Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: School zone arguments

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

    School zone arguments

    In chatting with various elected officials about Constitutional Carry, one of the issues I keep running into is their fear of messing with the GFSZ. They are concerned with organizations like WAVE, The Joyce Foundation, Mayors Against Illegal Guns crucifying them for 'allowing those bad guns inside of schools'. Don't forget, 'it's for the children'!

    While we all know and understand that the argument is ridiculous and that laws only stop law abiding people, we need to come up with some additional arguments.

    I know and believe the big one, 'It's my right'. The thing we need to remember is that they are politicians. Most of them are trying to make this a career.

    Let's work on some others together that we can use.

    For example, I was thinking about what would happen if Constitutional Carry passed without an adjustment/repeal to the GFSZ. How would it effect me?

    This is what I came up with.

    Dear Senator Kedzie,

    I know we have talked extensively about Constitutional Carry. I wanted to add some additional data for you to consider about the GFSZ.

    If, for example, 941.23 was repealed and 167.31 was 'fixed' so that I could conceal and car carry and the GFSZ wasn't dealt with, I would have to unload my handgun and stick it into a case as I was driving through Elkhorn and turned the corner from hwy 67 to the street in front of the post office. 1000' from a school is at that corner. So, I could not walk into US Bank armed because their only entrance is on a public sidewalk within 1000' of the school, I couldn't go to Casa Maria armed for the same reason.

    In addition, I couldn't have a loaded weapon on any of the street outlined in the attached map from the Milwaukee Police Department because of the presence of schools.
    I haven't actually sent this yet but this is the direction I was thinking. If each of us could personalize where we would not be able to carry if they didn't touch the GFSZ, I think they will slowly see the light.

    What do you all think?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    GFSZ have done nothing more than murder innocent people. Since the law was enacted, more people have died in those supposed GFSZ than before the ban was enacted.
    My brain isn't in working real well today, so if my English doesn't sound right, that's the reason why.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  3. #3
    Regular Member civilwarguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    elkhorn wi
    Posts
    197
    I like the points you touched paul. As you know from our talks i have already used points lie yours while speaking with my (our) assemblyman as well as the fact that where i live would prohibit me from going pretty much anywhere. Another point i think we don't touch on enough is the traffic hazards it would create if anytime we are about to go through a school zone we would have to pull over to unload and encase said firearm and then again to reload and holster the same firearm once we left the school zone. This would greatly put our lives in danger as most of the time that would entail doing so on the side of the road because as law abiding citizens we would not want to break any laws.


    just my thoughts......

  4. #4
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    While we all know and understand that the argument is ridiculous and that laws only stop law abiding people, we need to come up with some additional arguments.
    I think you're dismissing the main and most important argument against GFSZ's. I think it's best to demonstrate the absurdity of a GFSZ for what it is. And you did that with the quote above. A GFSZ will do nothing to deter a criminal intent on committing acts of violence with a weapon. Violating a GFSZ is simply one more charge added to a long list of charges once someone decides to do something evil with a firearm. If attempted murder being illegal is not enough to stop an evil person's attempts, neither will a GFSZ statute.

  5. #5
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    OK, here is one for you. I live in a school zone, or at least within the 1000 foot mark. I have wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bear, and at least 7 aggressive sex offenders in my area. My mailbox is within walking distance, but is also off my property. I have a line of woods between myself and the local school zone, and I have nearly 30 years of firearms experience. Including being a firearms instructor.

    So if I carry my side arm to get the mail while the animals are out lurking, I have to risk being attacked because I am about 75 feet short of being outside the school zone. Or if my daughter is out at the neighbors and one of these sexual predators comes trying to hurt her, I can not defend her with my firearm no matter the circumstances.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Paul can the wording be changed to , The use of a firearm with criminal intent against another while on school grounds X amount of time will be added at sentencing.

    Wording would have to ensure that self defense is exempt.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    I think you're dismissing the main and most important argument against GFSZ's. I think it's best to demonstrate the absurdity of a GFSZ for what it is. And you did that with the quote above. A GFSZ will do nothing to deter a criminal intent on committing acts of violence with a weapon. Violating a GFSZ is simply one more charge added to a long list of charges once someone decides to do something evil with a firearm. If attempted murder being illegal is not enough to stop an evil person's attempts, neither will a GFSZ statute.
    Thank you Trip20, Better thought out and said.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Don't forget the other states that have dealt with this absurdity. If it works in those states, why can't it work here?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    It's been ineffective in preventing school shootings. Since the federal government's first version was enacted, in 1990, numerous school shootings have occurred, including Columbine, the Pennsylvania Amish school, Virginia Tech, and here in Wisconsin, Weston and Marinette.

