Today's journal sentinel article

bmwguy11 · Aug 21, 2011

There is an article in the local section of today's journal sentinel where all these municipalities are creating ordinances preventing concealed carry in public buildings, and imposing fines up to $1000 at least for doing so, well beyond the $200 for trespessing allowed by Act 35 (SB93). It makes me want to puke. They at least quoted one alderman in hartford that said something to the effect of: How much sense does it make to put up signs banning guns, when all that does is prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns, but the bad guys who don't care what your sign says will carry anyways. It tells the bad guys hey come in here because the only people with guns will be other bad guys.

One voice of reason in an otherwise disgusting article. I'd be FURIOUS if my city did something so stupid.

bmwguy11 · Aug 21, 2011

Oh lol my other favorite part. Coggs miilwaukee ordinance also includes a "resolution calling for all bars/taverns to ban guns".

davegran · Aug 21, 2011

bmwguy11 said:
There is an article in the local section of today's journal sentinel where all these municipalities are creating ordinances preventing concealed carry in public buildings, and imposing fines up to $1000 at least for doing so, well beyond the $200 for trespessing allowed by Act 35 (SB93). It makes me want to puke. They at least quoted one alderman in hartford that said something to the effect of: How much sense does it make to put up signs banning guns, when all that does is prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns, but the bad guys who don't care what your sign says will carry anyways. It tells the bad guys hey come in here because the only people with guns will be other bad guys.

One voice of reason in an otherwise disgusting article. I'd be FURIOUS if my city did something so stupid.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/128132258.html

bmwguy11 · Aug 21, 2011

Ah yes, that's the article, thank you! Try not to vomit while reading it.

jpm84092 · Aug 21, 2011

This is an excellent example of a State that is naive to concealed carry (WI) reacting to "threats" that did not materialize in other States more experienced with Concealed Carry.

Inquiring minds want to know which Wisconsin Municipal Official will be designated to apologize to the grieving family of the first law abiding citizen killed by a bad guy in one of these newly created "free kill zones" (aka: gun-free zones)?

springfield 1911 · Aug 21, 2011

Common sense would dictate that the ordinances would be pre empted because stricter than state law since dealing with firearms, If a business does not want firearms they may post a sign as state law dictates. Cities that pass these assnine ordinances will find out how expensive it will cost them let alone businesses will then become liable for wrongful injury because the city will not take the burden.

protias · Aug 21, 2011

springfield 1911 said:
Common sense would dictate that the ordinances would be pre empted because stricter than state law since dealing with firearms, If a business does not want firearms they may post a sign as state law dictates. Cities that pass these assnine ordinances will find out how expensive it will cost them let alone businesses will then become liable for wrongful injury because the city will not take the burden.

I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be), that places aren't reading the law and for cities, they are ignoring it.

santana · Aug 21, 2011

jpm84092 said:
This is an excellent example of a State that is naive to concealed carry (WI) reacting to "threats" that did not materialize in other States more experienced with Concealed Carry.

Inquiring minds want to know which Wisconsin Municipal Official will be designated to apologize to the grieving family of the first law abiding citizen killed by a bad guy in one of these newly created "free kill zones" (aka: gun-free zones)?

Creating free kill zones, quite a catchy little ditty. Actually it is quite disturbing coming from a person with so many instructor creds. Posting no weapons signs is a very good part of SB35.

Packfanatic · Aug 21, 2011

Comment

santana said:
Creating free kill zones, quite a catchy little ditty. Actually it is quite disturbing coming from a person with so many instructor creds. Posting no weapons signs is a very good part of SB35.

Yes that is a catchy little ditty. I like it because it is very creative and VERY true.

Your comment disturbs me can i take a guess you belong to MAIG or WAVE? come on fess up you have done nothing but had negative comments so i think you are not here to learn but rather to cause discontent? correct me if i am wrong.

protias · Aug 21, 2011

santana said:
Creating free kill zones, quite a catchy little ditty. Actually it is quite disturbing coming from a person with so many instructor creds. Posting no weapons signs is a very good part of SB35.

SB35?

paul@paul-fisher.com · Aug 21, 2011

santana said:
Creating free kill zones, quite a catchy little ditty. Actually it is quite disturbing coming from a person with so many instructor creds. Posting no weapons signs is a very good part of SB35.

Hmmm... So, logables? Spartacus? Not sure. Oh well. At least he's persistent.

TaurusToter · Aug 22, 2011

oh, is that what he posted? I still keep getting the "user is on your ignore list message". :lol:

jpm84092 · Aug 22, 2011

santana said:
Creating free kill zones, quite a catchy little ditty. Actually it is quite disturbing coming from a person with so many instructor creds. Posting no weapons signs is a very good part of SB35.

OK, so you would have us believe that one or two disadvantaged individuals who have chosen crime as a career would notice a sign telling people that no weapons are allowed - and they would turn around and go elsewhere because they did not want to enter a "gun free zone"?

Are you on drugs?

"Gun Free Zone" = "Free Kill Zone"; unless you have police stationed all over the place. And in this economy, can Wisconsin afford to hire 100,000 - 500,000 extra police to make sure all the "gun free zones" are also absolutely safe for citizens?

Santana - you do not like me. I get that. But, it will not stop me from returning to WI and offering firearms training to teach the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for law abiding citizens like the citizens on this forum, to safely own and carry handguns for their personal protection and the protection of their loved ones - or others. WI is about to become the 49th State to allow its citizens to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection. Get used to it - or you could always move to Chicago which is a "gun free zone". In Chicago, where citizens cannot possess a firearm outside their home, there is absolutely no chance of becoming a victim of crime, RIGHT?

protias · Aug 22, 2011

jpm84092 said:
OK, so you would have us believe that one or two disadvantaged individuals who have chosen crime as a career would notice a sign telling people that no weapons are allowed - and they would turn around and go elsewhere because they did not want to enter a "gun free zone"?

Are you on drugs?

"Gun Free Zone" = "Free Kill Zone"; unless you have police stationed all over the place. And in this economy, can Wisconsin afford to hire 100,000 - 500,000 extra police to make sure all the "gun free zones" are also absolutely safe for citizens?

Santana - you do not like me. I get that. But, it will not stop me from returning to WI and offering firearms training to teach the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for law abiding citizens like the citizens on this forum, to safely own and carry handguns for their personal protection and the protection of their loved ones - or others. WI is about to become the 49th State to allow its citizens to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection. Get used to it - or you could always move to Chicago which is a "gun free zone". In Chicago, where citizens cannot possess a firearm outside their home, there is absolutely no chance of becoming a victim of crime, RIGHT?

You haven't seen the video? Criminals always obey the law...

[video=youtube;S7pGt_O1uM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8[/video]

santana · Aug 22, 2011

Packfanatic said:
Yes that is a catchy little ditty. I like it because it is very creative and VERY true.

Your comment disturbs me can i take a guess you belong to MAIG or WAVE? come on fess up you have done nothing but had negative comments so i think you are not here to learn but rather to cause discontent? correct me if i am wrong.

You are very wrong, so I will correct you. No I do not belong to the above orgs. I am a member of WCI. My comments are not negative, but are not in line with yours, it is called a difference of opinion. I am not here to learn, I know everything as far as OC and CC that one needs to know for Wisconsin. The only discontent is among a small handful of posters here who think they own the Wisconsin page on this site.

If the person who made the free kill zone reference is indeed coming to Wisconsin to conduct classes he is already biased against the Wisconsin law petaining to posting no weapons signs

I do not know or care what Utah law is concerning the posting of no weapons signs. What I do care about is someone coming to Wisconsin who scoffs at our laws concerning posting and will perhaps teach Wisconsinites to do the same.

protias · Aug 22, 2011

santana said:
You are very wrong, so I will correct you. No I do not belong to the above orgs. I am a member of WCI. My comments are not negative, but are not in line with yours, it is called a difference of opinion. I am not here to learn, I know everything as far as OC and CC that one needs to know for Wisconsin. The only discontent is among a small handful of posters here who think they own the Wisconsin page on this site.

If the person who made the free kill zone reference is indeed coming to Wisconsin to conduct classes he is already biased against the Wisconsin law petaining to posting no weapons signs

I do not know or care what Utah law is concerning the posting of no weapons signs. What I do care about is someone coming to Wisconsin who scoffs at our laws concerning posting and will perhaps teach Wisconsinites to do the same.

Now I know you are logables/blayze/blaze/StalkingHorse/etc. Why do you continue to come back to the forum and troll?

santana · Aug 22, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Hmmm... So, logables? Spartacus? Not sure. Oh well. At least he's persistent.

I take issue with being accused of being a user of those member names. I am not and have never been either. I see you finally caught on and changed your moniker. Sure did take you long enough.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Aug 22, 2011

santana said:
I take issue with being accused of being a user of those member names. I am not and have never been either. I see you finally caught on and changed your moniker. Sure did take you long enough.

OK, I am confused. Here's the definition of a moniker:

A moniker (or monicker) is another term for a nickname, pseudonym, or cognomen.

I haven't changed my moniker since I signed on to this forum, or am I missing something?

santana · Aug 22, 2011

protias said:
Now I know you are logables/blayze/blaze/StalkingHorse/etc. Why do you continue to come back to the forum and troll?

And you were who before, dancing bear, pink lady, nancy, etc. Why do you come to this forum and troll?

protias · Aug 22, 2011

*stretches* So much nicer when trolls are put on ignore.

Today's journal sentinel article

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member