M
McX
Guest
ditto with mr. gleason.
-
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.
"The Truth about Guns"
- Thread starter Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
- Start date
J.Gleason
Banned
A very good solution without compromising. I like it.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
just an fyi, in states other than the state your permit is issued, you are in violation of the Fed GFSZ if you carry in a school zone.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Dang it!!! I was so close to having a perfect solution! We all move to UT?????
J.Gleason
Banned
Not if we win the GFSZ law suit. lol
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Isn't WCI's suit only related to WI GFSZ or is it challenging the Federal one as well? I know it's in Federal Court.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
It would all depend on the decision that comes out of the case.
As an example, the decision could be very limited. A judge may say that in Milwaukee county the GFSZ law is unconstitutional because they are so overlapping and blanketing. However in Vilas county where there are not as many schools, it might not be found unconstitutional.
In that situation, given the Federal GFSZ law wording is nearly identical, it reasons that if the Wisconsin law is unconstitutional in some places (or in all places) the federal GFSZ would be equally unconstitutional in those same places.
That is why I think the case will begin to gather national attention when it gets further in the litigation/appeal process.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Thank you for the clarification.
ccwinstructor
Centurion
GFSZ unconstitutional?
If we can maintain the 5 constitutionaly inclined justices on the Court, then we have a reasonalble shot at having the GFSZ law declared unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds, 10th Amendment grounds, a small possibility on the Commerce Clause, and a chance on some combination of the above.
It seems to me to be blatantly unconstitutional for all of the above reasons, but we have had nearly 80 years of an out of control Supreme Court flagrantly neglecting their duties and abusing their trust.
If we can maintain the 5 constitutionaly inclined justices on the Court, then we have a reasonalble shot at having the GFSZ law declared unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds, 10th Amendment grounds, a small possibility on the Commerce Clause, and a chance on some combination of the above.
It seems to me to be blatantly unconstitutional for all of the above reasons, but we have had nearly 80 years of an out of control Supreme Court flagrantly neglecting their duties and abusing their trust.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
indeed... and scary that our freedoms are hanging on a 5-4 balance
M
McX
Guest
or arizona, or alaska, or vermont. wonder what the guns laws are in bora bora heh-heh?
ccwinstructor
Centurion
Reciprocity does not apply to school "zones"?
Now there would be a good case to challenge the law! Have someone prosecuted for carrying in a school "zone" who hase a valid permit that is recognized by the State the school is in.
We almost got nationwide "reciprocity" this year. We can likely eliminate the unconstitutional, exceedingly stupid (to the point of insanity) GFSZ by the legislative process, if we continue to have elections, the elections are honest, and the left doesn't destroy what free press we have by government controls on the internet and talk radio.
Now there would be a good case to challenge the law! Have someone prosecuted for carrying in a school "zone" who hase a valid permit that is recognized by the State the school is in.
We almost got nationwide "reciprocity" this year. We can likely eliminate the unconstitutional, exceedingly stupid (to the point of insanity) GFSZ by the legislative process, if we continue to have elections, the elections are honest, and the left doesn't destroy what free press we have by government controls on the internet and talk radio.
J.Gleason
Banned
Or, what about the person who has a permit and is traveling? If they do not know they are in the GFSZ then........
Doug Huffman
Banned
Or what about the administration following the one 'giving nation wide reciprocity' rescinding it. Tyrants enact laws by fiat and at the stroke of a pen - and rescind them too.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Proof that pressure works albeit slowly.
Lessons of McDonald v. Chicago
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Contributor
July 6, 2010 Topping last week's legal stories was the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment -- which the Supreme Court just two years ago interpreted to protect an individual right to own a gun -- also protects the individual right to own a gun against state and local interference.
Many people were unimpressed, regarding this as a statement of the obvious. Others -- like Rush Limbaugh -- were alarmed, noting that what should have been an obvious statement of a right specifically protected in the Constitution nonetheless made it by a bare 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.
Both of these views have their merit, but because I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, let me offer a positive lesson from this experience, one with relevance for today's motivated Tea Party activists and depressed conservatives and libertarians alike. Because the story of the Second Amendment, and of gun rights generally, over the past two decades is a story that offers hope for those interested in protecting and restoring liberty in all sorts of areas.
Nowadays, it's hard to find a Democrat outside of the party's deepest-blue sanctuary cities who will argue against private ownership of guns. Even Al Sharpton reports that 90 percent of his talk show listeners are happy with the Supreme Court's decision in favor of an individual right to arms. But less than 20 years ago, it was a different story altogether.
President George H.W. Bush talked about gun rights, but didn't much mean it. His successor, President Clinton, was even more negative.
Gun control was on the march, gun control proponents said it was only a matter of time before America joined other "civilized" countries by banning the private ownership of firearms, and laws at both the state and federal level were getting tighter. Morton Grove, Ill., had banned handguns, and had seen that ban upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. (The Supreme Court declined to hear the case).
In 1994, House Speaker Tom Foley stopped the clock when the time for voting ran out on the Assault Weapons Ban, allowing the whips to round up a couple of votes and let the bill pass. The Assault Weapons Ban was seen by many -- among both its proponents and its opponents -- as a step toward a complete gun ban.
There was much gloom and doom talk among libertarians, conservatives and gun rights supporters generally. This was it. We were on the slippery slope to tyranny. But then something happened: People stopped talking, and started acting.
In November 1994, the Democrats lost big in Congress, a defeat that Clinton himself attributed to the passage of the ban and the way it energized gun rights activists to vote, donate and campaign. Speaker Foley lost his seat, along with Rep. Jack Brooks, who chaired the House Judiciary Committee that produced the bill.
In each election thereafter, the gun issue hurt the Democrats, and Democratic politicians learned to avoid gun control bills if they wanted to keep their seats. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired, there was no significant support for renewing it.
Meanwhile, activists and scholars began looking at the Second Amendment more closely. A Supreme Court opinion endorsing an individual-right view of the Second Amendment seemed nearly impossible in 1998; in 2008 it happened.
Two years later, the court has extended it to the states. The massive campaign by gun control groups -- and their media allies, who were legion -- to "denormalize" gun ownership, and present it as something dangerous, deviant and subject to regulation at the whims of the government, has failed, with the Supreme Court explicitly saying that gun ownership by private citizens is a fundamental part of our system of liberty.
So in little more than 15 years, we've seen an amazing turnaround on an issue where the "establishment" side had broad support from politicians (in both parties, really) and almost universal support from the media. Gun control now is nearly dead as an issue, and the "establishment" view that the Second Amendment didn't protect any sort of individual right, but merely a right of states to have national guards, did not get the support of a single Supreme Court justice.
So what's the lesson for today? It's that activism matters.
Now the issue on which activists differ from the establishment is the size of government. Politicians (in both parties, really) are pretty happy with big government. In this, they have the near-universal support of the media (now using covert e-mail lists to agree on how to slant their stories).
But if people care about shrinking government as much as gun rights activists care about protecting the Second Amendment, then this situation, too, can see a turnaround.
For the sake of the country, it had better.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com.
More from Glenn Harlan Reynolds
•Lessons of McDonald v. Chicago
•Glenn Reynolds: Higher education's bubble is about to burst
•Tea Party movement likely to have unglamorous but effective future
•Progressives can't get past the Knowledge Problem
Lessons of McDonald v. Chicago
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Contributor
July 6, 2010 Topping last week's legal stories was the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment -- which the Supreme Court just two years ago interpreted to protect an individual right to own a gun -- also protects the individual right to own a gun against state and local interference.
Many people were unimpressed, regarding this as a statement of the obvious. Others -- like Rush Limbaugh -- were alarmed, noting that what should have been an obvious statement of a right specifically protected in the Constitution nonetheless made it by a bare 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.
Both of these views have their merit, but because I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, let me offer a positive lesson from this experience, one with relevance for today's motivated Tea Party activists and depressed conservatives and libertarians alike. Because the story of the Second Amendment, and of gun rights generally, over the past two decades is a story that offers hope for those interested in protecting and restoring liberty in all sorts of areas.
Nowadays, it's hard to find a Democrat outside of the party's deepest-blue sanctuary cities who will argue against private ownership of guns. Even Al Sharpton reports that 90 percent of his talk show listeners are happy with the Supreme Court's decision in favor of an individual right to arms. But less than 20 years ago, it was a different story altogether.
President George H.W. Bush talked about gun rights, but didn't much mean it. His successor, President Clinton, was even more negative.
Gun control was on the march, gun control proponents said it was only a matter of time before America joined other "civilized" countries by banning the private ownership of firearms, and laws at both the state and federal level were getting tighter. Morton Grove, Ill., had banned handguns, and had seen that ban upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. (The Supreme Court declined to hear the case).
In 1994, House Speaker Tom Foley stopped the clock when the time for voting ran out on the Assault Weapons Ban, allowing the whips to round up a couple of votes and let the bill pass. The Assault Weapons Ban was seen by many -- among both its proponents and its opponents -- as a step toward a complete gun ban.
There was much gloom and doom talk among libertarians, conservatives and gun rights supporters generally. This was it. We were on the slippery slope to tyranny. But then something happened: People stopped talking, and started acting.
In November 1994, the Democrats lost big in Congress, a defeat that Clinton himself attributed to the passage of the ban and the way it energized gun rights activists to vote, donate and campaign. Speaker Foley lost his seat, along with Rep. Jack Brooks, who chaired the House Judiciary Committee that produced the bill.
In each election thereafter, the gun issue hurt the Democrats, and Democratic politicians learned to avoid gun control bills if they wanted to keep their seats. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired, there was no significant support for renewing it.
Meanwhile, activists and scholars began looking at the Second Amendment more closely. A Supreme Court opinion endorsing an individual-right view of the Second Amendment seemed nearly impossible in 1998; in 2008 it happened.
Two years later, the court has extended it to the states. The massive campaign by gun control groups -- and their media allies, who were legion -- to "denormalize" gun ownership, and present it as something dangerous, deviant and subject to regulation at the whims of the government, has failed, with the Supreme Court explicitly saying that gun ownership by private citizens is a fundamental part of our system of liberty.
So in little more than 15 years, we've seen an amazing turnaround on an issue where the "establishment" side had broad support from politicians (in both parties, really) and almost universal support from the media. Gun control now is nearly dead as an issue, and the "establishment" view that the Second Amendment didn't protect any sort of individual right, but merely a right of states to have national guards, did not get the support of a single Supreme Court justice.
So what's the lesson for today? It's that activism matters.
Now the issue on which activists differ from the establishment is the size of government. Politicians (in both parties, really) are pretty happy with big government. In this, they have the near-universal support of the media (now using covert e-mail lists to agree on how to slant their stories).
But if people care about shrinking government as much as gun rights activists care about protecting the Second Amendment, then this situation, too, can see a turnaround.
For the sake of the country, it had better.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com.
More from Glenn Harlan Reynolds
•Lessons of McDonald v. Chicago
•Glenn Reynolds: Higher education's bubble is about to burst
•Tea Party movement likely to have unglamorous but effective future
•Progressives can't get past the Knowledge Problem
comp45acp
Regular Member
For me personally that is an easy question. To me it only makes sense to get some (voluntary) training for any form of carry. Either way, you are out in public with lethal force on your hip that you may need to use and it would seem prudent to know as much about the elements of self defense as possible. I believe training gives you the best chance of having a prosecutor/jury look at your case and decide that they would take the same actions you took in a particular situation. There are no guarantees of course as decisions are probably going to be made in fractions of seconds and the opportunity for making a mistake is great. However, I believe it greatly improves your chances of doing the right thing.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
One can own certain guns in Bora Bora. But don't pack your gun and book your flight just yet:
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in French Polynesia is 610. The rate of private gun ownership is 0.25 firearms per 100 people. Guiding gun control legislation in French Polynesia is the French Law: Law Decree Establishing the Regime of Materials of War, Arms and Ammunition 1939. Civilians are not allowed to possess automatic weapons, military handguns or long guns. Private possession of handguns is prohibited (unless authorized by High Commissioner). Applicants for a gun owner’s license in French Polynesia are required to show genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, self-defense. Only licensed gun owners may lawfully possess firearms and ammunition. In French Polynesia, the law requires that any possession, sale or transfer of a firearm be recorded and retained in a centralized, official register.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Main Entry: ac·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈak-ti-ˌvi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1915
: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
— ac·tiv·ist \-vist\ noun or adjective
— ac·tiv·is·tic \ˌak-ti-ˈvis-tik\ adjective
What's wrong with being an activist? Being able to express differences of opinion and debate an issue publicly are part of what makes this country great. Only the liberal media is trying to turn activist into a four letter word.
Pronunciation: \ˈak-ti-ˌvi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1915
: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
— ac·tiv·ist \-vist\ noun or adjective
— ac·tiv·is·tic \ˌak-ti-ˈvis-tik\ adjective
What's wrong with being an activist? Being able to express differences of opinion and debate an issue publicly are part of what makes this country great. Only the liberal media is trying to turn activist into a four letter word.
