Forum Rule #15

Forum Rule (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

So, If I state that I OC in my vehicle 98-99% of the time, I would be in violation of OCDO Forum Rules? What is the consequence?

rules! we got rules?! we don't need no stinkin rules!~


sproket, behave yourself, i ain't got bail money for me, let alone you!

The law abides only the law abiding.

The law abides only the law abiding. Some of us live by the rule of law and others live by the rule of which ever 'men' accept them into the gang ruled by men - the in crowd.

thanks doug, kinda 'spains to me how the criminals all got cc before we will.

BROKENSPROKET said:

Forum Rule (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

So, If I state that I OC in my vehicle 98-99% of the time, I would be in violation of OCDO Forum Rules? What is the consequence?

Click to expand...

I believe what it means is that if you do OC in your car in violation of WI law, you should not publish it here.

BROKENSPROKET said:

Forum Rule (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

So, If I state that I OC in my vehicle 98-99% of the time, I would be in violation of OCDO Forum Rules? What is the consequence?

Click to expand...

Are you advocating that others do so as well? If so, you would be in violation of the rules. The consequence would be me deleting the post.

The reasoning behind the rule is that new, young OCers come here to learn what is legal and if someone is advocating activities that are NOT legal then they could get someone who doesn't understand the risks into trouble.

Since we want to actively keep people OUT of trouble, we have Rule 15.


John

but..........what about general order 24?!

c'mon, guys, someone out there has to watch quality tv instead of playing video games. what is general order 24? otherwise this is a grim thread, and it is doomed i tell you, doooomed!

note to self; they're a grim bunch on wednesdays.

McX said:

but what about general order 24?!

Click to expand...

There are supplemental orders but I know of them only up to GO/SO #13; "To walk my beat with a neat beat and plumb everything within fifty feet."

* General Order № 24 Destruction of all life on a planet, issued by Captain James T. Kirk in Star Trek episode #23 A Taste of Armageddon. He issued the order on stardate 3192.1 to be executed "in two hours," targeting Eminiar VII. Kirk was being held captive on the planet at the time he gave the order. The only recorded instance of this order actually being carried out was the first issue of the non-canon Gold Key Star Trek series: "The Planet of No Return." [1]

thank God for Wikkipedia.

What about order 66?

The Best Rule of All

Rule #62

Push, Push, Push

We must continue to exercise the right to carry in as many venues as possible or it will be slowly taken away bit by bit. Some of the 'gray' areas need to be pushed into non existence. Those restrictions that are onerous and infringe on our right must be fought on all fronts. There is not just a legislative battle, though that is a huge part of it. Where we can't educate we must confront rather than secede.

Push the legal limits and societal norms that are anti-life in that they would have you stand and get shot rather than defend yourself. They are constantly pushing so we need to keep the pressure on.

A year ago I was concerned my wife would be uncomfortable with me carrying a sidearm. Nine months of advocating and now she notices immediately if I don't have it. She expects me to have it now as part of our security and plan for a peaceful life. Businesses are more polite and attentive when I am armed, some seem relived to have a pleasant customer finally. They have come to expect us to be polite and friendly common folks.

So if a DA says he will no longer enforce open vehicle carry, I feel that I can legally open carry in my vehicle in that county. I would not advocate that any other should do the same because I am ok with it. And when the DA says concealed carry has been addressed by the SSC and deemed to be legal in some situations, I take that to mean that if I need to do it I should feel I have the right to. Again, I can't determine that for anyone else given their circumstances. Just saying the DA in my county states it that way.

So if I say I vehicle carry or carry concealed in Jackson County, am I advocating illegal activity and breaking forum rules? Questionable.

bhancock said:

So if I say I vehicle carry or carry concealed in Jackson County, am I advocating illegal activity and breaking forum rules? Questionable.

Click to expand...

I assume that if you give real world examples it wouldn't break the rules.

For example, 'Car carry is illegal unless unloaded and encased, (give statute here), however, the DA of Jackson Count has said he will not prosecute, so it is up to you if you want to chance it in Jackson County'.

Not cited, not charged, or not prosecuted does not determine legality, neither does cited, charged and prosecuted define illegality.

It's like a five year old telling daddy that "Mommy said I could!" (And running to mommy with the other half of the lie.)

It is the definition of mens rea, the intent to violate the law is an element of criminal behavior.

Administrator said:

Are you advocating that others do so as well? If so, you would be in violation of the rules. The consequence would be me deleting the post.

The reasoning behind the rule is that new, young OCers come here to learn what is legal and if someone is advocating activities that are NOT legal then they could get someone who doesn't understand the risks into trouble.

Since we want to actively keep people OUT of trouble, we have Rule 15.


John

Click to expand...

From a forum perspective, John is completely correct. Internet fora are often not the true free-for-all some people would like. Ultimately they are someone else's backyard, their property, their rules. Abide, or be on your way.

That said, everyone must draw their own line as to how far they take the dicta of the S/state. But where you talk about it may have boundaries in someone else's living room. I've got mine and the forum admins all over 'da net' have theirs. Because one posts here should be neither an indicator of blind acquiesence to the state's rules of the moment, nor a precursor to anarchy. Nearly every forum has their limits, some more tolerant of pushing the discussion boundaries than others. Neither is bad, just the way it is.

About 2 miles from my house is a 400 acre county forest. About 6 years ago a state patrol officer petitioned the County board to revise the ordinance that prohibited horseback riding in the county forest. The ordinance was indeed changed and that prohibition was lifted. The person in charge of the overseeing the forests disagreed with change and did not replace the signs at the entances. The State Patrol officer moved shortly thereafter and no one pressured for the signs to be changed or the ordinance to be revised properly. So now the board minutes reflect the discussion and change yet the ordinance is still on the books and the signs remain unchanged and those in charge of enforcement will cite for an ordinance violation.

Now here is a perfect example, although it is not firearm related, of a law that is technically making a legal activity illegal. I am sure there are firearm laws that have been preempted that are still being enforced, making a legal activity illegal.

§ 66.0409 is a toothless hag

§ 66.0409 is a toothless hag and anile to boot. It says "unenforceable" in only one specific instance and that is for a grandfathered ordinance. All others pay cash.

Instead of fixating on § 66.0409, evaluate any other subsection of Sub-chapter IV of Chapter 66. Do you think that anyone is happy with § 66.0401?

McX said:

rules! we got rules?! we don't need no stinkin rules!~


sproket, behave yourself, i ain't got bail money for me, let alone you!

Click to expand...

he he.. I carry my bail money on me, that is why I carry a gun, So I can give it to the police when I need to instead of muggers. If muggers try to take it, I may need more bail money than I have.

Administrator said:

Are you advocating that others do so as well? If so, you would be in violation of the rules. The consequence would be me deleting the post.

The reasoning behind the rule is that new, young OCers come here to learn what is legal and if someone is advocating activities that are NOT legal then they could get someone who doesn't understand the risks into trouble.

Since we want to actively keep people OUT of trouble, we have Rule 15.


John

Click to expand...

Thanks John. I would never advocate illegal activity on an open forum, especially not one that I respect.

gentlemen, i think we all as open carriers seek perfection of movement, strict adhereance to to the laws, and that would include the unarmed citizens around us, courtesy and respect. we MUST always conduct ourselves in a manner that is a credit to us, and the movement. everything we do is watched, by the leftists, seeking to smear and defame, an derail us. all these thoughts, and things guide my conduct while i am armed, and even when i am not.