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

rodbender · Sep 4, 2009

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Doug Huffman · Sep 4, 2009

imported post

Thank GOodness I-ANAL!

rodbender · Sep 4, 2009

imported post

Nor am I.

opencarrybilly · Sep 4, 2009

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.)

McX · Sep 5, 2009

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.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Supervisor, District 1
Jerry Wiezbiskie

Let's try to remember that even though we do not agree with their position that any E-mail or other form of communication should be professional and civil. The old saying about catching more flies with honey than vinegar applies here. Professional E-mails from residents of the applicable city districts are the most helpful whiledirectly insultingE-mails from outside of the area are the least helpful.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

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

I got some feedback which was negative regarding the conduct of some audience members and some speakers. When others are speaking, be courteous and silent this includes refraining from clapping or laughing or jeering, etc. When it is your turn to speak, do not wear out your welcome by reading a 10 page speach. Keep the emotion to a minimum. Do not address other speakers in the form of a rebuttal or personal attack, just address the council.

Some of the most critical feedback was from an alderman who was on our side. The comment was that he was ready to vote for the ban just to piss the jerks off who were being rude and who were being overbearing with their long speeches. Of course he overcame his temporary anger and supported us.,

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Some of the most critical feedback was from an alderman who was on our side. The comment was that he was ready to vote for the ban just to piss the jerks off who were being rude and who were being overbearing with their long speeches. Of course he overcame his temporary anger and supported us.,

Really now, it doesn't matter which way the vote went. Any approval of such an ordinance will be met with a lawsuit and the people who voted for it embarrassed beyond belief.

My hopes right now, is voters in the district show during voting time un-american actions will not be tolerated.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Really now, it doesn't matter which way the vote went. Any approval of such an ordinance will be met with a lawsuit and the people who voted for it embarrassed beyond belief.

My hopes right now, is voters in the district show during voting time un-american actions will not be tolerated.

You are wrong. It does matter. More progress can be made faster with diplomacy than threats. Be careful with the Un-American talk, especially in E-mails, etc.... "Bull in a china shop" is not the proper strategy when dealing with people who are reacting because of their personal sensitivities to firearms and violence. They often have good intentions and need to be brought around more gently. A little empathy can go a long way.

All of these claims of lawsuits have no teeth thus far. Someone who lives on the other side of the country or even across the continent making such claims has even less authority behind them. There are ordinances which have not been challenged for years on the books in WI. The time is coming as the momentum increases. They will be challenged and I am confident that we will prevail.

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

I don't think so. People shouldn't enforce any ordinance which goes against the state constitution. To do so will result in an appeal, to overturn the charge, met with a civil lawsuit.

A pro-gun organization or entity is also welcomed to go to the courts like the NRA done with Philly.

Lawsuits have teeth, there could've been one if the ordinance was passed.

We need to send a strong message through legislation and court acts, such unlawful regulation will not be tolerated.

I only wish states would create a law summarized as, "Any person in official capacity signing, voting, or otherwise taking act to restrict rights given by the state where such restrictions or regulations are not allowed commit an act of official oppression."

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

I don't think so. People shouldn't enforce any ordinance which goes against the state constitution.

We need to send a strong message through legislation and court acts, such unlawful regulation will not be tolerated.

I only wish states would create a law summarized as, "Any person in official capacity signing, voting, or otherwise taking act to restrict rights given by the state where such restrictions or regulations are not allowed commit an act of official oppression."

It has not been established through the courts that a city Park Ban is more stringent than a State Park ban, therefore you can not state with absolutecertainty that this is the case even though this is our position. You certainly should not be accusing anyone of being "Un-American" or using vulgarites to insult them if they take a contrary position to yours.

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

You know what, people in Alaska tried that as well. They lost of course.

Where are you getting the ass-backwards thinking "a ban on city parks is not more stringent than state park bans"?

(2) Except as provided in (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.”

What is so hard to understand here? No more stringent that what is a state statute. This does not mean the equiv of "they banned possession in large buildings so it's okay to ban them in smaller ones." This is not how the law works in PA, AK, and you can bet your ass in WI.

If Greenbay wanted to create ordinances which mirrored the state laws, fine. More money to the city if someone should break such ordinances.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

No more stringent that what is a state statute. This does not mean the equiv of "they banned possession in large buildings so it's okay to ban them in smaller ones." This is not how the law works in PA, AK, and you can bet your ass in WI.

PA has laws on the books which have not been overturned....http://crpr.centreconnect.org/parks/park_rules.html

Please provide an example where a court has found a City Park ban to be in violation of the PA State preemption....

......

AK has complete State preemption for carry laws so the language is not even similar to the WI State statute.....

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

Right, theCentre municipality council are just a bit clueless. They'll learn by 1) asking a lawyer and repealing the ordinance, 2) someone will carry in the park, get cited, then launch a civil lawsuit, and/or 3) there will be a open carry picnic there.

Alaska law is somewhat the same in regards to firearms. Local governments may enact ordinances which are not more strict than the state statutes.

I did perform a google search on the parks, and someone is already initiating a request to have the removal of the rule.

Also, it says firearms... nothing about long guns in there.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Also, it says firearms... nothing about long guns in there.

A Long Gun IS a firearm.........

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

In PA, there is a difference between a firearm and a long gun.

I did double checked the ordinance after I posted. I knew there was a reason why I was looking it up, I forgot to post.

A long gun is a firearm specifically in 6120 "'Firearms.' This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515". Otherwise a firearm is defined as under 6102.

"Firearm." Any pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable.

I suppose also the question is, what centre means by firearms.

If they're using the state definition than it excludes firearms. The ordinance is still invalid. What I've seen some places just have signs and old ordinances which nobody has cared to remove or know about out of laziness and cost.

If told, they'd probably remove it from the website at least.

Task Force 16 · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

In PA, there is a difference between a firearm and a long gun.

I did double checked the ordinance after I posted. I knew there was a reason why I was looking it up, I forgot to post.

A long gun is a firearm specifically in 6120 "'Firearms.' This term shall have the meaning given to it in section 5515". Otherwise a firearm is defined as under 6102.

"Firearm." Any pistol or revolver with a barrel lengthno morethan 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length not less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length not less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of not less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable.

I suppose also the question is, what centre means by firearms. If they're using the state definition than it excludes firearms. The ordinance is still invalid. What I've seen some places just have signs and old ordinances which nobody has cared to remove or know about out of laziness and cost.

If told, they'd probably remove it from the website at least.

It appears, by the word of this ordinance, that who ever wrote it doesn't know anything about "firearms". I added (in red) how most states would have worded their definitions. Most states also have sub-definitions for "handguns" (pistols & revolvers)and "long guns" (rifles, carbines, and shotguns), but all come under the same "firearm" definition.

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

TF16,

6120 is not an ordinance. I don't mind how it is written, however at first the definition is a little confusion.

I only wish weapons which are not firearms were okay to carry loaded in any vehicle. As the statute is right now, one must get a SBS, SBR, or AOW if you wanted a shotgun or rifle.

Task Force 16 · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

It doesn't really matter what PA's definition of a firearm is anyway. This thread is about Greenbay and WI statutes.

WI statutes defines a "firearm" as "a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder". 167.31(1)(c)

Why are you complaining about PA laws anyway, you're in Alaska. :lol:

david.ross · Sep 5, 2009

imported post

TF16,

maybe I'll be moving there to be closer to furries.

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

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member