Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: News Reports: Green Bay, WI city council crushes Mayor's effort to ban gun carry in parks!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Both sides cited the Constitution. But, I am at a loss to understandhow the Constitution can be construed to support the anti-gun side here. Can someone explain?

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

    Post imported post

    I did not hear the arguments. I would imagine that the pro-ordinance side found a right to not be offended in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Yes. That was my guess too. I don't thinkthe arguments appearedin the news articles. Yet, I wonder how it could be that anyone could seriously construe "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as support for such a position. This puzzles me. I would like to understand how this thinking goes.

    To the man, lawyers I have talked with regarding my case have assured me that no constitution or law guarantees anyone a right tobe protected by law enforcement from their fearat the sight of a gun.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    I did not hear the arguments. I would imagine that the pro-ordinance side found a right to not be offended in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
    Fortunately, the pro-ordnance side prevailed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    indeed. Very clever.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    So....now it comes out....the Green Bay mayor was behind this......he must wanted bragging rights over Barrett when they get together with Bloomberg and Daily to discuss taking away Constitutional rights.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Fortunately, the pro-ordnance side prevailed.

    And - - seriously, Something significant here in my mind. Anybody else, or am I showing my simple-mindedness?

    One of the pro-ordnance/anti-ordinance (proud to get that one in) people was quoted as complaining about the chipping away of our rights over time. I recently noticed Encarta's definition of "infringe." "Encroach. . .take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way."

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    opencarrybilly wrote:
    Both sides cited the Constitution. But, I am at a loss to understandhow the Constitution can be construed to support the anti-gun side here. Can someone explain?
    The fact that neither the 2A (and others invoked by 2A exercise) nor Article III, Section 3 (treason) have been enforced to the fullest extent of the law for decades, instead effectively being printed on their toilet paper, means that they can keep on violating them with impunity!

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

    Post imported post

    opencarrybilly wrote:
    One of the pro-ordnance/anti-ordinance (proud to get that one in) people was quoted as complaining about the chipping away of our rights over time. I recently noticed Encarta's definition of "infringe." "Encroach. . .take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way."
    Our FFs were wise old men unfortunately now dead.

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

    Post imported post

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Even though the city was trying to infringe our right to assemble when we were planning the picnic, the 3 Committee persons were trying to say that by reasonable responsible adults exercising their Right to Bear Arms, it was infringing on their right to peaceably assemble in the park. It was pointed out by a more reasonable Alderman that their right to feel fuzzy inside and to be free from things which annoy or offend them is found no where in the US Constitution, where everything we did is clearly affirmed by it.

    It was also pointed out to them that on any weekend at bay beach, you can find things which will offend many sensitive Americans. There will be partial nudity, vulgarity, virtual sex acts, etc...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    opencarrybilly wrote:
    One of the pro-ordnance/anti-ordinance (proud to get that one in) people was quoted as complaining about the chipping away of our rights over time. I recently noticed Encarta's definition of "infringe." "Encroach. . .take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way."
    Our FFs were wise old men unfortunately now dead.
    I got to thinking about whether the word had a different meaning to the FFs than it has now. Then I came to think that it doesn't matter, because The People have not changed the 2A, so today's definition is to be accepted.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    the 3 Committee persons were trying to say that by reasonable responsible adults exercising their Right to Bear Arms, it was infringing on their right to peaceably assemble in the park.

    Very weak, huh. Amazing. Do they expect to win by shocking us into jaw-dropping silence?

    Thanks, Interceptor_Knight, for finding that.

    I feel I understand a little more now, but I am more frightened for the country. I wouldbe more hopeful if Ihad more cause to thinkthat reason might prevail over all.

  14. #14
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Contact information for the people who voted for the ordinance:
    http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/council/
    http://gov.findlaw.com/yo-gshvets/of...1&state=WI
    http://www.votesmart.org/official_lo...e.php?lid=1228

    Kocha, Amy (District 5)
    Phone: (920) 448-3010
    Fax: (920) 448-3016
    email: adriennegr@ci.green-bay.wi.us

    Supervisor, District 7
    Celestine Jefferys
    100 North Jefferson Street, Room 106
    Green Bay, WI 54301-5026
    Phone: 920-448-3010
    Fax: 920-448-3016
    Email: cjeffreys@news.rr.com

    Supervisor, District 1
    Jerry Wiezbiskie
    100 North Jefferson Street, Room 106
    Green Bay, WI 54301-5026
    Phone: 920-448-3010
    Fax: 920-448-3016
    Email: wiezkids@new.rr.com
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    It was a long meeting, but NOT BORING at all, some very well thought out& passionate comments were given, It was actually very exciting to witness, better than the Nativity scene meeting 2 years ago.
    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 ???

