"The Truth about Guns"

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0...n-carry-advocate-screws-the-pooch/#more-12905

Was just contacted by Robert Farago about this story.

He's going to update the story above.

I'm surprised about the willingness of people who are writing "the truth about guns" to JUMP to conclusions.

"demonstration" "protest"? Please... This woman was just going to church. She goes everywhere armed. This was no protest or demonstration.

Wisconsin Carry said:

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0...n-carry-advocate-screws-the-pooch/#more-12905

"demonstration" "protest"? Please... This woman was just going to church. She goes everywhere armed. This was no protest or demonstration.

Click to expand...

I agree, it seems as if this is one of the negative aspects of media coverage of firearms/carrying. Sometimes the media either doesn't understand or doesn't intend to convey that ultimately, especially in personal cases that the people are carrying for their own protection, not necessarily to demonstrate or protest. Then some uneducated viewers/listeners come away with the belief that we are actually carrying to protest, or to make a point instead of the real reason why we carry; to protect ourselves and our families! Kind of frustrating! I've met quite a few people unfamiliar with why we carry who see newscasts or hear radio casts and come away with the belief we are solely "trying to make a point". Thankfully they were not biased to the point of where I couldn't help explain to them that we carry and own firearms to protect ourselves, and they might have an inclination to do so themselves.

Well, she SAYS she's an Open Carry Activist

Watch the video: http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/98082044.html

Butterfield calls herself an open carry activist. So it stands to reason that she meant to make a statement. To wit: "At most I thought it would engender some discussion." Methinks she protests too little.

Also, Butterfield says she'd been in the church before. But if she had attended with her gun previously, this "issue" would have come up before.

But I get it. Rest assured that TTAG is always open to the possibility that we got something completely wrong. Foe example, I originally called Ms. Butterfield an idiot. After talking with Nik, I dialed it back and reappraised my analysis. I regularly update posts with new information.

I'll take another look.

First off thank you for coming here Mr. Farago and responding. I understand that she is an open carry activist I agree with you that. While I do not like making general statements about others that carry firearms, I will add this point. I would like to tell you that almost if not every citizen in Wisconsin who open carries and has knowledge of gun laws would tell you that they are an open carry activist. Yet as we've seen in other reports, the true reason why these people are carrying (to protect themselves) is overshadowed by the activist perspective that the media loves to portray. The fact is that if you openly carry many places across Wisconsin, you WILL make a statement. Thats undeniable, if I carry about my daily practices I will inevitabely make a statement. So I ask, if this woman is no different than most open carriers why not state the true reason why she was carrying instead of taking the activist approach? Open carriers engender discussion many times while open carrying out and about, that is part of open carry and we all expect that. I'm not trying to be sensitive, write it how you like, I just hope you consider these aspects as well later on.


Thank you,

Ben

> Butterfield calls herself an open carry activist.

No, the announcer said that. Watch the video again.


> "At most I thought it would engender some discussion." Methinks she protests too little.

In thinking through what might happen, knowing that UUs are a fairly well-educated, thinking, talking faith, and that their principles state they welcome diverse people & promote civil rights, I thought that (if anyone noticed at all - most people don't) some people would probably want to talk to me because open carry is still somewhat unusual. (Sort of like if I'd worn a sari or been black - unusual.)

And several did talk with me. All walked away unharmed, of course, and I saw no indication from ANYone in the church that there was any fear, concern, etc. And obviously they weren't more than concerned, because they waited more than an hour after seeing me come in for the service to call the non-emergency # and ask if what I was doing is legal. They did not ask police to respond, they asked for information.

Apparently I'm still naive enough to believe that people who say they subscribe to a set of beliefs actually follow those beliefs. I'm suprised that this UU congregation gives lip service to civil rights, but really only supports some of them.


> Also, Butterfield says she'd been in the church before.

Several times. Neither frequently nor regularly, but I've been there before.
For close to 20 years I've considered myself a member of that faith. Up until Sunday.


> I originally called Ms. Butterfield an idiot.

Naive, perhaps. Idealistic, maybe. Even possibly occasionaly an optomist.
But idiot? Not by any definition of the word.

Ben... A fantastic post. Great analysis... Especially this:

I would like to tell you that almost if not every citizen in Wisconsin who open carries and has knowledge of gun laws would tell you that they are an open carry activist.

Click to expand...

Wisconsin has been SO far behind the time with denying carry rights and the general public here is SO very naive when it comes to guns. MOST can't fathom that in all but ONE other state people carry CONCEALED weapons daily...

So yes... Anyone who has stood above the naive Wisconsin mentality to exercise their god-given right to self-defense via holstering a side-arm is by practical definition an "open-carry activist". Having said that, we've been OC'ing for over a year now. We are to the point where its not a statement, its not a PR move. Its just the ONLY way we can exercise a right to be protected that we feel is good practice. "demonstration" not to us... Only to the media.

MKEgal. Thank-you for your continued participation despite the drive-by-media flurry that has surrounded your usual Sunday behaviors that THIS week became regional news.

reading the local rag, and schlurping coffee this am; happened across a bit; man robbed of i-pod, takes robber's gun. right on, but then it got me thinking; was the gun loaded, did he carry it in his hand to give to the police, did he enter, or pass through any school zones? if so, why wasn't he charged?

added on edit; no good deed goes unpunished right?

Montana has nullified the federal GFSZ law

Wisconsin Carry said:

Ben... A fantastic post. Great analysis... Especially this:



Wisconsin has been SO far behind the time with denying carry rights and the general public here is SO very naive when it comes to guns. MOST can't fathom that in all but ONE other state people carry CONCEALED weapons daily...

So yes... Anyone who has stood above the naive Wisconsin mentality to exercise their god-given right to self-defense via holstering a side-arm is by practical definition an "open-carry activist". Having said that, we've been OC'ing for over a year now. We are to the point where its not a statement, its not a PR move. Its just the ONLY way we can exercise a right to be protected that we feel is good practice. "demonstration" not to us... Only to the media.

MKEgal. Thank-you for your continued participation despite the drive-by-media flurry that has surrounded your usual Sunday behaviors that THIS week became regional news.

Click to expand...

Yes, thanks MKEgal. It takes courage and integrity to do what you did.

Because Wisconsin Carry has a lawsuit against the GFSZ, I thought they would be interested to know that Montana nullifed the law in 1997.

Here is the link:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm

Perhaps you already knew this. If so, forgive my enthusiasm.

Mr Farago,
It is you who is not using common sense when you immediately assume all of the details in the situation. The sermon was based on civil rights and a person exercising one of her rights during the sermon should have been more than acceptable. Unless the church is filled with hypocrites, which is apparent at this time. It would seem the church is run under a dictatorship of the hypocritical president who apparently makes all decisions for the church.
As far as bringing a gun to church causing trouble, you need to read up on the past incidents where lives were saved because someone brought a gun to church and were able to stop a renegade shooter. Legally carrying a firearm does not make one a criminal. I think the members of the church should have been the ones giving this woman the respect she deserves for exercising her rights. Rights I might add that I and many other veterans have served and fought for.
I have to wonder if you will be so eager to print the outcome of this womans civil suit when she wins.
While Mr. German has some points on the rights violation in this case. I disagree on his position on a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Your vehicle is your property, it is an extension of your home. Why would your right to self defense be any different in your vehicle than it is in your home? It isn’t. The law is unconstitutional and in being so is an infringement on our rights and nothing more. I hope more people in this state start disregarding these unconstitutional laws. If the money grubbing legislators in this state don’t want to make the changes, then I guess those changes will have to be made through the court system.
I knew it wouldn’t be long before a Concealed Carry Instructor came in on this story and gave the old sales pitch as to why everyone should pay them for “training.”
It is Hog Wash. They are only interested in your money and Gene German is from Minnesota so why does he care what happens here in Wisconsin? He is also an instructor that is constantly urging legislators to impose mandated training so he and his pals can fill their pockets off of the tax payers.
We do not to have any training to exercise any other rights so why should we have to have it for this one. I personally will not vote for any candidate that does not support Constitutional Carry here in Wisconsin and I hope many others will follow suit.
I thought this was suppose to be “The truth about guns.” It seems it is only the truth that the anti’s and WAVE want you to know rather than the real truth.
An armed society is a polite society!

Sales pitch? Did I miss it?

J.Gleason wrote:

"I knew it wouldn’t be long before a Concealed Carry Instructor came in on this story and gave the old sales pitch as to why everyone should pay them for “training.”"

I must of missed the pitch. Please show me where it is in the thread.

ccwinstructor said:

J.Gleason wrote:

"I knew it wouldn’t be long before a Concealed Carry Instructor came in on this story and gave the old sales pitch as to why everyone should pay them for “training.”"

I must of missed the pitch. Please show me where it is in the thread.

Click to expand...

It wasn't in the thread it was in the comments to the article.

