J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
If I may suggest and yes it is open for comment,
Channel 26 News in Green bay always says they are in our corner. Lets make them live up to that statement.
Fox 11 News says they are well balanced. Only if they tell both sides of the story.
And all of the others do the same thing.
Lets make them tell our story.
What if we were to go to major news stations throughout the state and show them,
This:
In Hamdan the Court declares that statute 941.23 (prohibition of concealed carry)is constitutional because it restricts the manner of carry and not carry per se. It also states that the legislature made statute 941.23 a strict liability statute. Only a peace officer can carry a concealed weapon. There are no exceptions, including the activities contained in Article I section 25. Then the Court makes it's final decision that the application of 941.23 in Hamdan's case is unconstitutional as it applies to the Court's abbreviated definition of security. Security being one of the activities contained in the amendment.
Only one justice got it right. A portion of his opinion follows:
¶99. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring/dissenting). For the reasons set forth
below, I respectfully concur/dissent, since I agree with the majority's result
that Hamdan's conviction should be reversed, but I dissent on the majority's
action in remanding this matter.
¶100. The majority in this case improperly reads exceptions into Wis. Stat.
§941.23 in order to hold that it is constitutional. Such exceptions to the
statute should not be made by this court, but by the legislature. Looking at the
statute itself, I conclude that Wis. Stat. §941.23 has become unconstitutional
with the passage of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. I agree
with Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent that the majority erroneously assigns to
a court, rather than a jury, the task of determining factual issues involving
whether a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon is available to a
defendant.
¶101. I agree with her dissent that this court should not attempt to engraft
exceptions onto Wis. Stat. § 941.23, in order to try to make it conform to
constitutional strictures. Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent, ¶115. If the
statute does not conform to the Wisconsin Constitution, as amended, then the
statute is unconstitutional. See State v. Zarnke, 224 Wis. 2d 116, 139-140, 569
N.W.2d 370 (1999); State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 82, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997).
¶102. I strongly disagree, however, with Chief Justice Abrahamson's conclusion
that the statute survives the constitutional amendment and remains
constitutional. In light of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution,
I conclude that Wis.Stat.§941.23 is unconstitutional because it is unnecessarily
broad and rigid now and provides no exceptions as it is written. The statute is
not a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.
This is obviously a response that has been given little attention in an effort to make it go away.
And This:
1. Any adult, or emancipated minor may possess a firearm and choose any manner OC/CC. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be. We accomplish this by simply repealing 941.23 and the vehicle transport statutes, then passing a castle doctrine.
2. No landlord may post or restrict.
3. A reciprocity permitting system with the other states. The system shall have required training for the reciprocity permit received at the time of purchase of the firearm or the reciprocity permit from a FFL dealer. The cost will be no more than $25.00 for the permit and the training. These permits are for reciprocity only (carrying outside of Wisconsin) and shall be issued within 30 days, no permit/training is required for OCW. No permit/training required for CCW in Wisconsin after repealing 941.23
4. If any individual has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
5. The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting, unlawful detainmentfor example) is a $5,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence. This applies to ALL individuals including LEO who are individually responsible for said forfeiture.
6. If you loose your abilityto legally possess a firearm, then you loose the permit. This is the ONLY way to loose the permit.
7. The issuing authority is not liable for the acts of permit holders.
We need to get this out there so the general public can see it. I am sure there are many others that would agree with this proposal. We need to gain their support as well.
It is as simple as asking for the repealing of the firearms laws in this state or having those laws amended or removed.
We will have to do some explaining to do to the media of course, to make the issue perfectly clear.
It is evident that even though the SCOTUS and the SSC have intentionally not been clear on these issues, that the laws are on in our favor.
If a SC Justice believes that these laws are unconstitutional and the Milwaukee DA apparently feels the same way and is afraid of the outcome. What does that tell you?
We need to get to work fast.
Maybe with some media pressure, these candidates and legislators would have to man up.
Either way I do think that by using the media anyway we can, we will get the word out much faster. There is less than a year before the election process goes into full swing. That is not much time. We need to keep up the pressure.
There will be legal challenges to these laws as well in the coming year, but the media attention is a tool we need to use in our favor and not theirs(the anti's).
If they do not tell our side then we protest in front of their offices, state wide.
If I may suggest and yes it is open for comment,
Channel 26 News in Green bay always says they are in our corner. Lets make them live up to that statement.
Fox 11 News says they are well balanced. Only if they tell both sides of the story.
And all of the others do the same thing.
Lets make them tell our story.
What if we were to go to major news stations throughout the state and show them,
This:
In Hamdan the Court declares that statute 941.23 (prohibition of concealed carry)is constitutional because it restricts the manner of carry and not carry per se. It also states that the legislature made statute 941.23 a strict liability statute. Only a peace officer can carry a concealed weapon. There are no exceptions, including the activities contained in Article I section 25. Then the Court makes it's final decision that the application of 941.23 in Hamdan's case is unconstitutional as it applies to the Court's abbreviated definition of security. Security being one of the activities contained in the amendment.
Only one justice got it right. A portion of his opinion follows:
¶99. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring/dissenting). For the reasons set forth
below, I respectfully concur/dissent, since I agree with the majority's result
that Hamdan's conviction should be reversed, but I dissent on the majority's
action in remanding this matter.
¶100. The majority in this case improperly reads exceptions into Wis. Stat.
§941.23 in order to hold that it is constitutional. Such exceptions to the
statute should not be made by this court, but by the legislature. Looking at the
statute itself, I conclude that Wis. Stat. §941.23 has become unconstitutional
with the passage of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. I agree
with Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent that the majority erroneously assigns to
a court, rather than a jury, the task of determining factual issues involving
whether a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon is available to a
defendant.
¶101. I agree with her dissent that this court should not attempt to engraft
exceptions onto Wis. Stat. § 941.23, in order to try to make it conform to
constitutional strictures. Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent, ¶115. If the
statute does not conform to the Wisconsin Constitution, as amended, then the
statute is unconstitutional. See State v. Zarnke, 224 Wis. 2d 116, 139-140, 569
N.W.2d 370 (1999); State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 82, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997).
¶102. I strongly disagree, however, with Chief Justice Abrahamson's conclusion
that the statute survives the constitutional amendment and remains
constitutional. In light of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution,
I conclude that Wis.Stat.§941.23 is unconstitutional because it is unnecessarily
broad and rigid now and provides no exceptions as it is written. The statute is
not a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.
This is obviously a response that has been given little attention in an effort to make it go away.
And This:
1. Any adult, or emancipated minor may possess a firearm and choose any manner OC/CC. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be. We accomplish this by simply repealing 941.23 and the vehicle transport statutes, then passing a castle doctrine.
2. No landlord may post or restrict.
3. A reciprocity permitting system with the other states. The system shall have required training for the reciprocity permit received at the time of purchase of the firearm or the reciprocity permit from a FFL dealer. The cost will be no more than $25.00 for the permit and the training. These permits are for reciprocity only (carrying outside of Wisconsin) and shall be issued within 30 days, no permit/training is required for OCW. No permit/training required for CCW in Wisconsin after repealing 941.23
4. If any individual has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
5. The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting, unlawful detainmentfor example) is a $5,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence. This applies to ALL individuals including LEO who are individually responsible for said forfeiture.
6. If you loose your abilityto legally possess a firearm, then you loose the permit. This is the ONLY way to loose the permit.
7. The issuing authority is not liable for the acts of permit holders.
We need to get this out there so the general public can see it. I am sure there are many others that would agree with this proposal. We need to gain their support as well.
It is as simple as asking for the repealing of the firearms laws in this state or having those laws amended or removed.
We will have to do some explaining to do to the media of course, to make the issue perfectly clear.
It is evident that even though the SCOTUS and the SSC have intentionally not been clear on these issues, that the laws are on in our favor.
If a SC Justice believes that these laws are unconstitutional and the Milwaukee DA apparently feels the same way and is afraid of the outcome. What does that tell you?
We need to get to work fast.
Maybe with some media pressure, these candidates and legislators would have to man up.
Either way I do think that by using the media anyway we can, we will get the word out much faster. There is less than a year before the election process goes into full swing. That is not much time. We need to keep up the pressure.
There will be legal challenges to these laws as well in the coming year, but the media attention is a tool we need to use in our favor and not theirs(the anti's).
If they do not tell our side then we protest in front of their offices, state wide.
