• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Village of Sussex

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Before they vote, just ask them three question:

Do you think that by posting your building, you are going to stop a criminal from CC into your building?

Or do you think that only the law abiding citizen is going to consider your postings?

If you understand that your law will never stop a criminal from doing what he wants to, why are you afraid of the law abiding citizen?
 
M

McX

Guest
f you understand that your law will never stop a criminal from doing what he wants to, why are you afraid of the law abiding citizen?


supreme quote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

kiezer

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
6
Location
""
Before they vote, just ask them three question:

Do you think that by posting your building, you are going to stop a criminal from CC into your building?

Or do you think that only the law abiding citizen is going to consider your postings?

If you understand that your law will never stop a criminal from doing what he wants to, why are you afraid of the law abiding citizen?

I seriously doubt that they are afraid of the law abiding citizen, they simply do not want anyone carrying a firearm in their buildings.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
I seriously doubt that they are afraid of the law abiding citizen, they simply do not want anyone carrying a firearm in their buildings.
Their buildings are , precisely, the property of the law abiding citizens. The buildings do not in any way belong to the fearful public servants.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Before they vote, just ask them three question:

Do you think that by posting your building, you are going to stop a criminal from CC into your building?

Or do you think that only the law abiding citizen is going to consider your postings?

If you understand that your law will never stop a criminal from doing what he wants to, why are you afraid of the law abiding citizen?

Resdon brought that point up and they did not listen.

Their buildings are , precisely, the property of the law abiding citizens. The buildings do not in any way belong to the fearful public servants.

Exactly!
 
M

McX

Guest
I seriously doubt that they are afraid of the law abiding citizen, they simply do not want anyone carrying a firearm in their buildings.

wow, this is pegging out my bullcrap meter!
 

kiezer

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
6
Location
""
Their buildings are , precisely, the property of the law abiding citizens. The buildings do not in any way belong to the fearful public servants.

The fearful public servants in Wisconsin have the right to deny gun toters in their buildings.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
The fearful public servants in Wisconsin have the right to deny gun toters in their buildings.

The government does not have any rights. Public officials do not have any right to limit our civil liberty. What they have is the legal authority to pass laws.
This authority has limits placed on it by the US Constitution and by the WI State Constitution. Any official who even attempts to exceed this authority should be swiftly replaced by another who will honor these limits on government. Any official who has no conflict of conscience when they restrict our Civil Liberties even if it is an a manner endorsed by the US Supreme Court has no business holding a public office. Any voters who elect them should be ashamed of themselves.
 

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
I would read the quick excerpt version of the "Luby's Massacre" story. Explain to them that someone who wants to do someone harm will do so regardless of whether or not they post signs. And this is a case in point. I would even go so far as to say that establishment was chosen by the murderer because it was a "gun free" zone.


"On October 16, 1991, 35-year-old George Pierre Hennard, an unemployed merchant seaman who was described to others as angry and withdrawn, with a dislike of women, drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on its patrons and staff. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide by shooting himself. During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Suzanna had a handgun in her vehicle outside, which she was unable to bring in because weapons were not allowed in that restaurant. Her father charged at him in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, her mother was shot and killed.

Responding to the massacre, the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License, removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. She later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person."
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I was called as I was leaving work, the proposed ordinance goes to the board on the 25th.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Village of Sussex, passed the ordinance to ban firearms (and other weapons?) in public buildings, except for the public bathrooms in the parks. Can they segment which public buildings are and are not allowed?

Another topic brought up was that if a sex offender was not already a Village of Sussex resident, they could not move into the village. 4 (of 6) of the board members raised concerns this is nothing more than a feel good law and it will not prevent sexual assaults. 2 of the 6 voted against it. The all agreed that criminals will not follow the law regarding carrying in public buildings but still passed the [illegal] ordinance.

The village attorney said the village had to amend the the ordinance because as of Nov 1, 2011, it will not fit state law. I'm sorry, but it was unenforceable since preemption went into effect, waiting to take up the issue even on Nov 2 would have no changed this. The village attorney also claimed to not be an expert on this subject, but was going on the information the state bar had given him.

I had brought up the issue of police being in a posted place and not being there on official duty on how that would be illegal. The village assistant kept saying, "in the line of duty." My understanding of this is being in uniform on official business. I took this to mean if a uniformed officer (or off duty), still cannot be in posted places if he is not there on official duty.

I've seen first hand these towns do not listen to people's concerns. We definitely need to strengthen 66.0409.
 
Top