la crosse gfsz charge

[protias]

Wouldn't it be cool if a state legislature wrote into law something like:
(This state) recognizes the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms as protected by the Federal & State Constitutions. For the purposes of the requirements of the federal GFSZ Act [cite], all citizens of the United States over the age of 18 years, who have not been convicted of a violent crime punishable by a year or more in prison, are not restricted by this State to carry a firearm for personal protection either openly or concealed.

The age can be adjusted depending on state laws about minors & firearms.

That's similar to what I remember Montana's (?) law reads.

How about that instead?

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Could you point that out instead of just putting in cite numbers ?

Everything I stated was factual. You quoted the text in an incomplete manner which deliberately excludes the exceptions contained within the full text of the cite numbers I provided... Your highlighted text is incomplete without the exceptions which provide for the legal carry by those 14 years of age and older as I correctly stated....
Feel free to post......
948.60 (3)(c),
29.304 (3)2(b)3

 

[Beretta-m9]

Everything I stated was factual. You quoted the text in an incomplete manner which deliberately excludes the exceptions contained within the full text of the cite numbers I provided... Your highlighted text is incomplete without the exceptions which provide for the legal carry by those 14 years of age and older as I correctly stated....
Feel free to post......
948.60 (3)(c),
29.304 (3)2(b)3

what I posted was directly and completely removed from this web site.

http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/948/948.60.html
http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/29/29.304.html
http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/948/948.55.html

If something is missing it was not my fault I am only working with what I have found.
as I said before, post more then your cite numbers so I can see exactly what you are talking about.
Don't tell me what I did was incorrect unless you can correct it.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

what I posted was directly and completely removed from this web site.

http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/948/948.60.html
http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/29/29.304.html
http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/948/948.55.html

If something is missing it was not my fault I am only working with what I have found.
as I said before, post more then your cite numbers so I can see exactly what you are talking about.
Don't tell me what I did was incorrect unless you can correct it.

I properly corrected you by providing the actual Citation number. Google is your friend when you are looking for these things...

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/Statutes.html

 

[Beretta-m9]

I properly corrected you by providing the actual Citation number. Google is your friend when you are looking for these things...

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/Statutes.html

again thanks for your lack of information backing up your story. I was not lazy like you, I gave you the numbers and the print. Yet you still try to argue without providing anything other then a number.

lets recap

Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight

Everything I stated was factual. You quoted the text in an incomplete manner which deliberately excludes the exceptions contained within the full text of the cite numbers I provided... Your highlighted text is incomplete without the exceptions which provide for the legal carry by those 14 years of age and older as I correctly stated....
Feel free to post......
948.60 (3)(c),
29.304 (3)2(b)3

what I posted was directly and completely removed from this web site.

http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/code...48/948.60.html
http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/code...29/29.304.html
http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/code...48/948.55.html

If something is missing it was not my fault I am only working with what I have found.
as I said before, post more then your cite numbers so I can see exactly what you are talking about. Don't tell me what I did was incorrect unless you can correct it.

I will try to help you with bold underlined red words so you don't miss what I said.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

again thanks for your lack of information backing up your story. I was not lazy like you, I gave you the numbers and the print. Yet you still try to argue without providing anything other then a number.
......If something is missing it was not my fault I am only working with what I have found.

Please do yourself a favor and go to the Statute. I cited the exact pertinent portion... I even provided you a link to it.... What you found is not the actual Statute... If it is not the actual Statute but a poor paraphrase, it is not a cite....

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Here is the actual text of the exceptions which allow for the carry of a long gun by someone under 18.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person
under 18.
(3)(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age
who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person
is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304
and 29.593

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by
persons under 16 years of age.
(3) PERSONS 14 TO 16 YEARS OF AGE.
2.(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm.
No person
14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have
in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
3. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he
or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the
hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or
other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or
she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province
a hunter education course recognized by the department.

 

[Spartacus]

I strongly disagree. My son owned a .22 semi-auotmatic by the time he was twelve. By the age of 14, he had a 20 gauge pump and a 50 cal muzzle loader. By 16, he had a .22-250. Technically, I own them all, I bought them all, but he hunts with them. The day he turns 18, they are his along with one of my handguns.

Good. My boy shot everything I owned when he was young as well, but he never had access to any of my guns unsupervised and even now at age 20 I would not trust him with guns due to the nature of his living conditions and room mates.

When we moved from swords to rifles, those "8 pound rifles difficultly loaded with shot and powder" were the new streamlined killling machines.

You don't know your history. Bows and arrows in skilled hands often won battles in colonial America. The jump to streamlined killing machines came with the advent of the rolling block and then repeating rifles with cartridges.

 

[Spartacus]

Not only was your reply full of personal attacks; your argument is completely asinine and not inline with the jurisprudence at all. It's the same argument that the anti's sometimes use; that we should all have muskets because that was the arm of the time. If that's the case, the government should be able to wire tap anyone they chose for any reason and free speech shouldn't be extended to the internet or TV.

You weren't paying attention. That was not my argument at all.

However, as much as I believe in gun rights, I swear sometimes the level of mental competency among gun rights activists stretches my beliefs to the limit and makes some of the anti's arguments make sense.

 

[Beretta-m9]

Here is the actual text of the exceptions which allow for the carry of a long gun by someone under 18.

lol, your post only proves this 15 year old which is what we are talking about is breaking the law. to funny, thanks for the laugh.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

lol, your post only proves this 15 year old which is what we are talking about is breaking the law. to funny, thanks for the laugh.

LOL, ROFL, , ,.......
If you possess the most basic of reading comprehension you will take notice that he may legally Open Carry a long gun the same places you may legally Open Carry a handgun if he possesses a Hunters' Safety Certificate.... :dude:
Nobody ever contested that his bringing a handgun to school in his backpack violated several Statutes. What you fail to recognize is that as a 15 year old he may carry a firearm but not a handgun. Your position as stated is that a 15 year old may never carry a firearm and that based on this false premise the book should be thrown at him. I certainly hope that your sense of humor allows you to laugh at your error...

he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15.

 

[Brass Magnet]

You weren't paying attention. That was not my argument at all.

However, as much as I believe in gun rights, I swear sometimes the level of mental competency among gun rights activists stretches my beliefs to the limit and makes some of the anti's arguments make sense.

I certainly was paying attention and addressed your full post but in common Spartacus fashion you partially quoted me to try to seem like you weren't using even more logical fallacy.

I agree with your second paragraph that I quoted. You hit your nail right on the head.

 

[PavePusher]

Good. My boy shot everything I owned when he was young as well, but he never had access to any of my guns unsupervised and even now at age 20 I would not trust him with guns due to the nature of his living conditions and room mates.



You don't know your history. Bows and arrows in skilled hands often won battles in colonial America. The jump to streamlined killing machines came with the advent of the rolling block and then repeating rifles with cartridges.

"streamlined killing machines"? Seriously? Have you been working for the Brady Bunch? WTH?

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

"streamlined killing machines"? Seriously? Have you been working for the Brady Bunch? WTH?

Sometimes I think Derick is a stauch Brady Campaign advocate that went undercover to infiltrate the RKBA Camps. He would be delightfully ecstatic if only 1 or 2 percent of Americans could legally carry or posses any firearms, as long as he is in that Elite Class.

 

[Spartacus]

Since you can't answer the logic, go ahead and insult me and post my personal information in your sig line Greg. Fine by me.

LMK if you want my address.

 

[Spartacus]

"streamlined killing machines"? Seriously? Have you been working for the Brady Bunch? WTH?

Every advance in firearms technology has been to make killing faster and cheaper. How is it hard to understand that?

This is nothing but beneficial when killing is justified and needs to be done but horrific when innocents die. Why is that so hard to hear?

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Every advance in firearms technology has been to make killing faster and cheaper. How is it hard to understand that?

This is nothing but beneficial when killing is justified and needs to be done but horrific when innocents die. Why is that so hard to hear?

The unitized firearm cartridge was put into use in the 1860s. The semiautomatic centerfire firearm design has been around since the 1880s. These were the last advances in firearm technology which made "killing" faster and cheaper. To bring these inflamatory descriptors into the conversation and to describe "every advance" as effecting these descriptors is just plain silly and irresponsible for someone interested in firearm carry rights.... Fighting among ourselves is just what the antis want as it supports their generalizations regarding gun advocates.
Using a machette to slaughter innocents is no less horrific than using a scary looking black rifle...

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Since you can't answer the logic, go ahead and insult me and post my personal information in your sig line Greg. Fine by me.

LMK if you want my address.

Huh? What? Was that your name? I did not know.

Sure, I can come down and fill you whizzanator for you so you can pas a piss test. All my UA's for employer drug testing over the last 20 years have been clean.

EDITED TO ADD: And you could show proof that the legal documents that I have on you are fraudulant.

 

[John Pierce]

Yet again a Wisconsin thread does NOT result in a discussion of the issue raised but a ****-measuring contest. Closing this thread. :banghead: