lockman
State Researcher
imported post
Dustiniac wrote:
Dustiniac wrote:
Probably, but it only matters if you are victorious in your fight.
-
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.
-
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.
Open vs Concealed Carry
- Thread starter bnhcomputing
- Start date
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
J.Gleason wrote:
LEO-1: "Hey Joe, see that guy over there with the Jennings 9mm?"
LEO-2: "yea"
LEO-1: "Isn't that the guy I sent up the river last year for child rape?"
LEO-2: "Yea it is. What an idiot! A Jennings!"
LEO-1: "Yea you got that right. Let's get lunch"
J.Gleason wrote:
It would be an LEO field day.
LEO-1: "Hey Joe, see that guy over there with the Jennings 9mm?"
LEO-2: "yea"
LEO-1: "Isn't that the guy I sent up the river last year for child rape?"
LEO-2: "Yea it is. What an idiot! A Jennings!"
LEO-1: "Yea you got that right. Let's get lunch"
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
imported post
Why do we have to copy cat any state i.e. VT, AL, AR? Why not take advantage of the best RKBA constitutional amendment in the U.S. and strive to develop a Wisconsin style carry? The unfettered constitutional right of law abidingcitizensto carry firearmsin any mannerforsecurity, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Why do we have to copy cat any state i.e. VT, AL, AR? Why not take advantage of the best RKBA constitutional amendment in the U.S. and strive to develop a Wisconsin style carry? The unfettered constitutional right of law abidingcitizensto carry firearmsin any mannerforsecurity, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
First, my statement wasn't made as a WCI executive officer, rather as a personal opinion. I believe my post on the other thread addressed the fact that at some future point, it may very well come to a group consensus that we WILL violate the law because as a group we BELIEVE the law violates our innate rights, I just don't think we are there yet.
Second, I do not dismiss the fact that there ARE advantages to CC, never said there wasn't. As was stated, there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
BUT
I would prefer to work within the law to change the law, rather than violate the law at this point. My point was to show how the ANTI people can/will spin any violation of the law against us.
Third, I also agree, that a TRUE conservative should support smaller, less buracratic government, and the easiest (smallest government, least intrusion) way to achieve CC in WI is to repeal 941.23 as there is no bureaucracy required.
I personally will do everything I can to achieve repeal of 941.23, but until it is, I can/will not support nor condone those who advocate violating 941.23 because I personally don't believe we are there (needing to violate the law) yet.
So from there, we'll just have to agree to disagree as to our personal methods of carry, and hopefully agree to work together to achieve repeal of 941.23.
First, my statement wasn't made as a WCI executive officer, rather as a personal opinion. I believe my post on the other thread addressed the fact that at some future point, it may very well come to a group consensus that we WILL violate the law because as a group we BELIEVE the law violates our innate rights, I just don't think we are there yet.
Second, I do not dismiss the fact that there ARE advantages to CC, never said there wasn't. As was stated, there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
BUT
I would prefer to work within the law to change the law, rather than violate the law at this point. My point was to show how the ANTI people can/will spin any violation of the law against us.
Third, I also agree, that a TRUE conservative should support smaller, less buracratic government, and the easiest (smallest government, least intrusion) way to achieve CC in WI is to repeal 941.23 as there is no bureaucracy required.
I personally will do everything I can to achieve repeal of 941.23, but until it is, I can/will not support nor condone those who advocate violating 941.23 because I personally don't believe we are there (needing to violate the law) yet.
So from there, we'll just have to agree to disagree as to our personal methods of carry, and hopefully agree to work together to achieve repeal of 941.23.
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Ref: The Exhaustive Concordance to the United States Constitution with Topical Index and Rapid Reference Constitution/ Dennis L. Bizzoco, general editor.
Neither "presumed", "innocent" nor "guilty" occur in the Constitution, the BoR or the Amendments.
