paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agenda...tive&Regulatory/2011/L & R Agenda 9-29-11.pdf
I am going to try to make it there.
I am going to try to make it there.
Julie,
I noticed that there is a proposed concealed carry ban on the agenda for tomorrow (9/29).
I plan on attending the meeting. I was wondering if there is a proposed ordinance I can see before then?
Many municipalities have considered a ban on firearms in government buildings. As a person who usually carries, I would urge the city to not post their buildings.
Here are some points:
1. Laws only affect the law abiding. If you post, the only people who it will stop from carrying into the building are people like me. The people who you worry about, bent on mayhem, will carry in violation of the law/sign.
2. If the city posts, they will NOT be granted the immunity as stated in 175.60(21)(b) "A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision". So, let's say Elkhorn posts, someone come in and commits a crime with a handgun. You would not be immune. If, on the other hand, you DO NOT post and someone comes in to do harm with a firearm, you would be immune.
3. Making me store my gun in my car while I'm in the government building will just expose it to theft. If it is secure in my holster, someone can't steal it.
4. The state law already precludes me and other law abiding people (law breakers will carry wherever they want) from carrying INSIDE the police department and inside a court room.
5. If you do NOT post, the only people who will be carrying inside government buildings would be people who have gone through the training and background check to qualify for a permit from the state of WI.
Here is a story from the Village of Sturtevant: http://www.wisn.com/news/29258306/detail.html
Notice the comments from the Chief of Police.
As some side notes, current city ordinances will need to be fixed by 11/1 to be brought into compliance with state preemption laws 66.0409.
Specifically, 9.02, 9.025, 9.045 (a,b,e,f,i,k), 19.01.11(a).
If you wish, I can give you the specifics as to what parts of each of those are not compliant.
Thanks for your attention.
--
Paul L Fisher
http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agenda...tive&Regulatory/2011/L & R Agenda 9-29-11.pdf
I am going to try to make it there.
I have read a lot of these threads lately about localities banning concealed carry. Did your new CC not come with pre-emption? If not, is there a plan to push hard for it in the upcoming legislative session?
Here is Firearms Preemption with 2011 Act 35 emendations noted.I have read a lot of these threads lately about localities banning concealed carry. Did your new CC not come with pre-emption? If not, is there a plan to push hard for it in the upcoming legislative session?
There were a total of 7 people in the room. The Chief of Police, the clerk, 4 members of the committee, myself and one other interested citizen.
The committee went through their other agenda items and then started the discussion on posting. I was allowed to say my part, they asked the other citizen what she was there for.
She said she had read in the Janesville Gazette an article stating that Whitewater had passed an ordinance requiring that private businesses post a 'no guns allowed' sign and that Elkhorn was considering it. I said 'they can't do that'. The Chief of Police nodded in agreement. She then said that if the city of Elkhorn passes an ordinance that she has to allow people with guns in her store she would close the store and move out of Elkhorn. I turned towards her and said 'Maam, all you have to do is post a sign in your door that says 'no firearms' and I will guarantee I will never come in'. She said 'Good'.
Some people just don't understand.
She actually understands very well, she does not want gun toters in her store.
She actually understands very well, she does not want gun toters in her store.
Actually, she doesn't want "LEGAL" gun toters in her store. She can't stop the "other" kind with her little paper sign.
Then I would say with her little paper sign she will not have to worry about you.
Then I would say with her little paper sign she will not have to worry about you.
Even if Paul was allowed in her store, she still wouldn't have to worry about him. What's your point?
If you would actually pay attention for once, you will observe I was responding to a Plankton post and not PPFisher.
If you pay attention logables, you'll realize this is an open forum and I can reply to any post I so choose.
In addition, you are still referencing the original post.
You are clueless as usual, nice try at baiting though.