Lakeland Times Commentary: How easily Wisconsinites forget their basic rights

imported post

And before you read the commentary below, if you are a Wisconsin resident, take action and sign the online petition urging repeal of the Wisconsin ban on open carry in vehicles and within 1,000 feet of schools at http://www.petitiononline.com/wi1848oc/petition.html

----

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=10&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=10629

SNIP

[font="TIMES, SERIF"]12/14/2009 11:46:00 AM[/font]

[font="ARIAL, SANS SERIF"]How easily Wisconsinites forget their basic rights[/font]

[font="ARIAL, SANS SERIF"]By James Gleason[/font]

[font="TIMES, SERIF"]It has become apparent over the last 20 years that the people of this state have forgotten their very rights of which this country was founded.

In this coming year, the gun rights advocates in this state are uniting in a movement that will campaign against any state representative, senator or legislator who does not support an individual's God-given right to keep and bear arms or their God-given right to self-defense.

That's right, a campaign against incumbents and candidates who do not support these rights.
[/font]

. . .

imported post

Thank you for writing that Mr. Gleason.

imported post

"Look to the recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood. Again, Wisconsin paid the price for not allowing Americans to defend themselves. We lost two of our soldiers because even on a military base, our soldiers are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense."

Sure makes it sound likeWisconsin lawswere the cause of the soldiers not being allowed to carry, which isn't the case.

"The gun-free school zone law needs to be amended to read that no person may carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school used for the education of children in grades K-12, illegally or for unlawful purposes."

I strongly disagree, that law needs to be removed from the books altogether. It's already illegal to use your firearmfor unlawful purposes, stacking unrelated charges is just a way of turning minor issues into huge stacks of years that a person can be facing, forcing them into plea bargins out of fear of long jail sentences, when they might be innocent of some/all of the charges they're facing. The "unlawful purposes" already have laws against them, leave it at that...if it's illegal, it's stupid to have "it's more illegal here" zones. The law just needs to be repealed. It's as simple as that.

I do agree with your assessment that, if Wisconsin is going to copy another state's laws, Vermont is a good state to go with. Also interesting to hear of the campaign against anti-gun rights legislators, which I think is an interesting idea. Best of luck to ya up in Wisconsin, getting more good people into office.

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

"Look to the recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood. Again, Wisconsin paid the price for not allowing Americans to defend themselves. We lost two of our soldiers because even on a military base, our soldiers are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense."

Sure makes it sound likeWisconsin lawswere the cause of the soldiers not being allowed to carry, which isn't the case.
No the Unconstitutional laws throughout the United States are what caused these soldiers to not be able to defend themselves. However, should all of these laws change for the better throughout the U.S., look to Wisconsin to be one of the last to make any changes at all. They wouldn't want to correct any bad habits now, would they?
"The gun-free school zone law needs to be amended to read that no person may carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school used for the education of children in grades K-12, illegally or for unlawful purposes."

I strongly disagree, that law needs to be removed from the books altogether. It's already illegal to use your firearmfor unlawful purposes, stacking unrelated charges is just a way of turning minor issues into huge stacks of years that a person can be facing, forcing them into plea bargins out of fear of long jail sentences, when they might be innocent of some/all of the charges they're facing. The "unlawful purposes" already have laws against them, leave it at that...if it's illegal, it's stupid to have "it's more illegal here" zones. The law just needs to be repealed. It's as simple as that.
Like anything else we need to take this one step at a time in order to get any changes made at all. First we amend the law to state," no person may carry a firearm within 1000 ft of any school used for the purpose of educating children of grades K-12, or for unlawful purposes." Once the outcome is proven, that the crime rate did not increase or the average number of shootings at school did not increase and maybe even a few incidents were stopped or prevented because someone was legally armed in the school zone, we then work to have the unnecessary law removed.
I do agree with your assessment that, if Wisconsin is going to copy another state's laws, Vermont is a good state to go with. Also interesting to hear of the campaign against anti-gun rights legislators, which I think is an interesting idea. Best of luck to ya up in Wisconsin, getting more good people into office.

Click to expand...

imported post

• Military policy of not having the people on base armed is the cause of the people not being armed, not US Law. Perhaps I'm wrong, it could be military law instead of just policy, but either way, it's a military thing, not a state law thing.

• No, the "one step" that needs to be taken is for another constitutional challange of the school zone law that gets it thrown out yet again. It was tossed out by the supreme court for being unconstitutional, congress gave it another go with minor tweaks and put it back in. At such time as it goes back to the supreme court, I'm confident that it will again be found unconstitutional and be removed from the law. Any amendments to a clearly unconstitutional law are just a bunch of wasted time. While I don't normally care to link to a wiki as a sole supporting source, I'm on dial up till I get DSL in my new residence, so I can't exactly climb all over the web for multiple supporting sources without taking all day. Thus, here's a wiki link about the Gun Free School Zones act, which is based on a HUGE overreach of the commerce clause for it's authority. Sorry for the crummy cite, but it covers the basics quite well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 As you can see, congress just did a cheesy end run around the supreme court ruling, since the law was (and remains) unconstitutional.

imported post

I believe the "Gun Free School Zones" are currentlyonlyenforced in 2 states, WI & CA, because the law was found unconstitutional at the federal level but WI & CA have state statutes.

So in WI you can, and will be charged with a felony offense if found with a loaded handgun within 1,000' of a schools property if not on private property. CA has gone one worse, and stated that private property is not private property unless you own it, they found a CA OCDO member guilty of that recently (calguns has the story too)



By amending the WIlaw, we stand a better chance of having something happen!If we try just getting it wiped off the books the anti's will start saying 'They want guns at schools" and twist this into a mess we will not win. We need to differentiate between legal and illegal possession to get this to move forward IMO.

yes we still want an enhancer for criminal activity, but we want the ability to carry legally.

imported post

I know for a fact that both Georgia and Florida enforce The 'Gun Free School Zones' Law, because; both State Laws have them codified under their respective StateCodes. Furthermore, similiar to both Wisconsin and California, ifone is within a 1000 feet of ANYSchool in either Georgia or Florida with a Firearm or Weapon, then,thatPerson will go to Jail and be charged with a Felony.

Currently, there is an effort under way to 'water-down'the Georgia Law, but I am not sure of the status of Florida's Law.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

I know for a fact that both Georgia and Florida enforce The 'Gun Free School Zones' Law, because; both State Laws have them codified under their respective StateCodes.

Click to expand...

These states are already free to enforce the reenacted federal ban; but as their state bans are their own invention - each sovereign can enact laws making the same facts criminal - being punished by both sovereigns for the same act is not double jeopardy.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

I know for a fact that both Georgia and Florida enforce The 'Gun Free School Zones' Law,

Click to expand...

So if you drive your vehicle within 1,00 feet ofschool propertyin either of those 2 states, You can expect to be arrested and charged with a felony?

What do they do about people in GA & FLwith carry permits, does that make the law exempt for them??and people in FL that can keep a loaded handgun in their vehicle without any special permits??

I believe the laws in FL & GA are used as enhancements tied to other crimes, the way it should be! Not to keep law abiding citizens from being able to protect their children and themselves.

imported post

I know in California, if you are driving within 1000' of a k-12 school (with a concealable weapon) you are in violation of the Gun-Free School Zone act (CPC 626.9).

If your firearm is in locked in a container and unloaded you are fine.

Also, I don't think that a CCW exempts one from this in CA.

imported post

Rusty wrote:

Also, I don't think that a CCW exempts one from this in CA.

Click to expand...

Sure it does - that's the amzing thing in Calif. - may issue permit gets you carry rights almost everywhere.

imported post

I don't want to get into a whole big thing on this thread, as this point would belong in the California thread, but to be concise about it:

The exemption in the California law (Cal Penal Code 626.9) says:

(4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e),or (h) of Section 12027.

Click to expand...

in 12027 subsection (j) describes a CCW holder.

(b) describes firearms dealers, manufacture, etc...
(d) describes duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading
(e) describes Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other financial institutions (ie armored truck guards)
and (h) describes person operating a licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof (which is odd as that is like the phone company)

IANAL, but I dont see where a CCW holder is permitted to carry a firearm in a GFSZ in California.

Is there something I am missing?

imported post

In CA you are only prohibited from carrying concealed with a permit in a school zone if the restriction is printed on the permit, like Sacramento does.

Rusty wrote:

I don't want to get into a whole big thing on this thread, as this point would belong in the California thread, but to be concise about it:

The exemption in the California law (Cal Penal Code 626.9) says:

(4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e),or (h) of Section 12027.

Click to expand...

in 12027 subsection (j) describes a CCW holder.

(b) describes firearms dealers, manufacture, etc...
(d) describes duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading
(e) describes Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other financial institutions (ie armored truck guards)
and (h) describes person operating a licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof (which is odd as that is like the phone company)

IANAL, but I dont see where a CCW holder is permitted to carry a firearm in a GFSZ in California.

Is there something I am missing?

Click to expand...

imported post

Rusty wrote:

I don't want to get into a whole big thing on this thread, as this point would belong in the California thread, but to be concise about it:

The exemption in the California law (Cal Penal Code 626.9) says:

(4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e),or (h) of Section 12027.

Click to expand...

in 12027 subsection (j) describes a CCW holder.

(b) describes firearms dealers, manufacture, etc...
(d) describes duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading
(e) describes Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other financial institutions (ie armored truck guards)
and (h) describes person operating a licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof (which is odd as that is like the phone company)

IANAL, but I dont see where a CCW holder is permitted to carry a firearm in a GFSZ in California.

Is there something I am missing?

Click to expand...

yeah, keep reading - there is another exemption from 629.9 at para(l):

"(l) This section does not apply to . . . a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4 . . ."

Section 12050 is all about the Sheriff issued concealed handgun permit.

imported post

Ahh, I thought I has seen something in there about that. Did not notice it on a re-read.

imported post

[font="ARIAL, SANS SERIF"]Another article for the cause
[line]

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=11&SubSectionID=11&ArticleID=10733&TM=3810.979

Turning the tables on crime and terrorism[/font]
[font="TIMES, SERIF"]To the Editor:

Two weeks ago I submitted a reader's opinion entitled, "Wisconsinites Forget Their Basic Rights."

In that article I spoke of how important it is for all of us to remember the principles of what this country was founded upon.

Unfortunately, my article was followed by the heroic death of SSGT. Amy Krueger. A death, that has tragically taken its toll on the quiet city of Kiel.

It is with such sadness that we as individuals will start to question as to why things have gotten so out of control in our country.

The answer lies in all of us.

What we believe in our hearts to be true, instead of what is dictated to us by our government. Our country has fallen off the true path of what America is all about.

We have forgotten all of those principles laid down for us by our forefathers. All of the lives that have been taken or lost defending this country and what it stands for are slowly being forgotten, all for the sake of order.

Why do we send our soldiers to foreign soil with guns to fight for what we believe in and to spread the ideologies and principles of our constitution, when we won't even allow those very soldiers to carry a firearm here on American soil?

I am not referring to soldiers using arms against the citizens of this country. I am referring to allowing soldiers to defend themselves and the lives of others when needed.

If our soldiers were allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights and carry a firearm with them at all times, the terrorist incident in Fort Hood would have ended very differently.

We as Americans need to wake up and become the America we were meant to be. We have all fallen into the pits of reliance on our government.

In fact, we are so reliant on our government that many of us do not understand that we have the right to defend ourselves and not expect someone else to defend us.

To be clear, the police do not have any obligation to defend the citizens. This has been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on a number of occasions.

The police are here to solve crimes and arrest those responsible. There is nothing in their job description that says they have to risk their lives to save yours.

So with that in mind, who is responsible for defending and protecting you and your family?

You are.

It is time for all of us to realize that the policies of the past are not working. These laws that are written on gun control are not working. All of the preaching that we need fewer guns is nothing more than the false politics of the past that have brought our country to the troubled times of today.

The truth is, if they take away or control our guns, the only people that will have guns will be criminals.

We as law abiding citizens will find ourselves in more incidents like the ones in Fort Hood, Columbine or Virginia Tech.

As much as we value our police officers, they cannot be everywhere, all the time. The truth is, when seconds count, police are minutes away. Those minutes cost lives.

There have been many cases in this state of people who have carried a gun and had to use that gun in self-defense in the recent past. Prosecutors have chosen not to bring charges in these cases because they know we have a right to self-defense.

Those charged in these cases would prevail in court setting precedence and virtually changing the laws of this state to allow us to freely exercise our God given rights without infringement.

At Columbine and Virginia Tech, the police stood outside the schools and waited until the shooting stopped. If any of the teachers, staff or law abiding adults in those schools had been armed it may have ended differently.

Why do we have to wait until a gunman attacks one of our schools before we realize that these Gun Free School Zones are nothing more than a trap for law abiding citizens?

Why should we wait for a carjacker to kill someone while attempting to steal their car before we realize that we should be allowed to carry our firearms with us in our vehicles?

Many of you may think that your small town is not going to be subjected to these types of crimes. Think again, the crime rates are rising in small town America and small town Wisconsin.

The new legislative session begins in January. Step up to the plate and contact your legislator and demand they bring legislation to reform these unconstitutional firearms laws and bring them in line with supporting our rights.

Amending the Gun Free School Zone to read, It is a violation to possess a firearm in a school zone for unlawful purposes would allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves and the life of another if needed.

Amending the transportation laws pertaining to firearms would allow people to defend themselves and their families in the event of a carjacking and would also eliminate the need for excessive handling of the firearm while loading and unloading and encasing each time a person leaves or enters their vehicle, creating less chance of a negligent or accidental discharge.

There should be a no compromise carry law here in Wisconsin that allows for an individual to carry concealed or open. Imagine a woman who wants to carry for self-defense that has to strap a gun belt on over her evening dress. It is simply ridiculous. She should be able to carry the firearm in her purse without worry of violating a law and she shouldn't have to obtain a permit to exercise her right to do so.

Tell your legislator to vote for a no compromise non-permitted carry bill for Wisconsin and support the Castle Doctrine.

If you do not own a firearm consider purchasing one through your local firearms store.

Go out to a range and become familiar with it and start carrying it with you for personal protection. It just may save your life or the life of another.

Visit opencarry.org and sign the Wisconsin petition to reform firearm laws in Wisconsin.

Let's turn the tables on crime and terrorism.

James Gleason

Chilton

[/font]