Ref: The Exhaustive Concordance to the United States Constitution with Topical Index and Rapid Reference Constitution/ Dennis L. Bizzoco, general editor.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
imported post
QuikDrawMcGraw wrote:
QDM,
While I agree in part with most of your points, I want to address the one above. Where I live, we do not have those kinds of criminals that truly concern you. There maybesome in the south east corner of wisconsin.
I truly understand your point if one lives in New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Antonio. But Eau Claire, WI??? I grew up in EC, it has crime, but not that bad. That is not to say that the crime won't get worse in EC, we will have CCW long before the criminals get that brazen as to attack an Open Carrier.
Open Carry is the only legal way to carry in Wisconsin, so that is what I do for now.
QuikDrawMcGraw wrote:
QDM,
While I agree in part with most of your points, I want to address the one above. Where I live, we do not have those kinds of criminals that truly concern you. There maybesome in the south east corner of wisconsin.
I truly understand your point if one lives in New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Antonio. But Eau Claire, WI??? I grew up in EC, it has crime, but not that bad. That is not to say that the crime won't get worse in EC, we will have CCW long before the criminals get that brazen as to attack an Open Carrier.
Open Carry is the only legal way to carry in Wisconsin, so that is what I do for now.
Josh885
New member
imported post
BROKENSPROKET wrote:
I agree with BROKENSPROKET. Most of the crime in Eau Claire that isn't traffic violations or drunk driving, is teenagers committing vandalism or the occasional B and E. There are very few, if any, criminals in Eau Claire that are so hardcore that they would knowingly take on an armed person.
I would say, generally speaking, the 2 main scenarios that would make open carry more dangerous the concealed carry is someone who wants to kill you for your gun, and a mass shooting type situation where the killer, who was just going the shoot people at random, sees your firearm and decides to shoot you first. Both of these situations can be mitigated just by paying attention to what is going on around you.
BROKENSPROKET wrote:
I agree with BROKENSPROKET. Most of the crime in Eau Claire that isn't traffic violations or drunk driving, is teenagers committing vandalism or the occasional B and E. There are very few, if any, criminals in Eau Claire that are so hardcore that they would knowingly take on an armed person.
I would say, generally speaking, the 2 main scenarios that would make open carry more dangerous the concealed carry is someone who wants to kill you for your gun, and a mass shooting type situation where the killer, who was just going the shoot people at random, sees your firearm and decides to shoot you first. Both of these situations can be mitigated just by paying attention to what is going on around you.
imported post
lockman wrote:
lockman wrote:
I'm curious what the basis is for the conclusion that banning CC is unconstitutional. Is that based on a personal interpretation of the constitution, or on reasoning that you think would be vindicated in court?
Dustiniac
Banned
imported post
jrm wrote:
Making CC illegal is infringing on my rights.
jrm wrote:
Simple, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Making CC illegal is infringing on my rights.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Dustiniac wrote:
Dustiniac wrote:
Playing the devil's advocate here: You cannot keep and bear arms if they are not concealed?
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Dustiniac wrote:
Even more recently, with District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Like it or not, this is part of the decision of a very recent SCOTUS ruling. You do not have a right to "concealed carry". However, the recent judicial ruling in Gonzalez, despite it's obvious taking a page from the Brady Campaign playbook and obvious lie about Heller not applying outside of the home, gave us a wonderful gift. It is clear that police officers can now detain and arrest people for "disorderly conduct", and that open carry will almost always be "disorderly conduct".
If you read State v. Hamdan and State v. Cole, you'll see that the state made claims that OC is legal in order to keep intact WIRS 941.23. What keeps us from filing a STATE case under Article 1, Section 25?
Dustiniac wrote:
113 years ago, the US Supreme Court came to a contrary conclusion in Robertson v. Baldwin (1897)
Even more recently, with District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Like it or not, this is part of the decision of a very recent SCOTUS ruling. You do not have a right to "concealed carry". However, the recent judicial ruling in Gonzalez, despite it's obvious taking a page from the Brady Campaign playbook and obvious lie about Heller not applying outside of the home, gave us a wonderful gift. It is clear that police officers can now detain and arrest people for "disorderly conduct", and that open carry will almost always be "disorderly conduct".
If you read State v. Hamdan and State v. Cole, you'll see that the state made claims that OC is legal in order to keep intact WIRS 941.23. What keeps us from filing a STATE case under Article 1, Section 25?
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Gray Peterson wrote:
[sub]Personal attack deleted[/sub] Present company excepted.
Gray Peterson wrote:
Gray Peterson, State Researcher, Location:Lynnwood, Washington, for you, standing.
[sub]Personal attack deleted[/sub] Present company excepted.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
kinda thread jacking, but i saw in the local paper this morning, kids robbing people, they caught them, and actually charged them with concealed weapon, and a school zone violation. first school zone violation i've seen yet.
kinda thread jacking, but i saw in the local paper this morning, kids robbing people, they caught them, and actually charged them with concealed weapon, and a school zone violation. first school zone violation i've seen yet.
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
I'm writing from Fitchburg, glad that I am armed.
I'm writing from Fitchburg, glad that I am armed.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Not true.
What is true is that if you file a civil lawsuit and you draw Lynn Adelman as a judge, you will not obtain a favorable decision regarding a gun-rights issue.
This decision is not binding precedent. It is 'persuasive' precedent, but being an unpublished decision, when it comes to level of persuasiveness, this decision is very low on the scale.
Deep breath everyone... The sky didn't just fall.
Not true.
What is true is that if you file a civil lawsuit and you draw Lynn Adelman as a judge, you will not obtain a favorable decision regarding a gun-rights issue.
This decision is not binding precedent. It is 'persuasive' precedent, but being an unpublished decision, when it comes to level of persuasiveness, this decision is very low on the scale.
Deep breath everyone... The sky didn't just fall.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
I agree, I think we are all giving this too much attention. It has no bearing on the written laws of our state.
We need to quit giving this so much attention. Remember, LEO watch this forum and it simply enlarges their egos when they see comments posted on here that would dictate that any of us are becoming afraid to exercise our rights.
Let it go.
Carry on and Carry Always!
I agree, I think we are all giving this too much attention. It has no bearing on the written laws of our state.
We need to quit giving this so much attention. Remember, LEO watch this forum and it simply enlarges their egos when they see comments posted on here that would dictate that any of us are becoming afraid to exercise our rights.
Let it go.
Carry on and Carry Always!
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Speaking of whom, we haven't heard from the plaintiff in this case, or his claque.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
this cat open carries.
this cat open carries.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
imported post
Dustiniac:
First: The 2nd amendment has not been incorporated to the states. Hopefully the SCOTUS decision in McDonald will change that.
Second: In both cases of State v. Haman and State v. Cole the WSSC ruled that the prohibiton of concealed carry does not express a "right" to carry. It only adresses a "manner" of carry. As long as we have an alternate manner, i.e. visible carry, the prohibition does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The constitutionality of the Wisconsin right to keep and bear arms, as afforded by Article I section 25, is infriged only if all manners of carry are prohibited.
Dustiniac:
First: The 2nd amendment has not been incorporated to the states. Hopefully the SCOTUS decision in McDonald will change that.
Second: In both cases of State v. Haman and State v. Cole the WSSC ruled that the prohibiton of concealed carry does not express a "right" to carry. It only adresses a "manner" of carry. As long as we have an alternate manner, i.e. visible carry, the prohibition does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The constitutionality of the Wisconsin right to keep and bear arms, as afforded by Article I section 25, is infriged only if all manners of carry are prohibited.
Dustiniac
Banned
imported post
Captain Nemo wrote:
Captain Nemo wrote:
It only makes sense to be applied to the states, I mean the 1A is applied to it is isn't it? Just because the SCOTUS says something, doesnt mean its right. I base everything off the Constitution, and more importantly, my God given rights, which transcends any man made law.