"I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. I am a Certified Firearms trainer and I have been training Wisconsin citizens how to responsibly carry lethal force since 2004.


Having said that, I do not condone her breaking the vehicle transportation law (167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows), either knowingly or not. Everyone who goes armed in public had better first understand all the applicable laws associated with lawful carry including the lawful use of lethal force. Training is available so that you can survive the physical attack, the legal attack and financial attack. Becoming formally educated is better done before the gun goes bang or being handcuffed by the police because that is the worst time to find out what you don’t know. If you do this wrong, you risk loosing your home, family, job, friends, assets and your liberty for a very long time. That is the truth about guns."


Sounds like a sales pitch to me.
If we can't get the legislators to impose mandated training then lets just scare people into it by telling them they could lose everything. Has that happened yet? Not to my knowledge.
If it isn't a sales pitch then why does Gene German care? He is a Minnesota resident. Why doesn't he prey upon the Minnesota residents?

Do you need training to OC? No. What is the significant difference between OC and CCW that would require training? Lifting your shirt? Make it more legal to attend church while armed?
I have no problem with people who feel that they need some training and education in the use and handling of firearms seeking out a course and attending. The problem I have is CCW Instructors such as Gene German who have attempted to belly up to the legislative table in an effort to persuade legislators to impose mandated training should a CCW bill be passed here in Wisconsin. Since German is from Minnesota what would be his motive other than money and what makes him any different then these money grubbing legislators that want nothing more than to get their hands on permit fees that will never go away once they are enacted?
I say, leave all training as an option to the carrier, repeal the unconstitutional laws we have and the only fee that should be imposed is for a reciprocity permit should the carrier want one. That fee shouldn't be more than lets say $25.00 to cover the cost of creating the permit and mailing it to you. Or you could just get one at the nearest DMV or Sheriff's office.
I have nothing against you as a CCW Instructor personally as long as you have nothing to do with persuading legislators to mandate training.

On another note, I have enjoyed many of your posts and will continue to do so I am sure.

training is a VERY good idea.

Government mandated training is a bad idea.

You shouldn't be "required" to take a class nor pay for an expensive class or permit fee to have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

But training is a very good idea. Training could mean many things. Training could be self-research, self-teaching, there are many free online resources. Training could come from an experienced parent, friend, etc. Training could come from a paid instructor. People should make their own personal decision about what kind of training would be best for them.

Training is a good idea.

Our country prospers on the free market. I'd never begrudge someone marketing their services to others. I would begrudge someone leveraging government laws and regulations to force people to use their services. Beyond that, we are all adults, we should all be able to recognize that every sales pitch has a motive. Nothing wrong with that.

ccwinstructor said:

J.Gleason wrote:

"I knew it wouldn’t be long before a Concealed Carry Instructor came in on this story and gave the old sales pitch as to why everyone should pay them for “training.”"

I must of missed the pitch. Please show me where it is in the thread.

Click to expand...

I also missed the "sales pitch", how ridiculous. To me, getting some training is a matter of common sense. Right after possibly saving my life, the next most important item in a self defense situation is staying out of prison. That will often only happen if we know the elements that must be in place to justify the use of lethal force. Some people think they learn this skill set in hunter safety courses or the military. They couldn't be more wrong.

This thread has raised an interesting question though, when do these opinions become improper practice of law?

County Prosecutor said:

This thread has raised an interesting question though, when do these opinions become improper practice of law?

Click to expand...

When you can find an actual real life prosecutor to bring charges and a jury finds an individual guilty of the charges....

I see § 757.30(2) Penalty for practicing without license.
[ ... ]
(2) Every person who ... for compensation or pecuniary reward gives professional legal advice not incidental to his or her usual or ordinary business, or renders any legal service for any other person, ... shall be deemed to be practicing law within the meaning of this section.

But also "but they do not describe what would be UPL." http://www.wisbar.org/am/template.c...mplate=/cm/contentdisplay.cfm&contentid=53429 that is dated 2005 after the most recent date in the history of § 757.

Wisconsin Carry said:

training is a VERY good idea.

Government mandated training is a bad idea.

You shouldn't be "required" to take a class nor pay for an expensive class or permit fee to have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

But training is a very good idea. Training could mean many things. Training could be self-research, self-teaching, there are many free online resources. Training could come from an experienced parent, friend, etc. Training could come from a paid instructor. People should make their own personal decision about what kind of training would be best for them.

Training is a good idea.

Our country prospers on the free market. I'd never begrudge someone marketing their services to others. I would begrudge someone leveraging government laws and regulations to force people to use their services. Beyond that, we are all adults, we should all be able to recognize that every sales pitch has a motive. Nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

@Comp45acp:

Soooo, when legislation comes around for CCW and people the likes of Gene German have managed to persuade the legislators that Mandated training is necessary and should be a requirement; you will be OK with that because it is all part of the free market?

As I stated before I have no problem with training as long as it is not mandated and I have no problem with trainers, either OCW or CCW as long as they do not attempt to persuade our legislators that training should be mandated. In the past Gene German has done just that.

I think anyone who has monetary gain should not have any voice or influence in the legislation at all. But that is just my opinion.

Other than that I have no problem with the free market either. I think everyone has the right to free enterprise. Just not at the expense of the taxpayers.

I agree with Nik that training is in fact a good thing as long as it is voluntary. Nothing wrong with people who have never handled a firearm getting some training. Hell there is nothing wrong with experienced people getting a refresher course. But there have been a select few instructors in the past that have gotten involved only because they see the opportunity to line their pockets off of the bank accounts of people who just want to be able to exercise their rights and not violate any laws while doing so. Thankfully those select few have been turned away so far by the legislators and I for one hope that continues.

However no matter how much training one has it is no guarantee that they will "Stay out of Prison." You could do everything right and be within the law and the police could still charge you, you could still be convicted and you could still see prison. It has happened before.

Voluntary training, repealed unconstitutional laws and a $25.00 permit for reciprocity are all we need. That all adds up to constitutional carry.

J.Gleason said:

@Comp45acp:

Soooo, when legislation comes around for CCW and people the likes of Gene German have managed to persuade the legislators that Mandated training is necessary and should be a requirement; you will be OK with that because it is all part of the free market?

As I stated before I have no problem with training as long as it is not mandated and I have no problem with trainers, either OCW or CCW as long as they do not attempt to persuade our legislators that training should be mandated. In the past Gene German has done just that.

I think anyone who has monetary gain should not have any voice or influence in the legislation at all. But that is just my opinion.

Other than that I have no problem with the free market either. I think everyone has the right to free enterprise. Just not at the expense of the taxpayers.

I agree with Nik that training is in fact a good thing as long as it is voluntary. Nothing wrong with people who have never handled a firearm getting some training. Hell there is nothing wrong with experienced people getting a refresher course. But there have been a select few instructors in the past that have gotten involved only because they see the opportunity to line their pockets off of the bank accounts of people who just want to be able to exercise their rights and not violate any laws while doing so. Thankfully those select few have been turned away so far by the legislators and I for one hope that continues.

Voluntary training, repealed unconstitutional laws and a $25.00 permit for reciprocity are all we need. That all adds up to constitutional carry.

Click to expand...

Don't put words in mouth. I didn't advocate for mandatory training nor will I. That said, training will likely be part of whatever carry bill passes the legislature. Going directly to Constitutional carry would be ideal but I believe very unlikely unless the WSC overturns 941.23. You say you have no problem with training. Yet, you take every opportunity to insult and denigrate trainers whenever they post something. You say "anyone who has monetary gain should not have any voice or influence in the legislation at all." Seriously? Have you ever heard of lobbyist?

comp45acp said:

Don't put words in mouth. I didn't advocate for mandatory training nor will I. That said, training will likely be part of whatever carry bill passes the legislature. Going directly to Constitutional carry would be ideal but I believe very unlikely unless the WSC overturns 941.23. You say you have no problem with training. Yet, you take every opportunity to insult and denigrate trainers whenever they post something. You say "anyone who has monetary gain should not have any voice or influence in the legislation at all." Seriously? Have you ever heard of lobbyist?

Click to expand...

Yes, lobbyists. They are the cause of most of our problems

And yes I do have a problem with people trying to use this whole issue to make money. Like I said it is my opinion.

ETA: By the way, No one has yet answered the question. What is the difference between OCW and CCW that warrants training? Not aimed at anyone just a question.

J.Gleason said:

Voluntary training, repealed unconstitutional laws and a $25.00 permit for reciprocity are all we need. That all adds up to constitutional carry.

Click to expand...

Just to keep the discussion going, I believe some states, UT for example, will only 'reciprocally' recognize a permit if the state that issues the permit requires training.

I think actually the safest thing so that WI doesn't have to create a bureaucracy to deal with it and therefore will remove any disincentive to Constitutional Carry, is to not have a WI issued permit. We would get reciprocity with other Constitutional Carry states, and if we want to carry in other states, get an UT or MN permit.