Sheboygan County District Attorney Admits Wisconsin Carry "might have a point" with our GF

imported post

Cypher wrote:

What about modifying it from 1,000ft to 1 block?

Click to expand...

Well thats a definite improvement... Unless you happen to live on the block of the school. All the rest of the neighborhood is able to go walk their dog at night armed for protection, but you live on the block of the school so you must go unarmed???

How about a law that ONLY applies to criminals instead of law-abiding citizens?

How about Wisconsin law provides EQUAL PROTECTION for all law-abiding citizens whether you live on the block of a school or 2 blocks away?

How about a law that says if you commit a crime with a gun within a school zone they can make it a felony enhancer?

How about a law that says if you take a gun within a school zone with INTENT to commit a crime its a felony. (but the prosecutor has to prove intent to commit a crime) that way if you are carrying walking your dog, there is no intent, but if a kid threatens violence at school, leaves and gets a gun (which is likely already illegal for a school-age kid to possess a handgun) comes back and gets stopped a block from the school by police with the gun then the police have "intent".

Or we can just keep trying to "nail" otherwise law-abiding persons who had no criminal intent with these ridiculous unmarked undefined unknowable school zone felonies.

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

How about a law that ONLY applies to criminals instead of law-abiding citizens?

Click to expand...

The law abides only the law abiding. 'Criminals' have already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not abide the law. The law cannot prevent criminality.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abide

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

How about a law that ONLY applies to criminals instead of law-abiding citizens?

Click to expand...

The law abides only the law abiding.  'Criminals' have already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not abide the law.  The law cannot prevent criminality.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abide

Click to expand...

I agree doug. But if liberals want to run around and pass ineffective "feel-good symbolism-over-substance" legislation to try to alter the behavior of criminals and affect the habits of criminals, they can have at it as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't place burdens on the law-abiding in the process.

imported post

Im sorry to have thaught that you were suggesting that we paint curbs but I was just informed about my sons clases haveing 29 to 35 students because of budget cuts and layoffs while the superatendent makes a 6 figure income and sits back and says she cares about the kids. I should have kept my emotions about public spending in check for this topic. Again I'am sorry WCI for my rant had little to do with painting curbes and more to do with money and these ridiculus laws we have on the books.

imported post

i agree baron, those would be the most expensive blue lines in history,once the powers that be got done with them. but in the interim. i know SCOTUS and our lawsuit could make all this nothing. let us hope...................with no blue lines to guide us for now.:lol::lol:

imported post

McX wrote:

hell, get the criminals in jail to paint the curbs!

Click to expand...

Cant do that, then the unions would cry that they stold money from the overworked and underpaid union members.

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

Well thats a definite improvement... Unless you happen to live on the block of the school. All the rest of the neighborhood is able to go walk their dog at night armed for protection, but you live on the block of the school so you must go unarmed???

How about a law that ONLY applies to criminals instead of law-abiding citizens?

How about Wisconsin law provides EQUAL PROTECTION for all law-abiding citizens whether you live on the block of a school or 2 blocks away?

How about a law that says if you commit a crime with a gun within a school zone they can make it a felony enhancer?

How about a law that says if you take a gun within a school zone with INTENT to commit a crime its a felony. (but the prosecutor has to prove intent to commit a crime) that way if you are carrying walking your dog, there is no intent, but if a kid threatens violence at school, leaves and gets a gun (which is likely already illegal for a school-age kid to possess a handgun) comes back and gets stopped a block from the school by police with the gun then the police have "intent".

Or we can just keep trying to "nail" otherwise law-abiding persons who had no criminal intent with these ridiculous unmarked undefined unknowable school zone felonies.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

The law can burden only the law abiding - that's what the damn word means.

imported post

What about one of those bonus charge type things for criminal activity. That if your committing a crime in a school zone (assuming your caught) you get hit with some heavy additional charge. I cant remember what they call it. If the law abiding person is carrying, that person would not be affected. An armed crook would be hit with an extra 5 years (or more)to the sentence because the crime was committed while armed.

imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:

What about one of those bonus charge type things for criminal activity. That if your committing a crime in a school zone (assuming your caught) you get hit with some heavy additional charge. I cant remember what they call it. If the law abiding person is carrying, that person would not be affected. An armed crook would be hit with an extra 5 years (or more)to the sentence because the crime was committed while armed.

Click to expand...

