Wis. Call Now!!!!!!!!!!

[CommonSense]

Hi Mr. Walkowiak: I’m glad to hear that you’re fine and an emergency didn’t take you away from the conversation. When you stated you were “waitingâ€, I assumed you would in fact be waiting. Maybe you didn’t word your message the way you meant to. No problem.

To follow up on your reply, what part of that didn’t you understand? Are you asking for the name of my employer? And if so, why? The name of my employer won’t help you fill the holes in SB214. The answer to my objections regarding this bills expense on business is quite long. If you care to meet with me to discuss them, please let me know. Since you work for ARC, I’m sure we could find a place that wouldn’t be a strain on either of our schedules. Do you work onsite or at a job site? Either way, it shouldn’t be a problem.

To your next comments: Yes. I would inform the owners of the business that I intend to keep weapons out of the workplace if I felt it was necessary. Since it is their name on the lease, I wouldn’t want to create to a loophole. If they disagreed with my actions, I would find a new means to support my family (I posted that in a previous message).

Next: Anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a troll. How tender. And I wasn’t attacking Monkeyleg. I was offering him a chance to publicly prove his point. It would actually be a really short debate. The only things I disagree with are 1. The size of the sign and not dictating its placement (primary entrance is too vague) 2. Having to “personally and orally†tell people they are not allow there after posting a sign. I was talking to another pro-CCW person tonight that happened to agree with me. He stated it in terms I didn’t think of. He said that would be the same as requiring police to try to locate me and ask me to move my car if I was parked in a place clearly marked “No Parking†before issuing me a ticket.

Away, no. I don’t want your home address. My guess is you won’t be inviting me over for dinner anytime soon. And I have my own Social Security Number, so I won’t need that either. Thanks for the offer though.

 

[Preacherman]

Commonsense, please check your PM. To all concerned: please remember to discuss/attack/support the argument, not the person doing the arguing!

I'm going to leave this thread open in hopes that it can get back on-topic, but if the bashing of other individuals continues, expect rude PM's and warnings to all concerned.

 

[Shooter 2.5]

CommonSense,

I think the gun groups have to get a transcript of the debate just to hear the idiot rant so we know who our enemies are. I think just listening to him would help out the Republicans immensly.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Trampling business or property rights?

If I'm reading you right, you want to right to CRIMINALLY ban concealed carriers with a license. Meaning if they carry, you can have them arrested on felony charges or misdemeanor charges, just like in Texas with 30.06.

Signs should not have the force of law. If they CATCH you with a gun, you can be asked to leave just like anyone else in a public establishment. This is the way the law works in MANY states, like Florida, like Oregon, like Washington.

 

[CommonSense]

Hi Lonnie: So you’re stating that even after a CCW licensee has taken a course designed to inform them of the laws and where to look for the sign, someone should have to catch them violating the law?

And signs should not have the force of law? Have you ever received a parking ticket? Should the police have to “CATCH†you before they issue you a citation?

If you want to drive in Wisconsin, you have to give implied consent to certain things and ignorance of any law is not an allowable defense in the courts here. I see no reason CCW should be any different.

It appears you’re asking me if I think the same penalties should apply to licensees and non-licensees. Of course! Why wouldn’t they? Licensees have to be trained to carry. Joe Criminal does not. Why would I expect Joe Criminal to know more than a licensee?

 

[CommonSense]

Shooter 2.5: I think he needs to be on network TV. All the Anti’s won’t want him on their team then.

Still, you have to admit he deserves an Emmy for the “Funniest Person On Reality TVâ€. I can’t remember laughing that hard while watching the tube.

 

[pytron]

CommonSense - I assume this is the thread you referred me to? Please let me know if it is not.

Regarding the signage/notification requirement...

I believe we should treat this just as we do tresspassing. Basically, if you don't want anyone on your property, post NO TRESSSPASSING signs. If they are found on your property, they can be arrested for trespassing.

If you do want the public to come on to your property, but you want them to follow certain rules (no shirt, no shoes, no CCW, no smoking) then you post a sign. When they come in and perform the undesired behavior, you ask them to leave. If they refuse, you have them arrested for tresspassing.

Simple, easy, effective. And if I am correct, that is how the law is written.

 

[CommonSense]

Hi pytron. Thanks for your question. I think I see where you are going, but first, let me rearrange your post a little bit. If the State required you to apply for a license to prove you don’t have any mental problems or chemical abuse problems, don’t enjoy beating your spouse, required you to take a class on the proper fitting of a shirt, shoes, or to smoke, and that the required training dictated that you had to look for a sign in a primary location at a businesses door, but that even if you didn’t see it, or, if cared to ignore it, it wouldn’t matter unless they, 1. Caught you, and 2. Personally and orally notify you to leave.

Claiming one is forgetful, absent-minded, or ignorant regarding any other law in Wisconsin is not an allowable defense (excluding an insanity defense). I see no reason CCW should be any different. If you REALLY did make a mistake, and carried where not allowed, you would have the right to tell it to a judge – the same as automotive drivers do now. A proposed law should not exempt anyone.

If you’re one of the people that want to fix the holes, start here. If a business owner doesn’t want CCW in his/her establishment:
1. All public entrances should have a sign that states CCW is not allowed. If not posted, permission is granted. Non-public entrance shall require authorization of the owner or manager on duty.
2. The sign should be of a reasonable size and conform to all the other “NO†signs a business may have already posted. It should also specify the required location to the entrance door handle.
3. The required training should teach applicants where to look for a businesses door sign, as well as any penalties for them disregarding the same.
4. No one should have to “personally and orally†tell you that you can’t CCW if posted otherwise since you were trained to carry.
5. The penalties remain the same as they currently are written for those that disregard the current laws of the State for illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

I don’t know why this is an issue for some people that want to carry. The first thing they always say is that they’re law-abiding citizens. If that is correct, this should be a non-issue.

I know you’re not from Wisconsin, but please tell me why the above is so wrong.

Thanks for asking without attacking!

 

[pax]

CommonSense,

I don't believe that anyone has the moral right to disarm anyone else -- unless the person being disarmed has actively done something to merit such treatment.

Now, let's discuss how that relates to the property rights that you are so concerned about.

Shootin' Buddy made a really great post awhile back. His post was so clear and applies so well to this thread that I'm going to repost his words (with his permission). Thanks, Buddy.

I do not see the contradiction you are suggesting. Quite the opposite. I see the matter of carrying a handgun on someone else's property to be perfectly consistent with the primacy of property rights. The main reason someone would be carrying, after all, is to protect their personal property, namely, themselves. Being allowed to protect your own property is key to the primacy of property rights.

The Libertarian principle, as I understand it, is that people have the right to do with their own property whatever they want so long as it does not significantly affect another person's property.

Wherever I go, I am my own property. I do not suddenly belong to someone else simply because I walk onto their land. The same thing goes for whatever I bring with me. My car is still my car even when it is being driven on someone else's road.

I may be standing in a house that someone else is king over, but I am still king over myself and my property which I brought with me, and I can do with it whatever I want (It's mine) so long as it doesn't significantly affect their property.

If I pull out a cigarette and start to smoke, I am interfering with their property (since I can not keep the smoke to myself) and so I do not just have an automatic right to smoke just because the cigarettes are mine. Likewise, If I pee in their toilet, I'm affecting their property (messes up the toilet, fills the septic, consumes water) and so I don't even have an automatic right to pee in their bathroom.

However, a gun that is concealed, and properly and safely holstered upon my own person and under my control at all times does not affect the other person's property even though it is within their house.

If they want to kick me off their property, so be it. My presence must necessarily affect their property and so I don't have an automatic right to be there. But, following this Libertarian principle at least, they do not have the right to tell me I can not carry my gun to defend my own property.

As a purely practical matter, if the gun is properly concealed, the shop owner is never going to know it was there -- unless it is pulled and used. That makes the law utterly unenforceable, and thus a bad law.

Further, the only people who are going to let a sign or a law deter them from carrying there are people who aren't there to cause harm. The criminals will carry there anyway, of course.

pax

Why don't they just put up a sign that says, "No Robberies Allowed"? -- Don Stahlnecker

 

[ninenot]

Commonsense: while I am a bit sympathetic to your complaint, your "common sense" is missing elementary logic.

If you hold that the right to self-defense is trumped by "property rights," then you've missed the most significant teaching of Western Civilization: that life is the First Right, inalienable--all other rights flow from there.

It makes little difference what "property" you possess after you're room temperature, and your "property" makes little difference to me if I am under deadly threat. BTW, turnabout is fair play: my property means little to YOU if YOU are under deadly threat.

So take your silly Walter Williams argument whereby capital is primary and human life is secondary, and put it where the sun never shines.

 

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I promised myself I wasn't going to reply to your posts because, to be honest, I really believe that you're here to promote discord during a critical time, and will leave when the CCW issue has been settled. If I'm wrong, I will apologize here on THR in full view of all members. But I've had so many "debates" with transients on THR and TFL that I feel I've developed an instinct for identifying at least some of them.

My psychic powers aside, though, I agree with all of your points above except for two:

4. No one should have to “personally and orally†tell you that you can’t CCW if posted otherwise since you were trained to carry.
5. The penalties remain the same as they currently are written for those that disregard the current laws of the State for illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

Under the current concealed carry ban, there's simply no mistaking whether or not you're violating the rules: if you carry and are discovered, you're a criminal. How much it will cost you to become "less criminal" depends upon the D.A. and the judge.

Right now, if I walk into a George Webb's and light up a cigarette in a no-smoking area, a waitress is going to come over and tell me to move to the next booth. No problem, no jail, no fine. Very polite, and everyone is happy (at least those who know that eating regularly at George Webb's will probably take ten years off their lives).

Anyway.

If I walk into the same diner now, carrying concealed, and am found out, there's no verbal warning. It's a Class A Misdemeanor, punishable by 9 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. At best, a judge will fine me $500 and I'll lose my $750 pistol, and have to pay an attorney $1000 to reach that deal.

The proposed bill, though, has so many prohibited places that it is far more confusing than trying to figure out which restaurants allow smoking. If you see the no-smoking sign on the door, you just don't light up.

However, if you see a "no guns" sign on the door, you pretty much have to go back home and start your trek all over again. I don't consider throwing a loaded pistol in the trunk of my car as being safe. Nor do I think it's advisable to do so when anyone can see me doing so, and some punk may pop the trunk and get my pistol.

If you can honestly say that you've always noticed a no-smoking sign, a handicapped-only sign, a 30-minute parking sign, or any of the other "no-behavior" signs, congratulations. With the plethora of them, they're easy things to overlook.

So, are we going to take a person who's made an honest mistake and run him through the criminal justice system? Or are we going to tell that otherwise law-abiding citizen to be aware the next time he visits that business?

I started engaging you in dialogue about all this because I genuinely wanted to understand your concerns, and to pass them along to the legislators who can make the changes that will make the bill acceptable to the general public.

At some point, our discussion broke down and I felt that it was useless to discuss anything further with you.

If that's not the case, and you really are interested in fine-tuning points of this bill, I sincerely would welcome your input. Of course, there will be no changes that you or I can make in this legislative session, so such changes will have to wait until the next session.

If, on the other hand, your intent is to demand everything that you want or nothing at all, then we really have nothing to talk about. I'm willing to take 85 to 90% of what I want now, and work later to fine-tune the legislation to get the remaining 10 to 15%.

Please lay out--point by point--items that you'd like to see addressed in further iterations of this bill, and how they would be spelled out. As I said, there will be no changes this year, but as soon as the bill is passed we'll start working on modifications for next year.

On the other hand, if your intent is to just create a disruption here on THR, then don't even bother to reply. There's just too much else to be done right now.

The ball---and the tenor of your response--are now in your court.

 

[CommonSense]

Hi pax. Thanks for you thoughts on the matter. I read the message you posted. I don’t believe that anyone should a moral right to disarm anyone either. I do however believe in property rights.

Let’s see what Shootin’ Buddy was to say:

1. Wherever he goes, he is his own property. TRUE. I believe he should have to pay any and all consequences for his behavior he imposed on others both criminally and in a civil court. When a person is told no – it should mean no. Those that can’t understand that normally end up in prison. Law abiding citizens teach their children that from birth. Do I believe offering a State CCW permit for those that haven’t learned that simple word is a good idea? NO!

2. He states he feels he may be standing in another’s kingdom, and he goes on to state that he should be allowed to protect himself. To that I reply the obvious – go somewhere else where doesn’t feel as threatened and enjoy himself rather than being a thorn in someone’s backside. From what I’ve learned here, that’s kind of what being a “troll†is. In the real world, it’s called several other names, which I doubt I can post here.

Finally, and what seems to be a biggie here: Concealed or not, when you’re told NO GUNS, guess what that means?

And as a practical matter, a business owner should never have to worry about it. Again – NO MEANS NO.

You are correct that the bad guys will do whatever they want. And I have to ask – are you placing yourself in their league then? If not, it should not be an issue.

 

[CommonSense]

“ninenotâ€: I can’t thank you enough for your post.

 

[CommonSense]

Now I feel bad. I have to admit Monkeyleg that I thought you were like so many others here that make it obvious it’s their way or the highway. I apologize.

As we discussed in the past, the sign should be of a reasonable size, and, more importantly, where it should be posted. During the training class, everyone will be told where to look then. And if the sign isn’t of the required size of in that given location, no court should not consider it. That (and more) is why I think “personally and orally†is out of line. We don’t require that for any other law. I don’t see the need to start that nonsense. Could you imagine the mess if we required that for every law?

I understand why you might be concerned about my thoughts for the penalties remaining the same. It appears everyone here thinks they should be the same as for a trespasser. Here’s why I can’t agree with that train of thought: They had to take a course regarding CCW. Your normal trespasser is more often than not a dip ****. Should the two really be in the same league? I would hope not. And a judge can normally tell the difference between the an honest person that ran in to a prohibited place because of some emergency or other reason that might cause one not to be all that concerned about the door’s postings. The run of the mill trespasser though, won’t get away with an excuse.

Do I think there should be a compromise in the senate and house between Dem & Rep’s? Yes. But I don’t really know what would be a proper penalty.

I can’t stress how silly the “personally and orally†thing is to me. There is not other law in the state that defends the ignorant. Please check with an attorney if you think I’m wrong. Every time I’ve read that was an argument, the judge wouldn’t even allow it to be presented. And the people they were ruling on didn’t have to take a class.

It goes beyond that though, Monkeyleg. There really are places a business should not want a CCW licensee in the store. Then again, there are places a business should want CCW licensee there. A degree in criminology is not part of the required training class. Given that, when a business posts “Noâ€, it should mean, “Noâ€.

I’m sorry for offending you in the past. I do believe I have more experience in the area of retail crime than most of the people here claiming to know more than me. It tends to excite me when a 25 year old barks at me when I’ve had more years experience and training than he’s been alive. Also, many of the people that have barked at me didn’t even read the bill before attacking. That make me think no one was serious at all about the bill.

Anyway. Please accept my apology for past poor behavior. Maybe between us, we can help the state get CCW passed.

 

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, someday maybe you'll reveal to me or someone else here on THR what it is that you do that makes you so sensitive to abuses of private property rights. From your last post, it sounds like you've had some real life issues.

The "personally and oral" warning to me is important because, just as I mentioned in my last post, there are so many laws that the average person breaks on a daily basis that I've come to believe that common courtesy would dictate that the police give the citizen at least one opportunity to walk away from just about any minor infraction. Maybe that comes from my reading of Aynn Rand at about age 13 (talk about being dogmatized for life!).

If the bill passes, are we going to see some people run afoul of the law? Yes. Everytime I hear a proponent say "no permit holder has done this or that," I cringe, because I know that there have been--albeit a tiny minority--who have done "this or that." But the percentage of permit holders who run afoul of the law is miniscule compared to the general population.

The differences that you and I have--and the differences between the pro-CCW and anti-CCW forces--may just boil down to views on guns. If I see someone with a rifle, shotgun or pistol in their vehicle, I assume they're off to have some fun. And I look closely to see what brand or caliber they've got.

The average citizen sees the gun and screams "man with a gun" and calls the police, assuming that only the police can be trusted with guns. (An assumption that the press seems gleeful in reporting just about every day).

I'm not saying that you're anti-CCW. I'm taking you at your word now that you're for concealed carry. And it's none of my business what your business is. Let's just assume that you sell computer hardware. Let's also assume that you've posted the 8 1/2" x 11" sign.

Let's also assume for a minute that one of your customer's "significant others" is rather large, and the carrier does not see the sign as he/she enters the store. He's carrying. Now, you might be perceptive enough to realize he's carrying, but how many other employees will be? Further, unless he's out to do you harm, how much of a burden is that on you? And, if it is, how much of a burden is it for you to approach the SO of the large person and say, "hey, pal, could you please take the pistol outside?"

As I've said in this and other threads, the issue of concealed carry will be a non-issue in our state in a year or two after passage. Most people who travel to other states don't even realize that they're in the company of legal concealed weapons carriers. Only once--in Indianapolis--did I see a permit holder's gun. It was during a heavy snowstorm, and I don't think he was paying attention when he was shovelling his car out of a snowbank. I did, however, want to compliment him on his choice of holsters.

But, now, I'm starting to ramble.

As the owner, manager, or agent of the owner of a business property, you have every right to prohibit someone from carrying a weapon on the business's property. I believe that the courses offered will make everyone as aware as possible of where to look for "no guns" signs.

But I don't want someone who has absolutely no criminal record to get a record simply by not seeing a sign. If there's a second offense, then that person is obviously thumbing his nose at the law.

If I get emotional about this issue, it's because I--like many others here in WI--have given hundreds of hours to the cause. On this or another thread you were doubtful of my claim that tens of thousands of WI citizens want this. The number of people who want and receive our group's email alerts on the progress of the legislation is somewhere in the ballpark of 30,000 to 50,000. And, from there, they spider all over the web. This is not, as the press would report, a "tiny minority" who want this bill passed.

When a volunteer asks me why it's so important that we get just that one last person to address a postcard to his legislator, the answer is simple: once that person does something, anything--even addressing a postcard--he's now emotionally invested in the outcome of the vote. If he just makes a phone call, he's now more committed and interested in the outcome, and will remember his legislator's vote on the bill.

The anti's have known this psychological strategy for a long time; it's only in the last few years that conservatives have realized the true potential value of grassroots efforts.

This has been a ten-year battle to get CCW for Wisconsin. We're now in the last few weeks of that battle, and I really think we can win.

I have objections to the bill as written, and you obviously do as well. Again, I'd rather take 90% of what we have now and fix the other 10% next year or the year after. Please lay out concisely what you think needs to be addressed in the bill. Both of the authors--Representative Gunderson and Senator Zien--want to know how they can improve this bill.

 

[CommonSense]

Hi Monkeyleg. Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the “personally and orally†warning. No other law in Wisconsin requires that stipulation. Think about what you’re asking me to accept as reasonable.

Wisconsin’s drivers are required to be licensed. They’re informed when applying for a license what a regulatory sign is. Should an officer have to be required to “personally and orally†warn them they CATCH them breaking the law? NO! I want to know how you feel on this. If a police officer catches a person speeding:
1. If the speeder has a valid drivers license, he should be told to not speed even though it was posted it was illegal.
2. If a speeder doesn’t have a valid drivers license, he should be subject to any and all fines permitted by law.

To answer your worries, the police can offer warning tickets. A district attorney can refuse to issue charges based on circumstances. Judges have been known to dismiss claims as well based upon the events.

The law clearly needs to pass (read this months story of the person that had to do a business’ “night drop†at the local bank).

But I don’t think we should stray from every other law in Wisconsin that clearly states stupidity is not a defense.

And to help you, Senator Zien, and Representative Gunderson, there won’t be any rush to post a no-gun rule here by business. But there are a few places that would be better off without introducing a CCW licensee to the equation.

Training in gun handling of when and when not to use lethal force doesn’t always work when you add in the human factor. Read how well Milwaukee’s police department is doing in that regard this past year. My training states that the human factor is the weakest link in security.

Finally, I don’t really believe Rep Gunderson wants the bill (or possible law) fixed. He shot down a pro-CCW time and time against a fellow lawmaker that he voted WITH the prior year. I tend not to trust people that flip-flop without offering a public statement as to why. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough of Sen. Zien to offer an educated opinion one-way or the other.

Anyway, I know this is very important to you. To me, I’m only concerned on it’s effects on business. And as I’ve stated, even then it’s limited. But if the partisan politics were put aside, a person might have survived making a bank deposit a couple weeks ago. But now we’ll never know because of the games politicians play.

 

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I can't tell you the number of times a truck has obscured my view of a highway sign, and I found myself doing something wrong.

Anyway.

Yes, you and I will have to agree to disagree. But thanks for the spirited discussion.