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    It was a long meeting, but NOT BORING at all, some very well thought out& passionate comments were given, It was actually very exciting to witness, better than the Nativity scene meeting 2 years ago.
    Great, everyone involved and the folks watching from the sidelines and news reports should all conduct a little review of what was done, said, and how, and how to better next time.

    Incremental improvement is the key, as is being prepared with bullet type comments and sound bytes ready to go, logical, short, clear, unemotional, proper introduction of your self and position, proper ending - i.e., what you want them to do, e.g., "please vote no on ordiance # 776 to ban guns n parks," etc.

    "be brief, be bright, and be gone" a general once told me about public speaking

    And if you have asmall crowd in atendance, it pays o have some tasetfull pro-gun buttons, NRA stickers, et. so that the pro-gun crowd can be identified by the council and that only a few people are speaking for the sentiments of those who came - one of the speakers can even ask the pro-gun folks to stand if or raise their hands i they agree with her sentiments, etc.

    And of course no good good cose battle ever goes well unless you have preparatory fires in support to shape the battlefield - news media coverage, and email bombardment of the council members with short tastefull logical emails is the key.

    Ad finally whil the NATO doctrine is in effect and gn rights supporters will shuttle around from city to city, its important to have at least 1 or more real life local with a local address stand up and look those council member in the eye and make sure they understand real life local people are interested in their gun rights.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    It was a long meeting, but NOT BORING at all, some very well thought out& passionate comments were given, It was actually very exciting to witness, better than the Nativity scene meeting 2 years ago.
    Great, everyone involved and the folks watching from the sidelines and news reports should all conduct a little review of what was done, said, and how, and how to better next time.

    Incremental improvement is the key, as is being prepared with bullet type comments and sound bytes ready to go, logical, short, clear, unemotional, proper introduction of your self and position, proper ending - i.e., what you want them to do, e.g., "please vote no on ordiance # 776 to ban guns n parks," etc.

    "be brief, be bright, and be gone" a general once told me about public speaking

    And if you have asmall crowd in atendance, it pays to have some tasetfull pro-gun buttons, NRA stickers, et. so that the pro-gun crowd can be identified by the council and that only a few people are speaking for the sentiments of those who came - one of the speakers can even ask the pro-gun folks to stand if or raise their hands i they agree with her sentiments, etc.

    And of course noclose battle ever goes well unless you have preparatory fires in support to shape the battlefield - news media coverage, and email/phone call bombardment of the council members with short tastefull logical emails is the key.

    Ad finally while the NATO doctrine is in effect and gun rights supporters will shuttle around from city to city, its important to have at least 1 or more real life local with a local address stand up and look those council members in the eye and make sure they understand real life local people are interested in their gun rights.
    I do agree with most of your points, but most of the people that spoke are NOT members of this board, just normal people speaking from the heart& it was a pretty awesome thing to watch& listen to, I wouldn't change a thing.
    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 ???

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    opencarrybilly wrote:
    Both sides cited the Constitution. But, I am at a loss to understandhow the Constitution can be construed to support the anti-gun side here. Can someone explain?
    SNIP: "Supporters contended people have a right to congregate in parks without fear or discomfort"

    WhichI've never been able to find in theU.S. Constitution anywhere.

    Actually, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution.

    Nothing would prevent a group from assembling peaceablyjust becausefirearms arearound, so that one gets shot in the butt, too. Pun intended.


    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Even though the city was trying to infringe our right to assemble when we were planning the picnic, the 3 Committee persons were trying to say that by reasonable responsible adults exercising their Right to Bear Arms, it was infringing on their right to peaceably assemble in the park. It was pointed out by a more reasonable Alderman that their right to feel fuzzy inside and to be free from things which annoy or offend them is found no where in the US Constitution, where everything we did is clearly affirmed by it.

    It was also pointed out to them that on any weekend at bay beach, you can find things which will offend many sensitive Americans. There will be partial nudity, vulgarity, virtual sex acts, etc...
    1st & 2nd Admendments - defended for years(although no one will always agree withtheir positions on individual issues - the right of Americans to disagree) by the ACLU, the NRA, and citizens willing to act to protect these rights.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I did not hear the arguments. I would imagine that the pro-ordinance side found a right to not be offended in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    rodbender wrote:
    WhichI've never been able to find in theU.S. Constitution anywhere.

    Actually, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution.
    What, please, is the significance of differentiating the source of these rights, that I did not make?

    The rest of the sentence from the DoI is
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    the Bill of Rights enumerates some of these 'certain unalienable Rights' including the RKABA.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    I did not hear the arguments. I would imagine that the pro-ordinance side found a right to not be offended in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    rodbender wrote:
    WhichI've never been able to find in theU.S. Constitution anywhere.

    Actually, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution.
    What, please, is the significance of differentiating the source of these rights, that I did not make?

    The rest of the sentence from the DoI is
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    the Bill of Rights enumerates some of these 'certain unalienable Rights' including the RKABA.
    Why purposely misquote me. Here is the entire post.

    opencarrybilly wrote:
    Both sides cited the Constitution. But, I am at a loss to understandhow the Constitution can be construed to support the anti-gun side here. Can someone explain?

    SNIP: "Supporters contended people have a right to congregate in parks without fear or discomfort"

    WhichI've never been able to find in theU.S. Constitution anywhere.

    Actually, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution.

    Nothing would prevent a group from assembling peaceablyjust becausefirearms arearound, so that one gets shot in the butt, too. Pun intended.


    Now each statement has been color coded so it will be easier to put everything in context.

    How can they use "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as part of the Constitution when it is not. Your statement that I was resonding tois below.

    I did not hear the arguments. I would imagine that the pro-ordinance side found a right to not be offended in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    If they were using this phrase, they wereciting a document that has no force of law.



    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

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

    Post imported post

    Thank GOodness I-ANAL!

  23. #23
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Nor am I.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Many postings on this forum have shown me that you are very well informed and skillful communicators. I also see, I think, a serious need of The People for organized resources to fight for the rights of The People. Might you allow a very ordinary old man to make a suggestion?

    I have seen now two cases that have been brought by GeorgiaCarry.org on behalf of folks whose rights have been violated. We need for many more cases to be brought in many more states. From my own experience, I have found that this is very difficult for the individual to do if that individual doesn’t have a large amount of money with which to hire an attorney. Given the number of potential cases and the hours needed for each case, pro bono is too much to expect. And, given, as I have been told, the relatively low awards usually given, contingency fee seems tantamount to pro bono.

    So, it seems to me that one of two things needs to happen. Either lawyers must be found all over the country who are willing to work for nothing, or next to it, or funds need to be raised to support individuals to pay lawyers to bring their cases.

    Someone has suggested that we pool our resources and hire one lawyer to fight these cases all over the country. If you all want to do that, then please do. But, please do something. I ask you to please focus your energy, skills and knowledge, at lease in part, upon the task of meeting the need of The People for legal resources. I understand that many of you may, especially if you are law students, need to develop your skills in arguing your points and in the giving of advice, but, perhaps you could also take the time to engage in the actual doing[/i] of such a project as I am suggesting.

    (Anticipating the tendency I seem to see on this forum for the giving of advice, I feel compelled to say that to advise me as to how I might do this project would be to no avail. In my 71 years, I have never succeeded at much of anything. And, now I will not have time to try. As my retirement income has dried up, I must seek employment. I thought of handing out carts at the big W, but, I think that would only last until the first time my supervisor chided me for letting an OC-er slip by uh-harassed. And, the present battle in which I am engaged here in the Loveland case will take the rest of my time and energy.)

  25. #25
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Man, what an issue! What a topic! The Police, in the article, were just besides themselves with glee at the chance to place more limits. The article says "parks will be safer"............yeah, for the criminals. At least we had someone in authority on the side of rights, and OC. Alderman Weber should be commended for seeing the WHOLE picture, while the rest just saw their piece.

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
  •