Penalty enhancer.

imported post

a lot of people here know that milwaukee is incapable of maintaining its roads and lots of its infrastructure. How would they keep hundreds of thousand foot blue lines visible? Even if it were just signs marking the edge of the gfz it would still cost the taxpayer $$$ because you dont just have to buy the sign, you have to pay the worker, and his pension, which last time i checked the city of milwaukee's fund is a couple million in the red. Nothin like our biggest population center turning into the new Detroit in the next 10 years

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

The law can burden only the law abiding - that's what the damn word means.

Click to expand...

Thank-you Captain Obvious

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

But if liberals want to run around and pass ineffective "feel-good symbolism-over-substance" legislation to try to alter the behavior of criminals and affect the habits of criminals, they can have at it as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't place burdens on the law-abiding in the process.

Click to expand...

imported post

Well, the curb painting would be ok, I guess, so long as the school zone ended perfectly at a curb. But what about those where the 1,000ft mark is in the middle of the street? Or how about those schools in rural areas where there is public forest behind them? will they paint a blue line through the woods? Posting signs might work there, but then again, they'd have to be awfully close together in some areas, because it can be hard to see more than a few feet away from you if the brush is thick enough.

A better solution would be to have the GFSZA apply as an enhancer charge for a violent or drug related crime, that way, the prosecutors would look good slapping on additional charges to some gang banger they catch in the school zone, but would leave law abiding citizens alone.

Of course, the BEST solution, would be to get rid of the school zones all together. Are the people who live in a school zone deserved of better "protection" under the law, than other people? It's discriminating if Person A's, killer gets charged with murder AND a violation of the GFSZA just because he lives close to a school, where Person B's killer "only" gets charged with murder, because he lives outside of the school zone.

imported post

Well, the curb painting would be ok, I guess, so long as the school zone ended perfectly at a curb. But what about those where the 1,000ft mark is in the middle of the street? Or how about those schools in rural areas where there is public forest behind them? will they paint a blue line through the woods?

Click to expand...

Yup...

Start painting Wisconsin... Lets see how that goes for you.

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

Either paint the curbs and mark the GFSZ side or amend the law to say No Firearms on school property.

Click to expand...

Yup... if they decide to undertake marking the curbs they will be providing us more evidence for the federal lawsuit as that will demonstrate how impossible it is to exercise a practical right to carry when the school zones overlap and prevent going about your law-abiding business.

In addition, when it snows and curbs are covered, how will people know?

This GFSZ law is a mess and everyone is realizing it.

Click to expand...

Yes, the GFSZ law was always intended to make it impossible to travel through an urban area armed, without violating the law. This is not the first time the police arrested Mr. Hubing for open carrying a gun. The first time was about a year ago in August, and they forced their way into his house and charged him with resisting arrest as well.

http://www.plymouth-review.com/news/2009-08-13/Police_(and)_Court/SFPD_Police_Report_812.html


I don't see any further references, so they probably dropped the charges when they found out that it was all based on a non crime.

imported post

did i read that the guy had a long arm on too??
:what:







+1

imported post

lil_freak_66 wrote:

did i read that the guy had a long arm on too??
:what:







+1

Click to expand...

Yes he did. I read somewhere that it was a .22.

imported post

lil_freak_66 wrote:

did i read that the guy had a long arm on too??
:what:

+1

Click to expand...

From the perspective that OCDO is devoted to side arms, you have a point.

From a legal stand point, In State v. Adam S. Gonzales; Appeal Number 2001AP000224 – CR, Kassel stated (56 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments) "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." The court further questioned Kassel, (59:40) "Is it the State's position that anybody can, other than a felon, but any of us can walk down State Street carrying with a holster with a pistol in it?" and Kassel answered, "Absolutely." The court again questioned Kassel (1:03:31) “But you can carry a loaded shotgun down-- leave this building-- down State Street. Is that correct?" and Kassel again answered, "Yes."

So it doesn't matter if he had a long gun or not. The GFSZA doesn't differentiate, and neither should we.

imported post

The GFSZ should only be an enhancer to an accompanying crime, I hope that was the legislators original intent, but I doubt it.

I am guessing that our legislators are trying to aim these laws at the criminal element, but instead they keep disarming the law abiding.

I really hope the guy from Sheboygan falls gets properly compensated for the police departments dick-headedness in this situation.

Now this brings up another question, is a bicycle actually considered a vehicle for the case of "unloaded and encased" the way the S-F cops were acting you would think they would have cited him on that too.

Maybe becuase a bicycle is self powered they are ignoring it? or they are trying to save face on this.