Questions for Gubernatorial Candidates

imported post

Not only as a candidate but as a seated Governor, should you win the election, What is your position on the following issues?

1)Open Carry in Wisconsin.

2)Concealed Carry in Wisconsin.

3)The unconstitutional transportation laws (concerning fire arms) in the State of Wisconsin.

4) The unconstitutional School Zone Restriction Laws (concerning fire arms) in the State of Wisconsin.

5) A No Compromise Concealed carry/OpenCarry non-permitted system in Wisconsin.
(The U.S. Supreme Court decided the citizens are not required to register, train or be permitted to exercise their rights)

Please keep in mind this is not a forum of lobbyist. However we are all law abiding citizens who are ready to cast our votes and support the candidate that respects and recognizes our rights and the fact that we are granted those rights by the State and U.S. Constitutions before and after they take office. It is also lawful and "NOT" disorderly for law abiding citizens to exercise those rights.

imported post

Bump Bump!

imported post

Lets keep this on top and available. Maybe we can get them all to answer these questions.

imported post

Hello Jim,

As your future governor my desire is to make Wisconsin one of the top 5 states

to live in, in regards to our Constitutional Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the

security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed." This ammendment protects our right to keep and bear arms from

infringement by the federal goverment.

1) Open Carry in Wisconsin. Answer: I am all for it.

2) Concealed Carry in Wisconsin. Answer: I am all for it.

3) The unconstitutional transportation laws (concerning fire arms) in the state of WI.

Answer: I am not for anything that is unconstitutional.

4) The unconstitutional School Zone Restiction Laws (concerning fire arms) in the

state of WI. Answer: I am not for anything that is unconstitutional.

5) A No Compromise Concealed carry/Open Carry non-permitted system in Wisconsin.

Answer:Yes, I am for it. Exceptions would be:mental illness, violent felons (rape, battery, assault, substance abuse, murder, etc.) I also believe we would need guidelines for children.

note: I included "etc." in case I missed something obvious--I do notbelieve inunreasonable exceptions here.

An example of how I think?

If a woman wants to go for a run in theevening or early morning,would a rapist think twice if that woman had a loaded gunon her hip? If a armed robber wanted to rob a store owner and saw the store owner with a loaded gun on his hip would the robber think twice? I believewhen law-abiding adult citizens (of right mind) are protected; society will be a safer place to live. Studies have actually shown that.

I saw parts of Doug's movie and it is obvious to me that we need to make changes

tothe WI statutes 941 & 167so that our Second Amendment rights are not

being violated.

All the Best!

Mark Todd

www.marktoddforgovernor.com

imported post

Mr Todd. Thank you for joining us.

Just to clarify your stance:

5) A No Compromise Concealed carry/Open Carry non-permitted system in Wisconsin.

Answer:Yes, I am for it. Exceptions would be:mental illness, violent felons (rape, battery, assault, substance abuse, murder, etc.) I also believe we would need guidelines for children.

note: I included "etc." in case I missed something obvious--I do notbelieve inunreasonable exceptions here.

Click to expand...

Do you mean that if someone has the legal ability to own and purchase a firearm under current state & federal laws. That you will back carry options the same as Alaska & Vermont currently have available? (no permitting required to carry openly or concealed as long as you have the legal ability to own or posess a firearm)

VT & AK do have carry permits available to their residents so they can legally carry instates that have a reciprocal agreement, but are not required if in those 2 states

4) The unconstitutional School Zone Restiction Laws (concerning fire arms) in the

state of WI. Answer: I am not for anything that is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I believe the "1,000' School Zone Ban" has already been determined to be unconstitutional at the federal level. What plan of action would you take to have the current WI law repealed in a timely manner?

imported post

Welcome to the forum Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the posted questions.

I am sure that after you viewed Doug's video you can understand how the fire arms laws in Wisconsin are a mess.

The transportation laws and the school zone restriction laws both infringe on our rights to carry. Hopefully these will be changed in the future. The sooner the better.

Please feel free to frequent the forum and join in.

There are also events and picnics that you are welcome to attend, I am sure you will gain much support since you have been the only candidate to date that has come forward and expressed their positions on these issues.

imported post

Don't want to burst any bubbles but , Should our legislature remain the same anti's in control, pro gun bills will never make it to the floor for a vote let alone make it out of committee. I'm just saying it's not like a pro gun Gov. can sign an executive order to expand our rights.

imported post

springfield 1911 wrote:

Don't want to burst any bubbles but , Should our legislature remain the same anti's in control, pro gun bills will never make it to the floor for a vote let alone make it out of committee. I'm just saying it's not like a pro gun Gov. can sign an executive order to expand our rights.

Click to expand...

Sort of, but the governor can lean on people to get things done, "One hand washes the other" in modern politics. it is B.S. but that is how it works

imported post

But he sure can wield the power of the Veto pen!

One other thing we all need to remember. There is not much time really between now and the 2010 elections.

We need to get things done if we want these laws to change.

The way I see it is, we can get behind someone who has the balls to come onto a forum like this and make his stand on the issues or we can keep waiting for the other so called pro gun candidates that sit back and say they are in favor of these law changes while behind closed doors, knowing that when or if they are elected they will look the other way and all will be forgotten.

Where is Walker? Where is Nuemann? or any of the others that claim they are in favor of gun rights?

If we get behind someone who has come forward and stands up for gun rights now, That individual will have a greater chance of winning.

Look at our numbers! We can make a difference!

Wasting our time on Walker or Nuemann will leave us kicking ourselves in the arse after elections. I don't know about all of you but I for one am sick to death of all of the empty promises. That is all the career politicians know.....empty promises.

A candidate that is not a career politician, but a family man who understands our rights to self defense and our 2nd Amendment rights, a man who knows how important jobs are in this state...... That is someone worth supporting.

If coming on this forum and standing his ground on these issues looks to be a negative to some people, then tell me this, When is a good time to do that?
If this man didn't win the elections because of his position on these issues, I would still have more respect for him then the other candidates.

It is kind of like Nik said about throwing money in a pot for some ones legal fees when they won't even file suit. It is a waste of money and resources. That is what it will be supporting Walker or Nuemann.

Doug said, "The only politician worth voting for is one that bleeds political blood for your cause, even unto defeat."

It seems to me that Mark Todd has taken the step towards bleeding political blood for the cause without provocation and whole heartedly.

That makes him a measuring stick for the others and right now I don't see them measuring up.

We need to stop procrastinating ourselves to death and quit looking a gift horse in the mouth.

imported post

Welcome to the forum Mark! It's always gratifying to see a candidate take the time to listen and talk to the people he would serve if elected. If only we could see more of that with the officials already in office.

You have stated that you are against anything that would be considered unconstitutional and I am glad to hear it. But do you believe that the laws stated in numbers 3 and 4 of J.Gleason's post are unconstitutional?

Thank you for taking the time to come and answer some of our questions and I look forward to hearing your veiws.

imported post

I also welcome you to the forum Mark. Thanks for taking some time out of you schedule to check it out. I believe that Mark probably hasn’t had time to look at the laws as relating to firearms in the state as closely as we have and that’s probably the reason for his answers to #3 and #4. When I got the ordinance changed in my city, the police chief was busy looking up laws on his blackberry to answer the questions of the city council. We have to remember that there are a lot of laws and issues out there besides our own and we do know our own little corner very well when others may have only touched on it.

I believe that Doug’s video helps people that are more unfamiliar with the laws get a better grasp on them; so, in that spirit, and to consolidate things a little better for Mr. Todd I’ll try to explain ourselves on #3 and #4 a little better below.



[/b]That the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 25 guarantees: [/b]"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."[/i]

[/b][State V. Cole[/b] “First, based on the text of the constitution and the legislative history of the amendment, we note our agreement with both parties that Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution grants an individual, rather than a collective, right. As already noted, we accept the proposition that the right to bear arms amendment recognized a fundamental right.”]
[/i]
[/b]

That Wisconsin Stat. § 948.605 is unconstitutional:[/b]

The many overlapping “school zones” that Wisconsin state statute § 948.605 creates, eviscerate the right of the people in urban areas to bear arms for defense and for any other lawful purposes.



[“Case law reveals that while the right to bear arms for lawful purposes is not an absolute, neither is the State's police power when it eviscerates this constitutionally protected right.Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25.” State V. Hamdan[/b]]
[/i]


Although law abiding citizens follow the law, criminals commonly ignore the law and the area within 1000 feet of school property is not free of gun related crime.

The need of the people; for self defense in these areas, substantially outweighs the states need to enforce the statute.



That the Wisconsin Stat. § 948.605 is in direct conflict with Wisconsin Stat. § 941.23:[/b]

§ 948.605 provides that for a citizen to walk through a school zone; that person must have their firearm unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.

