[cuchulainn]

from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct03/180552.aspOct. 27, 2003

You're armed, and the stairs creak

Eugene Kane

OK, all you would-be Clint Eastwoods out there:

As Wisconsin edges closer to becoming the latest state to allow regular citizens to carry concealed handguns, maybe now's a good time to figure out exactly when you can let somebody have it - blam! - and when you can't.

Here's a scenario to chew on:

An armed woman is alone in her bedroom on the second floor of her home.

She hears a window break, followed by the sounds of drawers being opened downstairs, and then footsteps coming up the stairs.

A shadowy figure appears at her bedroom door. She demands the person stop, but he keeps coming into the room.

Blam! She lets him have it, killing him instantly.

Is it a good shoot, or not? Jim Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, says bad shoot.

Very bad shoot.

"How did she know it wasn't a family member who forgot their key?" asked Fendry.

(She admitted never seeing the person's face.)

"How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?" Fendry continued.

"How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?"

According to Fendry, all those questions could be asked by a savvy district attorney. If she didn't have the right answers, she could be charged with homicide.

"The litmus test is always, 'What did you think in your own mind at the time?' " said Fendry, who spends much of his time training police officers and civilians about existing gun laws.

The armed woman in the second-floor bedroom scenario is taken from one of his own lessons.

It's meant to show gun owners that just because you have a gun, the law doesn't allow you to fire it willy-nilly.

Same thing goes for people who decide to shoot just because someone had invaded their personal property. Fendry said Wisconsin is not one of many states with a so-called "my house is my castle" law that allows for such actions.

But Fendry said many such incidents are decided by using a "common sense" standard that doesn't always adhere to the exact letter of the law.

For example, Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann has declined to prosecute some homeowners who defended their property by gunfire.

Fendry recalled one case in which McCann excused a husband who killed a would-be thief by shooting him as the man was escaping through a window.

Technically, Fendry said, that didn't qualify as self-defense.

"You don't have the right to be judge, jury and executioner," said Fendry.

But he said he agreed with McCann's decision in that case.

It struck me that much of this type of gun-law training was designed not just to educate gun owners but also provide them with a legal rationale in the event they shoot someone.

Fendry denied that; he insisted his classes were mainly about obeying the law.

He also believes there's little chance of shooting to wound an intruder. Most times, you're better off shooting to kill.

Unlike some who believe Gov. Jim Doyle will veto the concealed weapons bill, Fendry predicts there's a good chance Doyle will sign it into law due to political considerations.

I hope not; with all these details to remember, it's no wonder Clint never wanted to bother with all that technical stuff.

Most times, he went straight to the blam!

[Monkeyleg]

What's remarkable about this is the good relationship that Jim Fendry has built with Eugene Kane. This article is mild compared to Kane's rantings last week.

[TheeBadOne]

Damn fine article.

TBO

[xenophon]

dang, i was just fixing to post that same article. The author of the article is bent on being against ccw.

x

[geekWithA.45]

He also believes there's little chance of shooting to wound an intruder. Most times, you're better off shooting to kill.


YIKES!

I thought the well informed knew better than that.

You never shoot to "kill", you shoot to STOP.

And as far as the law is concerned, firing a gun at someone is LETHAL force, there's no legal recognition of aiming at his toe and considering it mere force.

[Gordon Fink]

I’m sorry, but what was that? Did I just read an anti-CCW article that was trying to make its point by describing a questionable non-CCW shoot?


“How did she know it wasn’t a family member who forgot their [sic] key?” asked Fendry.

Did he also forget the door bell?


“How did she know it wasn’t a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?” Fendry continued.

How would she know that the “drunk” wasn’t also about to confuse her for his “wife”?


“How did she know it wasn’t a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?”

If he’s breaking in, he sure isn’t harmless.

~G. Fink

[Lone_Gunman]

Gordon Fink makes a good point. The scenario described has nothing to do with CCW.

If someone breaks into my house by knocking out a window, and doesn't promptly identify himself as someone I know, then there is a pretty good chance he might get shot. Too bad if he is drunk or an escapee from a mental institution.

[Lone_Gunman]

Gordon Fink makes a good point. The scenario described has nothing to do with CCW.

If someone enters into my house by knocking out a window in the middle of the night, and doesn't promptly identify himself as someone I know, then there is a pretty good chance he is going to quickly have to figure out how to dig 125 grain hollowpoints out of his head.

[Atticus]

"How did she know it wasn't a family member who forgot their key?" asked Fendry.

(She admitted never seeing the person's face.)

"How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?" Fendry continued.

"How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?"

Better question- What if it isn't any of the above?

[ARperson]

To my knowledge, Indiana leans more towards the "my home is my castle" side of the legal argument. Several times the news has a quick clip of a local store owner that nailed a BG and didn't get prosecuted for it. The only time I can remember a homeowner being prosecuted was the guy recently who killed his pregnant girlfriend (baby died 1 day after delivery). He claimed she surprised him by coming home early. That might have worked had he not use TWO firearms to do it: a 9mm (I think) and an AK.

You know the AK had to be fodder for the prosecutor too.

Anyhow, my family knows I'm armed. And they all know I'll shoot. So they're all real good about identifying themselves.

I think the article is baseless if it hinges all of its credibility on that one example.

[CommonSense]

Eugene Kane’s job is to tick people off and get them talking. Anyone that reads the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel knows that. I agree that he is out in left field.

However, I do believe that the bill’s authors are just as crazy. They want to take away the rights of every property/business owner to dictate who can be on their premises. Any resident that has had to deal with the DNR should agree with me. Allowing the state to create rules for a business that they didn’t invest a dime in is wrong. Gun rights, smoker rights, diaper changing station rights, etc., etc. I forgot to mention – Wisconsin restaurants were once prohibited from serving margarine.

The current CCW bill is so full of holes; it makes Swiss cheese seem solid as a rock.

I have called and/or emailed our members in the Senate, House, and Governor – has everyone else?

Please call your state representatives and beg them to fill the holes if you want a CCW law enacted.

[cracked butt]

I beg your pardon 'Commonsense' but the law is not full of holes. It merely states that business need to put up a sign stating that they do not allow ccw on their site. The law also prohibits companies from prohibiting employees from keeping guns in their personal vehicles. I see nothing wrong with that.

[CommonSense]

I’m sorry, “cracked butt”, but you are VERY wrong. Please download the proposed bill. It states that you have to post an 11 x 11” sign, and then “personally” tell them they are not allowed on the premises. Most of Wisconsin’s companies cannot afford to hire a door person or metal detectors. Those are your only 2 options as the bill is currently written.

Further, the mere size of the sign requirements and having to hire a personal door person is anti-business.

Businesses spend millions of dollars a year to design inviting architecture, colors, POS, and POP advertising. Who are you or the state to deny them their property rights?

Please think about this before replying to me: I smoke. Eau Claire, Madison, Janesville and others have enacted laws dictating that business not allow smokers on their premises unless they loose 20% of their revenue. Think about that. The state is dictating that you have to loose business. As a smoker, I go to exempt restaurants if I think I might want to have a cigarette. The people that feel the need to carry a concealed weapon should do the same. I don’t want to tell any business that they have to let me smoke there because cigarettes are a legal commodity. If they don’t want my business, I’ll find somewhere that does.

Seems black and white to me. You’re either pro-State property abuse laws or anti. The CCW doesn’t even come in to play.

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I see that you have just one post here on THR, and you're objecting to the proposed CCW bill.

I'm going to assume that you're not here to try to create a divide in the WI CCW fight. Those of us who have been in the fight every hour, day and week for several years are busting our tails hard to get this bill passed. Is it the utopia of concealed carry bills? No. But it's one of the best in the country.

If you'd like to debate the merits of pure Second Amendment rights versus the WI concealed carry bill, please feel free to chime in on this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46690

[Standing Wolf]

"How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?" Fendry continued.
"How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?"

Anybody who breaks into your house is a felon—and what have these hypothetical situations to do with concealed carry?

[Standing Wolf]

Who are you or the state to deny them their property rights?

If a business is open to the public, it ought to be open to all the public. Does a business have a legal right to exclude blacks, or Jews, or homosexuals, or Native Americans, or firearms owners, or women, or...?

[CommonSense]

I’m sorry “Monkeyleg”. I didn’t see your comment on whether you were pro-State property abuse or anti. And I’m not a person that has just now decided to voice my opinion on State or Federal abuses. Another member of this group can vouch for that. I’ve been trying for a long time to teach people about allowing the government to take away our rights – any of them - and straying from their constitutional job.

It appears in your message that you are saying that the proposed bill is pretty good. After 130 years without a CCW, is that the best we can hope for?

And no, I don’t wish to debate you or anyone else regarding this bill. Your invitation in and of it self tells me where that would lead.

Do YOU want to debate me personally about the State abusing small business and/or landowners?

[CommonSense]

WOW! You took a large leap there, “Standing Wolf”! Discrimination against those groups is already against the law. People cannot dictate the color of their skin or national origin.

I missed your comments on pro/anti-property rights as well.

[cracked butt]

So if I understand you correctly 'CommonSense', you care much more about the property rights of owners of public businesses and the asthetics of buildings more than the individual rights and safety of citizens?

[CommonSense]

No “cracked butt”. That couldn’t be further from the truth of what I said. I don’t feel any business owner has the right to force you or anyone else in to his or her establishment! And if you’re out on the street and one of those business owners tries to force you in to their store, I’m all for you defending yourself with whatever it takes!

[CommonSense]

“cracked butt”: I stated in a previous post that smokers have learned to live with respecting the rights of business and the mandates of law. Why are you having such a problem with this? I’m guessing you’re anti-business.

[Gordon Fink]

CommonSense, regarding your concern for the right of business owners to prohibit concealed weapons on their premises, how would you resolve the problem? Would any sign, regardless of size, be acceptable? Must the permit holder ask permission before entering? Or should he psychically know the business owner prohibits concealed carry?

For that matter, how will business owners prohibit “illegal” concealed carry?

~G. Fink

[AJ Dual]

Commonsense, your smoking analogy doesn’t hold water.

The person most likely to obey a no CCW posting on a business is the CCW permit holder.

Criminals carrying concealed illegally will just waltz on in, and presumably they already do now. It's pretty hard for someone to smoke surreptitiously in a posted "No Smoking" business, or argue that unwanted smoke or odors wouldn’t waft towards others looking to breathe cleaner air, but it’s obvious that they would be completely unaware of an illegally carried gun.

And since you're so big on private property rights, is my personal property, namely what's inside and under my clothes, subject to any and all regulations or rules the business owner would care to impose? Does the contents of my car become the property or concern of a business just because I parked inside their parking structure? I would say that the standard of privacy for what's under my clothes is even higher, no?

My body space and items secured on it is my personal property and does not cease being so the minute I walk in someone else's door. It's only when anything I possess, or my actions, inside that business intrude or alter their private property does it become a concern. Until I unholster it, or brandish it does that firearm intrude upon or alter the private property of the business. Unless I expose it, draw it, or make a conscious decision to pull the trigger, my firearm is as inert as my wallet or my watch.

If I did draw, brandish or discharge my sidearm, it will certainly be in defense of another or myself from death or great bodily harm. And most will agree that preventing death or great bodily harm supersedes private property rights.

These "weak" provisions for preventing CCW in public establishments is in recognition of this fact, and an attempt to balance the rights of CCW holders and private businesses.

Ultimately, I find myself in agreement with Monkeyleg, I too suspect you are anti-CCW altogether, and are merely trying to couch your arguments in a framework of "conservative" business and property rights in an attempt to get some traction on a pro-gun venue.

[CommonSense]

Gordon Fink: Certainly a sign would have to be posted. I believe signs for “no smoking” at most businesses use the international “NO” symbol (a circle with a line through it) and they are approximately 4 inches square. These are usually placed near the door handle.

On the final part of your question, any concealed carry would remain “illegal” if the business does not want weapons entering his/her establishment. What a business decides to do about this behavior should be their decision, along with stiff legal penalties.

Did you notice Gordon that this bill softens the penalty for these criminals that decide to break the law? There’s Madison at work for you!

[HankB]

An armed woman is alone in her bedroom . . . She hears a window break . . . footsteps coming up the stairs. A shadowy figure appears at her bedroom door. She demands the person stop, but he keeps coming into the room . . . "How did she know it wasn't a family member who forgot their key?" asked Fendry If Fendry's family members break in (rather than use the doorbell) and don't respond to verbal challenges, but rather keep advancing in the dark . . . I feel sorry for him. He and his family need some serious counseling. How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house? Drunks who break in at night and advance on a lone woman when challenged verbally are NOT to be regarded as "harmless" by any reasonable standard. How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?Breaking and entering, followed by advancing on a lone woman in the dark after a verbal challenge, is not behavior that any reasonable person would associate with "harmless."

I'm guessing that in a misguided effort to appear "reasonable" to an anti, Jim Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, inadvertently entered the realm of the absurd.

[CommonSense]

AndrewWalkowiak: Property owners have always had the right to regulate your personal property while you’re on their physical property. No shirt, No shoes, No Service, No Radios, No Smoking, No Skateboard, No Roller Blading, No Driving Your Personal Jeep In My Store, etc. It is YOUR argument that doesn’t hold water!

As far as your suspicions, you couldn’t be further from the truth that I am anti-CCW. I’ve had to make many runs to the bank with the day’s receipts. I believe that I should have the right to protect myself. But at the end of the day, I still don’t think I should have the right to force my wishes down a property owner’s throat.

[Mike Irwin]

If I'm armed, and the stairs creak, it's either one of my dogs, or someone who's about to shuffle off the mortal coil.

I'm single and live alone.

[AJ Dual]

I see.

AndrewWalkowiak: Property owners have always had the right to regulate your personal property while you’re on their physical property. No shirt, No shoes, No Service, No Radios, No Smoking, No Skateboard, No Roller Blading, No Driving Your Personal Jeep In My Store, etc. It is YOUR argument that doesn’t hold water!

Every single one of those instances you cite just simply PROVES my point. Thanks for helping me! :D

Each one of those is a physical manifestation that affects the others on the premises in a detectable way.

"No shirt, No shoes, No Service"? Easy, you're grossing out other patrons with a visual disturbance of an improper state of undress.

"No Radios": Audible noise distrubing the environment.

"No Smoking": Obvious. Everyone in the building has to share the air.

"No Skateboard": Again, easy. A physicaly disruptive activity.

"No Roller Blading": Ditto.

"No Driving Your Personal Jeep In My Store": Obvious destruction of property.

Can you actually come up with an example that compares to an undetected and concealed firearm being carried by a CCW permit holder?

I doubt you will be able to.

At the risk of being a little "un-Highroad" here, the only example to banning otherwise legal CCW I can think up would be banning a baby wearing a diaper.

If the baby is wearing it's diaper, and you can't smell it. It's none of your concern, even if that baby is in your place of buisness. Now if mom whips off the dirty diaper and waves it around (i.e. brandishing) threatening to splattering you, your co-workers, employees, or other patrons, or making a mess of the physical premises, etc. now you've got a legit complaint.

Similarily, If I were a CCW holder, I'm not distrubing anyone if I'm not brandishing. If I do brandish, I'd better have a darned good reason for preserving life-n-limb, otherwise I'm in a world of criminal hurt. The WI Personal Protection Act in no way alters the laws on assult, brandishing, or disturbing the peace.

BTW, how are you going to make that armed bank-run from your business when your bank bans legal CCW?

[Andrew Rothman]

I’ve had to make many runs to the bank with the day’s receipts. I believe that I should have the right to protect myself.

Bummer for you, then, if the bank decides to post a sign banning your gun on their premises or parking lot. You'd have to leave your gun home.

Oh, you'd use a different bank? Tell that to the employee whose boss chooses the bank.

Use some common sense, commonsense. What "right" of a property owner does a CCW permit holder carrying a concealed weapon violate? The right to deprive others of their rights?

No right lives in a vacuum. There are intersections where competing rights must be balanced. This is one of those cases.

AndrewWalkowiak beat me to the apparently obvious point. Gotta type faster.

[TarpleyG]

I must've typed in the wrong URL. I am looking for THR. Anyone seen it? I feel like I am at DU.

GO AWAY TROLL!!!

GT

[Gordon Fink]

Certainly a sign would have to be posted.…

On the final part of your question, any concealed carry would remain “illegal” if the business does not want weapons entering his/her establishment.…

Did you notice Gordon that this bill softens the penalty for these criminals that decide to break the law?

So we agree that some type of sign should suffice.

I haven’t read the bill. Are penalties softened for un-permitted carry or for trespassing by permit holders?

A large sign may be specified so that permit holders can’t use the “I didn’t see the notice that I wasn’t allowed to enter this public space where everyone else may freely enter” defense to a trespassing charge. A sign not legally defined could be easily misconstrued by a permit holder to prohibit only “illegal” (i.e., un-permitted) concealed carry.

~G. Fink

[JohnBT]

I'm always on the lookout for posted businesses. I certainly don't want them to have any of my money.

And CommonSense, I find it mildly amusing that you carry a gun when you feel you need it, but don't want others to do the same. Let's say I'm on my way to the bank and need/want to stop in your business. By your brand of logic I suppose you'd prefer I leave the gun and the money in the car. Like I said, I'll take my business somewhere else. I don't think I'd trust you to protect me while at your place of business - because? - by your own admission you're not always armed.

You can refer to me as uncommonsense if you like, but my friends call me Bighead.

[CommonSense]

JohnBT: Thank you for posting the easiest way to express your displeasure with a business’ practices you don’t agree with.

And, I didn’t state that I felt I should have the right to carry and no one else. In fact, I stated that if a business owner didn’t want me there, I would go somewhere else.

Gordon Fink: I do believe that the State should require a reasonable size for the sign and they should state where on the door it is required. There could be no argument from either the business or the criminal then.

The penalty is reduced for all people illegally carrying a concealed weapon – permit or otherwise.

Mpayne: Thank you for your comments. If I had a boss that wanted me to do anything I wasn’t comfortable with, I’d find a new employer. That question reminds me of the lawsuit I recently read that a person applied for and was hired to work in a bar, which allowed smoking. She then sued the bar because of being exposed to cigarette smoke.

