Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Overstepping bounds...

Guns & Coffee details the Madison, WI police biting off more than they can chew.

My favorite line from the Wisconsin Carry Inc. press release:
8 Madison Police officers arrived and demanded ID from our members. As Wisconsin is not a police-state, Wisconsin law does not require you to provide identification to an officer unless you are operating a motor vehicle.

2 Wisconsin Carry members, in consideration of their legal rights politely declined to provide ID and were handcuffed, detained, and issued citations for obstruction.

Wisconsin Case-Law clearly states that refusing to give your name is not grounds for obstruction.
Oops!

Good luck with that one in court, Mr. Policeman... ("As Wisconsin is not a police-state..." Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!)

56 comments:

Ted said...

I have always considered Wisconsin to be a police state, but my opinion may be biased due to the fact that I get most of my initial impressions of the state while driving north out of Chicago.

The cheddar po-po is rather aggressive on the highways.

tgace said...

Hmm..they were just sitting there when EIGHT cops suddenly decided to enter and demand their ID's for no particular reason???

...theres more to this story.

dave said...

...theres [sic] more to this story.
And there's a comment as to what the "more" might be for those who read to the end:

"Rumor is that a 60+ year old woman, possibly a customer, called them in saying something to the extent of 'I don't know if it's legal or not, but there's a bunch of guys with guns, and I would just hate to have not called if something bad were to happen.'"

Anonymous said...

ted,
Cops harrasing folks from Il. is considered sport in Wisconsin. The same as Colorado and Texans.
suggest you vacation in Indiana. I hear Gary is nice in the summertime. Bring the gun.

tgace said...

If it was a concealed carry state there probably would have been no phone call, no cops, no problem. I'm ALL for law abiding citizens being able to carry. As are most of the people I work with.

Anonymous said...

"The vast majority of officers are well-trained to respect the rights of citizens openly carrying firearms..."

OC is rare enough even solo that it is going to generate some 911's every time. If this was group-OC in a restaurant, it would be expected to generate notice and even the resulting confrontation.

Now that's not to criticize their exercising their rights, and it's absurb that it is not commonplace and even comforting to fellow patrons; but right now it's not. So is their activity baiting, or educating, or attention grabbing, or the pure, legal, and innocent going about of their free and legal business? All of the above, maybe.

But here's one thing for sure. I wouldn't want to be one of the toters, one of the coppers, or even one of those fellow patrons.

The behavior and handling by the police was ignorant and ridiculous. But as for myself, I don't want to risk my life, the officers', or the bystanders to make a point or because the squad missed a memo.

Support of open carry? Hell yes; but the carry and control of deadly weapons has as its core purpose last-ditch defense. The avoidance of confrontation and recognition that everyone around us does not understand that takes precedence over making this kind of public statement...at least for now.

AT

reflectoscope said...

So is their activity baiting, or educating, or attention grabbing, or the pure, legal, and innocent going about of their free and legal business? All of the above, maybe.

It is the latter, so it doesn't matter whatsoever that it is the former.

Jim

tgace said...

In my state (NY) we are limited in our police contacts according to People V De Bour. The lowest level of "street encounter" is when an officer has an "objective and credible reason" to stop and talk to a person.

An objective credible reason is virtually any reason a police officer can articulate that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his purpose in approaching an individual is not based upon an illicit motive. I could (just like you could) ask you a question, ask for your name, ask where you are going. You do not have to answer or even stop. A "sorry officer Im late" would be a polite brush off though. :)

The next level would be when the officer has a founded reason that criminality is afoot. Here I can accuse you..be less polite...demand identification etc.

If WI had the same limitations and I was dispatched there, I would have to respond and do something. Thats what they pay me for. However I would know that being armed wasn't illegal it and of itself so the contact would be "Level 1".

I would probably have said that I was there because someone had called 911 and that it was my job to at least talk to them and determine that nothing else was going on other than them scaring some old lady. I would have politely ASKED for their names (vs demanding ID's) and see where that went. If someone wanted to be a dick and tell me to F-off because I was simply there doing my job I would hope I would have simply told him to have a good day and left.

In NY I would ask for their pistol permit so this situation would have been far more cut and dry here. As much as I personally disagree with NY's gun laws (but that doesn't change the fact that I have to enforce them nonetheless).

tgace said...

They could just as easily have shown their ID's and gone on their way and THEN filed suit against the dept. Making a scene and getting cited just provides a bigger splash.

Heath said...

"They could just as easily have shown their ID's and gone on their way and THEN filed suit against the dept. Making a scene and getting cited just provides a bigger splash."

That's sorta the point...

PDs ought to be scared shitless of getting sued over blatant crap like this, not the other way around.

At any rate, hit the Statist bastards where it hurts most, their budget.

Tam said...

tgace,

"Making a scene and getting cited just provides a bigger splash."

Was a scene made? Is that not as much of an assumption as "...they were just sitting there when EIGHT cops suddenly decided to enter and demand their ID's for no particular reason???"

This was a pre-planned (at least on one side) demonstration. The pistol toters were absolutely within the letter of the law. The cops walked right into that ambush, and they are gonna get blistered for it, too. You wanna beef at somebody? Beef at the political machine that denies Cheeseheads the right to CCW by means of dubious legal chicanery no matter how much work they do in the state legislature.

Tam said...

(Incidentally, tgace, I do believe that Fred at Guns & Coffee, who reported the story, is on your side of the thin blue line, and yet seems unappalled at the actions of the Cheesehead pistol packers in question.)

Anonymous said...

Good thing they weren't in Las Vegas...

Standard Mischief said...

>Good luck with that one in court, Mr. Policeman...


I'm sure this will work out exactly the same way as the second time Ray Nagin was found in contempt of court. The judge will really throw the book at those asshole cops.

Fred said...

"They could just as easily have shown their ID's and gone on their way and THEN filed suit against the dept. Making a scene and getting cited just provides a bigger splash."

That would be waiving your right and you would have no case.

The correct police response would be for the dispatcher to tell the lady that called that open carry is legal, and at most have a squad drive past and verify that they are just sitting there having food and not robbing the place. There is no reason to make contact, let alone requpest ID.

As to where I stand on the issue, whereas I do work in LE/security, I'm on the security side of the house so I have to open carry if I wish to carry at all (and can not when at work.) I'm firmly on the OC side, and am a paid member of Wisconsin Carry Inc. Even if I was a LEO, it would have no affect on the fact that the officers in question are quite sternly in the wrong.

Most, if not all, of the carriers did in fact have have electronic voice recorders; however this is not a way to trap police into situations like this, but is standard practice to prove in court you were not doing anything to warrent a DC charge, since that was the charge of choice in the past. I carry one anytime I'm carrying in public.

"OC is rare enough even solo that it is going to generate some 911's every time."

I've been OCing for over a year, and it is "rare" enough that I've never actually seen another carrier "in the wild," yet I have had zero contact with law enforcement. On the other hand I have walked right past a marked squad car with an officer sitting in it in front of Walmart a few times.

Whew, that's a lot to type on a phone...

Gewehr98 said...

Just wanna know who the granny was who dropped the dime on those folks. That Culvers is a whopping 5 miles from my house, and I'm usually in that particular burger joint on weekends after perusing East Town Mall just across the parking lot. I'd like to send her a really scary and horrific Guns & Ammo calendar for Christmas...

Friggin' busy ditch.

Gewehr98 said...

BTW, although I know gun schtuff pays the rent at VFTP, y'all should really get a gander at that Wisconsin (Calumet County) District Attorney Kenneth Kratz who's been running amok with the lecherous text messages. 3 women so far have come forwrd with their stories...

The dude's a real piece of work.

perlhaqr said...

tgace: In NY I would ask for their pistol permit so this situation would have been far more cut and dry here. As much as I personally disagree with NY's gun laws (but that doesn't change the fact that I have to enforce them nonetheless).

I state up front I'm not trying to start a confrontation, I just don't know that many police officers personally so I don't really know what sort of mindset they carry.

So, if this question seems rude or confrontational, it's purely unintentional, and also, I have a head cold so I may not have phrased things as well as possible.

You say you're opposed to that law. How do you justify to yourself enforcing laws you find offensive? Or does your distaste for that law not reach that far?

Fred said...

tgace: "In NY I would ask for their pistol permit so this situation would have been far more cut and dry here."

I didn't catch that one on my phone earlier, but if you asked somebody here for a pistol permit you'd only get a confused look. There's no such thing in Wisconsin.

Despite the carry laws, the one thing I will give the state is that so long as your not a felon or a terrorist (er, pass the NCIS check...) you can buy yourself a pistol. No silly license or anything. (Although there's still that pesky waiting period. Maybe after Doyle's gone we can do something about that.(And he is NOT running for reelection.))

Wade said...

I still don't understand why so many pro-gun activists insist as seeing policemen as something other than enemies of our cause. Most officers have no problem enforcing unconstitutional laws and will do everything in their power to make sure that those who stand up for their civil rights are hammered down.

Yet, even after the police shenanigans during Katrina and dozens of incidents where lawful open carriers are assaulted and kidnapped under color of law; many gun activists still look on policemen as allies.

Cybrludite said...

Wade,

That's probably on account that there is a difference between cops and the strawman in a blue shirt you've got propped up there. It could be a sampling error, but all the cops I know personally are pro 2nd Amendment and pro CCW. Don't mistake the rank & file on the force with the uniformed politicians you see on the TV.

VW: poidow, a fair approximation of the sound my CZ-52 makes.

Ancient Woodsman said...

"At any rate, hit the Statist bastards where it hurts most, their budget."

The whole problem with that strategy is forgetting where that 'statist' budget comes from: us. Hit them in their budget with a big lawsuit, no mattter how well-intentioned or Constitutionally justified it may be, and the retaliation will be taken out of your wallet in yet more taxes. That sure is showing them 'statist bastards', for sure!

cjrmultigun said...

8 cops, and none of them had either the moral courage or the brainpower to take the scene commander aside and say, "Dude, this is illegal, and we are getting ourselves in deep trouble if we go ahead..."

Police officers often tell me that the good cops vastly outnumber the bad ones. My own observations tell me exactly the opposite.

-C

tgace said...

To the guy with the "if you dont like NY's gun laws why do you enforce them" question...

What do you propose that cops just decide willy nilly what laws they will obey or not? Would you say the same about adhering to the 4th?

People with thit mindest also seem to have this idea that we are out looking for the houswife or "joe sixpack" carrying unregistered guns to @#$% with...

Tam. I believe I said upthread that I have no problem with open carry. Actually I think WI would be better off with concealed carry...causes less trouble.

But judging from all the "antis" here perhaps my opinions are not desired.

Out.

Robert Langham said...

The gun rights movement ought to be fueled to the max with money from suits like this.

Tgace: Sorry. That's the state of modern policing these days. You're not serving and protecting, you're just muscle for the state. And you DO pick and choose which laws to enforce and how urgently to enforce them ALL the time. If you have some doubt, see the story above from LV.

Tam said...

tgace,

"Tam. I believe I said upthread that I have no problem with open carry. Actually I think WI would be better off with concealed carry...causes less trouble.

But judging from all the "antis" here perhaps my opinions are not desired.
"

No, I truly do desire your opinions here, and what any of these other commenters desires doesn't matter. :)

Wisconsin is in a funny situation vis-a-vis the whole open carry/CCW thing. After the very public statements delivered by their state AG a year or two ago, I'm just a little surprised that the officers weren't slightly more aware of the situation. Hopefully they'll be able to get their CCW legislation passed soon.

Steve Skubinna said...

Cybrludite, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that the cops you "know personally" don't include the shooters at the LV Costco. Regardless of what you call sampling error, the suits will always be able to find a Lon Horiuchi to pull the trigger.

skidmark said...

I actually feel compelled to note something "strange" about the situation. In a restaurant filled with customers who had, at one level or another noticed that the Madison 5 were openly carrying, ONLY one 62-year old woman felt it was necessary/prudent/desirable to call and report the situation "in case something might happen".

Apparently the Dept. of Homeland Security's "See it, Tell us" program is slowly gaining inroads.

Or all the other diners and staff at the restaurant decided that since all that was happening was a bunch of men were eating dinner while wearing guns/gaudy Hawaian shirts/ lederhosen/yellow socks/red hats/etc. there was nothing to be concerned about.

How is it that all those other folks decided that behavior was the criteria for deciding to panic or not, while one 62-year old lady got her panties in a wad over what they might do in spite of not wearing towels on their head, vests stuffed with road flares, or the like?

I'm thinking that odor in the background has a bovine origin.

stay safe.

perlhaqr said...

Actually, that wasn't my question at all. I didn't ask why you enforce them (you obviously do it because "it's your job") I asked "how do you justify to yourself enforcing laws you disagree with".

Are there any laws which--if passed--you would find so offensive that you would not enforce them?

Or are you not that reflective about the duties you carry out in the course of your career?

----

Also, the difference between the 4th Amendment and a law requiring a permit to carry a firearm is, the one is a restriction on what you, as an agent of the state, can do to me as a citizen. The other is a restriction on what I, as a citizen, can do with myself and my own property and person. Not to mention a direct violation of that other pesky Amendment, the 2nd.

----

Third note, open to anyone else here, I really am trying to simply ask these questions as a means to acquire information. I also know I'm really bad at being ... subtle? polite? non-confrontational? (But I'm trying to get better!)

If anyone has any suggestions as to how I might have otherwise phrased these questions to get the data I'm seeking, please speak up.

Fred said...

New development for those following. I need to go buy some popcorn...

Tam said...

perlhaqr,

"Are there any laws which--if passed--you would find so offensive that you would not enforce them?"

Even I find that to be a little straw-manish. All but the very most thuggish of folks have a line somewhere between "Write that man a parking ticket" and "Put that man in an oven".

The trick in a civilized society is keeping people who don't have that line away from badges and shiny boots and suchlike.

perlhaqr said...

It's not intended to be straw-mannish, and I'm hoping the answer is "yes".

I personally consider "abrogating the right to keep and bear arms" to be closer to "put that man in the oven" than "write that man a parking ticket", but I may also be abnormal in that.

What I was curious about is where tgace stands on the subject of gun rights, and if he stands anywhere near I do, how he squares that with "just doing his job".

And he's the one that asked me if I thought he should decide which laws to enforce. My answer is "yes", and I hope his is too.

Gewehr98 said...

Yup. Obstruction charges rescinded. Disorderly Conduct charges filed instead. Now I want to go to East Town Culver's with Desert Eagle on thigh holster and make eye contact with all the cellphone-holding nervous grannies...

Anonymous said...

So we're being softened up for the emerging police state. It's been going on for decades now. -- Lyle

Heath said...

Ancient Woodman.

Impressively Wrong.

If you have a better solution then settling legal issues in court, I'm all ears.

PD's that can't play by the rules should suffer in court. It's the only peaceful recourse I can see.

KA9VSZ said...

GEWEHR98 Make that four women. Kratz has taken a "medical leave".

Derfel Cadarn said...

All of America is a police state,this needs to change.If the cops don`t know the law they should be forced to get other jobs.Would you like fries (opps:apple slices) with that is about what they could handle.

Anonymous said...

How the freaking hell this is helpful to the cause of making the public possession of firearms normal in the eyes and minds of sheeple who have been conditioned their whole lives to regard their very static existence as an immediate threat to their safety rather than a tool to protect it, I will never fucking know.

Yeah, let's scare and threaten some "grannies"; they're the problem, not the jerked-up politics that is preventing proper protective carry. Worse, let's hold us some flash mobs open-carrying in a place where Fred says he oc's and has *never* seen anyone else do so. That way, instead of never encountering a problem like him because any scared grannies calling it in are told that if the guy is acting normal and going about his business then's he's good, we can guarantee (pre-planned ambush Tam said) a multi-unit response to a
scared and ignorant old lady's panic call.

And if one or more of Hometown's Finest is as ignorant as the old lady but unlike her is copped-up, strapped-up and backed-up, we might even get us a shootin'...but damn it, we are "absolutely within the letter of the law.". Well, maybe the father of whichever toter gets perforated - or worse, the father of a guy just trying to eat his cheeseburger who gets perforated - can get a blog. Or a nice settlement. Jesus Christ, ya'll.

AT

mariner said...

On the evidence, Wisconsin most certainly IS a police state.

Reg T said...

Tam,

As a former San Diego police officer who also worked for the California Highway Patrol, an officer is expected to use discretion. He is _not_ required to enforce all laws. That is one of the reasons I got out of law enforcement: too many officers being trained who believe the job is simply "Law Enforcement" and not keeping the peace.

In our academy at San Diego, we were taught not only to use discretion in our job, but to enforce the SPIRIT of the law, _not_ the LETTER of the law. Of course this was thirty years ago, and obviously times have changed. We no longer have many officers who are peacekeepers (are those few who keep the peace now called Oath Keepers?) Now we have obviously brainwashed individuals who think they must enforce _all_ the laws.

Tgace may have his heart in the right place, but he is unaware of the fact that he has been taught improperly. He does not sound like he understood what oath he was taking when he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Bug said...

A Madison, WI Alder(-woman) got an email today telling her the po-po need to straighten up and obey the law. Her response:

"While legal, it's inappropriate and aggressive to pack your little pistols in public places. We won't miss you or the childish displays of constitutional freedoms."

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?80869-Madison-PD-detains-and-cites-OCers-tonight./page16

Fred said...

AT, if you've got a better idea for those of us living in a state where the only option is open carry, I'm all ears. In the meantime, as long as I choose to ably defend myself in the state of Wisconsin, my gun will have to be openly holstered on my hip.

As for calling it a "flash mob," 5 guys seems like a pretty miserable turnout for such a thing. Seeing as I live in a city less than 1/5th the size of Madison, it's well within reason to expect there to be more people with an interest in OC. But I guess the idea of a group of like minded individuals meeting up for dinner is hard for some to wrap their heads around.

The point of the story is not whether or not Open Carry is or isn't a valid movement, or whether or not it helps or harms the political aspects of firearm ownership and self defense rights. The issue is with law enforcement illegally detaining and charging law abiding citizens, whether or not you or anyone else agrees with their political and personal views.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight, Fred: you carry your weapon the only way you legally can, and apparently in such a manner as to never have had a problem...and let us hope that is at least partially because as I speculated above, any "concerned" callers are being calmed and assuaged by knowledgable 911 personnel.

And even though you say you have never seen another individual in your state legally carrying, you disingenuously defend a group descending into a restaurant full of people who like you have probably never seen one let alone five ostentatiously strapped-up activists who have as their acknowledged purpose to invite and entice confrontation, thereby potentially endangering all of them without their concurrence or consent, as a group of like-minded folks innocently meeting up for dinner. They were shocked that someone called it in? Bullshit. They'd be shocked - and pissed - if someone didn't.

I don't give a damn about their personal views and I'm sure they wouldn't care about mine. As for their politics, I don't care to know that either; if their judgement on that is as poor as it was in this incident, I don't think I want them on my side.

Waiter! Check please! I think I'll get the fuck out of Dodge while these cowboys and Marshall Dillon work out who's got the law, common sense, and concern for the rights of others as well as themselves, on their side.

AT

Tam said...

"They'd be shocked - and pissed - if someone didn't."

Dude, when did you get into the mind-reading biz?

I thought it was the Brady Bunch and other hoplophobes of their ilk who went into fainting spells about dangerously unstable gun owners.

"Descending" into a restaurant? Seriously? Was it HALO or static line?

Anonymous said...

Dudette: just following your lead:

"This was a pre-planned (at least on one side) demonstration. The pistol toters were absolutely within the letter of the law. The cops walked right into that ambush"

Did that come from the story, or like my quote, out the arse? More likely it comes from knowledge that the group are "activists" on the right side of the law and the wrong side of common sense and concern for anyone or anything other than their intended - and obvious - purpose.

Used to be in Fla that the only legal carry was open; you rarely saw it but if you did, one guy going about his ordinary way would get some attention but not cause much alarm. If a group of five openly strapped-up folks - maybe one with his hand-cannon and a menacing glare for the old bluehairs as G98 so badly desires - took a table at the Red Lobster, that switchboard would have lit up like a Christmas tree, and it wouldn't matter if they "descended" from the ceiling, walked in as a group and quietly sat down, or appeared out of thin air. And the result would have been the same, too. More than a couple uniforms would respond and probably would have made sure there was no threatening activity (like those Cheesy cops should have done) and went on their way. Of course if a challenge or confrontation was desired by anyone involved, there woulda been one.

But thank God, even in this sweltering hellhole that is in danger of having the majority vote dominated by non-natives, concealed carry is now the norm with some irritating exceptions. And that's where the activism could be most desireably and productively directed in Wisconsin, too.

I would personally feel all the more secure if everywhere I went, regular folks had some leather slapped on their thigh...pretty unlikely some meth-head would try to shake down the patrons with all that iron on view. But taking this approach, and testing the law and the cops' knowledge of it by inducing confrontation when we KNOW many are afflicted by ignorance alloyed with a cop-ass attitude in a place where so many uninvolved parties would be at risk if the shtf? Have ya'll been READING some of the shit (LV, etc.) that goes down?

The guys were there to get the result they got; it was obvious to you, to me, and I doubt you'd find otherwise if you asked the toters themselves. Successful operation, boys, but let's all be glad it didn't get to the next level. Are you - is anyone - saying this is a good and proper way to engender support for and further the cause?

AT

Tam said...

"Are you - is anyone - saying this is a good and proper way to engender support for and further the cause? "

Depends on what you think "the cause" is.

I'd imagine these guys' cause was reminding the Madison PD about the state Attorney General's memo, and it looks like that's going to happen.

Fred said...

Here's an example of what happens in my area when a much larger number of OCer's get together and have a picnic in a city park.

Scary right? And they even called the city and the police department repeatedly to say they would be there!

My favorite quote from the article:
"So from the trenches of the UN-dead, the UN-dying, the UN-traumatized children and NON-cowering barefoot and pregnant woman, I’ll tell you exactly what happened at the picnic; from a single mom’s point of view.

We ate hotdogs."

as well as:
"It was the most respectful crowd I’d ever witnessed. There was a handshake and a welcome for everyone; even the one woman who stopped by with her son, full of concerns and questions about the group’s intentions."

My noodly god better give them all DC charges! Handshakes indeed! That's as good as an assault!

Unfortunately I missed the event, as the Army though I had better stuff to do that weekend.

The Madison 5 event was not a pre-planned event to entice the cops into action. All of those involved have stated repeatedly they would have been more than happy to have just met up for a meal and gone on their way. They were not "wearing wires" but carrying their own electronic non-partial witnesses in the event that something like this happens. That's par for the course for a regular OCer, we shouldn't have to worry about it, but lessons have been learned in the past, and having a record of the event is invaluable in cases like this.

The quote you mentioned is pretty much "out the arse." If I'm not mistaken, it is from the MPD PR guy, who spent a number of years as a journalist before being hired by the PD. Of course his officers were ambushed. His opinions are drowning in bias.

The larger issue is a mayor, police chief, and numerous other politicians who are more than willing to trample on the peasant's rights.

Crap, late for class...

Anonymous said...

"Depends on what you think "the cause" is."

Guess you missed it:

"...the cause of making the public possession of firearms normal in the eyes and minds of sheeple who have been conditioned their whole lives to regard their very static existence as an immediate threat to their safety rather than a tool to protect it..."

YTMV.

AT

perlhaqr said...

Some of us OC even when it's legal to CC because we're philosophically opposed to getting a permission slip to exercise a right.

And is there some magic sense that other people have that lets them know when people are LEO? I've seen groups of cops in civvies out packing openly (and I only knew they were cops because I went up and asked, I was going to warn them that NM had a law against carrying where alcohol was sold in case they were from out of state) and that was in one of the most crowded restaurants in the city and no-one batted an eye.

Some people don't like seeing "those queers" out in public. Other people don't like seeing "those gunnies" out in public either. But both are perfectly legal, and the rest of society is just going to have to adjust to seeing it in public.

Tam said...

AT,

"Guess you missed it..."

Sure didn't.

Some guy named "Al Terego" said that was their cause, but he wasn't there, so who knows if he was right? Maybe he was projecting? ;)

Tam said...

perlhaqr,

Oh, Rosa, get to the back of the bus. You're just gonna scare whitey!

Anonymous said...

Some guy, some chick, everything is really projection innit?

Like some of those labels you've been tossing around in an Uneasy Rider kind of way...Brady Bunch, hoplophobe, homophobe, racist...laughable but not really jocular and certainly not jugular wit by VFTP standards. Then I check the masthead and see that the muse is gone :O( and worse is replaced with a string of sour and dour and plaintive refrains.

Understandable though; you've had a hard week, and I'm just here for the entertainment. Better times are coming for those that survive the bad ones.

AT

Strings said...

>And that's where the activism could be most desireably and productively directed in Wisconsin, too.<

And it was, for a good many years.

We got CCW within one lousy vote of being law of the land. One person, flipping their stance when we went to override the governor's veto, is all that kept us from passing it.

The following cycle, we missed by two. At that point, those in the lead decided we needed to quit until the political landscape changed a bit. Like the governor changing... which happens this November.

Sorry man, but it bothers the hell out of me when someone who isn't here, and doesn't know the history, "speaks from on high".

Tam said...

Strings,

Hey, AT is just busy telling you Wisconsinites (you, Fred, G98,) how you should do things.

It's funny, too, because he was just complaining in the same breath about the "non-natives" ruining his beloved Florida. Why, I bet they have the gall to come down there and tell him how they did things back home. ;)

Anonymous said...

More off-the-mark-snark...

Actually I said Fred did his thing exactly right, 'course you missed/ignored that too (Sure did!). That pre-planned pre-announced picnic demonstration he linked was great too...a perfect educational tool without scaring the panties off the old ladies and endangering innocent diners by luring a platoon of "undertrained underbrained" gendarme into their little - what did you call it again - oh yeah, "pre-planned ambush".

But run from your words and continue to obfuscate if you please, but the simple (and unanswered) question to you was and is:

"Are you...saying this is a good and proper way to engender support for and further the cause of making the public possession of firearms normal in the eyes and minds of sheeple who have been conditioned their whole lives to regard their very static existence as an immediate threat to their safety rather than a tool to protect it?"

As to the geography, you don't have to be stupid to know stupid when you see it, kinda like you don't have to be born a Rebel to play one on the toobz...even chi-town natives know that ;0)

AT

Fred said...

Go listen to the 911 call, now that it's available, and tell me just how pants shittingly scared the old lady was.