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

Mike · Sep 2, 2009

imported post

News overage on this 8-3 vote smackdown!

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20090902/SHE0101/309020038/1973/SHE0205

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=11030977with news video report

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090902/GPG0101/909020636/1207/GPG01/Green-Bay-City-Council-preserves-open-carry-of-guns

http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/story/Green-Bay-Council-continues-to-allow-open-carry/RfaRx8wgG0ebdLPAOMjGPA.cspx- with video news report

opencarrybilly · Sep 2, 2009

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?

Doug Huffman · Sep 2, 2009

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".

opencarrybilly · Sep 2, 2009

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.

Mike · Sep 2, 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".

Fortunately, the pro-ordnance side prevailed.

opencarrybilly · Sep 2, 2009

imported post

indeed. Very clever.

Flipper · Sep 2, 2009

imported post

So....now it comes out....the Green Bay mayor was behind this..:cuss:....he must wanted bragging rights over Barrett when they get together with Bloomberg and Daily to discuss taking away Constitutional rights.

opencarrybilly · Sep 2, 2009

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."

N6ATF · Sep 2, 2009

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!

Doug Huffman · Sep 2, 2009

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.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 2, 2009

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...

opencarrybilly · Sep 2, 2009

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."

Click to expand...

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.

opencarrybilly · Sep 2, 2009

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.

david.ross · Sep 2, 2009

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/officials/locality/?entity_id=651&state=WI
http://www.votesmart.org/official_local_page.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

GLOCK21GB · Sep 2, 2009

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.

Mike · Sep 2, 2009

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.

GLOCK21GB · Sep 2, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rodbender · Sep 2, 2009

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.

Flipper · Sep 2, 2009

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Doug Huffman · Sep 4, 2009

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.

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

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Site Co-Founder

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned