Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090828/GPG0602/908280670/1269/GPG06
Editorial: Gun ban timing suspect
August 28, 2009
We are troubled by the Green Bay Park Committee's 3-1 vote to recommend banning guns in city parks — but not for the most obvious reason.
We understand the City Council might feel a need to balance concerns for public safety with citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The language of the proposed ordinance mirrors Wisconsin statutes banning firearms in state parks; a similar ordinance is already in effect for Brown County parks.
No, our concern is with the timing of the committee's action. Why now?
Wednesday's vote came three weeks after a group of Second Amendment advocates held a picnic in Ted Fritsch Park where most openly wore holstered guns. Organizer Ed Foral told the committee the purpose was to celebrate the legal right to bear arms and to educate the public about that right.
Foral's group worked with city officials and police to ensure that no laws were broken. By all accounts it was a peaceful demonstration free of disturbances.
And yet three weeks later the committee is asking the full City Council to pass an ordinance that would make future demonstrations of this nature illegal. The effect is to politicize the picnic and turn it into a tug of war over a loaded issue.
The committee is following a now-familiar pattern of the past few years. Object to religious displays on public property, and the council will erect a religious display at City Hall. Object to a proposed crackdown on illegal immigrants, and an alderman will intimate that your business should be investigated. Give homeless people an alternate shelter in bitter winter cold, and the council will throw obstacles in your path.
And now, educate the public about what you consider a basic right, and the council will place limits on that right. Both left- and right-leaning council members seem determined to call national attention upon the city for all the wrong reasons.
Consider the chilling effect of passing this measure now in terms of our First Amendment guarantees of free speech and peaceable assembly. These picnickers gathered peacefully and spoke their piece, in accordance with the law.
It would be something else entirely if the council passed this measure six months ago, or if it followed a violent incident in a city park — or if the picnic had ended in some sort of catastrophe.
Instead, the picnic proceeded peacefully. Organizers succeeded in educating the public about their views through the resulting news coverage. The committee vote feels like cause and effect — a lawful demonstration is causing the council to change the law.
Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly. They could always gather in someone's backyard, but that would defeat the purpose of a public demonstration.
The council has every right and duty to act in the name of public safety, but there's a sense that this committee vote is more about reacting to the picnic. And that is a troubling thought.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090828/GPG0602/908280670/1269/GPG06
Editorial: Gun ban timing suspect
August 28, 2009
We are troubled by the Green Bay Park Committee's 3-1 vote to recommend banning guns in city parks — but not for the most obvious reason.
We understand the City Council might feel a need to balance concerns for public safety with citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The language of the proposed ordinance mirrors Wisconsin statutes banning firearms in state parks; a similar ordinance is already in effect for Brown County parks.
No, our concern is with the timing of the committee's action. Why now?
Wednesday's vote came three weeks after a group of Second Amendment advocates held a picnic in Ted Fritsch Park where most openly wore holstered guns. Organizer Ed Foral told the committee the purpose was to celebrate the legal right to bear arms and to educate the public about that right.
Foral's group worked with city officials and police to ensure that no laws were broken. By all accounts it was a peaceful demonstration free of disturbances.
And yet three weeks later the committee is asking the full City Council to pass an ordinance that would make future demonstrations of this nature illegal. The effect is to politicize the picnic and turn it into a tug of war over a loaded issue.
The committee is following a now-familiar pattern of the past few years. Object to religious displays on public property, and the council will erect a religious display at City Hall. Object to a proposed crackdown on illegal immigrants, and an alderman will intimate that your business should be investigated. Give homeless people an alternate shelter in bitter winter cold, and the council will throw obstacles in your path.
And now, educate the public about what you consider a basic right, and the council will place limits on that right. Both left- and right-leaning council members seem determined to call national attention upon the city for all the wrong reasons.
Consider the chilling effect of passing this measure now in terms of our First Amendment guarantees of free speech and peaceable assembly. These picnickers gathered peacefully and spoke their piece, in accordance with the law.
It would be something else entirely if the council passed this measure six months ago, or if it followed a violent incident in a city park — or if the picnic had ended in some sort of catastrophe.
Instead, the picnic proceeded peacefully. Organizers succeeded in educating the public about their views through the resulting news coverage. The committee vote feels like cause and effect — a lawful demonstration is causing the council to change the law.
Foral and his friends could stage another open-carry picnic in a public park; they just couldn't carry openly. They could always gather in someone's backyard, but that would defeat the purpose of a public demonstration.
The council has every right and duty to act in the name of public safety, but there's a sense that this committee vote is more about reacting to the picnic. And that is a troubling thought.