• 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.

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

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/local/article_e2f69b14-7b56-11df-b325-001cc4c03286.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.

. . .
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Spoken like a good little statist.

Government does no wrong,
government does not need to obey the very law they swore an oath to uphold.

Correction? LOL, I wonder how many bank robbers and drug dealers are offered the same deal on THEIR violation of law?

Just admit it. You just LOVE being ruled over by the state and are TERRIFIED of real freedom, aren't you?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

I keep forgetting, NONE of you little statists has ever stood toe to toe with an elected political whore who looks you in the eyes and states "I don't care if it (law) is constitutional, I've got the votes to get it passed."

"My people perish for lack of knowledge."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.

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?
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

merle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Tahoe, Nevada, USA
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).
 
Top