again,

    42 USC 1983
    (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscprint.html).
    - 1 -
    TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
    CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
    SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
    § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
    State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
    the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
    privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
    in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action
    brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,
    injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief
    was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to
    the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
    (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct.
    19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
    Codification
    R.S. § 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, § 1, 17 Stat. 13.
    Section was formerly classified to section 43 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
    Amendments
    1996—Pub. L. 104–317 inserted before period at end of first sentence “, except that in any action brought against a
    judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
    unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”.
    1979—Pub. L. 96–170 inserted “or the District of Columbia” after “Territory”, and provisions relating to Acts of
    Congress applicable solely to the District of Columbia.
    Effective Date of 1979 Amendment
    Amendment by Pub. L. 96–170 applicable with respect to any deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured
    by the Constitution and laws occurring after Dec. 29, 1979, see section 3 of Pub. L. 96–170, set out as a note under
    section 1343 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.


    This verifies your right to carry by an act of congress!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , , Zimbabwe
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    jackie practzing 2 b

    jedi massa tooo

    like babs well sad

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Gonna be a great turnout. Come on and join us.

  16. #16
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Woodchuck wrote:
    Gonna be a great turnout. Come on and join us.
    I voted for the man, and so far, I stand by my vote.

    So the tea party is off for me, but any real open carry event might get me to drive out to see you. I missed the last one, and you westerners seem to have it going on. I will bring some extra brats.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Just got back from the Tea Party. We handed out several hundred of the pamphlets, and educated many folks. Talk with several women (young and old) about carrying. I gave a few minute presentation on open carry and encourage the crowd to take action now!

    Suggested they all visit here to learn more.

    I don't know the official numbers, but a guess would be 500 - 800 people.

Posting Permissions

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