GRB
Regular Member
imported post
The link to the thread with the letters in it is http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/26309.html
The link to the thread with the letters in it is http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/26309.html
-
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.
-
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.
Whats next
- Thread starter hugh jarmis
- Start date
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
The aftermath of the Attorney General's memorandum declaring that open carry is lawful has spawned a flury of activity among local communities to draft local ordinances in violation of the preemption statute. Most of them are energized by the fact that such ordinances have the support of the Governor. Without doubt the preemption statute itself will come under fire. There will be calls for it's repeal. It is crucial that we all write our legislators and voice our opinions before too much momentum takes effect. below is a copy of an email I sent to my legislators. I urge you to do the same. If my letter or portions of it meet wih your opinion feel free to use them.
Senator :
In the aftermath of the Attorney General's memorandum (Attachment) to all district attorneys and all assistant district attorneys that the open carry of firearms is constitutionally protected there has been effort to rescind the preemption statute 66.0409. In fact that effort is being spearheaded by the Governor himself. The “chant” is that local governments should have the authority to regulate firearms within their jurisdiction. That authority is currently restricted by statute 66.0409.
66.0409
(2)Except as provided in subs]subs. (3)and (4)(4)[/url], no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use,keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration taxation of any firearm part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
66.0409(3)
66.0409(3)(a)
(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax undersub chapterVof ch. 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.
66.0409(3)(b)
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3)[/url]from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.
66.0409(4)
66.0409(4)(a)
(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
66.0409(4)(am)
(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until 30, 1998,an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.
66.0409(4)(c)
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.
The truth is clear and simple. The repeal of the preemption statute will have no effect on crime. Criminals are criminals because of their disrespect for the law. A repeal of the statute will only act to restrict the exercise of law abiding citizen's constitutional rights given by Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution. “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose”.
Most certainly you will hear comments such as: “We must repeal s66.0409 for public safety”, “We must protect the children”, “We must keep guns out of the hands of criminals”, “We must reduce crime”, “My constituents are demanding”, “The people of Wisconsin want control on guns”, “Recent polls show” and other emotional pleas.
I would like to remind you that during the election year of 1998 the voting people of Wisconsin ratified the addition of Article I section 25 to the state constitution. They did so with a unprecedented 75% approval. That in itself should be a barometer of the people of Wisconsin's opinion on gun control.
This will without doubt be an emotional issue. However, the Wisconsin people's right to keep and bear arms is constitutional law. There are many laws that some of us don't like because they conflict with our personal agendas and ideologies. That will always be the case. It is important to remember that the fundamental foundation of democracy is constitutional law. We can not pick and choose only those portions that reflect our personal beliefs we must accept the constitution in total. All elected politicians and official are sworn by oath to protect those laws from all threats.
If the issue of the repeal of s66.0409 comes up for debate I hope that you will keep my comments in mind and vote to strengthen our state constitutional rights and not to erode them.
The aftermath of the Attorney General's memorandum declaring that open carry is lawful has spawned a flury of activity among local communities to draft local ordinances in violation of the preemption statute. Most of them are energized by the fact that such ordinances have the support of the Governor. Without doubt the preemption statute itself will come under fire. There will be calls for it's repeal. It is crucial that we all write our legislators and voice our opinions before too much momentum takes effect. below is a copy of an email I sent to my legislators. I urge you to do the same. If my letter or portions of it meet wih your opinion feel free to use them.
Senator :
In the aftermath of the Attorney General's memorandum (Attachment) to all district attorneys and all assistant district attorneys that the open carry of firearms is constitutionally protected there has been effort to rescind the preemption statute 66.0409. In fact that effort is being spearheaded by the Governor himself. The “chant” is that local governments should have the authority to regulate firearms within their jurisdiction. That authority is currently restricted by statute 66.0409.
66.0409
(2)Except as provided in subs]subs. (3)and (4)(4)[/url], no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use,keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration taxation of any firearm part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
66.0409(3)
66.0409(3)(a)
(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax undersub chapterVof ch. 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.
66.0409(3)(b)
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3)[/url]from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.
66.0409(4)
66.0409(4)(a)
(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
66.0409(4)(am)
(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until 30, 1998,an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.
66.0409(4)(c)
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.
The truth is clear and simple. The repeal of the preemption statute will have no effect on crime. Criminals are criminals because of their disrespect for the law. A repeal of the statute will only act to restrict the exercise of law abiding citizen's constitutional rights given by Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution. “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose”.
Most certainly you will hear comments such as: “We must repeal s66.0409 for public safety”, “We must protect the children”, “We must keep guns out of the hands of criminals”, “We must reduce crime”, “My constituents are demanding”, “The people of Wisconsin want control on guns”, “Recent polls show” and other emotional pleas.
I would like to remind you that during the election year of 1998 the voting people of Wisconsin ratified the addition of Article I section 25 to the state constitution. They did so with a unprecedented 75% approval. That in itself should be a barometer of the people of Wisconsin's opinion on gun control.
This will without doubt be an emotional issue. However, the Wisconsin people's right to keep and bear arms is constitutional law. There are many laws that some of us don't like because they conflict with our personal agendas and ideologies. That will always be the case. It is important to remember that the fundamental foundation of democracy is constitutional law. We can not pick and choose only those portions that reflect our personal beliefs we must accept the constitution in total. All elected politicians and official are sworn by oath to protect those laws from all threats.
If the issue of the repeal of s66.0409 comes up for debate I hope that you will keep my comments in mind and vote to strengthen our state constitutional rights and not to erode them.
GRB
Regular Member
imported post
I got a email from the NRA on the school zone law they went right to conceal carry and how it is not legal in WI but here it is for you guys to read:
[size=Concealed carry of firearms outside the home is generally banned in Wisconsin. WI ST 941.23, 939.22(10). Wisconsin does not appear to have a state provision under which private citizens may apply for a state or local license to carry firearms. It does, however, have a state preemption statute that prohibits political subdivisions from imposing their own regulations pertaining to, among other things, the use, keeping, possession, bearing, and transportation of firearms “[color="black"]unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.” WI ST 66.0409(2). The use of the conjunctive “and” indicates that for a local firearm regulation to be valid, it must meet two requirements: (1) be the same as or “similar to” a state statute and (2) impose a rule that is no more “stringent” than the state rule.][/color][/size]
Thus, since the state apparently does not have a statute by which it may license the carrying of firearms by its citizens, political subdivisions cannot do so either, since such an ordinance could not be the same or similar to a non-existent state provision regulating on the same topic.
While the Wisconsin “Gun-Free School Zones” statute does create an exception when the person possessing a firearm is “licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located,” the statute does not appear to provide affirmative authorization for localities to issue such licenses. WI ST 948.605. Rather, it seems to mean, at most, that if a political subdivision did issue a license, a licensee could use it as a defense under the statute. WI ST 948.605(2)(b)(1). Note the statutes also makes reference to an BATF license that, as far as I’m aware, does not exist either.
As for Heller, the facts of that case only applied to possession of an operable firearm within the home (which appears to be another exemption to the Wisconsin Gun-Free School Zones Statute, see WI ST 948.605(2)(b)(1)). Heller left open many details about the scope of Second Amendment protection, including the degree to which it applies outside the home and whether it applies against state and local regulation, rather than just federal action.
[size=][/size]
[size=The bottom line is that under the current state of the law, a Wisconsin resident does not appear to have a legal right to be licensed to carry a firearm by a political subdivision within the state. Whether a law like WI ST 948.605 is permissible under the Second Amendment post-[i]Heller][/i] remains an open question. In the meantime, anyone who violates that law is subject to arrest, prosecution, and felony penalties, so I would strongly recommend strict compliance.[/size]
I got a email from the NRA on the school zone law they went right to conceal carry and how it is not legal in WI but here it is for you guys to read:
[size=Concealed carry of firearms outside the home is generally banned in Wisconsin. WI ST 941.23, 939.22(10). Wisconsin does not appear to have a state provision under which private citizens may apply for a state or local license to carry firearms. It does, however, have a state preemption statute that prohibits political subdivisions from imposing their own regulations pertaining to, among other things, the use, keeping, possession, bearing, and transportation of firearms “[color="black"]unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.” WI ST 66.0409(2). The use of the conjunctive “and” indicates that for a local firearm regulation to be valid, it must meet two requirements: (1) be the same as or “similar to” a state statute and (2) impose a rule that is no more “stringent” than the state rule.][/color][/size]
Thus, since the state apparently does not have a statute by which it may license the carrying of firearms by its citizens, political subdivisions cannot do so either, since such an ordinance could not be the same or similar to a non-existent state provision regulating on the same topic.
While the Wisconsin “Gun-Free School Zones” statute does create an exception when the person possessing a firearm is “licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located,” the statute does not appear to provide affirmative authorization for localities to issue such licenses. WI ST 948.605. Rather, it seems to mean, at most, that if a political subdivision did issue a license, a licensee could use it as a defense under the statute. WI ST 948.605(2)(b)(1). Note the statutes also makes reference to an BATF license that, as far as I’m aware, does not exist either.
As for Heller, the facts of that case only applied to possession of an operable firearm within the home (which appears to be another exemption to the Wisconsin Gun-Free School Zones Statute, see WI ST 948.605(2)(b)(1)). Heller left open many details about the scope of Second Amendment protection, including the degree to which it applies outside the home and whether it applies against state and local regulation, rather than just federal action.
[size=][/size]
[size=The bottom line is that under the current state of the law, a Wisconsin resident does not appear to have a legal right to be licensed to carry a firearm by a political subdivision within the state. Whether a law like WI ST 948.605 is permissible under the Second Amendment post-[i]Heller][/i] remains an open question. In the meantime, anyone who violates that law is subject to arrest, prosecution, and felony penalties, so I would strongly recommend strict compliance.[/size]
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
GRB wrote:
Can't people bother to take the time toread?So far it seemsthat every person that wehave emailed about this doesn't read it and shoots back an email right away talking about something completely different! It's not like it's a forum with 6 pages of posts they have to go through, it's a simple email.:banghead:
Ok, I'm done with my rant.
:quirkyIf anyone emails anyoneasking about this again I guess we have to make it more clear that we want to use the Heller "procedure" of applying for a permit and not getting it. We're not trying to apply the ruling to the states, we're not talking about concealed carry, and we have an unambiguous RKBA amendment to our constitution. And yes, we probably will need to put bold-red-emphasis on the important words. :lol:
GRB wrote:
ERGH!
Can't people bother to take the time toread?So far it seemsthat every person that wehave emailed about this doesn't read it and shoots back an email right away talking about something completely different! It's not like it's a forum with 6 pages of posts they have to go through, it's a simple email.:banghead:
Ok, I'm done with my rant.
:quirkyIf anyone emails anyoneasking about this again I guess we have to make it more clear that we want to use the Heller "procedure" of applying for a permit and not getting it. We're not trying to apply the ruling to the states, we're not talking about concealed carry, and we have an unambiguous RKBA amendment to our constitution. And yes, we probably will need to put bold-red-emphasis on the important words. :lol:
GRB
Regular Member
imported post
I sent the NRA another email talking about open carry and using Heller as a model, It was only one paragraph so may be they will under stand this time.
I sent the NRA another email talking about open carry and using Heller as a model, It was only one paragraph so may be they will under stand this time.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
GRB wrote:
HAHAHHAHAHAHHA:lol:
One must always remember that Doctors and Lawyers aren't any smarter than anyone else...........they just went to school longer.
GRB wrote:
HAHAHHAHAHAHHA:lol:
One must always remember that Doctors and Lawyers aren't any smarter than anyone else...........they just went to school longer.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Do not expect any help from the NRA concerning open carry. The NRA is only interested in concealed carry. Don't put to much reliance on Heller. Heller addressed the prohibition of firearm carry in the home. It may not even be relevant to school zones. second the 7th Court ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states, therefore until the U.S. Supreme court rules otherwise the individual right to keep and bear arms applies only at the federal level. Trying to analize federal court decisions and constitutional law and determine which and how much apply at the state level will be a study of frustration. For example: Does the 7th Court decision that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states also imply that the 1st, 4th 14th and others also do not apply to the states? We should not put too much weight on what is going on at the federal level until the U.S. Supreme Court straightens it out or at least takes a position on it. It would be a better approach to base our arguments on our state constitutional RKBA and how current statutes infringe on that right.
The 7th Court ruling on NRA v. City of Chicago and Villiage of Oak Park, Illinois can be found at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/084241p.pdf
Do not expect any help from the NRA concerning open carry. The NRA is only interested in concealed carry. Don't put to much reliance on Heller. Heller addressed the prohibition of firearm carry in the home. It may not even be relevant to school zones. second the 7th Court ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states, therefore until the U.S. Supreme court rules otherwise the individual right to keep and bear arms applies only at the federal level. Trying to analize federal court decisions and constitutional law and determine which and how much apply at the state level will be a study of frustration. For example: Does the 7th Court decision that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states also imply that the 1st, 4th 14th and others also do not apply to the states? We should not put too much weight on what is going on at the federal level until the U.S. Supreme Court straightens it out or at least takes a position on it. It would be a better approach to base our arguments on our state constitutional RKBA and how current statutes infringe on that right.
The 7th Court ruling on NRA v. City of Chicago and Villiage of Oak Park, Illinois can be found at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/084241p.pdf
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Not true
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Based on email exchanges I have had with the NRA and it's WI state representatives I beg to differ. It's primary objective is to get some form of concealed carry provision in all 50 states.
Based on email exchanges I have had with the NRA and it's WI state representatives I beg to differ. It's primary objective is to get some form of concealed carry provision in all 50 states.
springfield 1911
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Screw conceal and carry if it's going to be a privilege . to sacrifice a right for a privilege is unacceptable what little o.c. I have done it's a right I've come to exercise and will exercise more if we can get rid of :cuss:school zones. Locked:banghead: in center school zone triangle :banghead:.
Screw conceal and carry if it's going to be a privilege . to sacrifice a right for a privilege is unacceptable what little o.c. I have done it's a right I've come to exercise and will exercise more if we can get rid of :cuss:school zones. Locked:banghead: in center school zone triangle :banghead:.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
I agree that is probably their primary objective. But I know they have supported Open Carry. (note, this is not an endorsement of the NRA, but i must give credit where due)
GRB
Regular Member
imported post
I got 2 emails back this time: As Lammie has stated no help from the NRA is coming with OPEN carry all them seem to think about is conceal carry
Unfortunately, you will not be able to openly carry through that school zone. You would be violating state and federal laws. As was mentioned before, the statute provides no issuing authority for the “political subdivisions” so the City doesn’t have any system for or means to provide a citizen with a permit. Also, there is no specification as to the discretionary means of issuing such as “shall issue” or “may issue”, so they can simply say, “No we will not issue a permit” and nothing in statute prevents them from doing so.
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA. There is no conceal carry in WI, the only licenses they give out are to police officers. It is unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed with a concealed "weapon". There is no statutory provision for obtaining a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The only thing that will correct this is a statutory provision through legislation. You can write your state representatives to ask them to propose such legislation. Please see our website for assistance: http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
Please don't hesitate to contact us with further questions or comments.
I got 2 emails back this time: As Lammie has stated no help from the NRA is coming with OPEN carry all them seem to think about is conceal carry
Unfortunately, you will not be able to openly carry through that school zone. You would be violating state and federal laws. As was mentioned before, the statute provides no issuing authority for the “political subdivisions” so the City doesn’t have any system for or means to provide a citizen with a permit. Also, there is no specification as to the discretionary means of issuing such as “shall issue” or “may issue”, so they can simply say, “No we will not issue a permit” and nothing in statute prevents them from doing so.
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA. There is no conceal carry in WI, the only licenses they give out are to police officers. It is unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed with a concealed "weapon". There is no statutory provision for obtaining a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The only thing that will correct this is a statutory provision through legislation. You can write your state representatives to ask them to propose such legislation. Please see our website for assistance: http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
Please don't hesitate to contact us with further questions or comments.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
In thinking of your thread "What's next?"
I seen this post on Article from our friend Candy of the Examiner.
This guy may just have the answer here.
Straight Shooter says: Want to stop this nonsense fast? Try filing a few Title 42§1983 U.S.C. actions on them in federal court:
"Civil action for deprivation of rights -
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity . . . "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html
The feds take these things VERY seriously, and with the AG's opinion in hand . . . they would be just about "open and shut." If a few Wis. cities saw a few of these filed against them (which they will have to defend), they will soon tell their JBT's to "back off."
Just a thought.
In thinking of your thread "What's next?"
I seen this post on Article from our friend Candy of the Examiner.
This guy may just have the answer here.
Straight Shooter says: Want to stop this nonsense fast? Try filing a few Title 42§1983 U.S.C. actions on them in federal court:
"Civil action for deprivation of rights -
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity . . . "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html
The feds take these things VERY seriously, and with the AG's opinion in hand . . . they would be just about "open and shut." If a few Wis. cities saw a few of these filed against them (which they will have to defend), they will soon tell their JBT's to "back off."
Just a thought.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Hmmmmmmm.... I like it. I wonder why we never heard of this before? Once again, we need a lawyer to tell us what the possibilities are.
Hmmmmmmm.... I like it. I wonder why we never heard of this before? Once again, we need a lawyer to tell us what the possibilities are.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
So what is next? I have recently sent a letter to the city attorney about the fire arm restriction in city parks being unenforceable due to the preemptive statute.
I asked him to have the ordinance removed from the books. I haven't heard anything back yet but I am curious to see if it will be brought up at the next council meeting.
I will keep on him about it and post his reply.
We all need to start going to these meetings. With our numbers being what they are there should be no reason why some of us can not show up at every meeting and hammer this until we succeed.
We need to find out who or what is behind our petition being down. We might have to start from scratch there but with determination we can do it.
I think we need to start shopping for a State Representative or Senator that will do something with the petition. Maybe we can come up with a list of them to approach.
Senator Alan Lasee (Green Bay) is a strong advocate for our right to carry. He might be a good start.
Anyone else got any ideas? Other than open carrying in our communities which is always a good thing, right now it seems like we are doing nothing.
Or am I just being paranoid? :what:
So what is next? I have recently sent a letter to the city attorney about the fire arm restriction in city parks being unenforceable due to the preemptive statute.
I asked him to have the ordinance removed from the books. I haven't heard anything back yet but I am curious to see if it will be brought up at the next council meeting.
I will keep on him about it and post his reply.
We all need to start going to these meetings. With our numbers being what they are there should be no reason why some of us can not show up at every meeting and hammer this until we succeed.
We need to find out who or what is behind our petition being down. We might have to start from scratch there but with determination we can do it.
I think we need to start shopping for a State Representative or Senator that will do something with the petition. Maybe we can come up with a list of them to approach.
Senator Alan Lasee (Green Bay) is a strong advocate for our right to carry. He might be a good start.
Anyone else got any ideas? Other than open carrying in our communities which is always a good thing, right now it seems like we are doing nothing.
Or am I just being paranoid? :what:
Woodchuck
Regular Member
imported post
J.Gleason wrote:
I personally know state rep for dist 96 Lee Nerison. I will call him tomorrow and run a few things by him and report back.
J.Gleason wrote:
I personally know state rep for dist 96 Lee Nerison. I will call him tomorrow and run a few things by him and report back.
Tree_Planter
New member
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Brad_Krause wrote:
Wear some indecia of gun ownerness - NRA hat, 2d amend button, etc. One speaker should ask folk in room to stand if they oppose ordiance; speakers need to be short and to the point - less than 3 mins; be clear and nive; no ramblings or discussions about the Zen of gun carry.
Note that Wisconsin is just like most states - OC on foot legal without any license.
Keep it simple and on message and talk to press.
But at least one person who lives in Greenfoeld should speak - that speaker will get most credit from council.
Brad_Krause wrote:
Absolutely - NATO doctrine - everybody show up nicely dressed; speakers shoudl be very short - point to preemption violation; fixing problem that does not exist as owners already control land per civil and criminal tresspas law; will lead to litigation and tax payer costs, etc.
Wear some indecia of gun ownerness - NRA hat, 2d amend button, etc. One speaker should ask folk in room to stand if they oppose ordiance; speakers need to be short and to the point - less than 3 mins; be clear and nive; no ramblings or discussions about the Zen of gun carry.
Note that Wisconsin is just like most states - OC on foot legal without any license.
Keep it simple and on message and talk to press.
But at least one person who lives in Greenfoeld should speak - that speaker will get most credit from council.
ccwinstructor
Centurion
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
The purpose of the law was clear from the start. It was to restrict the rights of people to carry guns, to make it harder for people to legitimately carry guns. The "school zone" part of the bill was only the "hook" of political pedophilia to help get it passed. This bill was pushed nationally by Senator Diane Feinstein of California, one of the most anti-freedom senators in the nation. Then it was copied word for word from the national version and passed in Wisconsin with virtually no debate or public awareness that I know of.
The purpose has nearly nothing to do with safety or crime, and everything to do with restricting the legitimate carry of guns.
The purpose of the bill was to delegitimize the carry of guns.
Nutczak wrote:
The purpose of the law was clear from the start. It was to restrict the rights of people to carry guns, to make it harder for people to legitimately carry guns. The "school zone" part of the bill was only the "hook" of political pedophilia to help get it passed. This bill was pushed nationally by Senator Diane Feinstein of California, one of the most anti-freedom senators in the nation. Then it was copied word for word from the national version and passed in Wisconsin with virtually no debate or public awareness that I know of.
The purpose has nearly nothing to do with safety or crime, and everything to do with restricting the legitimate carry of guns.
The purpose of the bill was to delegitimize the carry of guns.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
You may have hit the nail on the head Nutczak. This is probably our best option. We could request the law be changed to read, "No fire arms on school property during the normal hours of school business." This way after school hours there should be no issues. We should also propose the law as an enhancer.