Wisconsin: "You're armed, and the stairs creak "

[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.â€

 

[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 experienceâ€, followed in a micro-font, “No weapons allowedâ€. 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 restrictionâ€

 

[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.â€

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]

“litman252â€: 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.

 

[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