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

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

merle said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is two posts in a row where you totally ignored the point I was making. That makes discussion impossible. Fair enough. Moving on.

eye95 said:

That is two posts in a row where you totally ignored the point I was making. That makes discussion impossible. Fair enough. Moving on.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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"

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.

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.

merle said:

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"

Click to expand...

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!

flb_78 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Your only choices, recall the Mayor.

mark edward marchiafava said:

--Edited--

Click to expand...

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.

flb_78 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The first punishment can be somewhat benign, $1. You must sue in Federal court though. When you sue in Federal court, they can issue a decision which compels them to stop any subsequent behavior. If the city/mayor/council again passes an ordinance which violates the same "law" (e.g. civil rights, prior decision going against in a 2A case, etc.) then you simply bring it back up to the same Federal court and ask for them to compel the city/council/mayor.

At that point, it's a Federal issue between those individuals and the Federal Gov't. Usually involves jail time.

I totally forgot what the term was, so if anyone remembers/knows "when a state or local jurisdiction is brought before a Federal court in a case involving civil rights and the Federal court issues a _____ decision to subsequently compel compliance and adherence to the courts current decision in future actions of the losing party", it'd help.

And that's why a "correction" versus actual "lawsuit" isn't the best course of action. A lawsuit in a Federal court will not only address the current problem, but the future one.

If the "city" continues to put forth idiots who waste their money (e.g. losing lawsuits, constantly paying out settlements, etc.) then the city-folk who vote for them should pay. It's their representative after all. If the mayor and council continue to flaunt unalienable rights, then they should go to jail.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence. We have recognized self-defense as an extension and the ability to defend that right, and this has been recognized in the bill of rights and by the SCOTUS. We do not allow people to lynch people any more, we should not allow people to deny us the means to defend our own lives.

So much for States' Rights, the US is a federation and not a monolithic tyranny.

What utter nonsense splattered so liberally through this thread.

So much for States' Rights.

The US is a federation and not a monolithic nation to suffer the tyrannic rule of populist ignorance.

If you don't want eye95 responding, just...

Moving on...

Even the mayor didnt know the law

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Even the mayor didnt know what the law was !!!

Children children no need to fight.:lol: