Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Open-carry gun rights supporters plan picnic. Fritsch Park event highlights legality of carry.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    "Participants cannot ... unholster the firearms."

    Two questions; what is the legal citation for this prohibitions and how is a vehicle used legally while complying with this ignorant requirement?

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...0101/908070546

    By Andy Nelesen anelesen@greenbaypressgazette.com

    A picnic supporting gun rights and open carry of firearms is planned for Green Bay's west side this weekend.

    Organizers will gather at noon Saturday at Ted Fritsch Park, 700 LaCount Road, for what organizer Fernando Silva Jr. calls a picnic with a purpose.

    "We are trying to show the public that just because we're carrying a firearm, it does not necessarily mean that we're bad guys," Silva said Thursday. "We're people, too. We just want to show people we're not out to hurt anybody; not out to scare anybody.

    "We're proud of our Second Amendment rights."

    Saturday's event dovetails with the release of 10-second radio ads in the Green Bay market sponsored by http://www.opencarry .org to promote open carry of handguns in Wisconsin.

    Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a memo in spring that carrying a firearm in a holster is legal and does not by itself constitute disorderly conduct. Several similar open carry picnics have been held throughout the state in the wake of the memo.

    Green Bay police Capt. Karl Fleury said police officers will notify the park's neighbors about the event, and the officer patrolling that part of the city will monitor the event.

    City officials originally wanted to require the group to have an insurance policy and a special events permit. The city relented on the insurance, but mandated the group have a special event permit for the gathering, Silva said.

    The City Attorney's office did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday or Thursday.

    Fleury said police have talked with organizers to ensure they were aware of all the appropriate regulations.

    "They know the policies and procedures," Fleury said.

    Participants must transport their weapons to the park in a locked trunk, keep the weapons exposed while wearing them and cannot unholster the firearms. Armed persons must secure their weapons before using any public facilities, including the park shelter's bathroom.

    "The parties cannot go into any public facilities armed," Fleury said. "That's considered a public facility."


  2. #2
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Participants cannot ... unholster the firearms."

    Two questions; what is the legal citation for this prohibitions and how is a vehicle used legally while complying with this ignorant requirement?


    Although the statement is vague and the uneducated masses may be confused, it should be clear to us that he is referring to brandishing. If you saw the statement on Television, he stated "waving around" in addition to taking out of the holster. The police are not accustomed to Open Carry any more than the uneducated masses are.

    We need to utilize these events to educate the public, the police and potential participants at the picnic, most of which are not accustomed to Open Carry.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Please be careful and speak for yourself only.

    It is not at all clear to me to what he might be referring. We are not prohibited from unholstering and we are not prohibited from "brandishing". Indeed, you must unholster in order to comply with the law - ss 167.31

    Many here seem to enjoy sledding on the slippery slopes of statist's infringement. Not I.

    http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gat...amp;q=brandish
    No Match Found
    Search terms "brandish": Not found.
    Because it happens to be open in a different browser tab, enjoy this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRvtWEG_vhQ 'Hitler rants about Obama'

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    "We are trying to show the public that just because we're carrying a firearm, it does not necessarily mean that we're bad guys," Silva said Thursday. "We're people, too. We just want to show people we're not out to hurt anybody; not out to scare anybody.
    Why assume people think we are bad guys? They don't. Wisconsinites FULLY support RKBA. They voted overwhelmingly for it a few years back.

    There are only 2 groups of people that by and large think guns=bad News media, and government.

    Purpose of the picnic: "We wanted to have a cookout, and it happens that in wisconsin the only way the law allows residents to exercise their constitutional rights is by open-carrying."

    or

    "Its a celebration of the rights that the law-abiding residents of the state of wisconsin enjoy" "criminals are not allowed to posses firearms at all. Law-abiding citizens are" "We hope other law abiding citizens will stop out, have a burger and enjoy the freedoms that, for a long time, people were unaware of in Wisconsin"

  5. #5
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    "We are trying to show the public that just because we're carrying a firearm, it does not necessarily mean that we're bad guys," Silva said Thursday. "We're people, too. We just want to show people we're not out to hurt anybody; not out to scare anybody.
    Why assume people think we are bad guys? They don't. Wisconsinites FULLY support RKBA. They voted overwhelmingly for it a few years back.

    There are only 2 groups of people that by and large think guns=bad News media, and government.

    Purpose of the picnic: "We wanted to have a cookout, and it happens that in wisconsin the only way the law allows residents to exercise their constitutional rights is by open-carrying."

    or

    "Its a celebration of the rights that the law-abiding residents of the state of wisconsin enjoy" "criminals are not allowed to posses firearms at all. Law-abiding citizens are" "We hope other law abiding citizens will stop out, have a burger and enjoy the freedoms that, for a long time, people were unaware of in Wisconsin"
    I do believe that you are right. I carry every day for my dog walks. I have had three of my neighbors thank me for open carrying around the area. I live in a very nice area on the North Side of Milwaukee, but we have a lot of not so nice areas all around us. My neighbors feel that it might help keep crime from entering our little "safe spot" in the city. To be honest, the "thank you" stuff gets me a bit mad. You have to understand, I carry for me, and mine. I do not carry to protect others from crime, as I am not a cop. I keep telling them all that it is there responsibility to protect themselves, not mine. Most understand my point, and agree. Open carry is for all, not just me or you... It is all of our jobs. Our crime problems are our fault. WE need to put a stop to it. Cops are great and all, but in no way can the cops stop crime the way the people of any given area can. It is up to us to "take" our city back!

    Please, Carry On! For all of us.

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    To be honest, the "thank you" stuff gets me a bit mad. You have to understand, I carry for me, and mine. I do not carry to protect others from crime, as I am not a cop
    Thugs don't know that. One law-abiding citizenopen-carrying can deter criminals from going near anyone in the vicinity. Thugs don't know the law (thugs don't care about the laws)

    So while your primary intent may not be to protect others. Criminals don't know that. And thus, your open-carrying makes those around you (familiy or not) safer.

    For me personally, its really hard to pre-conceive scenarios and say "I'd do this or that". I think in all probability, there are very few times when you would have enough information to intervene in a situation you are not a part of.

    Having said that, if I was sitting a classroom over at Virginia Tech and I heard shooting and I was armed, I can't sit here and say "I won't do anything".

    If I have the opportunity to help someone else (whether I'm armed or not) I plan to. Every situation must be assessed on its own merits.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Please be careful and speak for yourself only.

    It is not at all clear to me to what he might be referring. We are not prohibited from unholstering and we are not prohibited from "brandishing".
    Please read the statutes in whole. "Displaying in a threatening manor" is commonly called brandishing".....

    Please start another thread if you wish to discuss the fine points of law without being helpful with the planning of tomorrow's picnic. The facts are, do not remove your handgun from the holster to display/show it to someone or to wave it around. Remove it from the case only to holster it and then immediately holster it and then remove itfrom the holster only tocase it and then immediately case it. This is a very simple concept. Anyonewho can not follow this simple safety rule is simplynot welcome. The LEO contingent has made it clear that they will enforce this. We can not afford any negative press. Citations are negative press even if they have no basis and are eventually dismissed... This is part of the battle for public supportin defending our rights and liberties.

    27.603 WEAPONS.

    (3) POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPONS.

    (a) Generally Prohibited. Except as reasonably necessary to fulfill the exceptions provided elsewhere in this ordinance, no person shall carry or transport any bow or crossbow, or conceal about the person or display in a threatening manner any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not limited by enumeration to, martial arts weapons such as throwing stars, swords, or nunchiku; slingshots; knuckles of lead, brass, or other metals; or a bowie knife, bow, or crossbow; pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Please be careful and speak for yourself only.

    It is not at all clear to me to what he might be referring. We are not prohibited from unholstering and we are not prohibited from "brandishing".
    Please read the statutes in whole. "Displaying in a threatening manor" is commonly called brandishing".....

    Please start another thread if you wish to discuss the fine points of law without being helpful with the planning of tomorrow's picnic. The facts are, do not remove your handgun from the holster to display/show it to someone or to wave it around. Remove it from the case only to holster it and then immediately holster it and then remove itfrom the holster only tocase it and then immediately case it. This is a very simple concept. Anyonewho can not follow this simple safety rule is simplynot welcome. The LEO contingent has made it clear that they will enforce this. We can not afford any negative press. Citations are negative press even if they have no basis and are eventually dismissed... This is part of the battle for public supportin defending our rights and liberties.

    27.603 WEAPONS.

    (3) POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPONS.

    (a) Generally Prohibited. Except as reasonably necessary to fulfill the exceptions provided elsewhere in this ordinance, no person shall carry or transport any bow or crossbow, or conceal about the person or display in a threatening manner any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not limited by enumeration to, martial arts weapons such as throwing stars, swords, or nunchiku; slingshots; knuckles of lead, brass, or other metals; or a bowie knife, bow, or crossbow; pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun.
    I dispute your arbitration of 'helpful'. I started this thread exactly to discuss the fine points of law that elude officialdom and their subjects.

    Further, counselor, a threatening manner presumes intent which is in the exclusive purview of the trier of fact, judge or jury.


  9. #9
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    I dispute your arbitration of 'helpful'. I started this thread exactly to discuss the fine points of law that elude officialdom and their subjects.

    Further, counselor, a threatening manner presumes intent which is in the exclusive purview of the trier of fact, judge or jury.
    Court of law vs court of public opinion. Also, you may beat the rap but not beat the ride... I will choose to be overly cautious and act accordingly at any such event.

    Please excuse my thread comment. I lost track of which thread I was replying in.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Much better. I am glad to hear that.

    In the matter of courts of law versus the court of public opinion; there are different standards of proof and presumptions of innocence that are dependent on which jurisdiction one is arguing.

    In criminal court one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court one may be required to prove ones innocence by the mere preponderance of evidence. In the court of public opinion one is damned on say so.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Participants must transport their weapons to the park in a locked trunk, keep the weapons exposed while wearing them and cannot unholster the firearms. Armed persons must secure their weapons before using any public facilities, including the park shelter's bathroom.

    "The parties cannot go into any public facilities armed," Fleury said. "That's considered a public facility."
    So, Wisconsin has a porta poddy ban too??

    In addition to the vehicle carry ban, the school zone carry ban, and concealed carry ban?

    Sheesh, there are really a lotta bills that need to get filed to fix this stuff!

    Just think of all the unnecessary gun handling that these laws require in public places?



  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    So, Wisconsin has a porta poddy ban too??

    Just think of all the unnecessary gun handling that these laws require in public places?


    The restrooms at the park are in a permanent building.

    No porta potty ban since the political subdivisions do not own them. Besides,they do not meet the definition of a structure....

    The quote from police was to the effect thatwecan not "take them out to display themor wave them around".


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Waukesha, ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    We can not afford any negative press. Citations are negative press even if they have no basis and are eventually dismissed... This is part of the battle for public supportin defending our rights and liberties.
    I understand that this event is geared more to the PR side of things, which is very important. But I have to bring this up again......

    Brad and Jesus.... This is Wisconsin, the last state to legalize pepper spray. I'm not holding my breath for any pro open carry bills to be passed, or introduced,any time soon. So the only way we're gonna know a lot of the grey areas is for someone to be ticketed and/or arrested.Our greatest "victorys" come from arrests and people being kicked out of stores. Sad but true. Cheerleaders are fun to look at but it's the action on the field that determans who wins. Can't wait for football to begin.

    Also wanted to say great work to those involved with getting this all worked out. I now see the point of the permit and such. Should be good times.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    GlocksRfun wrote:
    So the only way we're gonna know a lot of the grey areas is for someone to be ticketed and/or arrested.Our greatest "victorys" come from arrests and people being kicked out of stores. Sad but true.
    Having an individual arrested for their conduct is not so damaging as having citations written at a picnic. If you noticed,tonight's mention of the picnic on the news was sandwitched between reports of gun violence and murder. This was very intentional on the part of the media. Sensationalism is SOP. We must battle this attitude and win public support in spite of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    177

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Much better. I am glad to hear that.

    In the matter of courts of law versus the court of public opinion; there are different standards of proof and presumptions of innocence that are dependent on which jurisdiction one is arguing.

    In criminal court one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court one may be required to prove ones innocence by the mere preponderance of evidence. In the court of public opinion one is damned on say so.
    Never been to court on felony charges have you ?



    They tell you you are innocent until proven bbuilty , but thay don't mean it. The problem stems from the well documented belief by the general public that the state is more righteous then a single person, and all a jury is is 12 bodies from the general public ( and usually the free thinkers are weeded out in jury selection in my experiances)... Wlaking into a courtroom the jury does not see "innocent until pproven guilty" anymore, they see guilty until proven innocent ... and in the end the trial rests with them.



    I am sure you will now post a hundred legal cites proving me wrong, But out here in the real world , that ain't EXACTLY how it works....

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Just Curious, did anyone ask the cities permission for participants to use the facilities without disarming? Or was that never brought up?

    I am just curious if permission would have been granted if requested.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Green Bay (Ashwaubenon), Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I don't agree with the whole disarming when having to use the bathroom either. If that's the technicality that the city wants to run with, so be it. That being said, I agree OC does not need any negative press. I think I'm going to throw on an extra holster so that my friends don't have to case when needing to use the bathroom. Just a quick switch in and out. I don't think they can find fault in that, can they?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Just Curious, did anyone ask the cities permission for participants to use the facilities without disarming? Or was that never brought up?

    I am just curious if permission would have been granted if requested.
    Permission was denied. I believe this to be partially an education thing. I do not believe that the Chief understands that he may grant it. The response I got from the City Attorney's office was to the effect of "It's a State law and we can't do anything about it"....

  19. #19
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    jeff9980 wrote:
    I don't agree with the whole disarming when having to use the bathroom either. If that's the technicality that the city wants to run with, so be it. That being said, I agree OC does not need any negative press. I think I'm going to throw on an extra holster so that my friends don't have to case when needing to use the bathroom. Just a quick switch in and out. I don't think they can find fault in that, can they?
    Not if all firearm safety rules are followed. All it would take is a single muzzle sweep on camera and the image is tainted.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Just Curious, did anyone ask the cities permission for participants to use the facilities without disarming? Or was that never brought up?

    I am just curious if permission would have been granted if requested.
    Permission was denied. I believe this to be partially an education thing. I do not believe that the Chief understands that he may grant it. The response I got from the City Attorney's office was to the effect of "It's a State law and we can't do anything about it"....
    More like they did not want to do anything about it.

    From what I have seen in the news, I think the GBPD will be perched and ready. If anyone is arrested for taking their fire arm into the bathroom or under the pavillion, we need to make sure they have the full support of OCDO and any other fire arms support group.
    At that point we need the legal fight to make the general public see just how foolish these laws are and how corrupt these political entities are.
    Sooner or later this battle needs to be fought. At this point IMHO they think they can keep us in check by the threat of arrest.
    I have to wonder, if 300 people show up and it starts raining in a down pour, if all 300 people move under the shelter if the GBPD is prepared to arrest all 300.
    If they do would the remaining members of OCDO gather in Green Bay for a protest?
    Or would we all just keep talking about how we need to fight this some day?

    For those afraid to defend their rights, they might as well just give them away.

    Molon labe!

Posting Permissions

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