Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 130

Thread: Vermont-Style Self-Protection in Wisconsin - Supporters Meet Here

  1. #1
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    This post originally appeared in the thread entitled, "Proposed Wisconsin Carry Law" This is a new thread for those of us who want a no-compromise, Vermont-Style carry in Wisconsin and are willing to work for it.

    So far, the following people have indicated they are willing:

    Patriots for 2A
    1. Nutczak..........................Vilas County
    2. AaronS...........................Milwaukee
    3. Sidearm.40....................Eau Claire
    4. Lammie..........................Pierce County
    5. Carcharodon.................Appleton
    6. J.Gleason.......................Chilton
    7. Gollbladder13................Waukesha
    8. Johnny Stiletto..............Waukesha
    9. Interceptor_Knight......Green Bay
    10. davegran.........................Whitewater
    11. protias.............................Sussex
    12. bigdaddy1.......................Milwaukee County
    13. Glock34..........................Green Bay
    14. Geoff................................Germantown
    15. 32 HR Mag.....................Fond du Lac
    16. gunguy2009...................Beloit
    17. Mugenlude......................Racine
    Lammie wrote:
    Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:16 am What part of the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment of the federal constitution and Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution don't some of you understand. Those documents make no mention of open carry or concealed carry. They merely say "right to keep and bear arms". The Wisconsin Supreme Court says that right is not unfettered and subject to reasonable regulation. It says that regulation of the manner of carry is reasonable as long as manner of carry is not regulated to the point that the rights are eviscerated. The Court makes those statements only for the purpose of protecting the long lived and useless concealed carry prohibition statute. The Court itself is as confused on the breadth of the second amendment and Article I section 25 as anyone. It says in Hamdan that the concealed weapon prohibition statute is a strict liability statute, it applies even to those activities contained in Article I section 25. Yet, the Court goes on to declare that under certain conditions of security, statute 941.23 is, in fact, unconstitutional. So, not only does the WSSC say that Article I section 25 is fettered it says it is conditional. That of course can't be.

    How does all this confusion get resolved? It gets resolved by insisting that the state legislature revisit all the legacy firearm restrictions and asses their validity under the umbrella of Article I section 25. That will not be an easy task. The subject is very volatile and most politicians will do anything they can to avoid it. As daunting as the task seems it is not impossible. With a show of force from a collective group of gun right advocates, letters to media personal, letters to politicians, demonstrations, power of the voting booth and encouragement to those wrongly charged to fight the charge and provide them financial support to do so, we can send a loud and clear message to the political pundits that constitutional amendments trump state statutes and that their first obligation, as sworn under oath, is to protect and preserve the constitutions containing those amendments.

    Some people are so dismayed by the slow and painful task of insisting that the legislature do the job right that they would prefer to dangle a carrot in front of it, a carrot camouflaged as a "carry law", a carrot which treats the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. The cause of which is the infringement of legacy statues on Article I section 25. Currently there are two “carrots” being bantered around the forum. One has been drafted by Gene German and the other by Hubert (bnhcomputing). Both proposals have supporters. My observations are; the authors of the proposals are well meaning in their own right but both proposals contain issues I am concerned with.

    Gene German’s plan starts out confusing. He refers to ss941.23 as the open carry law. Ss941.23 is the concealed weapon prohibition statute. He proposes that open carry will continue as is with all it’s current restrictions in place. Those that would fulfill the requirements and obtain a carry permit would be allowed unrestricted carry. In my opinion such a condition would be unconstitutional. The WSSC ruled that the manner of carry could be regulated and still abide by Article I section 25. The Court did not rule that the rights conveyed by Article I section 25 are conditional based on the manner of carry. If statute 941.23 were to be struck down Article I section 25 would apply to all manners of carry be it concealed or visible. It is the legislature that determined to restrict the manner of carry not the constitution.

    German then says that a permit shall be granted to any eligible applicant to carry or possess firearms either openly or concealed. His plan is supposed to be about carry of firearms not possession. His statement is written in such a way that with a single stroke of a pen the legislature can impose all the restrictions and criteria he proposes on both open carry and concealed carry. The criteria would include mandatory training requirements as well as mandatory background checks. The criteria would also allow a registration data base available to law enforcement for it’s official use. That of course is exactly what a registration system is all about. German’s plan would also make us pay for our right to carry. The initial cost would be $25 and valid for 5 years. Additionally, a renewal cost of $10 would be required every 5 years. What he fails to include is the cost of training and certification. The costs vary but generally range from $150 to $200. The renewal and re-certification cost are usually somewhat less $75 to $150, a cost that will reoccur every 5 years. The renewal requirements are especially bothersome to me. Except for financial gain to firearm instructors it serves little useful purpose. If his plan prevails then a permit should be treated as is a hunter certification, lifetime, with revocation to be determined by the courts.

    The first response I expect to hear from Gene and his minions is that I miss the intent of his plan altogether. Not so. I understand that his intent is to have a dual carry condition in Wisconsin, one which recognizes a constitutional right to carry visible firearms, albeit with certain restrictions and one which would allow a privileged exception to those restrictions and allow concealed carry providing certain requirements and criteria is met.

    As written, the plan is not explicit in the difference between rights and privilege. It is written in such a way that it opens the door to the legislature to invoke all the requirements of the privilege on to our fundamental rights. Our legislature is well known for its propensity to attempt to design a horse and end up with a camel. That has never been as evident as it was with the ill-fated Personal Protection Act. In order to garner enough votes for passage it would be all too easy for the legislature to apply the criteria of German’s plan to all manners of carry.

    The points bnhcomputing proposes are more palatable although it also has specifics I am uneasy with.

    The plan needs a preamble.

    The right of an emancipated minor or adult to posses a firearm is already established by state law.

    The duty to not retreat from a confrontation will be addressed by the castle doctrine law that will in all likelihood be passed next legislative session.

    Item 2 is not required. It has already been ruled that a person’s rental domicile is his personal residence and subject only to those firearm restrictions as apply to an owned residence.

    Item 5 amounts to a form of registration, whether voluntary or not. The word voluntary can very easily be omitted by any bill drafted by the liberal minded Legislative Reference Bureau.

    The strongest point in bnhcomputing’s plan is the reference to a reciprocity permit. The sorting out of rights and privilege of firearm carry is a Wisconsin situation. A situation that can be resolved on its own merits. The problem becomes inter-state when we travel. Most other states require that a non resident planning to conceal carry in that state must have a valid conceal carry permit from their resident state. Wisconsin has no such permit available to it’s residents. Therefore bnhcomputing’s plan has merit in that it provides a process by which, for a nominal processing fee, or by application, a Wisconsin resident can obtain a permit that will allow other states to grant reciprocity. I totally agree with that approach. I would add that the plan should include nationwide reciprocity, a valid cc permit from any state would be granted reciprocity in Wisconsin.

    There is a caveat to the plan. Some states require that evidence of training and certification must be shown before reciprocity will be granted. The proof of a state issued permit is by itself not sufficient. In those cases if a person wishes to carry in those particular states and elects to undergo training and certification for the privilege to conceal carry in those states, then that is a personal decision. I also prefer to refer to his plan as a reciprocity validation or reciprocity permit. The phrase carry permit has too many personal meanings and insinuations. We don’t need a new “carry law”. We already have two, the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution.

    Previously I had voiced my opinion that I favored an approach similar to Gene German’s. One that would recognize and unrestricted right to carry visible firearms but would provide a privilege to carry a concealed firearm. After reading many member opinions and further review I now realize that is a cop out situation that treats the symptoms of our problem and not the cause. The adoption of Article I section 25 to our state constitution changed the playing field of Wisconsin’s firearm laws. The WSSC said so in no uncertain terms in Hamdan. The Court said that the amendment created a considerable dilemma for law enforcement and the court system. It went on to implore the legislature to fix the problem. Words from the highest court in the state that the legislature has chose to ignore. Our approach should be to aggress ably remind the legislature of that direction and it’s oath of office and demand that it respond. Respond by reviewing the enforceability and constitutionality of the legacy firearm restrictions now that Article I section 25 rules.

    There are some that will say “It can’t be done”. ”They’ll never do it”. “It’ll never work unless we give them this”. “It will never happen here”. Those are all words of defeat. Defeat before the fight has even started. I don’t have time for those kinds of words.

    In regards to the NRA’s involvement: There is no question that the NRA has been instrumental in preserving our firearm rights. Without the NRA we would have gone by the way of England, Canada and Australia years ago. For that we owe it a debt of gratitude. My question is, “Who died and made it boss”. We welcome its assistance and influence but it is we Wisconsinites that should call the shots in regards to our state firearm rights.
    Lammie, you are my hero! You have cut through all the BS to the heart of the matter, and you did it in language that I could understand! :celebrate

    I hope that you have some equally clear thoughts on how we can organize our efforts to take back our Second Amendment Rights. It will be very difficult to get everybody behind our movement.
    1. Some want CC no matter what the cost.
    2. Some aren't willing or able to get out from behind the computer and lend their effort.
    3. Some are satisfied with OC.
    4. Some have their own agenda, the Constitution be hanged....
    5. Some are secretly working against us.
    6. And then there are those of us who want our full Constitutional Rights back and we're willing to fight for them.
    I firmly believe that we need to proceed NOW with however many people we have who agree with our goals. Let's not dilute our efforts by trying to convert others. As we achieve more and more success we will automatically attract more people.

    If you are reading this and you are in Group #6, whether or not you presently own a firearm, you need to come forward and be recognized. If you don't believe in what we are doing, then just leave us alone... we can get along fine without you.



    Dave

    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

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

    Post imported post

    I am all for VT-Style carry ability for WI, I refuse to let our current ability to O-C be thrown out in favor of Licensed Concealed-Carry.

  3. #3
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    I am all for VT-Style carry ability for WI, I refuse to let our current ability to O-C be thrown out in favor of Licensed Concealed-Carry.
    We might not agree on all things, but this is one we do for sure.

    We can, and should have a VT CCW system, and we need to keep full OC rights. I'll start up the letter writing again. Our state reps. must love me by now...

    Keep the fire burning.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Let's go! It's time to stop playing and get serious with our legislators. Let the letter writing and legislator calling begin!!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Now is the time.

    Carry On!

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!


  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    A vermont style carry and firearm ownership is in many ways enviable but we must with caution because it is not as perfect as many wouls think. Here is some example:

    State Statutes:

    4004 Possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a school bus a school building or on school property.

    a. Firearm in a school building or on a school bus. 1 year or $1000 or both.

    b. Firearm on school property. 2 years or $1000 or both.

    4006 Record of firearm sales.

    All pawn brokers and retail merchants shall keep a record book on all sales of revolvers and pistols. The record book shall contain date of transaction, marks of identification of the firearm, including the manufacuters name, the caliber, model and manufacturer's number on the firearm, the name, address, birthplace, occupation, age, height, weight, and color of eyes and hair of the purchaser. The record book shall be retained for six years after the last entry. It shall be available to all law enforcement to inspect the same at all reasonable times.

    Note: 4006 amounts to State registration.

    So Vermont style carry is not perfect.

    If Wisconsin statute 941.23 was found unconstitutional,if the school zone law was found unconstitutional, if carry was allowed in public buildings, if open carry was allowed in vehicles and if handgun carry was allowed in places that serve alcohol then Wisconsin carry would be the envy of the firearm carry world.At first blush all those ifs seem like a daunting task but if we look at them individually in more detail the tasks look achievable.

    Reading some of the desenting opinions in Cole and Hamdan. as well as some of the member changes that have taken place on the state supreme court, I feel that the concealed weapon statute 941.23 is only one case away from being found unconstitutional, part of it already has. It has been found unconstitutional when it involves the security of property and/or business (Hamdan).

    The school zone law is in a similar situation. It has been found unconstitutional at the federal level. Only Wisconsin and California have such a law. Each was drafted using the federal law as a pattern. Next Summer the USSC will issue an opinion on the incorporation of the U.S. Second amendment to the states, most experts predict the opinion will favor incorporation. If that be the case the backlash could mean that the school zone law will die. Nothing is certain, everything is possible.

    The Vehicle transport restriction could also be only one case away from being found unconstitutional.I feel itis unconstitutional because in the case of single passenger vehicles such as ATV's and snowmobiles there is no way to carry an encased firearm out of reach therefore no way to avoid the three conditions of concealment. A person is in a situation that he can't carry a firearm concealed and he can't carry it visible therefore the State has not provided a means for the person to exercise Article I section 25. Under that circumstance the SSC ruled that the State must yield to the constitution (Hamdan). All we need is the right case totest it.

    The only significant statute carry restrictions left will then befirearm carry in goverment buildings and handgun carry without owner permission in places that serves on sale alcohol.

    If all thishappens Wisconsin would no longer be looked at as a maverick state without concealed carry but would instead be the envy of the carry world. That is why we should blaze our own trail and not try to emulate any other state.

    There are some that will say it will never happen. I toldthose skepticswhy I think it can happen. Let them put their cards on the table and tell me why it can't happen. I need only remind them and some of you, that seven months ago most of us were afraid to open carry weapons for fear of law enforcement reprisals, harassment and charges of disorderly conduct. Thanks to one brave individual who risked everything to challenge the system those law enforcement tactics were found unconstitutional. We owe Brad Krause a debt I don't think we can ever repay. The change he brought forth is evidence that those things I mentioned are likewise achievable. It will take a while. It will be difficult and it will take dedication, contributions and hard work but it can happen. Unrestricted carry of firearms anywhere they are needed for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Carcharodon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Neenah, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    I want to be able to carry when, where and how I decide. I am fed up with the dancing around school zones and the load/uload, case/uncase, cops say this/dnr say this run around. I can read and understand the @#$%ing constitution. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand? Last I checked I was a US citizen . I have never personally been in a civilian situation that I felt I needed a gun in but friends have (minus needed weapon). I carry for that reason. If you guys need something done, I will help to the best of my ability.
    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Let them put their cards on the table and tell me why it can't happen.
    Please may we acknowledge the difference between the positive statement 'cannot happen' and the inevitable and anile would-should-could normative statements. 'Cannot' is susceptible to controversion and falsification whereas normative statements are not.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    cannot versus can not
    So this is the rule: if you either could or could not do something, then you use two words, because you can leave out the second word if you so choose. If you could not do something no matter how much you desired or tried, then you use one word, cannot. There is no other option.

  10. #10
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Lammie wrote:
    Let them put their cards on the table and tell me why it can't happen.
    Please may we acknowledge the difference between the positive statement 'cannot happen' and the inevitable and anile would-should-could normative statements. 'Cannot' is susceptible to controversion and falsification whereas normative statements are not.
    Doug, with all due respect, pretend you are talking to someone with a third grade education (me) and please restate what you just wrote so that I can understand it.

    Thanks,
    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    That is why we should blaze our own trail and not try to emulate any other state.
    I agree, we should not copy another state to the letter, but instead look at these systems and figure out where the flaws are and then design the absolute best system there is. If we are going to do this why not do it right?

    First let's start with VT/AK since those are believed to be the best out there.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The only significant statute carry restrictions left will then befirearm carry in goverment buildings and handgun carry without owner permission in places that serves on sale alcohol.
    If I remember correctly, the municipal judge in Krause ruled that we could already carry long guns into "taverns" without prior owner consent, so the prohibition is on a specific type of firearm.

    In Heller, the SCOTUS stated that such a ban "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense." They further write "In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol "publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances," 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns." And continue with "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon."

    Given these statements from Krause and Heller, the people of the state of Wisconsin may very well be able to carry in "taverns" without any legislative action.



  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The 'would, should, could' observation came from (radio) commentator Walter E. Williams within the year. He is is the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University. That he made the comment in his capacity of (African-American, a phrase he despises) public commentator suggests that it is in the public conversation.

    You can find explanations of normative and prescriptive statements on the Wikipedia.

    'Falsification' and 'falsificationism' dates from the late Nineteenth Century writings of Sir Karl Popper and might not be explainable without some foundation in epistemology. Sir Karl has a Wikipedia entry.

    I might condense it into the statement/assertion, "A statement that cannot be false is pointless." In the limit we get paragraphs and chapters of if-thens and where-buts ('qualifications') as the unconfident author tries to shore up his argument with layer upon layer of broken-bricks and shoddy mortar.

    It is odd that people will here plead the exceptionalism of unletteredness and then damn the lettered elites.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  14. #14
    Regular Member Johnny Stiletto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rome, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    ...lettered elites.
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    A statement that cannot be false is pointless.
    Yup.

    What is a statement that ineffectively gets it's point across to it's audience?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Johnny Stiletto wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    ...lettered elites.
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    A statement that cannot be false is pointless.
    Yup. What is a statement that ineffectively gets it's point across to it's audience?
    Depends on the 'audience'.

    Ever been in a class wherein the professor introduces his syllabus by announcing that half of the class will drop or fail?

  16. #16
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    The 'would, should, could' observation came from (radio) commentator Walter E. Williams within the year. He is is the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University. That he made the comment in his capacity of (African-American, a phrase he despises) public commentator suggests that it is in the public conversation.

    Sounds like the unconfident author [is trying] to shore up his argument with a layer of broken-bricks and shoddy mortar.

    You can find explanations of normative and prescriptive statements on the Wikipedia.

    If you think that I am interested enough in what you have to say that I will refer to a dictionary, then you have overestimated yourself.

    'Falsification' and 'falsificationism' dates from the late Nineteenth Century writings of Sir Karl Popper and might not be explainable without some foundation in epistemology. Sir Karl has a Wikipedia entry.

    You just don't get it, Doug; you're not communicating, you're lecturing and it's not a lecture that I am interested in.

    I might condense it into the statement/assertion, "A statement that cannot be false is pointless." In the limit we get paragraphs and chapters of if-thens and where-buts ('qualifications') as the unconfident author tries to shore up his argument with layer upon layer of broken-bricks and shoddy mortar.

    I believe that is called a "true" statement, or a "fact". But this is a pointless exchange and has nothing to do with Wisconsin's gun laws. If you insist on playing the lettered elite and going off on an epistemological tangent, then I will simply tune you out. End of conversation.

    It is odd that people will here plead the exceptionalism of unletteredness and then damn the lettered elites.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******



    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hasta lumbago, baby.

  18. #18
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    The 'would, should, could' observation came from (radio) commentator Walter E. Williams within the year. He is is the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University. That he made the comment in his capacity of (African-American, a phrase he despises) public commentator suggests that it is in the public conversation.

    You can find explanations of normative and prescriptive statements on the Wikipedia.

    'Falsification' and 'falsificationism' dates from the late Nineteenth Century writings of Sir Karl Popper and might not be explainable without some foundation in epistemology. Sir Karl has a Wikipedia entry.

    I might condense it into the statement/assertion, "A statement that cannot be false is pointless." In the limit we get paragraphs and chapters of if-thens and where-buts ('qualifications') as the unconfident author tries to shore up his argument with layer upon layer of broken-bricks and shoddy mortar.

    It is odd that people will here plead the exceptionalism of unletteredness and then damn the lettered elites.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    Sorry Doug, but there are absolutely no "late Nineteenth Century writings of Sir Karl Popper" in existence unless he was writing in a previous life. Popper lived a long life, but it was entirely within the 20th Century.

    "A statement that cannot be false is pointless." Really? Anyone who believes that must be willing to concede that every statement they make could be false, or pointless. Tautological statements cannot be false but I would disagree that tautological statements are all pointless. "2+2 = 4" is not a pointless statement.

    You also seem to be a little loose with your use of the word "normative." You use it as if it includes predictive statements (e.g. The Yankees should repeat as world champs,") whereas within the world of technical and academic philosophy one only uses the word "normative" to statements that assign value or statements about what "ought" to be the case (in a moral sense of the word "ought."-- for example "You ought to be kind animals." or "It is better to be smart than stupid."

    If you believe normative statements are unfalsifiable and therefore pointless, then I take it you embrace some sort of ethical agnosticism?

    The 10 Commandments are normative statements.... but yet you seem to think they hold some value and are not pointless? Or do you? Just asking because to me the interplay between a person's epistemology and metaphysics and their ethical beliefs has long been of interest to me.





    "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring..."



    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"

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    You're correct about Sir Karl Popper's context. I had confused him with Ferdinand Toennies.

    It's too bad, though, that you have evidently not read him closely enough to understand a 'tautological statement as pointless' being perhaps a too concise paraphrase of the value of falsifiability.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_statement

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction

    I'll let you do the synthesis yourself.

    As I said, "it depends on the audience" and "hasta lumbago", you may join Diego.



  20. #20
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    No thanks, I never found Popper particularly interesting. My only comment about Popper per se was regarding the time in which he lived. As for the other comments, my interest is in what YOU seem to subscribe to in your beliefs-- whether they are derived from Popper or from some other source. Is the ethics compatible with the epistemology? That's my question.


    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"

  21. #21
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Well I guess this thread is dead...

    Vermont-Style Self-Protection in Wisconsin... I thought this thread was a good idea...

  22. #22
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    davegran wrote:
    This post originally appeared in the thread entitled, "Proposed Wisconsin Carry Law" This is a new thread for those of us who want a no-compromise, Vermont-Style carry in Wisconsin and are willing to work for it.

    Lammie wrote:
    Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:16 am What part of the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment of the federal constitution and Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution don't some of you understand. Those documents make no mention of open carry or concealed carry. They merely say "right to keep and bear arms". The Wisconsin Supreme Court says that right is not unfettered and subject to reasonable regulation. It says that regulation of the manner of carry is reasonable as long as manner of carry is not regulated to the point that the rights are eviscerated. The Court makes those statements only for the purpose of protecting the long lived and useless concealed carry prohibition statute. The Court itself is as confused on the breadth of the second amendment and Article I section 25 as anyone. It says in Hamdan that the concealed weapon prohibition statute is a strict liability statute, it applies even to those activities contained in Article I section 25. Yet, the Court goes on to declare that under certain conditions of security, statute 941.23 is, in fact, unconstitutional. So, not only does the WSSC say that Article I section 25 is fettered it says it is conditional. That of course can't be.

    How does all this confusion get resolved? It gets resolved by insisting that the state legislature revisit all the legacy firearm restrictions and asses their validity under the umbrella of Article I section 25. That will not be an easy task. The subject is very volatile and most politicians will do anything they can to avoid it. As daunting as the task seems it is not impossible. With a show of force from a collective group of gun right advocates, letters to media personal, letters to politicians, demonstrations, power of the voting booth and encouragement to those wrongly charged to fight the charge and provide them financial support to do so, we can send a loud and clear message to the political pundits that constitutional amendments trump state statutes and that their first obligation, as sworn under oath, is to protect and preserve the constitutions containing those amendments.

    Some people are so dismayed by the slow and painful task of insisting that the legislature do the job right that they would prefer to dangle a carrot in front of it, a carrot camouflaged as a "carry law", a carrot which treats the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. The cause of which is the infringement of legacy statues on Article I section 25. Currently there are two “carrots” being bantered around the forum. One has been drafted by Gene German and the other by Hubert (bnhcomputing). Both proposals have supporters. My observations are; the authors of the proposals are well meaning in their own right but both proposals contain issues I am concerned with.

    Gene German’s plan starts out confusing. He refers to ss941.23 as the open carry law. Ss941.23 is the concealed weapon prohibition statute. He proposes that open carry will continue as is with all it’s current restrictions in place. Those that would fulfill the requirements and obtain a carry permit would be allowed unrestricted carry. In my opinion such a condition would be unconstitutional. The WSSC ruled that the manner of carry could be regulated and still abide by Article I section 25. The Court did not rule that the rights conveyed by Article I section 25 are conditional based on the manner of carry. If statute 941.23 were to be struck down Article I section 25 would apply to all manners of carry be it concealed or visible. It is the legislature that determined to restrict the manner of carry not the constitution.

    German then says that a permit shall be granted to any eligible applicant to carry or possess firearms either openly or concealed. His plan is supposed to be about carry of firearms not possession. His statement is written in such a way that with a single stroke of a pen the legislature can impose all the restrictions and criteria he proposes on both open carry and concealed carry. The criteria would include mandatory training requirements as well as mandatory background checks. The criteria would also allow a registration data base available to law enforcement for it’s official use. That of course is exactly what a registration system is all about. German’s plan would also make us pay for our right to carry. The initial cost would be $25 and valid for 5 years. Additionally, a renewal cost of $10 would be required every 5 years. What he fails to include is the cost of training and certification. The costs vary but generally range from $150 to $200. The renewal and re-certification cost are usually somewhat less $75 to $150, a cost that will reoccur every 5 years. The renewal requirements are especially bothersome to me. Except for financial gain to firearm instructors it serves little useful purpose. If his plan prevails then a permit should be treated as is a hunter certification, lifetime, with revocation to be determined by the courts.

    The first response I expect to hear from Gene and his minions is that I miss the intent of his plan altogether. Not so. I understand that his intent is to have a dual carry condition in Wisconsin, one which recognizes a constitutional right to carry visible firearms, albeit with certain restrictions and one which would allow a privileged exception to those restrictions and allow concealed carry providing certain requirements and criteria is met.

    As written, the plan is not explicit in the difference between rights and privilege. It is written in such a way that it opens the door to the legislature to invoke all the requirements of the privilege on to our fundamental rights. Our legislature is well known for its propensity to attempt to design a horse and end up with a camel. That has never been as evident as it was with the ill-fated Personal Protection Act. In order to garner enough votes for passage it would be all too easy for the legislature to apply the criteria of German’s plan to all manners of carry.

    The points bnhcomputing proposes are more palatable although it also has specifics I am uneasy with.

    The plan needs a preamble.

    The right of an emancipated minor or adult to posses a firearm is already established by state law.

    The duty to not retreat from a confrontation will be addressed by the castle doctrine law that will in all likelihood be passed next legislative session.

    Item 2 is not required. It has already been ruled that a person’s rental domicile is his personal residence and subject only to those firearm restrictions as apply to an owned residence.

    Item 5 amounts to a form of registration, whether voluntary or not. The word voluntary can very easily be omitted by any bill drafted by the liberal minded Legislative Reference Bureau.

    The strongest point in bnhcomputing’s plan is the reference to a reciprocity permit. The sorting out of rights and privilege of firearm carry is a Wisconsin situation. A situation that can be resolved on its own merits. The problem becomes inter-state when we travel. Most other states require that a non resident planning to conceal carry in that state must have a valid conceal carry permit from their resident state. Wisconsin has no such permit available to it’s residents. Therefore bnhcomputing’s plan has merit in that it provides a process by which, for a nominal processing fee, or by application, a Wisconsin resident can obtain a permit that will allow other states to grant reciprocity. I totally agree with that approach. I would add that the plan should include nationwide reciprocity, a valid cc permit from any state would be granted reciprocity in Wisconsin.

    There is a caveat to the plan. Some states require that evidence of training and certification must be shown before reciprocity will be granted. The proof of a state issued permit is by itself not sufficient. In those cases if a person wishes to carry in those particular states and elects to undergo training and certification for the privilege to conceal carry in those states, then that is a personal decision. I also prefer to refer to his plan as a reciprocity validation or reciprocity permit. The phrase carry permit has too many personal meanings and insinuations. We don’t need a new “carry law”. We already have two, the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution.

    Previously I had voiced my opinion that I favored an approach similar to Gene German’s. One that would recognize and unrestricted right to carry visible firearms but would provide a privilege to carry a concealed firearm. After reading many member opinions and further review I now realize that is a cop out situation that treats the symptoms of our problem and not the cause. The adoption of Article I section 25 to our state constitution changed the playing field of Wisconsin’s firearm laws. The WSSC said so in no uncertain terms in Hamdan. The Court said that the amendment created a considerable dilemma for law enforcement and the court system. It went on to implore the legislature to fix the problem. Words from the highest court in the state that the legislature has chose to ignore. Our approach should be to aggress ably remind the legislature of that direction and it’s oath of office and demand that it respond. Respond by reviewing the enforceability and constitutionality of the legacy firearm restrictions now that Article I section 25 rules.

    There are some that will say “It can’t be done”. ”They’ll never do it”. “It’ll never work unless we give them this”. “It will never happen here”. Those are all words of defeat. Defeat before the fight has even started. I don’t have time for those kinds of words.

    In regards to the NRA’s involvement: There is no question that the NRA has been instrumental in preserving our firearm rights. Without the NRA we would have gone by the way of England, Canada and Australia years ago. For that we owe it a debt of gratitude. My question is, “Who died and made it boss”. We welcome its assistance and influence but it is we Wisconsinites that should call the shots in regards to our state firearm rights.
    Lammie, you are my hero! You have cut through all the BS to the heart of the matter, and you did it in language that I could understand! :celebrate

    I hope that you have some equally clear thoughts on how we can organize our efforts to take back our Second Amendment Rights. It will be very difficult to get everybody behind our movement.

    1. Some want CC no matter what the cost.
    2. Some aren't willing or able to get out from behind the computer and lend their effort.
    3. Some are satisfied with OC.
    4. Some have their own agenda, the Constitution be hanged....
    5. Some are secretly working against us.
    6. And then there are those of us who want our full Constitutional Rights back and we're willing to fight for them.
    I firmly believe that we need to proceed NOW with however many people we have who agree with our goals. Let's not dilute our efforts by trying to convert others. As we achieve more and more success we will automatically attract more people.

    If you are reading this and you are in Group #6, whether or not you presently own a firearm, you need to come forward and be recognized. If you don't believe in what we are doing, then just leave us alone... we can get along fine without you.




    Dave
    Hey, we can start it oner I guess...

  23. #23
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    davegran wrote:
    This post originally appeared in the thread entitled, "Proposed Wisconsin Carry Law" This is a new thread for those of us who want a no-compromise, Vermont-Style carry in Wisconsin and are willing to work for it.
    Hey, we can start it oner I guess...
    Hi Aaron,
    The sideshow is over so now we can get on with going after our full 2A rights. After a while you get accustomed to ignoring the time-wasters... otherwise we'll never get anything accomplished.

    You're an activist with skin in the game, Aaron; please don't get discouraged. There are more out there like you who believe in action as opposed to endless discussion and hairsplitting.

    So far, the following people have indicated their strong interest:

    Patriots for 2A
    1. Nutczak
    2. AaronS
    3. Sidearm.40
    4. Lammie
    5. Carcharodon
    6. J.Gleason
    7. Gollbladder13
    8. Johnny Stiletto
    9. Interceptor_Knight
    10. davegran

    Maybe after we get some more people to step forward on the forum, we can arrange a meet somewhere to gauge commitment, to get to know each other and to discuss some strategy away from prying eyes. What do you think?



    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

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

    Post imported post

    davegran wrote:
    AaronS wrote:
    So far, the following people have indicated their strong interest:
    1. Nutczak
    2. AaronS
    3. Sidearm.40
    4. Lammie
    5. Carcharodon

    As I stated much earlier,

    Now is the time.

    Carry On!

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I can't help financially, but count me in for time and effort needed.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •