Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: So happy guns are not needed in church!

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Angry So happy guns are not needed in church!

    Robbers hold up Milwaukee church bingo hall

    Where the heck were you MKE Gal!!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    Makes me laugh. Well, after reading no one got hurt. Its a shame the criminals brought guns into a church. Maybe the people in there should have called 911, and the criminals should have encased their wepons, and waited for the police to get there. (eye roll.)

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484

    4 in custody

    http://www.wisn.com/news/24629043/detail.html


    This is nothing new as it has happened in Racine a few times earlier this year.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I haven't played bingo in ages... we used to do it in school, usually as the teachers trying a sneaky way to get us to learn, & doing something vaguely educational on the last day(s) before a break. I remember doing it in both Latin & Spanish classes.

    But as for that robbery, it couldn't have happened - according to the MPD GFSZ map that corner has a school (probably in the church), so guns are prohibited there. Why on earth would a bunch of little old ladies make up such a story?

    PS - which of you is "elrobbo" on the Journal Sentinal comments? Thank you so much for the chuckle. I hope other people "get it".
    Last edited by MKEgal; 08-14-2010 at 06:32 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I haven't played bingo in ages... we used to do it in school, usually as the teachers trying a sneaky way to get us to learn.

    But as for that robbery, it couldn't have happened - according to the MPD GFSZ map that corner has a school (probably in the church), so guns are prohibited there. Why on earth would a bunch of little old ladies make up such a story?
    I see what you did there! That's what I said about all the alleged shootings in Chicago. Could not of happened because guns were illegal!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    I can't see the comments...

  7. #7
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068

    Question There Must Be Some Mistake - GFSZ

    The media must have made a mistake. This robbery could never have happened because the bingo hall is in a Gun Free School Zone. The bad guys would have had to disarm at the 1000 foot perimeter. That is the law in Wisconsin and it works; or so I am vocally assured by my liberal friends. Surely Milwaukee has enough liberals so that at least one of them could tell the media that this is a hoax because Gun Free School Zones work and drug crazed bad guys would never break a law that our illustrious liberals say works.

    Alas, even if the Church wanted to provide (open carry) security, they could not - it is a Gun Free School Zone.
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    But as for that robbery, it couldn't have happened - according to the MPD GFSZ map that corner has a school (probably in the church), so guns are prohibited there.
    They might have not known there was a school around, it's really hard to know where all the GFSZ's are as most of us are aware. Of course I'm sure this could have all been averted had the church posted no firearm signs like a certain other church has, then there would have been no confusion and I'm almost positive the robbery would have been prevented .

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    One woman who had not played bingo at the church hall in years said one of the robbers put a handgun to her daughter's face before grabbing her purse and fleeing.
    you know.... Its probably just me... but when a crime occurs... and there is going to be a victim... I sure hope the victim ends up being the criminal.

    Call me crazy, but I believe with all my heart that if this thug criminal who put a gun to a girls head ended up shot DEAD by a law-abiding citizen in self-defense it would send a really nice message to other criminals that "its not worth it".
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran logan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greeley, CO
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    Call me crazy, but I believe with all my heart that if this thug criminal who put a gun to a girls head ended up shot DEAD by a law-abiding citizen in self-defense it would send a really nice message to other criminals that "its not worth it".
    +1
    Logan - Laugh lots, Love Often, and Defend the Irreplaceable
    Walther PPS 9mm, Ruger LCP
    CC permits: MN, FL, NH, PA and CO

    Member of:
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc., Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and National Rifle Association

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Suspects arrested http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/100695654.html Was it a licensed game IAW Chapter 563?
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 08-15-2010 at 08:41 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post

    Call me crazy, but I believe with all my heart that if this thug criminal who put a gun to a girls head ended up shot DEAD by a law-abiding citizen in self-defense it would send a really nice message to other criminals that "its not worth it".
    Nail on the head. That would be one less repeat offender to deal with.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    school zone

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Suspects arrested http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/100695654.html Was it a licensed game IAW Chapter 563?
    would they not be in violation of a federal law GFSZ or is that state only? if federal send them to marion illinois pen
    if state law then send them to supermax for 100 years

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BerettaFS92Custom View Post
    would they not be in violation of a federal law GFSZ or is that state only? if federal send them to marion illinois pen
    if state law then send them to supermax for 100 years
    Yes, there is a Federal statute.

    I believe it ended up being an air gun. Is that covered by GFSZ?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    179
    [QUOTE=Call me crazy, but I believe with all my heart that if this thug criminal who put a gun to a girls head ended up shot DEAD by a law-abiding citizen in self-defense it would send a really nice message to other criminals that "its not worth it".[/QUOTE]

    +1, here's a poem for the bad guys

    He held a gun
    Up to my head
    I pulled out mine
    And shot him dead

  16. #16
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Cobbersmom View Post
    He held a gun
    Up to her head
    I pulled out mine
    And shot him dead
    All that's missing is the Burma-shave! at the end.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by BerettaFS92Custom View Post
    would they not be in violation of a federal law GFSZ or is that state only? if federal send them to marion illinois pen
    if state law then send them to supermax for 100 years
    I doubt that anyone would get sent to prison via the federal statute. I don't know of any cases that went any farther than a charge since Lopez. The reason is that I believe they think it will be found unconstitutional once again (see U.S v. Hoffmeyer). So, my guess is that they are leaving it on the books and use it to threaten to charge/charge and plea out, just as a detterant. I don't think they want it to go to trial and mess up their detterant.

    Basically all the congress did after Lopez was to pass the law again and say "I assure you it is constitutional" I'm paraphrasing of course.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  18. #18
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    I doubt that anyone would get sent to prison via the federal statute. I don't know of any cases that went any farther than a charge since Lopez. The reason is that I believe they think it will be found unconstitutional once again (see U.S v. Hoffmeyer). So, my guess is that they are leaving it on the books and use it to threaten to charge/charge and plea out, just as a detterant. I don't think they want it to go to trial and mess up their detterant.

    Basically all the congress did after Lopez was to pass the law again and say "I assure you it is constitutional" I'm paraphrasing of course.
    +1

    I would think it is used only as a 'sweetener' to other charges. In other words, just walking through a school zone with a weapon won't get you Federal charges, however, pulling a Columbine would + the 'real' charges.

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    I doubt that anyone would get sent to prison via the federal statute. I don't know of any cases that went any farther than a charge since Lopez.
    I do... I need to go grab some notes and I'll post links.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    I do... I need to go grab some notes and I'll post links.
    That'll be intersting to see, particularly if they actually argued the constitutionality. If they just plead guilty to that charge or didn't bother challenging it wouldn't be a good example.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 08-18-2010 at 12:05 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Guns now available in church :)

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Robbers hold up Milwaukee church bingo hall

    Where the heck were you MKE Gal!!!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_638047.html
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    That'll be intersting to see, particularly if they actually argued the constitutionality. If they just plead guilty to that charge or didn't bother challenging it wouldn't be a good example.
    I've been working with a guy outside of Wisconsin who has some legislative support from a U.S. Senator to overturn the Federal GFSZ law. That Senators support is contingent upon there being some political support which at this time, he doesn't believe there is.

    These are case citations that my contact has forwarded to me:

    Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the enforceability of the
    revised Federal GFSZA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has. They
    specifically reviewed the changes made by Congress following the SCOTUS
    decision in United States v Lopez and they found the amended version to
    be constitutional in 2005.

    See United States v Dorsey.


    In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
    actually upheld a conviction for a gun that a woman had stored in her
    home. Her home just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it
    happened to be excluded from the "private property" exception because
    it was part of a housing project.

    See United States v Belen Nieves-Castano
    http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/...=y&l1loc=FCLOW

    Here are links to a few more federal convictions that were upheld under
    the current Federal GFSZA. I realize they're not dealing with the
    Wisconsin law, but I'm sure they would be useful if you ever get a
    chance to challenge the Federal GFSZA.

    United States v Danks (1999)

    United States v Tait (2000)

    United States v Haywood (2003)

    United States v Smith (2005)

    United States v Weekes (2007)

    United States v Benally (2007)

    United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)

    ____________

    In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.

    So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.

    There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

    Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)
    Last edited by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman; 08-18-2010 at 12:43 PM.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  23. #23
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068

    Good Catch

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post

    In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.

    So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.

    There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

    Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)
    Good Catch. However, I suspect that BATF was not being entirely truthful. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that several factors may affect GFSZ, 1) Whether or not the State you carry in has full written reciprocity, or simply recognizes a Utah permit, 2) Whether the State you are in recognizes the Utah permit and allows CCW inside school zones as a matter of State law. 3) In NH, CO, FL, and MI, whether the Utah permit is held by a resident of Utah as those States honor or have full written reciprocity with Utah, but only if the permit holder is a resident of Utah. 4) Whether you also hold a non-resident permit in that State. Having multiple permits has the potential to affect GFSZ.

    Some States allow CCW in school zones, but only for peaceable journey, or picking up one's children after school. By way of example, NV prohibits firearms on school grounds, except with written permission from a school official. CO allows a permit holder to have a handgun on the "real property" of a school provided the handgun remains within a vehicle with the permit holder. If the permit holder leaves the vehicle, then the handgun must be secured in accordance with Federal Transportation of a Firearm statutes. (Since CO only recognizes UT Resident permits, this would never apply to a non-resident UT Permit.) NM prohibits open and concealed carry on school and university grounds, except in a vehicle by a person over 19 years of age. MI allows concealed carry on school grounds, but only in a vehicle, and if stopped at other than a traffic signal, only for the purpose of picking up another person such as a child or legal guardian of a student. (Agin, not applicable to non-resident Utah permit as MI recognizes UT, but only for resident permit holders.)

    A good source of open and concealed carry law can be found at:

    www.handgunlaw.us

    Any permit holder needs to personally check the laws in any State they intend to visit. This is particularly true for non-resident permit holders.

    Can you post the letter from BATF.

    Jim (UT Resident Permit), NV CFP, FL CFP, PA CFP.
    Last edited by jpm84092; 08-18-2010 at 01:46 PM. Reason: added multiple permit comment
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    I've been working with a guy outside of Wisconsin who has some legislative support from a U.S. Senator to overturn the Federal GFSZ law. That Senators support is contingent upon there being some political support which at this time, he doesn't believe there is.

    These are case citations that my contact has forwarded to me:

    Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the enforceability of the
    revised Federal GFSZA; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has. They
    specifically reviewed the changes made by Congress following the SCOTUS
    decision in United States v Lopez and they found the amended version to
    be constitutional in 2005.

    See United States v Dorsey.


    In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
    actually upheld a conviction for a gun that a woman had stored in her
    home. Her home just happened to be within 1000 feet of a school, and it
    happened to be excluded from the "private property" exception because
    it was part of a housing project.

    See United States v Belen Nieves-Castano
    http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/...=y&l1loc=FCLOW

    Here are links to a few more federal convictions that were upheld under
    the current Federal GFSZA. I realize they're not dealing with the
    Wisconsin law, but I'm sure they would be useful if you ever get a
    chance to challenge the Federal GFSZA.

    United States v Danks (1999)

    United States v Tait (2000)

    United States v Haywood (2003)

    United States v Smith (2005)

    United States v Weekes (2007)

    United States v Benally (2007)

    United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)

    ____________

    In addition I have a letter from the BATF that confirms that your NON-RESIDENT CCW PERMIT does not exempt you from the GFSZ unless you are in the state that issued it.

    So if you have a UTAH non-resident CCW permit, you are NOT exempted from the GFSZ when you CCW in any other state than Utah.

    There is significant pressure NOT to make this information public because it would upset the applecart, but most people don't know they are at risk of being convicted of a felony for the GFSZ statute when they carry with their non-resident permits in states other than that which issued the permit.

    Of course I'm sure all CCW permit holders trust the government to use its discretion and not prosecute you for something like that (sarcasm)
    It seems like this needs to get to SCOTUS. In a similar commerce clause decision; as recently as 2000, SCOUTS found that in United States v. Morrison, parts of the violence against women act were unconstitutional. The reenacted statute also fails to address this part of the Lopez opinion.

    "The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce." and "Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms."
    The other thing I wonder about without looking through all those cases is which provision of the GFSZA were they charged with and how did that affect the outcome?

    Has SCOTUS been asked to hear this again yet and rejected the petition? I'd check myself but have a meeting I've got to prepare for.\

    ETA: It would seem to me that you are best off in a district that actually acknowledges precedent, unlile the 9th and 1st. Anyone remember Nordyke v. King? Hey look! An En Blanc festival!
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 08-18-2010 at 01:38 PM. Reason: additions
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    ood Catch. However, I suspect that BATF was not being entirely truthful. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that several factors may affect GFSZ, 1) Whether or not the State you carry in has full written reciprocity, or simply recognizes a Utah permit, 2) Whether the State you are in recognizes the Utah permit and allows CCW inside school zones as a matter of State law. 3) In NH, CO, FL, and MI, whether the Utah permit is held by a resident of Utah as those States honor or have full written reciprocity with Utah, but only if the permit holder is a resident of Utah. 4) Whether you also hold a non-resident permit in that State. Having multiple permits has the potential to affect GFSZ.
    According to the letter from the BATF, your understanding is false. According to the letter, you must have a license ISSUED BY THE STATE in which you are carrying:

    Having said that, my personal experience has been that government and its agencies are generally MORE interested in telling you that you can't do something, than that you can... So I don't know if the BATF is accurately stating the law or not. I'm just relaying information provided to me.

    Having said that, i've observed the actions of the BATF and the US DOJ and I trust neither to protect my rights or "give me the benefit of the doubt".

    Can you post the letter from BATF.
    Its too large of a file size (only 614K) but I can't attach it to this message and I don't know how to reduce the file size.

    I can email it to you.

    here is a screen capture:

    Attachment 3615Attachment 3616
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •