• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Common sense Gun control,based on our Constitution

M

McX

Guest
imported post

i thought the mcdonald thing was just about chicago. but hey i'll take anything i can get in the good news category! any word on when things hit with the wisconsin carry school zone challenge?

on the carry while consuming, i'd go with the designated carrier. hey buddy, do me a favor and add mine to your hip for me?
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

When the decision comes down in favor of McDonald it will affect all of the states.
This is why Milwaukee DA Chisholm and Furor Flynn are so eager to get some legislation started for CCW.

If they are successful it will only dictate further restrictions on our rights.

Therefore we should all contact our legislators if they attempt to pass any Bill constructed by these two Rats and tell them we are not in favor of this and we will show just how much we oppose it at election time.

Chisholm has already admitted that these unconstitutional laws in Wisconsin will not stand after the SCOTUS decision. He is running scared and we need to keep it that way.

Stand Strong. No Compromise/non-permitted system is coming.
 

professor gun

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
178
Location
, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
professor gun wrote:
However I would advise no alcohol consumption when carrying simply because if you are involved in a situation that has legal implications (e.g., drawing or firing your pistol) and you undergo testing that shows even a small level of alcohol present, this opens the gates to a number of different legal problems initiated by attorneys just on the basis of the presence of alcohol even if you are below a BAC=0.04.
Free advice, even from an attorney's consultant is worth what is paid for it. The right to self-defense persists even through an alcoholic fog. Better tried by twelve good and true men than carried by six weeping mourners.
Another highly intelligent and thoughtful response from Mr. Huffman. It certainly amazes me how you are an expert in everything. I wish I was that smart.
 

professor gun

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
178
Location
, ,
imported post

McX wrote:
i thought the mcdonald thing was just about chicago. but hey i'll take anything i can get in the good news category! any word on when things hit with the wisconsin carry school zone challenge?

on the carry while consuming, i'd go with the designated carrier. hey buddy, do me a favor and add mine to your hip for me?

My understanding on the Mcdonald case is that arguments will be heard before the Supreme Court in March (is it March 2?). They typically take a few months to develop the writing for the decision they issue, so the decision will likely be announced sometime in June I think.

Of importance here is incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Tenth, my understanding of this is that it will call into question local and State gun control laws, maybe invalidate a number of them on the basis that the State and local laws must conform to Federal Law. Most of the other amendments that compose the Bill of Rights have already undergone this process, but the Second has not. I am not willing to assume an outcome here as there is no certainty how the Court will vote on this. So we will be hanging on until the decision is announced. If it goes in our favor it would be a huge win for liberty and specifically firearms rights.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

professor gun wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
professor gun wrote:
However I would advise no alcohol consumption when carrying simply because if you are involved in a situation that has legal implications (e.g., drawing or firing your pistol) and you undergo testing that shows even a small level of alcohol present, this opens the gates to a number of different legal problems initiated by attorneys just on the basis of the presence of alcohol even if you are below a BAC=0.04.
Free advice, even from an attorney's consultant is worth what is paid for it. The right to self-defense persists even through an alcoholic fog. Better tried by twelve good and true men than carried by six weeping mourners.
Another highly intelligent and thoughtful response from Mr. Huffman. It certainly amazes me how you are an expert in everything. I wish I was that smart.
I'm sure.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

if i read this right, this could be bigger than the moon landing; we carry in peace for all man kind! you guys............it's not nice to get an old man this excited. i gotta go lay down. like: Super Size me- no charge, like a burger with free drink and fries, like neil young said; like a river full of pictures, like a psychedelic dream. i had heard that our prez snubbed the supreme court at his state of the union address, maybe not such a smart thing to do huh?
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

McX wrote:
if i read this right, this could be bigger than the moon landing; we carry in peace for all man kind!
I am personally trying to not get overly excited at this point. Incorporating the 2nd would only be a big first step. The SCOTUS has always given the green light to some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Although they may have affirmed that it is an individual right, they have not struck down most existing gun legislation including EBR bans. Even those who supported Heller including Scalia also supported political subdivisions in having some gunpossession and userestrictions. The WI State Constitution and our Right To Bear Arms "for any lawful purpose" isstronger leverage for us. That is why Vegas prevailed.



Article I, Section 25: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The right to self-defense persists even through an alcoholic fog.
Any idea why so few here believe this?

Or, at the very least, why so few here will say one word to stand up for this notion?
 

Landose_theghost

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Ever blacked out whilst drinking? I'm willing to bet you have. Bad things happen when ppl drink, and while i'm not saying YOU wouldn't be able to handle yourself while drinking, others may not be as able.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:
Ever blacked out whilst drinking? I'm willing to bet you have. Bad things happen when ppl drink, and while i'm not saying YOU wouldn't be able to handle yourself while drinking, others may not be as able. 
I actually have control over how much alcohol I drink.

Assigning responsibility to inanimate objects rather than human beings is never a good idea.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

professor gun wrote:
On another portion of the original post, intoxication is mentioned as being prohibited while carrying. This is impossible to define. That is why the law simply prohibits operation of a motor vehicle at 0.08 or above without trying to define impairment.

As an example, Minnesota's law restricts concealed carry to blood alcohol levels under 0.04 (0.08 is the legal prohibition for operating a motor vehicle). I would suggest this restriction is logical because physiological research has shown very clearly that if your blood alcohol concentration is a 0.04 or less there is no impairment. I personally would not drink alcohol if I were carrying, but the 0.04 limit in MN is a logical choice.

Wisconsin Law actually does prohibit operating a Motor Vehicle while impaired independantly of BAC. Impaired includes any drug or alcohol including over the counter or prescription medication. You could be found guilty with zeroproof of .08 or above. Impaired is defined loosely as operating in a less safe manor than if you were not impaired. Any level of less safe. If you crossed over the left solid line as a result of being impaired or any other behavior which can be considered less safe and it was a result of being under the influence, you can be found guilty.

I recently served on a jury in a "drunk" driving case. The jury instructions were pretty detailed..



Even at .02%, there is impairment. By .04%, there can be significant cognitive changes.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa25.htm

[font=""]
Studies of Alcohol-Related Impairment
[font=""].....[/font][font=""]Steering is a complex psychomotor task in which alcohol effects on eye-to-hand reaction time are superimposed upon the visual effects described above. Significant impairment in steering ability may begin as low as approximately 0.035 percent BAC and rises as BAC increases (11). [/font]

[font=""]Alcohol impairs nearly every aspect of information processing by the brain (3). Alcohol-impaired drivers require more time to read a street sign or to respond to a traffic signal than unimpaired drivers; consequently, they tend to look at fewer sources of information (12). Research on the effects of alcohol on performance by both auto-mobile and aircraft operators shows a narrowing of the attentional field beginning at approximately 0.04 percent BAC (13). [/font]

[font=""]The most sensitive aspect of driving performance is the division of attention among component skills. Drivers must m aintain their vehicles in the proper lane and direction (a tracking task) while monitoring the environment for vital safety information, such as other vehicles, traffic signals, and pedestrians. Alcohol-impaired subjects who are required to divide their attention between two tasks tend to favor one of them. Therefore, alcohol-impaired drivers tend to concentrate on steering, becoming less vigilant with respect to safety information. Results of numerous studies indicate that divided attention deficits occur as low as 0.02 percent BAC (12). [/font]

[font=""]....[/font]

[font=""]Serious errors increased significantly at the lowest BAC, 0.025 percent, compared with performance at 0 percent BAC. [/font]

[font=""]Results of epidemiologic and experimental studies permit certain conclusions to be drawn. First, the degree of impairment depends on the complexity of the task involved as well as the BAC (1). Second, the magnitude of alcohol-induced impairment rises as BAC increases and dissipates as alcohol is eliminated from the body. Third, at a given BAC, some skills are more impaired than others (12). Finally, investigators have not found an absolute BAC threshold below which there is no impairment of any kind. Certain skills important for driving are impaired at 0.01 to 0.02 percent BAC, the lowest levels that can be measured reliably by commonly used devices (17).
[/font]
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The right to self-defense persists even through an alcoholic fog.
Any idea why so few here believe this? Or, at the very least, why so few here will say one word to stand up for this notion?
That's easy, it's us against them. Always dividing and separating - and conquering even if only in their own mind. Look at the furry con versation, or mention of alternative lifestyles. Look at the denial of the import of first impressions. Always divide and conquer, always vying for leadership, exceptionalism - and then damning the elites.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

A DoD secret clearance for 34 years would not allow me to inbibe in the nectar of the devil to the point of toilet hugging..
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I was filled with nervous and hopefulanticipation about the McDonald case until I read that the NRA is now involved. Somehow it convinced the SCOTUS that it should also be allowed to argue the case. I beleive it was given 20 minutes to do so. Now I just sit in suspicous optimism. The one person we have to thank for winning the Heller case is McDonald's lawyer Gura. Instead of letting him work his majic on the SCOTUS again, the NRA wants to get its paragon of barristers of ineptitude involved. My opinion
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post


[align=left]WI Self Defense laws do not mention sobriety as a requirement of lawful self defense. Self Defense is a right which is not negated by alcohol or any other chemical in your bloodstream.[/align]
[align=left]You could have acted in self defense, but you would still face the possibility of charges regarding firearm OUI.....[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]
941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous
weapon. (1)
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor: [/align]
[align=left](b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant;
[/align]
[align=left]
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0346.pdf[/align]
http://www.legalexplorer.com/legal/legal-qa.asp?sid=15




 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

professor gun wrote:
On another portion of the original post, intoxication is mentioned as being prohibited while carrying. This is impossible to define. That is why the law simply prohibits operation of a motor vehicle at 0.08 or above without trying to define impairment.

[align=left]
346.63 Operating under influence of intoxicant or
other drug. (1) No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle while:[/align]
(a) Under the influence of an intoxicant,......which renders him or her incapable of safely driving




[url]http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0346.pdf[/url]

http://www.legalexplorer.com/legal/legal-qa.asp?sid=15
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

I think that it's the other way round, that NRA got ten minutes of Gura's half-hour oral arguments time.

I learned to drink under the gentle tutelage of a 'fleet third class' while at my IC A-School. We would drink as heartily as I knew how and still make barracks bed check. Then about 0200 I'd wake with a peculiar tingly ache in my jaw and step out onto the balcony and relieve myself of the discomfort. The sailor's emetic, a long forefinger is very effective. In other but similar circumstances the debris remained distinct for years.

By the time I was in nuke school then there wasn't time or tolerance for such. And that's with Goldfinger's nude bar just outside the MINSY gate.
 
Top