[see Wisconsin Stat § 939.22 (10) “Dangerous weapon” means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded…]

[/i]Because a person walking through a school zone with a firearm is governed by both statutes compliance with one is lack of compliance with the other.[/i]



State v. Alloy,616 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. App. 2000) (affirming concealed carry conviction of man possessing handgun in a vehicle in conformity with Wisconsin Stat. § 167.31 because “Alloy's argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. § 167.31 and Wis. Stat. § 941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with § 167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with § 941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach. See State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d 411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d 529 (1977). A person complying with § 167.31 is not required to violate § 941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach.”)


[/i]
A person walking with an encased, unloaded firearm cannot walk with the weapon out of reach.



[State v. Keith[/b], 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993). ]The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.[/b]][/i]

imported post

I have a phone call in to the campaign headquarters for both Walker and Nuemann.

I left a message with Walkers Secretary and a Voice mail for Mark Nuemann.

Now we just have to wait and see where they stand.

imported post

Still waiting, and by the way neither Walker or Nuemann list gun rights as an issue on their websites.

imported post

Hello everyone,

Thank you very much, Jim, for the phone call. Thank you Brass Magnet for the

clarification.

To answer Nutczak- Yes, I support "no permitting required" to carry openly or

concealed as long as you have the legal ability to own or possess a firearm.

The 1000 School Zone Ban as well as all the illogical WI laws mentioned above and

explained in Doug's movie do need to be addressed. I believe 3 and 4 do infringe

on our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Bottom line: I believe the

2nd Amendmentallows innocent people to protect themselvesbecause criminals will

find arms/guns regardless. I will commit to getting something done within the 1st

90 days in office regarding these issues.Can youall committo doing what you

canso that I have the opportunity to do this?

All the best!

Mark Todd

imported post

You have now gotten my full attention and support, and that is no small task.

What can i do to help forward your campaign up in the northwoods area of the state?

imported post

A G00gle site search of www.marktoddforgovernor.com for "firearms" returned no hits.

A G00gle site search of www.marktoddforgovernor.com for gun returned
http://www.marktoddforgovernor.com/email_proper-useful-use-of-gun-control.html
http://www.marktoddforgovernor.com/issues_guns_and_hunting.html

Please disassociate guns and the Second Amendment from hunting.

imported post

Mark Todd wrote:

Hello everyone,

Thank you very much, Jim, for the phone call. Thank you Brass Magnet for the

clarification.

To answer Nutczak- Yes, I support "no permitting required" to carry openly or

concealed as long as you have the legal ability to own or possess a firearm.

The 1000 School Zone Ban as well as all the illogical WI laws mentioned above and

explained in Doug's movie do need to be addressed. I believe 3 and 4 do infringe

on our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Bottom line: I believe the

2nd Amendmentallows innocent people to protect themselvesbecause criminals will

find arms/guns regardless. I will commit to getting something done within the 1st

90 days in office regarding these issues.Can youall committo doing what you

canso that I have the opportunity to do this?

All the best!

Mark Todd

Click to expand...

Doug Huffman wrote: A G00gle site search of http://www.marktoddforgovernor.com for "firearms" returned no hits.

A G00gle site search of http://www.marktoddforgovernor.com for gun returned
http://www.marktoddforgovernor.com/email_proper-useful-use-of-gun-control.html
http://www.marktoddforgovernor.com/issues_guns_and_hunting.html

Please disassociate guns and the Second Amendment from hunting.







I think he pretty much did that here.

imported post

Here, in front of a sympathetic audience.

Has anyone else read marktoddforgovernor.com critically, have you?

Shall I post Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism in its entirety?

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Here, in front of a sympathetic audience.

Has anyone else read marktoddforgovernor.com critically, have you?

Click to expand...

Yes I did, and while he does talk about hunting he also talks about our right to self defense and the fact that criminals will less likely target some one who is or who they may think is armed. The title of the Paragraph is Guns "AND" Hunting.

If you read the article about the "proper and useful use of gun control" the article is about self defense.

We are always going to have the issue with hunting because hunting is a big issue in Wisconsin.

Like I said before we can procrastinate ourselves to death right up to election time and then we can all sit here on this forum and whine that we ended up with 4 more years of the same ole @#$%.

When do we step forward to promote change rather then just sit here and talk about it?

The other candidates have all been invited personally to come to this forum and none of them have made the effort.

imported post

Mark, you have my vote as well as my support.