This bill violates the rights of property owners to dictate what is and isn’t allowed on their premises without massive expense. Don’t you just love unfunded State mandates?

AndrewWalkowiak: Yes. The undesired actions of a CCW permit holder during a crime in progress.

TarpleyG: You flashed your I.Q. ‘Nuff said.

[pytron]

EDITED BECAUSE I'M AN IDIOT AND FAILED READING COMPREHENSION

But I still wanted to say:

I don't think Commonsense has ever directly stated that he/she carries or a firearm or his/her support of the RKBA, which kind of lends credence to the troll theory (not to mention providing no location and the name often affiliated with "commensense" gun laws). I'd be happy to hear otherwise.

But I do agree with Commensense that the requirement of the door greeter is ridiculous. A sign should be enough. I had forgotten that part of the bill.

[ARperson]

Geez. I'm surprised. On two counts. One, I've never seen a discussion get this heated on THR before. Two, I've never seen a discussion get this heated and not come to name-calling and personal slurs (of course, given my previous homes, that's not surprising). Impressive. Surprising, but impressive.

Regarding property rights: any business should have the right to exclude anybody or anything, excepting those classes already protected by law. Period. Having said that, no, criminals won't abide by signs requesting CCW holders to leave their firearms in the car. But the criminal doesn't care about laws anyway so what's the big deal? "What's the big deal?" you say. "The big deal is that it prevents CCW holders from patronizing certain businesses."

To which I respond: if they don't support your CCW rights, do you really want to do business with them anyway?

This is really a no-brainer, guys. You're splitting hairs on an issue that's secondary to getting CCW.

There's a grocery store in Phoenix that has a sign prohibiting carrying firearms into the store. Guess what? That store didn't get my business, even though I had to drive farther to the next one. Simple economics.


Here's the way it should work. The law doesn't prohibit CCW anywhere but the "typical" places (schools, government buildings). Anybody else that wants to exclude CCW holders from enter with a firearm has to make the effort to let potential patrons know up front before they enter. Period. End of sentence. There shouldn't be a law requiring signs if businesses want to exclude CCW holders. We need less government regulations, not more.

Just move to Indiana. We don't have these problems.

[Moparmike]

Very bad shootMr. Fendry, I feel for your family. Living with someone so patently stupid as that must be a terrible burden.

If anyone breaks into my house, runs through my stuff, comes up to my bedroom, and then procedes not to respond when I command him/her to stop, then I will shoot to stop the percieved threat. At that point, a threat is the only thing he/she could be.

Moron.:uhoh: :scrutiny:

[CommonSense]

WOW! I was about to give up here. It seemed to me that all of the posters wanted the CCW law to fail or be vetoed. I want people to get the holes (whether you agree with me or not on what the holes are) fixed. Instead, it seemed most wanted to kill the messenger. At this point, it appears only Gordon Fink, pytron, and ARperson REALLY wants this law to pass.

Pytron: Thank you for your thoughts. I live in Milwaukee and I work in Brookfield. Both are located in Wisconsin. I’m sorry that you didn’t like my choice of a user name. I use the same when in a newsgroup where someone claims the world will end if CCW is enacted. And, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve asked Eugene Kane to use some common sense. Also, thank you for your support on unfunded State mandates.

ARperson: Thank you for spelling out that filling the holes will IMPROVE the chances of getting the law passed, which is what I thought we all wanted. And I have to commend you on your stance that we don’t need more government regulations. I, for one, am tired of the State telling people this or that when they didn’t invest 10 cents in that business, while in fact, they tax them whenever/however/where-ever they can!

I do have to disagree about the sign comment you made though. I do believe that property & business owners should have to post a reasonably sized sign in a specified location. I don’t want innocent CCW people fined and left with a criminal record.

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, do you want this law to pass as is, or do you want to wait until 2007 or even 2011 for a "better version" to be considered?

That is reality.

The bill is written, the legislators who will support it have signed on, and any changes in the bill will kill it for four to eight years. The amendments made were done so to gain the support of legislators whose constituents were unsure, and they had to be able to claim some sort of victory for their amendments.

That's politics.

What's going on now is what's gone on in just about every state legislature for the last sixteen or so years. And the internicine sniping isn't helping one damned bit. I get emails from people who claim that this is surrendering our Second Amendment rights. If somebody feels that way, that's fine. Let him be a state supreme court test case. I also get emails from people who think that we can succeed by giving the opponents more of what they're asking for, as if the opponents would settle for anything less than our total defeat.

The first goal is to get 75-90% of what you want. After that, the rest can be accomplished one amendment at a time.

I also smoke. Smoking bans are a real issue with me, so I choose my restaurants accordingly. Does the business owner have the right to put up a no-smoking sign on the entrances to his establishment? You betcha. Just like I have every right to put a "no unarmed citizens allowed" sign at my doorstep.

By the way, the "no guns" signs as proscribed in the bill are now 8 1/2" x 11", instead of 11" x 11".
Would anyone like to take a guess as to why that amendment was proposed, fought for, and passed?

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: You’re asking very interesting questions. But, the time frames you listed are incorrect. I personally talked the State’s senate president, and, she told me this comes up every year. And yes, she told me they reduced the size of sign requirements to 8.5 X 11”. Did you know that she also has a daughter that works for Speedway? She said that her daughter is currently in training to be a manager. I can’t help but wonder how she will vote after her daughter completes her training. As probably the most dangerous occupation in the USA, I believe convenience store owners should have the right to install and legally use pay counter concealed shotguns.

On to your question of supporting as written – no. I don’t believe it will not be enacted as written. Fill the holes and allow us to protect ourselves!

While I respect your opinion, I feel fixing the law before being voted on is the best option.

I’m glad to hear that you believe that a business owner should dictate smoking laws in their establishment. I was however sorry to read that you thought that we should pass an unfair law and hope to repeal the parts we really didn’t like. That rarely happens.

Look at all the “sunset” rules that become permanent after they’re passed. Taxing Internet access is due any day now. Watch and read why I’m so ticked about government attacking personal rights.

I do appreciate you adding your thoughts and giving us all things to think about.

[CommonSense]

OMG.. I’m sorry, but I didn’t read between the lines of what Monkeyleg was asking me. I’m now guessing that he wants to know what my thoughts are in the event Doyle is successful in vetoing this bill year after year. Well, if the voters re-elect him, that’s what the people want. If he defies rights of anyone, I’m all for a recall, which if you haven’t read if very popular in Wisconsin these days.

[HankB]

A large sign may be specified so that permit holders can’t use the “I didn’t see the notice that I wasn’t allowed to enter this public space where everyone else may freely enter” defense to a trespassing charge. A sign not legally defined could be easily misconstrued by a permit holder to prohibit only “illegal” (i.e., un-permitted) concealed carry. There's a portion of the Texas penal code - PC 30.06 - that specifies what type of sign an anti-gun establishment has to post to ban lawful CCW. It specifies exact wording in English & Spanish, type of lettering, etc. A compliant sign is about 2' x 3' so it's hard to miss.

This was done because of the plethora of odd signage that popped up - for example, signs were sometimes hand lettered, small, or ambiguous. The legislature addressed this by clearly defining what type of sign was required. Non-compliant signs have no legal standing, and may be ignored by TX CHL holders.

(Some places are explicitly off-limits by law - for example, courtrooms and the secured areas of an airport - and require no sign.)

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense: "I’m all for a recall, which if you haven’t read if very popular in Wisconsin these days."

Not likely. The Doyle recall movement is tiny, and for the most part is being run by the same folks who backed Ed Thompson.

As for your having spoken with the president of the senate, I think Senate President Alan Lasee would be just a bit upset to having you refer to him as "she." ;)

The only way that this bill will come up again before Doyle leaves office in 2007 (assuming he's not re-elected) is if the Republicans gain four more senate seats and eight more assembly seats next year. Not likely.

So, in order to get the votes to override, Senator Zien and Representative Gunderson have had to accept some amendments that weaken the bill. But they don't weaken it much.

This bill isn't gun-specific; you're not restricted to carrying the gun you qualified with, a provision that some states have. You can carry in parks which, IIRC, you cannot do in Tennessee and other states. There's no fingerprinting, as is the case with many states. You can carry weapons other than guns (knives, billy clubs, stun guns), which most states don't allow. The training requirements are pretty simple, especially compared to a state like Texas.

Unlike any state I'm aware of, this bill provides liability for businesses that don't allow their employees to carry at work; you have a permit, you can't carry, you get shot, you sue your employer. It also exempts the parking lots of businesses that prohit carry by employees, something that most states don't provide for. It prevents businesses from forbidding employees from carrying in their own vehicles while on company time. What state does that?

The bill allows carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, something that many, many states prohibit.

We're left with a few locations where we would not be able to carry, and I see those restrictions being amended in years to come.

And I am not willing to let the whole thing die because of a few relatively minor restrictions.

But I still don't understand what parts of the bill you object to. Please elaborate.

[CommonSense]

You are correct Monkeyleg that I didn’t speak to the Senate’s President. Mary Panzer is the Senate Majority Leader. I apologize for my error.

I know now that you are talking about Senate and House Members willing to vote for it being passed, rather than it coming up for vote every year.

Simple training requirements as a person that has either owned or managed businesses all of my life worry me. Please inform me of the differences and why you think one is better than the other.

Wisconsin employees have always had the right to sue their employer for injuries incurred on the job. That is why smart employers train their employees on robbery/burglary events. And be careful what you’re cheering for. Any lawyer worth 10 cents will find a way around employees storing weapons in their car – including closing parking lots if they wish. I don’t see that happening (unless you’re the US Post Office), but you never know. Yes, if delivered pizzas, I’m cheering right now. Once the lawyers make you sign a pre-employment agreement, plan on spending the next 10-15 years in legal limbo waiting for the US Supreme Court to rule though.

Finally, you asked a fair question that most pro-carry people haven’t been willing to except. I object to a sign that is any larger than all the other “NO” signs you’ve posted. People have been able to see these “normal” sized signs for years. I don’t think we need a State mandate stating the CCW licensees are blind. And, it doesn’t even address that! If I were blind, I’d love to carry an electronic weapon. As I said in a previous post, the size of the sign should be reasonable AND (not specified as of yet) in a consistent location.

Do you want me to write about how I feel about hiring a door greeter or install metal detectors? Or have you read my previous posts on unfunded State mandates?

At the business I currently manage, I wouldn’t install a sign regardless of size. However, when I was a district manager for a gas station/convenience store chain, I would. Why you might ask? Because I’ve had to study robbery after robbery for that occupation in that situation. The odds of your survival are greatest if you do exactly as told. The robber has his weapon drawn already. Okay. Now you’re going to ask what this has to do with CCW. The answer is human nature. Even with training, many employees freak – they do things that scare the robber. Everyone is some state of shock during a robbery – including the criminal. I don’t wish to add another element to the equation.

Agree or disagree with me – don’t you think that should be left to the property owner? You still retain the right to go somewhere else under this bill.

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, you're throwing so many questions at me that I feel like I'm in a dodgeball game. (OK, most folks don't know what "dodgeball " is unless they're about my age :( ).

"Simple training requirements as a person that has either owned or managed businesses all of my life worry me. Please inform me of the differences and why you think one is better than the other."

I assume your concern is that people will not be adequately trained, or at least to a level that you feel comfortable with. What level would that be? The number of hours that police cadets undergo in firearms training isn't all that great, and they're being trained to do things that "citizens" do not need to: chase down suspects, break down barricaded suspects, go into "hot" crime areas, etc. The responsibility of a CCW permit holder is to get his/her butt out of the confrontation as fast as possible, and to use the threat of lethal force as the absolute last resort. Big difference.

My concern with lengthy and expensive training classes are twofold: they address tactics and methods that the average citizen doesn't need; and the cost will prevent those who need self-protection the most from being able to get the training.

As for your point that employees can sue the employer right now: how so? Since it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon, there are no grounds upon which an employee denied the right to carry on the job can sue based upon the argument that, had he been allowed to protect himself, he wouldn't have been harmed. If some slick lawyers can twist that, rest assured they will. But this law, unlike any other I'm aware of, puts the burden of liability for those employers who deny their employees the right to defend themselves right back in the lap of the company. Show me another case in Wisconsin where a defenseless employee sued the company because he couldn't carry a gun.

With all due respect, I cannot fathom your argument against the size of the "no guns" signs. They will be larger than "no smoking" signs, but smaller than "handicapped parking only" signs. They will be larger than some signs, but smaller than others. By the way, nobody has yet tried to answer my question as to why the bill was amended to make the signs 8 1/2" x 11".

As the owner/manager of a business, you are not required by this law to have metal detectors or "greeters." The signage requirement is much the same as the Texas "30.06" legislation: if a permit holder is on your posted business property, you tell him to leave. If he refuses, he gets arrested for trespassing. This is not an unfunded mandate. You or your employer have sole discretion.

"The odds of your survival are greatest if you do exactly as told."

Hmmm. I seem to remember more than a few fast-food and convenience store employees who did just that and didn't come out of the experience alive. And FBI Uniform Crime Report numbers show that those who resist with a weapon are more likely to survive than those who cooperate.

In the end, it's going to come down to the situation at hand. If you have the opportunity to gain the upper hand, take it. If you don't, watch for another opportunity, or just pray. At least with having a concealed weapon, you'll have more opportunities than not.

Lastly, I think I've made it clear that I agree that private property is just that: private. If the business owner doesn't want concealed weapons in his establishment, that's his right.

I hope I've addressed all of your points to your satisfaction. Now I'd like to ask again: what is it about this bill that you feel is flawed?

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: I’ve answered all of your questions and you continue to re-ask them. Go back and read the thread from the beginning.

“Hmmm. I seem to remember more than a few fast-food and convenience store employees…” I’m surprised to see you went there. That’s the first place anti-gun people go. In the paper this week was a story on how two CCW licensees are arrested every month for a violent crime in Texas. Why don’t you leave me out of that game and go argue that with the anti-gun people.

It appears you feel your right to carry a concealed weapon should override a property or business owners rights. People have the right of free speech too. Property and business owners have agreed for years – telling many of them to express that right elsewhere.

Given that, there is no use in either of us continuing this discussion. I’m sure neither of us will change our minds on “Who’s Property Is It Anyway?”

Take care and best wishes.

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense: "In the paper this week was a story on how two CCW licensees are arrested every month for a violent crime in Texas."

Do you know where that "statistic" comes from? The Violence Policy Center, a group that's infamous for massaging numbers. The Texas Department of Public Safety publishes conviction rates for permit holders and non-permit holders on their website at http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm Check it out. There are roughly 225,000 permit holders in Texas. Even if there are two a month--or 24 a year--how does that compare to the public at large?

"It appears you feel your right to carry a concealed weapon should override a property or business owners rights."

What we got here (as Struther Martin so eloquently said) is failure to communicate. I absolutely believe that the rights of private property owners override my right to carry on their property. I don't know why we're having confusion on this point.

Bow out of this discussion if you like. Maybe my brain isn't functioning at full capacity, but I haven't been able to pin down your objections to this bill.

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: That's because you didn't re-read the thread as I requested. You're posts still make me believe you're anti-property/business despite your claims stating otherwise. In fact, my money is on you backing the smoking ban in Wauwatosa's restaurants.

It's crystal-clear we're never going to be in agreement, so we should politely end this conversation.

Again, take care and best wishes.

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I've read and re-read every post you've made on this thread, and I still cannot figure out where your objections lie.

Me backing the no-smoking bans in Wauwatosa and other cities? I smoke 4.5 packs a day. I'm a chain-smoker, and I don't go to restaurants that treat me like a second-class citizen. By the same token, I restrain from smoking when others are eating, and do everything I can to minimize the "irritation" the non-smokers might feel. Yeah, I've always gone out of my way to accomodate those who would irritate me without giving it a second thought. It's called consideration.

Thanks for giving me best wishes. But I still want to know, if you're willing to reply, what "holes" you think are in the current bill.

As I said, I get emails from folks who think we shouldn't need permits; after all, we have the Second Amendment and that's all we need, damnit! Then I get the "why can't we reach some common ground" emails with those who oppose us, as though they're going to agree to concealed carry at all.

If you're up to replying again, please tell me which provisions of the bill you object to. I'm really sorry, but I haven't been able to discern your position with any clarity.

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: I don’t know if you’re serious or are just trying to argue with me. I told you that I didn’t care to do the tit-for-tat routine that happens between pro and anti, and yet you again tried to draw me in to that (the story was listing arrested and you directed me to convicted). I told you in advance that you should play that game with anti-gun people that would more than love to play the silly games it appears you’re so found of. What’s up with that? I probably laughed more at the story than you because I know a “spin” when I read one.

You didn’t answer on how you feel about any form of government dictating smoking. Please reply. You said you smoke and respect the rights of other. But how do you feel about the government telling you that is the law (and if you’re not a business owner, pretend you are and invested your life’s dream in this venture).

And I have posted a major hole. Property owners or business owners should not have to wallpaper their doors. If you want a CCW permit, during your training class, you should be instructed where to look for a sign saying you’re not wanted on those premises.

Imagine for a second that for every “NO” sign, a business had to post an 8.5” X 11” sign. Any police officer will tell you that restricting the view of the store is dangerous. Yet if every “NO” sign were that size, it would truly be obstructed. And stating it should only be for CCW just makes one look stupid. Stating that kids with no shoes on should be brighter than a person that was required to attend a class on CCW just plays to the anti-gun crowd.

Monkeyleg, I’ve REALLY tried to talk to you. I know you’ll have yet another answer for this message. And I don’t know it all like you do. But I do know stupid when I it slaps me in the face.

I don’t know how to end this message because I can see that you don’t care about the things I hold dear (Freedom from Government Mandates). Bye I guess.

[Monkeyleg]

Commonsense, I am not trying to play a tit-for-tat game here. I don't like to post just to read my own words.

How do I feel about the government dictating smoking? They should either say that tobacco is against the law (not likely) or shut up about cigarettes. And government has no business telling businesses and private property owners where people can and cannot smoke. That's up to the business owner and the individual property owner. I thought I had made that clear.

I directed you to the Texas DPS site because you cited a stat from a news article that came from the VPC. Prior to last year, the Texas DPS published all of the raw data online regarding permit holders: arrests, dismissal of charges, disposition of cases, and convictions, all broken out by the individual offense. They changed their reporting system last year because, according to the head of legal for the DPS, they were tired of "certain groups" distorting their data.

"And I have posted a major hole. Property owners or business owners should not have to wallpaper their doors. If you want a CCW permit, during your training class, you should be instructed where to look for a sign saying you’re not wanted on those premises."

I honestly don't know how to get around the sign requirement. When you have a shopping mall such as Mayfair with literally hundreds of entrance doors, which one do you choose for posting a sign? And how will the permit holder know which door to go to for Mayfair, Brookfield Square, Southridge, Bayshore Mall, etc? If you have a solution for a uniform way of posting signs, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about it.

"But I do know stupid when I it slaps me in the face."

I may not be the brightest member of THR, but I'm certainly not stupid. Resorting to name-calling is usually a sign that someone has run out of legitimate points in a discussion.

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: All business entrances should have a reasonably sized sign posted in a location so the public knows where to look for them.

I’m sorry you thought I was talking about you when in fact I was referring to the proposed sign requirement as “stupid.”

[Monkeyleg]

Hi, again, CommonSense. I agree that businesses should be required to post reasonably-sized signs, but without essentially defacing their property. What constitutes "reasonably-sized" is debatable. I think a sign the size of the small no-smoking ones that you see on doors or next to doorways should be sufficient. Business shouldn't have to post small billboards.

Originally, the signs were supposed to be 11" x 11". Then the Joint Finance committee accepted an amendment to make them 8 1/2" x 11". Since nobody has bothered to answer my question regarding that size, I will: it's so that the anti-gun groups can fax them to businesses all over Madison and Milwaukee. Why they let that one slip by, I don't know.

This and other amendments can be changed over the next couple of years, once the public gets over their fear of permit holders. The same story has played out in some seventeen states over the last decade or so: headlines predicting blood in the streets, fear and panic amongst the public, politicians grandstanding, etc. Then, after a year or so, the papers start running stories about how nothing has happened.

Once we reach that point, a bill to reduce the size of the signs, or a bill to allow carry in places that are now off-limits, will be much easier to get passed. In fact, the public may not even know the bills are being considered.

I know you don't like the signage provisions, but I'd rather take a 90% victory now and turn it into 100% later on, than get no victory at all.

Well, it seems that you and I have reached some kind of consensus on most of this. So, what's next? Glock versus 1911? ;)

No need to be sorry for the "stupid" remark. I took it the wrong way.

[CommonSense]

Hi Monkeyleg. I doubt anyone had the faxing thing in mind. I’m guessing that they made the change because most businesses don’t have a large-format printer. It would be hard to argue though that a business doesn’t have easy access to an 8.5” X 11” printer.

I hope there aren’t any anti-gun/CCW people reading your posts – I get enough junk faxes as it is.

But it doesn’t really matter. It appears the bill is so poorly written that it could read in a huge font, “Welcome to ABC Retailer. We hope you enjoy your shopping experience”, followed in a micro-font, “No weapons allowed”. Nothing is dictated regarding the wording, font size, or borders on the proposed sign or its required location.

Have you ever heard the real estate proverb: “Location, location, location?” Seems to me that a normal-sized sign in a required location makes the most sense. Everyone will know where to look then, especially those required to take a training class. My guess is that those teaching the CCW training class would like that clause as well. It would leave them more time to talk about other things if specified sign location was required.

Even if they correct the sign problems, the store greeter is just over the top and is the most anti-business bill (especially from the Republican camp) I’ve seen in years. Not everyone is Wal-Mart. Small business cannot afford this nonsense.

But, I don’t have the wisdom of all the folks in Madison that look out for me on a daily basis. <cough>

[CommonSense]

Hi Monkeyleg. I don't know if you read this in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, but it pretty much states why I choose not to debate all the "experts". http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov03/182161.asp

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I thought you wanted this discussion to be over. IIRC, you were complaining about my "tit-for-tat" responses.

Look, if you don't like the bill, don't go out and support it. If you think that you're going to get 100% of what you want by doing whatever it is that you do, go do whatever it is that you do. If whatever you do is obscene, don't do it in front of me.

This fight started ten years ago, and tens of thousands of Wisconsin gun owners have gone balls to the wall to get where we are right now. We have right here on THR many folks who've put in long hours trying to get to the point where we are right now: Andrew Walkowiak, Hunter Rose, MPThole, and Bedlamite, to name just a few. It's been a really emotionally draining experience.

If we lose, it will be because some gun owners were too selfish or lazy to even make a *%(&AA#% phone call. Up in Antigo, it was basically me and a volunteer named Lloyd--both of us with bad backs--who did two days straight trying to get people to write a postcard to their legislators. Nothing like constant pain to get you pissed off when somebody starts picking nits.

Go ahead and bitch about the bill if you want. If your primary objections are to paper sizes and locations, then you're missing the larger picture. As for the "store greeter," please refer me to the provision in the bill that requires such a person. It does not. It requires that a business that does not want to have concealed carry on its premises to post a sign at two entrances for every forty acres of property. If a permit holder knowlingly or unknowlingly carries on to a posted property, he must leave if told to do so. If he refuses, he will be arrested.

The timing of your posts, CommonSense, has always been suspect. Your arguments, at least to me, make your motives even more suspect. If I find out that you're hither and yon across the internet trying to subvert a ten-year effort that is now within one or two votes of becoming reality, you will "disappoint me."

[CommonSense]

WOW Monkeyleg: Just when I thought we were communicating, you posted that message. I posted that link for your entertainment because it was in today’s paper (and you posted another from today’s paper in another message). It wasn’t meant to tick you off.

As far as 100%, YOU know as well as everyone else that has read this thread that the bill slaps small business upside its head and robs their wallet. In fact, I’ll bet business would pay less money to the robbers than the labor costs required under this proposed law. After you post your 8.5” X 11” sign (anywhere as currently written), you have to “personally” inform them (everyone) that concealed weapons aren’t allowed.

And stop crying about all you’ve done. In another message, I’ve asked where are all the inner city people are that SHOULD CCW. How many signatures did you get to inform Moore that they need this? Stop patting yourself on the back. The bill has holes and no one is contacting the people that SHOULD be begging for this bill. Yes, I too am just as guilty as you. If you want to start a petition, contact me in a more civil manner.

Since it appears you know all, I shouldn’t have to tell you this.

And you trying to act that you’re suspect of my motives only proves you’re out of steam and anti-business and anti-property ownership. Lemme guess: You work for the DNR.

[CommonSense]

Just a follow-up comment: “tens of thousands of Wisconsin gun owners have…” How nice of you to list 4 out of at least the 20,000 you claimed. Feel free to forward me your complete list if you aren’t just making things up.

[pytron]

Starting to smell something burning around here. Better put my nomex on.

Okay, I searched for the text for the WI CCW bill, and the copy I found SB214 (I think) said absolutely nothing about businesses. Can someone please point me to a copy of the text online? And if you can point out the signage/door greeter requirement, that would be awesome.

I still do not understand CommonSense's objection(s?) to this bill. You say that it will not affect your business (am I correct to understand that you own a business in WI?) because you will not be putting up signs. So it seems your beef is purely in principle of being an "unfunded state mandate"? Monkeyleg has tried his best to get you to list your specific objections, but I don't believe you've laid them out for us.

-Pytron

[CommonSense]

“For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building has notified an individual not to enter or remain in that part of the nonresidential building while going armed with a concealed weapon or with a particular type of concealed weapon if the owner or occupant has done all of the following:

a. Posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near the primary entrance to the part of the nonresidential building to which the restriction applies.
b. Personally and orally notified the individual of the restriction”

[artjs]

I am also one of the thousand's that Monkeyleg refers to. I have been at some shows handing out literature. I've made calls and letters to my state legislators. I've been at the Capitol building for a number of rallies and sat around for 2 days waiting for the Senate to 'get to' the PPA bill a couple of weeks ago.

There are many other people that have been discussing, and tring to promote the bills for a number of years, this is the first I've heard of you 'CommonSense'

Dick
I think it's time to let this one drop.....I know you don't like to not refute this guys writing and thoughts, but, I think you've hit a wall :banghead:

Art

[pytron]

So, from my simple reading (since I don't have the entire text) it sounds just like Washington State law. Basically, business owners put up signs, and anyone can continue to carry, knowing it is against the business owner's wishes. However, if the CCW is revealed, the owners may request that you leave. If you do not leave, you can be charged with trespassing. Sounds reasonable to me.

-Pytron

[Monkeyleg]

Pytron, I'm attaching a .pdf file of the amendments to AB444. This lists all the places that are off-limits, the places that must post, the training requirements, etc.

artjs, I think you're right about hitting a wall in this thread. There's enough aggravation in the real world in this fight for CCW without having to experience it here.

As if Gwendolynne Moore would ever support concealed carry.... sheesh.

[Monkeyleg]

Here's the attachment.

[Gordon Fink]

an owner … has notified an individual … with a concealed weapon … if the owner … has done all of the following:

a. Posted a sign … near the primary entrance.…
b. Personally and orally notified the individual of the restriction.

This clause does not require a “greeter.” It sets out the legal definition of notification pursuant to a trespassing complaint. If a permit holder doesn’t see your sign, you can’t call the police until you have first asked him to leave.

~G. Fink

[CommonSense]

Hmmm.. I don’t know what to say. The Senate’s final draft tramples businesses rights even more than I’ve previously posted. Even having a door greeter doesn’t matter now. Again, this is the most anti-business/property rights bill I’ve seen in years. To everyone that thinks this is good government, shame on you. Property rights have always been first and foremost in laws (excluding some retarded laws i.e.: No margarine, no smoking, etc). Those here that believe that the right to carry supersedes business/property owners, IMHO, need to do some soul searching. You retain the right to shop somewhere else without major expense. A business/property owner doesn't have that luxury.

“Section 49. 943.13 (1m) (b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain of the premises. This paragraph does not apply to a licensee if the owner’s or occupant’s intent is to prevent the licensee from going armed with a concealed weapon on the owner’s or occupant’s land.”

BTW, Welcome artjs! This is the first I’ve heard from you as well.

To everyone, thanks for your input. You have helped me a lot. I’m sorry if I’ve upset any of you. I know that everyone here is extremely pro-CCW. I’ve tried to be polite, even when people weren’t exactly trying to be as courteous. I just thought that working together, we could get a few holes filled. I know now that’s not going to happen.

Take care everyone!

[litman252]

Meanwhile back at the ranch.....................................

Where does it say that a person who ILLEGALY carries into a store has a lower price to pay??

Monkeyleg, your more of a man than I, and thanks for your work here and elsewhere;)

Tony

[CommonSense]

“litman252”: ROFL. I was trying to bow out politely, but your post just proved to me some people should not be armed. It appears you can’t even read (since your question was answered the in post you were replying to). I can’t help but wonder who posted your silly message for you (although I have an idea)! Ask someone to read aloud the contents of the message that you replied to.

I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I have to agree that Monkeyleg is more of a man than you. I too thank him for his thoughts and efforts. I thank you as well. Honest data and concrete statements should make it easier for our legislators to have an opinion on this issue. Thanks for adding yours.

[CommonSense]

Okay.. I said bye and it was time to end this thread. I made the mistake of replying to a silly message for which I apologize. To all the anti-property/business owners, I won’t reply after this message. Feel free to bash me and people that own anything you feel you should have rights over. I guess it's the "me" generation voicing their opinion.:uhoh:

[pytron]

CommonSense-

I don't appreciate the name calling in your "parting shots". I am sorry that you think you are being bashed, I rather appreciated the heated discussion. Perhaps litman252 is referring to something that I do not know about.

Since we never received a list of objections from you except for general complaints about "property rights" it is difficult to retort. The passage you do cite is very difficult to place in context, since it is a subsection. Again, it is not clear what the objection is (or even what the passage means).

-Pytron