No CCW in Wisconsin says paper


PDA






LAR-15
October 15, 2005, 12:35 PM
http://www.onalaskalife.com/articles/2005/10/14/opinion/00edit.txt

If you enjoyed reading about "No CCW in Wisconsin says paper" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAR-15
October 15, 2005, 12:36 PM
Advocates of concealed weapons legislation like to claim that we all would be safer if the ban on hidden guns were removed. That sort of ”up is down“ thinking belongs in Alice's Wonderland. It would be silly if it weren't so deadly serious, as Billy Walsh's family can attest.

Remember, concealed weapons legislation is not about the constitutional right to bear firearms. It's about inviting people to walk around with hidden firearms

JamisJockey
October 15, 2005, 04:05 PM
Advocates of concealed weapons legislation like to claim that we all would be safer if the ban on hidden guns were removed. That sort of ”up is down“ thinking belongs in Alice's Wonderland. It would be silly if it weren't so deadly serious, as Billy Walsh's family can attest.

Remember, concealed weapons legislation is not about the constitutional right to bear firearms. It's about inviting people to walk around with hidden firearms


Man, I hope you've got nomex undies. This will likely get ugly, quick.

The issue isn't safety. Its my rights to protect myself, and my freedom to do what I want as long as it doesn't directly affect someone else.

tulsamal
October 15, 2005, 04:15 PM
That sort of ”up is down“ thinking belongs in Alice's Wonderland. It would be silly if it weren't so deadly serious,

I'm amazed this even comes up. Maybe if no state had actually tried CCW laws it would be a valid argument. But somehow each new state that considers it, the idea that "every traffic accident will turn into a shooting" comes up again.

Look at the stats. State by state. Crime does not go UP when CCW laws are passed. There is NO doubt about that whatsoever. So arguing that CCW laws are somehow "unsafe" SHOULD be a non-starter. In some cases, crime has actually gone down. That's statistically harder to prove in the aggregate. But I don't know anybody who is seriously trying to prove that CCW is dangerous by using the statistics from all the states who have already passed it!

Gregg

Librarian
October 15, 2005, 05:04 PM
LAR-15 merely quoted part of the article at the link. Possibly a comment was intended, substantially summarized by 'hoplophobia again'.

White Horseradish
October 15, 2005, 05:52 PM
Didn't Ourada go home, get his gun, and then return to kill Walsh?

F4GIB
October 15, 2005, 06:45 PM
Didn't Ourada go home, get his gun, and then return to kill Walsh?

Yes. About 45 minutes later.
The fact that he had a permit is totally irrelevant.
For goodness sake, ever the untra-liberal
Minneapolis Star-Tribune knows there is no story here.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 06:53 PM
Ok....

So how exactly does him having a permit or not matter in the slightist? Even without the permit, he could have concealed the weapon and shot him.

The gun? Take away all the gun's you say? Then he will pick up a steak knife and stab someone.

AJ Dual
October 15, 2005, 09:38 PM
Yeah, sure, let's follow that editorial logic, and see where it leads...

Since the percentage of police who commit felonies is higher than the percentage of CCW holders who commit felonies, we should ban police too...

Because of the Wilson Blair scandal at The New York Times, no one should be allowed to exercise their 1st Ammendment rights, and publish a newspaper either...

Water? Seen what happened in New Orleans? Know how many children die in swimming pools? Don't even get me started!

:rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
October 15, 2005, 10:31 PM
Remember, concealed weapons legislation is not about the constitutional right to bear firearms. It's about inviting people to walk around with hidden firearms...

The sky isn't blue. It's actually a dastardly conspiracy to defraud innocent Wisconsinites.

71Commander
October 16, 2005, 07:06 AM
The process in Minnesota was supposed to weed out the bad guys too. But when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension took a look, it found several permits issued to people with arrests for domestic assault, drunken driving and even firearms violations.

Accused murderer Ourada had been arrested twice for drunken driving before he got his permit.

Explain to me the logic that if the investigating body is inept, the right to CCW by the law abiding populist is dangerous?

cracked butt
October 16, 2005, 07:40 AM
I'm glad the facts of the case didn't get in the way of this fantastic story printed by the newspaper.:rolleyes:

http://www.plack.net/index.php?s=zachary+ourada+&sentence=AND&submit=Search&blog=1&hack=autoforward

ReadyontheRight
October 16, 2005, 09:39 AM
Remember, concealed weapons legislation is not about the constitutional right to bear firearms. It's about inviting people to walk around with hidden firearms

"Bear (bâr) - To carry from one place to another; transport. "

Sheeesh! Some people.:uhoh:

The Constitution says "...keep and bear...", not "...keep and carry outside your home only for duck season..."

placknet
October 16, 2005, 05:27 PM
The thing I just do not get is that there are 3 cases right now that are on their way to the WI Supreme Court. While two of them will just chip away that the law, there is one that will blow the current law right out of the books. The 133 year old law will not survive.

Either these "journalists" are not doing their due diligence and do not know about these cases (even though Sen. Zien mentioned them) or they truly want Alaska style carry in Wisconsin.

In other words, the current law is about to be broken by the WI Constitution, but those with hoplophobia do not want a new law which would fix it.

In the clinical realms, this symptom could be considered an early form of dementia within the anti-gun group.

Update:
Here is an article (http://www.plack.net/index.php/2005/10/16/finally_a_reporter_who_is_getting_the_ne) with this exact point on just one of the cases...

Monkeyleg
October 16, 2005, 07:31 PM
placknet, welcome to THR.

In the state supreme court's July 2003 decision in state vs. Munir Hamdan, many CCW supporters were disappointed that the court ruled so narrowly. The court did urge the legislature to pass some sort of licensing bill, but it also only overturned the prohibition against carrying concealed in one's home or business. And at least one prosecutor has told me that he thinks he could still get a conviction for that, despite the court's ruling.

Only one justice in Hamdan wrote an opinion that the entire ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional.

And that's when we had a court with a 4:3 conservative balance. Now that Dianne Sykes has left, and Louis Butler been appointed by Doyle to her place, the balance is 4:3 liberal.

As for the quotes from Representative Sherman, you may or may not be aware of what he did.

He voted for the CCW bill in 2002, signed on as a co-sponsor in June of 2003, voted for the bill in the Assembly in November of 2003, wrote lengthy articles about why the bill was important, and then voted to sustain Governor Doyle's veto on February 3, 2004.

Sherman is just playing both sides. He received enormous amounts of money from anti-gunners in Milwaukee and Madison for his re-election in 2004. Two weeks ago, when Senator Zien and Representative Gunderson announced their bill at a press conference, Sherman kept his office doors locked, and was seen sneaking in the back way.

Carl N. Brown
October 17, 2005, 01:46 PM
Newspaper editorial:

According to second-degree murder charges, drunken 26-year-old
Zachary Ourada was harassing women at a Minneapolis restaurant.
Doorman Billy Walsh asked Ourada to leave. Ourada then pulled
out a concealed gun and shot Walsh four times in the back, killing
the 43-year-old father of three.

Fact check by PlankNet:

The problem with this inaccurate account is that Ourada did not
have a concealed gun on him. In fact, Ourada had to go home, get the
gun, and then come back to the bar. Only then did he use his
non-concealed gun to threaten people.



Never let mere fact stand in the way of opinion. With all the facts
on the table, the concealed carry permit question is irrelevant.
-------------------------------
afterthought added:
Ourada's behaviour has more to do with alcohol than firearms:
this is a job for Carrie Nation.

placknet
October 20, 2005, 06:43 PM
Monkeyleg,
In the state supreme court's July 2003 decision in state vs. Munir Hamdan, many CCW supporters were disappointed that the court ruled so narrowly.
I don't understand your statement "many CCW supporters". Are you saying that there are CCW supporters who thought the court did the correct thing? Rather seems contradictory.

And at least one prosecutor has told me that he thinks he could still get a conviction for that, despite the court's ruling.

Oh, I fully believe that every DA COULD get a conviction because the law has not been officially overturned. Local judges are not the issue; the issue is state law.

Only one justice in Hamdan wrote an opinion that the entire ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional.

Every liberal justice wrote that the state has the rights to regulate gun rights and that the current law had a level of questionability. The reason it is currently constitutional is that they felt the current law did NOT apply to private property, which is what the majority of pundits believes is the outcome of this ruling.

As for the quotes from Representative Sherman, you may or may not be aware of what he did.

I am more than aware.

Two weeks ago, when Senator Zien and Representative Gunderson announced their bill at a press conference, Sherman kept his office doors locked, and was seen sneaking in the back way.

I was in the group tracking Sherman down, checking his doors and tracing after him when we saw him leaving an elevator. I know all to well that he avoided us.

Sometimes we have to let the baggage of the past go so we can be positive about the current battle and our prospects.

I do believe that the current "liberal" Supreme Court WILL overturn the current law. My beliefs in what is right forces me to that conclusion. Sure, you can try to be "realistic" but why? Whom would you believe more, someone who is confident and positive or someone who is just not sure? I want to be believable because I believe in the cause.

"Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or learn from it." Rafiki - The Lion King

Our battle is not in the legislature, it is with the constituents of each district. We get the message through to them, we get the message through to the people they represent. Sherman may have anti-gun groups working on him; we just need to work harder.

Just for the record, I was working long and hard to contact people and correct issues regarding the last bill, just as I am on this bill. The only difference this time is that after the bill failed, I learned of WICCA. I will try to help them in addition my additional efforts this time. I would have helped earlier but I had NO idea there was a group out their working on it. It was an accidental click from packing.org.

See you Saturday in Antigo!!!

Monkeyleg
October 20, 2005, 07:27 PM
I don't understand your statement "many CCW supporters". Are you saying that there are CCW supporters who thought the court did the correct thing? Rather seems contradictory.


Certainly not. There were many supporters, including me, who thought the court would either rule narrowly, or simply uphold existing law.

Oh, I fully believe that every DA COULD get a conviction because the law has not been officially overturned. Local judges are not the issue; the issue is state law.


What I'm trying to say is that, while most people believe that the high court has now protected carry at home or business, that may not be the case in reality.

Every liberal justice wrote that the state has the rights to regulate gun rights and that the current law had a level of questionability. The reason it is currently constitutional is that they felt the current law did NOT apply to private property, which is what the majority of pundits believes is the outcome of this ruling.

All I'm saying is that people who think that the court will eventually rule against all provisions of the current ban are mistaken.

Being "realistic" and being hopeful are not mutually exclusive. If I were not hopeful that we can get a concealed carry bill passed, I wouldn't be spending the weekend at the gun show.

I'll be looking forward to meeting you!

If you enjoyed reading about "No CCW in Wisconsin says paper" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!