Patronizing editorial in WI paper

[hillbilly]

Here's the link.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=424937

And here is the specific passage.

"Yes, this Editorial Board does have differences of opinion with the NRA. Maybe your visit will allow us to learn more about your perspective. And maybe, conversely, your annual foray into an urban center will open your eyes just a bit to a view opposite yours."



Bascially, the editorial board thinks that all gun owners, esepcially those NRA members, are a bunch of bare-footed hicks and hayseeds who ain't never been to no big city before.....and if they would all just go up to a shining, glowing city like Milwaukee, they'd see the error of their backwards, primitive, gun-totin' ways.

I fired off a scathing letter to them, pointing out that 65% of the US population enjoys "Shall Issue" and that at least 8 US cities significantly larger than Milwaukee are in states with "Shall Issue" carry laws, and suggesting that maybe it's the Editorial Board of the Sentinel Journal who are a bunch of unenlightened troglodytes who really should try harder to get out more.

hillbilly

 

[carlrodd]

"Rather than closing that loophole, the NRA calls for tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, such as the prohibition of gun ownership by felons. That issue is worth exploring."


hahahahahaha:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

THE most available, logical answer to reducing violent crime is 'worth exploring'. why bother pulling your head up from under the sand if that's the best you can come up with?

and i don't know about anybody else, but i have never, and no one i know has ever been able to purchase a firearm at a show without completing background checks.

 

[BigFatKen]

Born in Milwaukee

I had a policeman once observe my fiberglass gun case in the back of my 1968 Ponitac station wagon. He hasseled me for 30 minutes about it being "readily accessibe", a crime.

He really wanted me to say "sorry, I won't do it again". I could not say that. I was not going to trade cars nor stoping hunting.

Milwaukee has been anti-gun since at least then.

 

[.45Guy]

Still in Milwaukee....

Back in 03 when I was still a Shorewood PD auxilliary, I lived on the corner of Capitol and Maryland. I had just purchased a pre 64 model 70, and had gone to the range. Well, at this place I was forced to park on the street, so having the bolt pulled and rifle cased, I decided to park on Maryland and use the back door to avoid spooking the sheeple. Big mistake, as I was crossing the street I spotted a middle aged woman giving me the stink eye. As I proceeded down the alley to the back door I glanced back and noticed her following me. I headed straight for the door and right to my first floor apartment. I began cleaning my newly aquired toy when I heard several voices in the alley. I looked out my window to see said woman with 3 of Shorewood's finest. Right about then I was shaking my head in disbelief. I waited about 45 minutes for things to die down, then headed to the PD. I spoke to the gent behind the desk, retired artillery MSgt. BTW, and explained the situation. Apparently the lady was concerned because I was entering the tallest building in the area with a rifle case. God I love Milwaukee.

 

[Justin]

Oh, look, the Journal Sentinal editorial board thinks it's an ABC After School Special.

How quaint.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Insults disguised as "reasonableness" really ticks me off, as do attempts to frame the meaning of 2A in terms of hunting as a "reasonable middle ground starting point".


These guys exhibit a syndrome that comes up whenever I deal with my collectivoLeft leaning associates who style themselves as centrists. They assume that I hold the positions I hold as a result of either ignorance or the bedazzlement of propaganda.

The one thought that THEY CANNOT BEAR is that I'd arrived at my positions as the result of dilligent thought and research, and that such positions are well founded at all levels. That thought, coupled with my uberIQ, frightens the spit out of them.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

From the article:

What we do have a hard time buying is that military-style, semiautomatic weapons are essential to the right to hunt. Yet in backing a federal ban on such weapons, we find ourselves accused of trying to outlaw all guns. These rapid-fire weapons are a favorite of organized gangs and mass killers and a peril to law officers. So as we see it, the NRA's successful lobbying to lift that ban aids the bad guys.

Since when did ANYONE claim that this was about a "right to hunt?"
*also please point to which ammendment protects "right to hunt.":banghead: *

Odd that these weapons that are the favorites of criminals everywhere are the weapons LEAST used in crimes in the US. I think the editorial staff of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been watching a bit too much CSI and The Sopranoes (sp?).

 

[.45Guy]

OK, why is everyone amazed by this? How many socialist mayors have been elected in Milwaukee? What state is the closest to being some acid trip socialist utopia?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Wisconsin can get along without my vacation dollars.

 

[crashm1]

My reply

My reply:


I would like to remind the Editorial Board that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is not about hunting. There is not a word in it about hunting. It states " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It is about the peoples right to self defense. It is both to ensure our ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness and to defend the ideas enshrined in the Bill of Rights from without and within.
The word militia does not refer to the National Gaurd which was created in 1917 and is an arm of the federal government. At the time of this nations founding it was understood that all men of a certain age were to fight for the country's interests. In the first ten Amendments the US Constitution outlines the limits of our governments power in a contract with the people of this country.
A quick glance at countries with harsh gun controls in place also points out the possible perils of a citizenry that is unarmed. Nazi Germany, the USSR, South Africa during aparthied, Cambodia during Pol Pot, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda the list goes on. Most were unpleasant places for Joe Average if he voiced any dissent or was of improper ethnicity.
Another interesting tidbit of US history is that the majority of our gun control has been racially motivated. Laws preventing concealed or open carry of firearms came about at the same time as the JIm Crow laws.
I would also like to point out that according to the DOJ's data "Assualt weapons (semi auto rifles, some pistols and shotguns)" are used in less than 1% of all crime. Criminals interviewed in that study also reported they overwhelmingly got their weapons (usually handguns) from their drug dealers and sellers of stolen goods not gunshows. It maybe better for us as a nation to quit blaming the things and start placing the blame on the people that behave in a manner that damages another persons life or property.

 

[scooterthegreat]

I was looking at the wrong link....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Chapter 29 of the Contitution of the State of Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Constitution doesn't have chapters, and it only goes up to Article XIV. The right to keep and bear arms is found in Article I, Section 25:

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Hunting is mentioned, but only in context with "security," "defense," and "any other lawful purpose." The passing reference to hunting as one of the purposes for which arms may be kept and borne hardly makes hunting a focal point of the state's RKBA.

Further, Wisconsin's constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, does not claim to grant these rights. It is a statement that the rights exist. To wit:

ARTICLE I.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Equality; inherent rights. SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Notice particularly that the enumerated rights are referred to as "inherent" rights. Inherent rights are not granted by government; they are ... inherent. Government exists to "secure" (i.e. guarantee) inherent rights, not to "grant" them.

 

[scooterthegreat]

The Wisconsin Constitution doesn't have chapters, and it only goes up to Article XIV. The right to keep and bear arms is found in Article I, Section 25:

Article I, §26
Right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game. Section 26. [As created April 2003] The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. [2001 J.R. 16, 2003 J.R. 8, vote April 2003]

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That could make for an interesting day in court. Section 25 guarantees a (unrestricted) right to keep and bear arms for (among other lawful purposes) hunting. Section 26, on the other hand, guarantees a right to hunt, "...subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law."

I think it has been mentioned by others that a right which is subject to regulation is not a right but a priviledge.

 

[scooterthegreat]

I think it has been mentioned by others that a right which is subject to regulation is not a right but a priviledge.

We teach the students in hunter safety class that hunting is a priviledge not a right. That has actually lead to some very interesting discussions over just how much of both the State and US Constitution is truly a right and what is a priviledge... Which is probably a topic for a new thread but has all ready been done to death...

(Trying to keep this on topic)

Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed concealed-carry bills. He was right to do so. We actually agree with the NRA that the law might do some good, by allowing license-holders to defend themselves. But we also note that such laws have done some ill elsewhere, leading to unjustified shootings or to harm to license-holders trying to thwart crime. In our judgment, the threat of the bad is greater than the promise of the good.

I have spent a great deal of time looking at statistics. I simply don't understand where they come up with a comment like this. If I am correct, most crime rates go down. Are there some statisctics I am missing out on?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Scooter, does WI allow open carry? Because if not, the laws are in clear violation of the state's constitution. It says the people have the RIGHT to keep AND BEAR arms for security, defense, recreation, hunting, and other lawful purposes. That's a specified RIGHT that is supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution.

If you can't carry open, and you can't carry concealed, then you can't carry. If you can't carry, then the right to "bear" arms has illegally been abrogated. No governor and no legislature has a "right" to abrogate a constitution.

 

[cosine]

does WI allow open carry?

Yes.

 

[scooterthegreat]

Open carry is allowed in Wisconsin. Basically the Statues say you can't conceal and then dictates where a citizen can't take a firearm (not in a State Building, hotels, bars...) and also says that if you are intoxicated, under the influence of another substance, or legally barred from having a firearm, you can't carry. 941.20 and so on...

Here is the kick in the pants. (You knew there had to be one here in Wisconsin) I had a discussion with a Warden about this.

167.31(1)(b)
(b) "Encased" means enclosed in a case that is expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed.

941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
To "go armed" does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant's person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon's presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden. State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

So - depending on what kind of vehicle you have it may be considered as being within your reach; hunters know they are in posession of a firearm; and being fully encased it is now a concealed weapon.

He fully admits that this is a huge techicality and splitting some extremely super fine hairs, but under certain circumstances, this could be enforced.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

When Ohio was working toward a concealed carry law, didn't they orchestrate a number of "open carry days," events at which LARGE numbers of citizens all openly wearing scary handguns showed up en masse and made themselves extra visible? If open carry is the legal mode of carry in WI, then perhaps it is time for Wisconsinites to make a point of exercising that right. Never mind the "I don't want to give up the element of surprise" argument -- this is political gamesmanship and nothing more. You carry open because that's the only way you can carry legally, and you do it with enough people and in enough places that sooner or later the cops are going to get tired of responding to "man with (legal) gun" calls and start supporting a concealed carry law.

 

[Monkeyleg]

There seems to be a little semantic confusion here over whether open carry is legal in WI.

It is not legal. But nowhere in the law does it say that it's legal, either.

That's why you'll likely be arrested for disturbing the peace or other charges if you try it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There seems to be a little semantic confusion here over whether open carry is legal in WI.

It is not legal. But nowhere in the law does it say that it's legal, either.

That's why you'll likely be arrested for disturbing the peace or other charges if you try it.

Laws typically don't say what you may do, they tell you what you may not do. The RKBA is enshrined in the state's constitution. If there isn't a law that specifically says open carry is illegal, then it is legal.

Whether or not blissninnies choose to invoke unrelated laws to stamp out a legal action is a somewhat different (albeit definitely related) problem. That's the advantage of open carry days. The city PD might have no problem arresting one or two or three people for "disturbing the peace," but they would be hard pressed to arrest 500 or 1,000 -- especially when they are all together, and each one is primed to stand up in court and testify that the peace was not disturbed, they were right there and being surrounded by 499 (or 999) peop,e wearing guns didn't alarm them in the slightest.

Class action suit for false arrest. On a plate. Your choice of mustard, ketchup or chili sauce.

[EDIT]Packing.org says open carry is legal in WI

Carrying without a Permit/License

Date updated: Dec 7, 2005 @ 3:59 pm

Open Carry is legal but you will attract the attention of every police officer in the area. As opposed to the southern states Open Carry is prohibited in cars but OK on the body! Here are the limits:
941.235 You cannot open carry in a government building.

941.237 You cannot open carry a LOADED FIREARM in a place that sells liquor.

167.31(2)(b) You can not open carry a loaded firearm in a car.

167.31(3)(a) In an airplane. The chamber must be empty and the magazine out or empty itself.

 

[Strings]

Hawkmoon, we have trouble getting folks to volunteer for gun shows. you HONESTLY think we can get people to pull open carry marches, KNOWING that they'll get arrested/fined? You overestimate Joe Sixpack up here...

 

[Monkeyleg]

Hawkmoon: "Laws typically don't say what you may do, they tell you what you may not do. The RKBA is enshrined in the state's constitution."

It's 4:05 am, so if I'm not as polite as I should be, please take that into consideration.

The RKBA amendment to the state constitution just got ripped to shreds the other day with the Fisher case.

And you're right that laws don't say what you can do. But there is no law, no statute, no clause, no nothing that says you can carry openly.

And, until such time as state statute is amended, you're still going to get busted for DTP or DOC.

The new, Doyle-appointed State Supreme Court just told you that you have a right to bear arms--but only if someone is immediately trying to kill you.

I don't care two whits about what is said on Packing.org, and Mark Solomon will, I trust, be the first to admit that he cannot possibly keep track of all the nuances of various states' laws. He does one hell of a job, but you can't hold him responsible if someone else screws up on state law.

Go ahead and carry a gun openly. If you do so up in the northern part of the state, you may be fine. At worst, the cops will ask you to pack it away.

Carry a gun openly in Milwaukee? Get ready for SWAT teams, TV helicopters, lots of body armor, and I hope you survive the chest wounds.

You have no right to carry a weapon, concealed or openly.

Find the state statute that says otherwise, and I'll be glad to pass it along to attorneys who defend gun cases every day.

Hawkmoon, again, I'm not looking to pick a fight. Damn, I should be in bed by now.

Waaaaayyyyyy back when I was in college in the early 1970's, I'd often go to the Big Boy's restaurant near Van Buren. It was usually a good place to study and drink coffee. (This was before Starbucks, and even before computers, so take that into perspective).

There was this woman that everybody called "Dirty Helen."

Helen was about as ugly a woman as you can imagine (especially for a street person).

Helen had two sets of assets, which she often flashed to the other patrons of the restaurant. I doubt that many enjoyed the display.

In fact, the manager would often come out and say, "Helen, if you don't put those things away, I'm calling the cops."

But there was no law then--and no law I know of now--that would prohibit Helen from doing what she did. Other than Disorderly or Disturbing the Peace.

The cops knew Helen by name. And they'd arrest her from time to time--even if the manager didn't demand an arrest. If the manager didn't, they'd just give her a ride around the block. And tell her to keep those two things tucked in.

I read all the cop-bashing threads. And I know that LEO's have some pretty wide discretion as to whether to take somene into custody or not.

In WI, the officers have far less leniency to exercise their own good judgement.

This is Wisconsin. Not Missouri, not Minnesota, not Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, nor Ohio.

There is nothing different in WI than in any of the above states I mentioned, except for one:a very strong Democrat party leader, Governor Jim Doyle.

Polls show him going down

You can't wait for the polls: Put Him Down Now! Dump Doyle!

 

[scooterthegreat]

Doyle - well, I'm proud to say "I didn't vote for him..."

As for open carry in Wisconsin. It is not illegal. But, yes, you will get arrested for something, most likely disturbing the peace. If I walk into a Quiznos at luch time with my .40 on my side, the first thing most people are going to assume is that I'm going to hold up the place. The police will be there before I even get to place an order.

Because open carry is not common practice, people will simply jump to the worst case scenario and it would be just like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. And that is how they "prevent" us from open carry.