    As far as Wisconsin is concerned, why is it necessary to have a state law that essentially duplicates the federal law? Repeal of the state law would not affect the federal law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  10. #10
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Don't forget the other states that have dealt with this absurdity. If it works in those states, why can't it work here?
    I agree, however, do not some of the other states only have an exemption if you have a permit, kinda like the Federal GFSZ?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I agree, however, do not some of the other states only have an exemption if you have a permit, kinda like the Federal GFSZ?
    For purposes of the GFSZ, any LAC, 18 yrs or older, may legally carry a firearm and is not bound by the Federal GFSZ Law. or something to that effect. I think we discussed this in previous threads. I can't get the search to work here.

    From Vermont thread

    Well, AZ allows for unrestricted Open Carry, and nowadays for unrestricted Conceal Carry. AZ has no GFSZ law. The only law is that a gun on a school campus must be unloaded and out of sight in a locked vehicle.
    13-3121. Firearm possession; outside the grounds of a school

    For the purposes of 18 United States Code section 922, a person who lawfully owns or possesses a firearm pursuant to the constitution and laws of this state is considered by this state to be individually licensed and verified to possess a firearm immediately outside the grounds of a school.
    Last edited by phred; 03-29-2011 at 05:47 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I think the argument that should be most effective is that GFSZ is ignored by criminals.
    All it does is disarm good law-abiding citizens.
    Maybe include links to (or printouts of) news stories of shootings that have happened in GFSZ.

    Another angle that just occurred to me is that if our cars were considered our property just like our homes & yards are, then the GFSZ is meaningless with regards to car carry.
    Of course, that leaves the (mostly poor) inner-city people who don't have cars & need to walk everywhere without protection, also those who choose to walk their kids to school,
    so I think it's better to limit the "school zone" part of the GFSZ to the actual school building, or maybe the building & the grounds which are inside the inner edge of the sidewalk.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I have two thoughts on the issue.

    First: There has not been enough talk or information given that separates the school property from the 1000 foot wide imaginary boundary around the school property. I am of the opinion that as a group we don't have a large issue with gun restrictions on school property. Our largest argument is with the 1000 foot buffer zone around the property. Of course our ideal want would be recind of the GFSZ law. That ain't gonna happen for the very reasons Paul described. Yet we have not made it clear that we would be willing to leave the law intact as it applies to the school property itself but want the 1000 foot perimeter restrictions removed. That type of change would eliminate most of our grievances. It also would be of benefit to law enforcement in that it would allow off-duty officers to at least carry uncased weapons up to the edge of school property. As the law now sits off duty officers must comply to the 1000 foot restrictions same as we (948.605(2)(b)(7).

    Second: The GFSZ law is not an absolute restriction on the carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot buffer area. It only restricts the carry of visible firearms. It is perfectly lawful to carry an unloaded and cased firearm in the zone and it is lawful to carry such firearm on public property as well as private property within the zone. 948.605(2)(b)1, 948.605(2)(b)3, 948.605(2)(b)3a.

    I don't think most politicians are even aware of those issues. They think the statute is an absolute protection of our children against mayhem. It doesn't even enter into their minds that a maniac bent on harming the children first of all will simply ignore the statute or at very least will carry a unloaded cased weapon to a strategic location and uncase the firearm load it and carry out his carnage. He would violate nothing in the GFSZ statute in doing so.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 03-29-2011 at 07:53 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I have two thoughts on the issue.

    First: There has not been enough talk or information given that separates the school property from the 1000 foot wide imaginary boundary around the school property. I am of the opinion that as a group we don't have a large issue with gun restrictions on school property. Our largest argument is with the 1000 foot buffer zone around the property. Of course our ideal want would be recind of the GFSZ law. That ain't gonna happen for the very reasons Paul described. Yet we have not made it clear that we would be willing to leave the law intact as it applies to the school property itself but want the 1000 foot perimeter restrictions removed. That type of change would eliminate most of our grievances. It also would be of benefit to law enforcement in that it would allow off-duty officers to at least carry uncased weapons up to the edge of school property. As the law now sits off duty officers must comply to the 1000 foot restrictions same as we (948.605(2)(b)(7).

    Second: The GFSZ law is not an absolute restriction on the carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot buffer area. It only restricts the carry of visible firearms. It is perfectly lawful to carry an unloaded and cased firearm in the zone and it is lawful to carry such firearm on public property as well as private property within the zone. 948.605(2)(b)1, 948.605(2)(b)3, 948.605(2)(b)3a.

    I don't think most politicians are even aware of those issues. They think the statute is an absolute protection of our children against mayhem. It doesn't even enter into their minds that a maniac bent on harming the children first of all will simply ignore the statute or at very least will carry a unloaded cased weapon to a strategic location and uncase the firearm load it and carry out his carnage. He would violate nothing in the GFSZ statute in doing so.
    Thanks Captain. Good synopsis as usual. That lat paragraph is the jist of what I was trying to say. If the politicians think we want the GFSZ law eliminated because we want the right to carry our weapons into the school, then we will not get it. What I am asking is for more arguments that show the inconvenience of the 1000' rule. Something they can relate to. Something they hadn't thought about. We can stomp our feet and say 'GFSZ is unconstitutional' (and it probably is) but the politicians won't fix it without some OTHER good reason.

    Please, do not crucify me for seeming to be willing to give up our rights. I'm not! I'm trying to convince in other ways.

    In my opinion, the legislature would be pleased as punch when WCI wins the GFSZ lawsuit. They can then say 'those mean judges put your kids at risk, we didn't'.

    If you notice, District Attorney Fox, when he declared all other gun related restriction unconstitutional, staid away from the GFSZ law. He is a politician as well. He wants to be re-elected.

  15. #15
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    The truly sad part about this discussion is something that lawmakers and the anti-gun public will never understand, we are trying to do our best to follow the law while not giving up our rights. They don't understand that being law abiding is how we are. As we all know the bg's never sit around having this discussion because they don't care, they will do as they wish, we can't. Where is the easy button when you need it?
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by springfield 1911 View Post
    Paul can the wording be changed to , The use of a firearm with criminal intent against another while on school grounds X amount of time will be added at sentencing.

    Wording would have to ensure that self defense is exempt.
    Exactly, or if they are so concerned about it, do what other states have done and prohibit carry "in" school grounds while school is in normal session unless picking up and dropping of children.

  17. #17
    Regular Member LR Yote 312's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    God's Country, Wi
    Posts
    458
    For us in Milwaukee Area we are stuck with Run and Hide Larson.....
    I dont see anything getting thru to that clown.

    EVERYsingle time I tried e mailing him I get a "Non Deliverable" mailer demon back.
    Yet he has the balls to e mail a "Weakly Report" or should I say a "Weakling Report".

    I wish I had the extra cash....He would get a bucket of tar and a bag of feathers in a care package


    LR Yote
    *NOTE: No Longer under the tyranny of Milwaukee County.


    Watch your thoughts; they become words.
    Watch your words; they become actions.
    Watch your actions; they become habits.
    Watch your habits; they become character.
    Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    - Frank Outlaw

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Second: The GFSZ law is not an absolute restriction on the carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot buffer area. It only restricts the carry of visible firearms. It is perfectly lawful to carry an unloaded and cased firearm in the zone and it is lawful to carry such firearm on public property as well as private property within the zone. 948.605(2)(b)1, 948.605(2)(b)3, 948.605(2)(b)3a.
    Don't forget though that when you unload and encase, you are violating the conceal carry law. A misdemeanor is better then a felony though.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Good point Max. Another good argument against the GFSZ statute. It criminalizes people trying to comply with the law.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Deleted. Double post.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 03-30-2011 at 07:15 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SW WI
    Posts
    14
    Don't forget though that when you unload and encase, you are violating the conceal carry law. A misdemeanor is better then a felony though.

    huh???

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by WD57 View Post
    Don't forget though that when you unload and encase, you are violating the conceal carry law. A misdemeanor is better then a felony though.

    huh???
    Fork In The Wisconsin Gun Law / Transportation Of Fire Arms by Doug Huffman
    http://www.vimeo.com/6115265
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  23. #23
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    I was thinking along the lines of Springfields...make 'defense' an exception...as well 'intent' of the individual committing a crime...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by WD57 View Post
    Don't forget though that when you unload and encase, you are violating the conceal carry law. A misdemeanor is better then a felony though.

    huh???
    If you knowingly carry a loaded and uncased firearm within the 1,000 foot school zone, you have committed a felony.
    If you obey the law and unload and encase the firearm within the school zone, you violated the ban on conceal carry and have committed a misdemeanor.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323
    I miss Doug.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •