Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Portage Daily - PACKIN' WITH PRIDE: Man helps change city's open-carry gun law

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedaily...cc4c03286.html

    SNIP

    One man's actions with a gun recently led to a change in city law.

    Justin Johnson was stopped in April by police while completing his shopping with his wife and four children at the Portage Walmart.

    What prompted police to stop him was that he was openly carrying a handgun, held in a holster on his thigh.

    A shopper spotted Johnson and called police. They responded to the store at 6:24 p.m. and encountered Johnson, 22, of rural Portage, who indeed had a handgun - a .44 magnum Taurus, fully loaded.

    "One of them just notified me that Portage had an ordinance banning carrying firearms," Johnson said.

    Police asked Johnson to leave the store and put his gun away. He did.

    Johnson "was compliant," according to the police report, and left the store at the request of employees.

    But later, his research told him that the ordinance was in conflict with state law and probably wasn't valid.

    "Wisconsin Act 72 said ... all gun laws have to be same or similar, but no more stringent" than the state statute, Johnson said.

    Johnson's encounter prompted city officials to change the ordinance forbidding people from openly carrying weapons.

    The Common Council voted unanimously last month to bring the city's law into line with the state's. The change in the ordinance went into effect May 27 after the Council suspended the rules governing changes to an ordinance, which typically require three readings of the ordinance over two separate meetings, to vote for it immediately.

    "We want to get in line with the state statutes as quickly as possible," said Fred Reckling, chairman of the city's Legislative and Regulatory Committee.

    Portage Mayor Ken Jahn said he did not know about Wisconsin's open carry law.

    "It was quite a surprise to me," Jahn said. "I've always assumed that you can't have an open gun on a street."

    The change in the ordinance pleased Johnson.

    "It feels like a nice victory for gun rights," Johnson said.

    . . .

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Despite the town's violation of state law, NObody was punished over it.
    Someone needs to remind the mayor ignorance of the law is no excuse.
    Correction, which should be the goal, can occur without punishment. It did so in this case. That is good.

    If correction occurs and one still wants punishment, that is called revenge.

    My personal preference? Correction without revenge and punishment only when necessary to cause correction.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    --Edited--
    Terrified of being caught, hence the attempt at anonymity.

  6. #6
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Wow you really like bashing people for things that you said they were thinking.

    Stick to a posters actual comments.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    Wow you really like bashing people for things that you said they were thinking.

    Stick to a posters actual comments.
    Consider the source(s), and give him (them) all the lack of credit they are due.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    --Edited--
    Find a criminal who deliberately commits a crime without being aware that he's committing a crime, and then we'll talk. Until then, your comments are out of line. Your contributions toward the rule of law do not entitle you to ridicule everybody who disagrees with you.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    --Edited--
    You have no idea with whom anyone here has stood toe-to-toe. You have no idea what anyone here has accomplished as a result.

    I suggest you back down your judgmentalism just a tad.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If correction occurs and one still wants punishment, that is called revenge.
    Then I'd take a side of that dish called "revenge". Bad laws affect the law abiding the most, forcing them to live in fear until someone with means stands up and challenges the law.

    Politician's can pass as many bad laws as they can/want as long as there are no penalties. The burden then lies upon the citizenry to try to understand and overturn these laws, and until such a time, more freedom is lost.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Correction, which should be the goal, can occur without punishment. It did so in this case. That is good.

    If correction occurs and one still wants punishment, that is called revenge.

    My personal preference? Correction without revenge and punishment only when necessary to cause correction.
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Then I'd take a side of that dish called "revenge". Bad laws affect the law abiding the most, forcing them to live in fear until someone with means stands up and challenges the law.

    Politician's can pass as many bad laws as they can/want as long as there are no penalties. The burden then lies upon the citizenry to try to understand and overturn these laws, and until such a time, more freedom is lost.
    If you achieve correction, yet still seek revenge, what is it you expect to gain?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you achieve correction, yet still seek revenge, what is it you expect to gain?
    Negative reinforcement is a powerful thing. I do not want to see such laws in the future.

    Analogy: A person who steals, but simply returns the stolen property has no incentive to change their behavior -- unless other "negative" reinforcement is also applied. They will simply try to find better ways to steal playing the odds they will not get caught and their agenda (self profit) continues.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Negative reinforcement is a powerful thing. I do not want to see such laws in the future.

    Analogy: A person who steals, but simply returns the stolen property has no incentive to change their behavior -- unless other "negative" reinforcement is also applied. They will simply try to find better ways to steal playing the odds they will not get caught and their agenda (self profit) continues.
    Correction is not the analog of returning the stolen property. It is comparable to not ever stealing again. For example, Montgomery now has a policy and training in place to properly deal with OCers. As a result, I see no need to sue. If I were to sue, the situation would not be made any better; I would just get richer. However, I am convinced that it was the possibility that I could sue that prompted the correction.

    In the case highlighted by the thread, again, suing would only enrich the plaintiff. Any correction that one could hope for has already happened.

    In both cases, I recommend maintaining the option to sue, but not suing as long as the city/county continue to remain corrected.

    If I were to sue now, it would be pure selfishness on my part.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Correction is not the analog of returning the stolen property. It is comparable to not ever stealing again. For example, Montgomery now has a policy and training in place to properly deal with OCers. As a result, I see no need to sue. If I were to sue, the situation would not be made any better; I would just get richer. However, I am convinced that it was the possibility that I could sue that prompted the correction.

    In the case highlighted by the thread, again, suing would only enrich the plaintiff. Any correction that one could hope for has already happened.

    In both cases, I recommend maintaining the option to sue, but not suing as long as the city/county continue to remain corrected.

    If I were to sue now, it would be pure selfishness on my part.
    The correction IS analogous to theft. The 2A clearly states "shall not be infringed", as does the state law in terms of reigning supreme over local ordinances, hence the passage of any contrary law is illegal (theft). When faced with the crime (violating the law) the politicians rescinded (return of property) the law.

    What stops the policitians from, again (e.g. GFSZ), passing such a law and someone being forced to sue in order to overturn such law? Nothing.

    Policies by a police organization are not similar to the laws passed by a legislative body. The police organization is attempting to work within the confines of the changing law. The laws pertaining to freedoms and rights should change little. I do not have an issue with organizations attempting to work within the law, the issue is the politicians who are blatantly violating the letter and spirit of existing laws.

    No, don't make money out of it, but these guys need to pay their pound of flesh for failing to understand the fundamentals of their job, a job they swore to perform to the best of their abilities (which may not be much I suppose).

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by mark edward marchiafava View Post
    Despite the town's violation of state law, NObody was punished over it.
    Someone needs to remind the mayor ignorance of the law is no excuse.


    I would have to agree with Mark. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, we would be duly prosecuted for the same.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Correction is not the analog of returning the stolen property. It is comparable to not ever stealing again...
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    The correction IS analogous to theft...
    We seem to have reached a point where we are not discussing the same thing, so I don't know how to reply. If you go back and refute what I said, we can proceed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    We seem to have reached a point where we are not discussing the same thing, so I don't know how to reply. If you go back and refute what I said, we can proceed.
    Nothing to refute. You think correcting a bad law after the fact is enough.

    I don't.

    If there are no penalties to bad acts, apart from a reset or a return to the prior status, then there's nothing to stop those bad acts from recurring in the future. Violating any individual(s) rights should come with a penalty.

    Maybe you can justify how/why you feel there shouldn't be any other consequences, as that could be interesting to hear.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Nothing to refute. You think correcting a bad law after the fact is enough.

    I don't.

    If there are no penalties to bad acts, apart from a reset or a return to the prior status, then there's nothing to stop those bad acts from recurring in the future. Violating any individual(s) rights should come with a penalty.

    Maybe you can justify how/why you feel there shouldn't be any other consequences, as that could be interesting to hear.
    That is two posts in a row where you totally ignored the point I was making. That makes discussion impossible. Fair enough. Moving on.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is two posts in a row where you totally ignored the point I was making. That makes discussion impossible. Fair enough. Moving on.
    Actually your point is obtuse, if present. Feel free to move along as that's your privilege

    Correction is not the analog of returning the stolen property. It is comparable to not ever stealing again. For example, Montgomery now has a policy and training in place to properly deal with OCers. As a result, I see no need to sue. If I were to sue, the situation would not be made any better; I would just get richer. However, I am convinced that it was the possibility that I could sue that prompted the correction.
    We do not want to see ANY attempt in the future to restrict individual rights. Any attempts by a city, council or mayor which restricts rights MUST fully be researched instead of assuming it's accurate. In order to ensure this occurs, punishment must be included.

    What just happened? The city just returned, by striking the law from the books, to what it was before. There was no civil nor criminal penalty making these folks think twice before creating another law without doing their due diligence.

    Again, no incentive for prevention of this in the future. That's the point made by me and the other poster, whereas you seem to think, unfortunately, "corrective action"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    130
    Maybe what needs to happen is that the state should pass a law that puts a punishment on passing laws that violate state law. I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I would agree that there should be repercussions for legislators attempting to violate constitutional rights. Just my opinion.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gravel Switch, KY
    Posts
    544
    How would you punish the city govt for unlawfully having on ordinance?

    Would it be financial compensation? If so, that punishes the taxpayers.

    Would it be arresting the entire city got?

    Would it be arresting just the mayor?

    I don't know how one would punish the city govt and not punish the taxpayers inadvertently.

    I think they did a fine job personally. Once they were notified that they were in violation of State law, they amended their own ordinance fairly quickly instead of having to be taken to court and spending millions of dollars in court costs.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Actually your point is obtuse, if present. Feel free to move along as that's your privilege



    We do not want to see ANY attempt in the future to restrict individual rights. Any attempts by a city, council or mayor which restricts rights MUST fully be researched instead of assuming it's accurate. In order to ensure this occurs, punishment must be included.

    What just happened? The city just returned, by striking the law from the books, to what it was before. There was no civil nor criminal penalty making these folks think twice before creating another law without doing their due diligence.

    Again, no incentive for prevention of this in the future. That's the point made by me and the other poster, whereas you seem to think, unfortunately, "corrective action"
    I have to agree with you, merle. I live in Renton, Washington, which is east of Seattle, but still in King County. Maybe you and others on here know about Greg Nickels trying to ban firearms in Seattle city parks. The state AG even told him that it was illegal, but he went ahead with it anyway. Second Amendment Foundation sued, the city lost, and the signs came down. Nickels was not on the ballot last year for mayor. Now we have a new mayor, Mike McGinn, who is going to try the same thing. He wants a ban on guns in city parks, recreational areas, etc. in the guise of "protecting the children". There was no negative repercussion on the mayor for all of this, hence the new mayor is going down the same path. Washington is a pre-emptive state, which means state law pre-empts any local laws that may be in conflict with it. So because there was no "punishment", we now have round 2. I don't know what it will take to convince the mayor and his people that what he wants to do is illegal. I think that anyone that obtuse and/or willing to break a state law deliberately should be removed from office post haste!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by flb_78 View Post
    How would you punish the city govt for unlawfully having on ordinance?

    Would it be financial compensation? If so, that punishes the taxpayers.

    Would it be arresting the entire city got?

    Would it be arresting just the mayor?

    I don't know how one would punish the city govt and not punish the taxpayers inadvertently.

    I think they did a fine job personally. Once they were notified that they were in violation of State law, they amended their own ordinance fairly quickly instead of having to be taken to court and spending millions of dollars in court costs.
    I also agree with eye95. Everyones arguement seems to be that we would be punished if we were to break the law. However, when said gentleman was breaking the law he was simply asked to remove his gun from the store, he could have been arrested or given a citation. My point is that the officer let this slide even though the man was ignorant of the law. I feel that since the local law were immediately made to match state law, the mayor doesn't need to be punished. Besides, if everyone knew every law for every place then we would have no need for lawyers. And I also think revenge is never a good thing. If you have a good reason that the mayor be punished that's fine, but if it is soley for revenge that's pointless.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329
    Your only choices, recall the Mayor.

  25. #25
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by mark edward marchiafava View Post
    --Edited--
    I agree wholeheartedly with you Mark Edward. The City needs to be at least reprimanded if not sued by the man for his time and embarrassment.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •