Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: *** FIRE MISSION *** Green Bay Park Committee -Discussion Ban guns Parks

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.

    I plan on attending you should too.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/mins_agd/


    AGENDA
    PARK COMMITTEE
    Tuesday, August 25, 2009
    City Hall, Room 310
    5:30 P.M.
    MEMBERS: Chairman Jerry Wiezbiskie, Celestine Jeffreys, Amy Kocha and Dan Piton
    Approval of the minutes of the meeting of July 28, 2009
    Adoption Of The Agenda
    1.
    Discussion/Action On Prohibiting Firearms And Dangerous Weapons In Parks


    2.
    Discussion/Action On A Playground Structure Donation Through The NFL And United Way Hometown Huddle Program


    3.
    Council Communication From Ald. Kocha Re: Request To Look Into Acquiring 212 S. Van Buren Street And 213-215 S. Jackson Street To Extend The Boundary Of The New Navarino Park


    4.
    Discussion/Action On Developing A Park Donation And Memorial Policy


    5.
    Discussion/Action On Facility Use Policies For Various User Groups


    6.
    Director’s Report

    Any person wishing to attend who, because of a disability, requires special accommodation should contact the City Safety Manager at 448-3125 at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting time so that arrangements can be made.
    Please take notice that it is possible that additional members of the Council may attend this committee meeting, resulting in a majority or quorum of the Common Council. This may constitute a meeting of the Common Council for purposes of discussion and information gathering relative to this agenda.


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

    Post imported post

    Reviewing the on-line minutes of the previous, 28 July, meeting I see no provision for public comments or public comments recorded.

    From the open Meetings Law Compliance Guide

    Citizen participation
    The open meetings law does not grant citizens a right to participate in meetings of a governmental body. There are, however, a number of state statutes which require governmental bodies to hold public hearings on specific matters. See for example, Wis. Stat. § 65.90(4) (requiring public hearing before adoption of a municipal budget) and Wis. Stat. § 66.46(4)(a) (requiring public hearing before creation of a tax incremental finance district). In the absence of such a statute, the governmental body itself is free to determine whether to allow citizen participation at its meetings. Nor does a governmental body violate the open meetings law by limiting the degree to which citizens participate.
    1997 Wisconsin Act 123, effective May 2, 1998, created Wis. Stat. §§ 19.83(2) and 19.84(2) to allow governmental bodies to receive information from members of the public if the public notice of the meeting designates a period of public comment. That law also allows a governmental body to discuss, but not to act on, any matter raised by the public during a comment period. Although discussion of a general public comment item is permissible, it is advisable to defer extensive discussion and action on such an item until specific notice of the subject matter of the proposed action can be given.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Reviewing the on-line minutes of the previous, 28 July, meeting I see no provision for public comments or public comments recorded......................

    Doug, with your vast knowledge of local government procedures and the laws they must abide by. What is your interpretation of what is happening in Green Bay and what exactly are they allowed/disallowed to do under the current regulations?

    How can we stop the board from taking action? can the citizens participate in this meeting? What can concerned citizens do to stop the town from moving forwrd with this proposed ordinance and have it get tossed like the proposed ordinances that OCDO members were able to stop in South Milwaukee and Greenfield?

    If this proposed ordinance is passed, how could the citizens of that town get it repealed in a timely manner.

    Help us out here a little,

    I kinda have a sinking feeling that the elected officials in that locale are going to do what they want anyways even if their constituents advise them otherwise. What legal recourse do we have at this point, and in the future?

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

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.

    I plan on attending you should too.
    If every one had an ARat your picnic, the bad would be in place.

    You have to attend this meeting if you want to stop them. Bring them a copy of 66.0409. At the Greenfield meeting, we were the first peopleto show theboard 66.0409, and it killed the carry ban on the spot.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The Parks Committee cannot pass an Ordinance, that is an action of the Common Council that here at this Committee meeting can only gather information and discuss.

    They may try to implement a policy. That will depend on the powers granted the committee by their commissioning resolution/ordinance, as will the potential actions against it.

    The best weapon would be an attorney prepared to argue 66.0409 to the Committee first and then the Council. Absent enforcement powers, that's just more than a bluff.

    This published agenda does not notice public participation and that is the only way to be recognized. I doubt that credit should be extended too far in the quashing of other such ordinances.

    They will do what they want.

    The only way to stop future action is to elect a majority of principled (paleo) conservative representatives. Make your candidate take a public blood oath against 'democracy' and for your principles and let him know that you will unseat him at the least false step. Then trust your judgment and give him his head as your representative.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.

    I plan on attending you should too.
    If every one had an ARat your picnic, the bad would be in place.

    You have to attend this meeting if you want to stop them. Bring them a copy of 66.0409. At the Greenfield meeting, we were the first peopleto show theboard 66.0409, and it killed the carry ban on the spot.
    can you post the text of 66.0409 for us. Thanks
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    AaronS wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.

    I plan on attending you should too.
    If every one had an ARat your picnic, the bad would be in place.

    You have to attend this meeting if you want to stop them. Bring them a copy of 66.0409. At the Greenfield meeting, we were the first peopleto show theboard 66.0409, and it killed the carry ban on the spot.
    can you post the text of 66.0409 for us. Thanks
    Uhm.... Look UP

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

    Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0409 (State preemption law.)
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

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

    Post imported post

    66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.
    (1) In this section:
    (a) “Firearm” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
    (b) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or
    county.
    (c) “Sport shooting range” means an area designed and operated
    for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting
    and similar sport shooting.

    (2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision
    may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates
    the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping,
    possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting,
    registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including
    ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or
    resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than,
    a state statute.


    (3) (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing
    a sales tax or use tax under subch. V of ch. 77 on any firearm
    or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components,
    sold in the county.
    (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that
    is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from
    enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the
    discharge of a firearm.

    (4) (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision
    from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in
    effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase,
    transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing,
    transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of
    any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and
    reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as
    or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
    (am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision
    from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance
    or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and
    that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase
    of a handgun.
    (b) If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17,
    1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase,
    transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation,
    licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm
    or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components,
    and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar
    to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal
    effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance
    or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.
    (c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision
    from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the
    new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion
    of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and
    safety.
    (5) A county ordinance that is enacted or a county resolution
    that is adopted by a county under sub. (2) or a county ordinance
    or resolution that remains in effect under sub. (4) (a) or (am)
    applies only in those towns in the county that have not enacted an
    ordinance or adopted a resolution under sub. (2) or that continue
    to enforce an ordinance or resolution under sub. (4) (a) or (am),
    except that this subsection does not apply to a sales or use tax that
    is imposed under subch. V of ch. 77.
    History: 1995 a. 72; 1999 a. 150 s. 260; Stats. 1999 s. 66.0409.
    This section does not prohibit municipalities from enacting and enforcing zoning
    ordinances that apply to sport shooting ranges. Town of Avon v. Oliver, 2002 WI App
    97, 253 Wis. 2d 647, 644 N.W.2d 260, 01−1851.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Waukesha, ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    It looks like the Green Bay picnic had the opposite effect there. That's crap. I don't see what's so hard to understand about 66.0409

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No one is commissioned to enforce it. If an officer commissioned to enforce the speed limit does not see you speed, are you speeding?

    We can scream and yell and jump up and down and write letters to the editor - and the tyrant wannabes will just ignore us until next election time - and then they'll lie, dissemble and procrastinate.

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

    Post imported post

    Do we have examples of States with a preemption clause and thatban firearms in State parks but city or county, village, etc park bans were ruled void because of State Preemption??

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

    Post imported post

    If a city passes an ordinance that prohibits fire arms in city parks, that ordinance is already more stringent then the state statute in that there are more city parks then there are state parks and therefore the ordinance would be creating a larger area of restriction making the ordinance more stringent then state law.

    A great example is Sheboygan. Within the city limits lies Kohler Andre State Park.

    The city can enforce a fire arms restriction within that state park but not within the other city parks as that would be a larger area of restriction.

    The argument is the same as Greenfield. They can not supersede state law.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Who is going to stop them?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Who is going to stop them?
    The prepared, knowledgeable, determined and relentless voters and constituents of the locality.

    As I said before, nothing good comes easy and anything good is worth fighting for.

    Be sure to remind them that they can be voted out as easily as they were voted in.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    You/they may not even be permitted to speak at the Parks committee meeting.

    The posted agenda does not note if any committee members are elected, they may all be appointed. Those that are elected are not liable until the next election in November or April.

    The Parks Committee cannot be stopped by public opinion but only by some legal injunction.

    A common council member will act as either a democrat or as a republican. As a democrat the voices against his rule will have to numerically outnumber the voices for the rule. As a republican he should stick to the principles that he was elected to enforce and no public pressure should change his mind.

    Common council members are not liable to be unseated until the next election.

    You are all bluster. Good hearted blustering but blustering.

    From the open Meetings Law Compliance Guide

    Citizen participation

    The open meetings law does not grant citizens a right to participate in meetings of a governmental body. There are, however, a number of state statutes which require governmental bodies to hold public hearings on specific matters. See for example, Wis. Stat. § 65.90(4) (requiring public hearing before adoption of a municipal budget) and Wis. Stat. § 66.46(4)(a) (requiring public hearing before creation of a tax incremental finance district). In the absence of such a statute, the governmental body itself is free to determine whether to allow citizen participation at its meetings. Nor does a governmental body violate the open meetings law by limiting the degree to which citizens participate.

    1997 Wisconsin Act 123, effective May 2, 1998, created Wis. Stat. §§ 19.83(2) and 19.84(2) to allow governmental bodies to receive information from members of the public if the public notice of the meeting designates a period of public comment. That law also allows a governmental body to discuss, but not to act on, any matter raised by the public during a comment period. Although discussion of a general public comment item is permissible, it is advisable to defer extensive discussion and action on such an item until specific notice of the subject matter of the proposed action can be given.


  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    You/they may not even be permitted to speak at the Parks committee meeting.
    I was refering to your earlier post stating that protest would have to be made at the city counsel meeting should the issue make it that far. As the Parks committee does not have the authority to create ordinance or law.

    Sorry, I should have included that.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Common council members are not liable to be unseated until the next election.
    Unless indicted for unlawful behavior.


    Regardless the changes need to start in Madison.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Common council members are not liable to be unseated until the next election.
    Unless indicted for unlawful behavior.
    Citation please. They may even enjoy immunity for decisions made in the interest of the community.

    Only the prosecuting attorney may bring an indictment or a Grand Jury return a true bill.

    More good hearted blustering.

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

    Post imported post

    No citation needed. Weren't there a few Mayors recently in this position?

    I do believe the mayor of Racine was one. Don't remember off hand who the others were, but even Flynn came close to getting his butt in a ringer over the adultery issue.

    How about the Governor of Illinois. (Indicted)

    In fact, JB Van Hollen disclosed that the same sex legislation that Doyle let pass violates the State Constitution in that the people voted to ban same sex unions and therefore is was amended to the state constitution.

    Van Hollen acknowledged that the state would be sued over the violation of the state constitution and also said he would not be the one to take up the case for the state.
    ( I may have missed some of the details but I am sure you know of the issue.)

    In this case, If Doyle is found to have intentionally violated the State Constitution what are the repricussions? Is he not subject to the law?

    Just because they hold a seat does not make them immune to the law.

    If they commit a crime while in office they can be arrested and will most likely be unseated.

    If they commit a crime while in office and it is related to their job, they can be indicted.
    (Something I hope happens to Doyle)

    While my comments may be considered good hearted blustering, they in fact can be reality.

    My point is they are not all powerful and untouchable.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Objection. Objected to as argumentative. The witness is drawing inferences from the facts of cases unrelated.

    Citation please. Please stay on the point; council members passing legislation that you believe is prohibited.

    Is a legal prohibition unenforced 'legal', or moot pandering?

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    So you're saying that if a council member violated the law while in office or even committed an unethical act he could not be removed?

    How would passing an ordinance banning fire arms be in the best interest of the city?

    Who determines if it is in the best interest of the city? Wouldn't the peoples vote hold more weight on that decision? Therefore, wouldn't it become a referendum?

    I find it very hard to believe that a city council member could not be removed by the people.

    The Park committee may be able to suggest an ordinance to the city council, however, they have no authority to enact.

    the Committee would then have to bring the suggestion to the city council meeting at which time the citizens could be present to argue.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    As I said before, what the Park Committee can do depends on their commissioning ordinance from the Common Council. I would guess that they can set policy without approval from the CC.

    At the CC the citizens can argue until they're blue in the face. If the CC member is of a 'democratic' bent then the arguing citizens would have to out number his electorate and that's unlikely. If the member's principle of governance is as a republican representative then no argument should sway him from the principles that he was elected to up hold. There used to be a difference between democracy and republicanism. Damn the GOP!

    Find mention of recall or referendum in the Wisconsin Statutes and learn the limitations on their use. It'll be in the low numbered chapters, like 5 or 6.

    As to banning firearms, read 'Village Powers'. It uses broad general language that I would have no problem arguing to allow only gulag-like life.

    The municipality ruling board is elected by the people and presumed to speak for them. The only time that is proven is at election time. Be careful who you elect.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    So the option is, let them pass whatever ordinance and if arrested challenge the ordinance in court?

    I looked up village powers and the information there tends to apply to the county level more then the village level.

    So correct me if I am wrong, you are saying, short of vetting the person you are electing to be sure the candidate is "pro gun" for example. Once the candidate is elected he can only be removed by a vote of the majority by the committee.

    Other than that a citizen would have to take legal recourse to argue an ordinance and prove the ordinance invalid.

    Is this correct?

    And then I am sorry for high jacking the thread. Just wanted the issue to be clear for everyone.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    So the option is, let them pass whatever ordinance and if arrested challenge the ordinance in court?
    OK, look, this is just civics 101 - gunowners need to be engaged in the matter by attending meetings, speaking when they can at the meetings, lobbying the voting council members, and trying to make sure the new ordiance does not pass. Such efforts have been successful elsewhere in Wisconsin and are currently proving soetimes successfull in Tenn. where localities face a deadline to get gun carry in parks banned or their bans will not be grandfatherd.

    There is no removing legislators for passing arguably unconstitutional laws - not sure where this kind of idea would arise from - but subsequent elections, especially primaries, are where elephant meory gun owners can cause quite a bit of trouble for olks seeking reelection with an anti-gun record.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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