Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: GreenBayPressGazette.com Editorial: Gun ban timing suspect

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...670/1269/GPG06

    Editorial: Gun ban timing suspect

    August 28, 2009

    We are troubled by the Green Bay Park Committee's 3-1 vote to recommend banning guns in city parks — but not for the most obvious reason.

    We understand the City Council might feel a need to balance concerns for public safety with citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The language of the proposed ordinance mirrors Wisconsin statutes banning firearms in state parks; a similar ordinance is already in effect for Brown County parks.

    No, our concern is with the timing of the committee's action. Why now?

    Wednesday's vote came three weeks after a group of Second Amendment advocates held a picnic in Ted Fritsch Park where most openly wore holstered guns. Organizer Ed Foral told the committee the purpose was to celebrate the legal right to bear arms and to educate the public about that right.

    Foral's group worked with city officials and police to ensure that no laws were broken. By all accounts it was a peaceful demonstration free of disturbances.

    And yet three weeks later the committee is asking the full City Council to pass an ordinance that would make future demonstrations of this nature illegal. The effect is to politicize the picnic and turn it into a tug of war over a loaded issue.

    The committee is following a now-familiar pattern of the past few years. Object to religious displays on public property, and the council will erect a religious display at City Hall. Object to a proposed crackdown on illegal immigrants, and an alderman will intimate that your business should be investigated. Give homeless people an alternate shelter in bitter winter cold, and the council will throw obstacles in your path.

    And now, educate the public about what you consider a basic right, and the council will place limits on that right. Both left- and right-leaning council members seem determined to call national attention upon the city for all the wrong reasons.

    Consider the chilling effect of passing this measure now in terms of our First Amendment guarantees of free speech and peaceable assembly. These picnickers gathered peacefully and spoke their piece, in accordance with the law.

    It would be something else entirely if the council passed this measure six months ago, or if it followed a violent incident in a city park — or if the picnic had ended in some sort of catastrophe.

    Instead, the picnic proceeded peacefully. Organizers succeeded in educating the public about their views through the resulting news coverage. The committee vote feels like cause and effect — a lawful demonstration is causing the council to change the law.

    Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly. They could always gather in someone's backyard, but that would defeat the purpose of a public demonstration.

    The council has every right and duty to act in the name of public safety, but there's a sense that this committee vote is more about reacting to the picnic. And that is a troubling thought.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote: "Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly. They could always gather in someone's backyard, but that would defeat the purpose of a public demonstration."


    How about an Open Carry Block Party!!!!!

    or an Open Carry Street Dance!!!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    "Balancing "Public Safety" and 2nd Amendment Rights"
    They make it sound like one opposes the other. The author should replace "Public Safety" with "Irrational Public Fear".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    177

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote: "Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly. They could always gather in someone's backyard, but that would defeat the purpose of a public demonstration."


    How about an Open Carry Block Party!!!!!

    or an Open Carry Street Dance!!!!
    Hmmmmmm the block party carries potential if they pass this ..........

  5. #5
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly.
    I disagree. We would have to adopt a modified Open Carry.Many cases can be worn on the body. There is nothing in the language prohibiting part of the handgun from being partially exposed. "Unloaded and enclosed in a case"

    I am hammering this point home because I want everyone to be thinking about this. The more ideas, the better off we will be. I am not interested in just rolling over if this were to pass.

    I also want to present a scenerio of action and reaction as part of my presentation to the council on Tuesday. No empty threats, just a matter-of-fact statement of what will occur should this pass.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    No empty threats, just a matter-of-fact statement of what will occur should this pass.
    Given this ison an agenda, I would recommend filing a criminal complaint with the DA. Passing this ordinance will violate 66.0409 as it states that cannot enact.

    We also need to file a (declaratory judgement type) civil action in Brown County Circuit Court seeking an injunction against such an ordinance on the grounds that not only does it violate 66.0409, but also Article 1 Section 25 of the state constitution and our freedom of expression. I cannot file such a suit because I do not have sufficient standing, but I can and will put $$$ behind an intelligent attorney.

    We also need to be contacting the WGO, WI-Force, and the NRA. Tell them strait up, that unless they act, and act NOW, with lawyers and money, then we will promote them as the uselessorganizations they are.


    As you said, no idle threats, just millions of taxpayer dollars going towards litigation andattorneys, is this really what the taxpayers want?


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

    Post imported post

    Why hasn't a suit/action been filed against Milwaukee County on the same grounds???

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Why hasn't a suit/action been filed against Milwaukee County on the same grounds???
    Good question. I don't have standing there either, and 66.0409 says they cannot enact new if they don't have one and cannotenforce if it was already on the books.

    A better question is where is the WGO, after all according to the WGO we are united, right? So where are they?

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

    Post imported post

    I keep hearing about the 'movement' and the 'cause' here. Izzat different?

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly.
    I disagree. We would have to adopt a modified Open Carry.Many cases can be worn on the body. There is nothing in the language prohibiting part of the handgun from being partially exposed. "Unloaded and enclosed in a case"

    I am hammering this point home because I want everyone to be thinking about this. The more ideas, the better off we will be. I am not interested in just rolling over if this were to pass.

    I also want to present a scenerio of action and reaction as part of my presentation to the council on Tuesday. No empty threats, just a matter-of-fact statement of what will occur should this pass.
    See red text above...

    I would suggest a Clear "Tupperware" type container even the disposable/reuseable types. Me thinks that they would freak!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    I would suggest a Clear "Tupperware" type container even the disposable/reuseable types. Me thinks that they would freak!
    Brilliant.... I can't believe that I did not think of that..... It conforms tothe letter of the "law" and isn't even concealed......

    Now you have me thinking. How about a large ziplock bag over my regular holster???

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    I would suggest a Clear "Tupperware" type container even the disposable/reuseable types. Me thinks that they would freak!
    Brilliant.... I can't believe that I did not think of that..... It conforms tothe letter of the "law" and isn't even concealed......

    Now you have me thinking. How about a large ziplock bag over my regular holster???


    Depends upon the definition of "enclosed in a case" ...if they defined "enclosed in a case" in the code.





    The things the trolls in government force us to do.... LOL



    Edited to remove securley -- another states requirement-- and replace it with encased and then to replace that with "enclosed in a case" for a second edit!


    I think I should quit and go to bed already.... Cheers!

    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    I would suggest a Clear "Tupperware" type container even the disposable/reuseable types. Me thinks that they would freak!
    Brilliant.... I can't believe that I did not think of that..... It conforms tothe letter of the "law" and isn't even concealed......

    Now you have me thinking. How about a large ziplock bag over my regular holster???
    For the ladies they could sport those tacky clear purses!

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    DonTreadOnMe wrote:
    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    I would suggest a Clear "Tupperware" type container even the disposable/reuseable types. Me thinks that they would freak!
    Brilliant.... I can't believe that I did not think of that..... It conforms tothe letter of the "law" and isn't even concealed......

    Now you have me thinking. How about a large ziplock bag over my regular holster???
    For the ladies they could sport those tacky clear purses!
    Why limit it to the ladies? LOL
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Man Bag for teh win.......

  16. #16
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Depends upon the definition of "enclosed in a case" ...if they defined "enclosed in a case" in the code.

    They do not further define the requirement. Remember, this is a hunting ordinance and not a carry ordinance.... They just want it harder to draw... Once "enclosed", you can not just draw it from your "case". Removing from a case infers some higher level of difficulty. That is why I believe a M12 "holster" at the extreme of what would meet the definition of a case. The top flap is removable for use as a conventional holster. Because of this I believe it can be argued to be a case in this configuration and a holster in the alternate configuration.





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

    Post imported post

    IMHO, the M12 Holster is exactly that, a "Holster."

    Don't over read these statutes. It could be dangerous.

    This ordinance can not be allowed to pass.

  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:
    IMHO, the M12 Holster is exactly that, a "Holster."

    Don't over read these statutes. It could be dangerous.

    This ordinance can not be allowed to pass.
    Case is not strictly defined. A M12 envelopes the handgun on all sides. Having part of it exposed does not violate the definition of "enclosed in a case" as it does not efine it as "fully enclosed". According to a DNR representative Italked to on Friday, it would qualify as a case in accordance to the Statute in question. I havethe contact information for "the guy to talk to" from the DNR on Monday who is their go-to guy for interpretation of law. This is a warden who is pretty high up on the food chain.

    I bring up the M12 and other "cases" as a Plan B should we not be successful in stopping this stupidity from occuring. We should do everything in our power to convince the council that this is poorly conceived and should not pass.

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    That's not a gun case under Wisconsin law.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    IMHO, the M12 Holster is exactly that, a "Holster."

    Don't over read these statutes. It could be dangerous.

    This ordinance can not be allowed to pass.
    Case is not strictly defined. A M12 envelopes the handgun on all sides. Having part of it exposed does not violate the definition of "enclosed in a case" as it does not efine it as "fully enclosed". According to a DNR representative Italked to on Friday, it would qualify as a case in accordance to the Statute in question. I havethe contact information for "the guy to talk to" from the DNR on Monday who is their go-to guy for interpretation of law. This is a warden who is pretty high up on the food chain.

    I bring up the M12 and other "cases" as a Plan B should we not be successful in stopping this stupidity from occuring. We should do everything in our power to convince the council that this is poorly conceived and should not pass.
    This is all good analysis - the point is that the committee proposal is vague with regard ot cases - a good reason for them to go back to the drawing board. Right now folks should b emailing and calling these council reps politley pointing out their opposition to the proposal on every rational ground possible - vagueness, litigation under Hamdan holding and preemption that will cost taxpayers and put police in a bad spot of enforcing possible illegal law (see NRA alert and their belief that local parks are preempted), that right tocarry is orrelated with less crime, etc.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    That's not a gun case under Wisconsin law.
    It is not "Encased" under WI law. WI does not define "case"...... Show me where it does...

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    This case/holster's enclosure is an example of the continuum fallacy or the 'fallacy of the heap'.

    The fallacy can be described in the form of a conversation:
    Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap?
    A: No.
    Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap?
    A: No.
    Q: If we add one, do three grains of wheat form a heap?
    A: No....
    Q: If we add one, do one hundred grains of wheat form a heap?
    A: No.
    Q: Therefore, no matter how many grains of wheat we add, we will never have a heap. Therefore, heaps don't exist!

    Is the gun enclosed if it slightly exposed? Our correspondent says yes.
    If we cut just a little bit away, is it still encased? He might say yes.
    If we cut just a little bit more away, is it still encased? He might say yes.
    ...
    When we cut away the last little bit then it is clearly not encased. When did it cease to be encased?


  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    That's not a gun case under Wisconsin law.
    It is not "Encased" under WI law. WI does not define "case"...... Show me where it does...
    167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
    bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
    (a) “Aircraft” has the meaning given under s. 114.002 (3).
    (b) “Encased” means enclosed in a case that is expressly made
    for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely
    zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part
    of the firearm exposed.



  24. #24
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Simple logic:

    It is pretty much understood what a "case" is from the language of the statute, i.e., is something "expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part
    of the firearm exposed."

    1) "Encased" means "inside a case"
    2) A "case" is something "expressly made for the purpose of contain a firearm" (which includes holsters--- provided they meet the other requirements (i.e., "completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed." m

    That holster has "part of the firearm exposed" therefore it fails the definition.

    A breadbox can hold a gun, but it would not qualify as a gun case because it meets all the requirements except that it is not expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm. Holsters are expressly made to contain firearms, but the majority of them, including the sample discussed here, leave part of the firearm exposed. To be legally "encased" it has to be "in a case" that meets ALL of the requirements. You can't conveniently ignore one of the requirements.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    When did it cease to be encased?
    The moment it left even the slightest portion exposed.

    One cannot be "slightly pregnant."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •