Great news for residents of Illinois and Wisconsin

imported post

We all know the the mindless followers of the Brady Bunch rarely make any logical sense nor do they usually even have basic facts straight regarding technical aspects of firearms, gun laws, and crime statistics.

We're talking about the basic information they need to further their anti-gun pro-slavery campaign! And they don't even know that.

All they have are their personal phobias and blind hate combned with a hodge-poge of fake statistics and logical fallacies to give them the appearance of credibility to those easily swayed (namely, fellow collectivist drones).

I have rarely visited their website but did so just now purely out of curiosity. It seems they have reached a new low of misinforming the public. I hadn't browsed five minutes when I found this. Here is Brady summary of concealed carry laws:

"Thirty-five states have “shall-issue” laws forcing police to issue concealed handgun permits. Eleven states have “may-issue” laws that give local law enforcement officials discretion over who gets a concealed handgun permit and how many are allowed in each jurisdiction. Two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, do not require a permit to carry concealed handguns in publicwhile two states forbid the carrying of concealed handguns."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stateleg/publicplaces/carrying

Amazing they somehow missed that those two states that forbid it are Illinois and Wisconsin.:quirky As many followers as they must have in Chicago....how the hell could they screw that up? Or maybe they don't have that many followers.

It's like they're not even trying (if they ever did). Faced with years of reversals to their cause, it's like all they can do now is whine. And make it up as they go along.

I'm not even going to waste my time informing them of the blatant inaccuracies on their website. They're no longer worth the attention.

Even if Congress tries another gun-ban, my sense is the Bradys will have very little direct connection with it.

They're becoming very irrelevant, very fast, and they know it. What little prestige they have the pro-gun lobby itself is giving them by mentioning their name. They really don't deserve to be acknowledged at all.

imported post

Why would anyone not seeing things their way correct their sophomoric editing? Let the errors stand - it only shows their ignorance.

Yata hey

imported post

I had to go look at the site myself because I was in disbelief and thought the OP did a little creative editing on the snip & paste to the forum.

WTF?! these people are actually this misinformed and clueless, but our tax dollars are used to further their agenda? is the Brady-bunch being run out of some old womans basement in D.C. by her semi-retarded grandson.

And this is the group that successfully lobbies several levels of the govt to make policies?

I copy and pasted that entire page into a text file for future reference.

I hope mobody contacts them to correct the mistakes on that page, this should be used to publicly embarrass them and to show they make up lies and spew misleading information to further their misguided quest.

imported post

If they have a web administrator worth any salt at all, they will notice the increased traffic to that page, trace it from the referring link here, and see what the hubub is about. If.

TFred

imported post

:celebrate:celebrate I'll carry everywhere in the state starting tomorrow! If the Brady group says it it must be true!! :celebrate:celebrate

imported post

lockman wrote:

:celebrate:celebrate I'll carry everywhere in the state starting tomorrow! If the Brady group says it it must be true!! :celebrate:celebrate

Click to expand...

If the brady bunch told the truth it must have been by accident. It'd also be a first.

imported post

lockman wrote:

:celebrate:celebrate I'll carry everywhere in the state starting tomorrow! If the Brady group says it it must be true!! :celebrate:celebrate

Click to expand...

Since the Bradys are considered experts on the subject (many courts have certified them as expert witnesses), are they liable if someone acts in reliance on the information they provide?

No, I'm not going to take a road trip to test that theory.

Question for the lawyers/attorneys - what's the legal theory on intentionally publishing false information? (My brain is not up to speed yet, but keeps trying to tell me there is either a law against it or there oughta be one.)

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

They seem obsessed with CC, don't they? I wonder what they would have to say about the 42 states that allow OC, with 20 something not requiring a permit to do so?

They worry about people carrying guns that might be "unstable"? What about "unstable idiots" that attempt to persuade legislators?

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I had to go look at the site myself because I was in disbelief and thought the OP did a little creative editing on the snip & paste to the forum.

Click to expand...

Believe me, our opponents furnish more than enough ammunition (no pun) for indictment of their ignorance without me needing to make up anything.

imported post

Virginian683 wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

I had to go look at the site myself because I was in disbelief and thought the OP did a little creative editing on the snip & paste to the forum.

Click to expand...

Believe me, our opponents furnish more than enough ammunition (no pun) for indictment of their ignorance without me needing to make up anything.

Click to expand...

I copied and pasted the Brady spewing in the WI thread, good job finding that BTW!

Skidmark brings up an interesting observation too!

There are a few landmark cases in WI that case law states " you can legally conceal a firearm if your right to self-defense outweighs the state prohibition on concealed carry"
This can be seen in State V. Vegas, and again in State V. Hamden.

I do not want to be a test case for this!
Then we have other case law that states to carry a firearm in a vehicle, it must be discernible from the interior of the vehicle by passersby and other vehicles on the roadway!
Then even more case law that contradicts that conclusion in State V. Alloy where it states the weapon must be transported out of reach, but mentions that anywhere in the passenger compartment is within reach even if the gun is kept in a case.

I believe there is something like 77 conflicting firearm laws in WI!
I recently sent a letter to the Admin of www.handgunlaw.us so they can correct the mistakes concerning WI on their web-page, and he expects it to be corrected in a weekaccording tohis expedient reply.

imported post

Seems like a good example of the "blind leading the blind".