True, Wisconsin residents are not legally required to hand over an ID simply for possessing a visible weapon, but we suggest they do it anyway. [More]You know, cede to unlawful demands backed by unlawful force out of "respect" ...
And no small amount of fear and unnecessary endangerment that could be avoided altogether.
Cal-Guns recently helped out a guy but concluded this:
We do not encourage Unloaded Open Carrying of firearms in urban areas at this time...
Why?
Until that day, these officers had never heard of the burgeoning Unloaded Open Carry movement, in which persons entitled to possess firearms exercise their right to lawfully carry unloaded, holstered handguns...That is inexcusable. And the solution should not be giving up even more rights because the "Only Ones" are ignorant of their duties and in violation of their oaths.
What's the best solution?
This should work, quickly, cheaply, easily and effectively.
Put the responsibility and accountability where it belongs. Why the idiots at the JournalTimes don't realize respect is earned, as opposed to mandated through implied force, "diversity" propaganda, etc., is yet another self-evident fail on the part of "progressives".
I'd add one thing: How hard would it be for the state AG to also issue a press release explaining the law to the "Authorized Journalists," who, after all, for the most part just parrot what the agenda-drivers feed them anyway. Maybe if they also did their job and informed the public, some of the knee-jerk hysteria would die down.
[Via RW and Jrp1947]
7 comments:
Link does not function. Cal-Guns reminds me of a kid who says he's going to run away, but never does. They want things to change, but they don't want to DO anything to change it.
Links all just worked fine for me on this end. Could be a Blogger glitch--they've recently done an "upgrade" and seem to be competing to out-Examiner Examiner.
I have found that you can test the fairness of any gun rights statement by changing the wording to another civil rights issue. For example:
True, Black Wisconsin residents are not legally required to hand over an ID simply for refusing to give up their seat on the bus, but we suggest they do it anyway.
or
As for black men themselves, they must understand the jobs police have to do. Officers didn't pull up to the restaurant with full knowledge of what was happening. They have no way of knowing whether someone who is black means to confront someone with whom they have a dispute, rob the place or just enjoy a meal like everyone else.
See how silly it is when you exchange gun ownership with other civil rights?
It did me good this morning to read about a state going to bat for a resident against the feds.
National Park rangers wanted to do a boarding and "safety inspection" of this man's already loaded-to-capacity 21-foot boat in the middle of a river. He objected.
He agreed to go out of his way to the river bank, where the boat would be less likely to capsize. He was arrested on four misdemeanors. He spent four days in jail without his medication.
Alaska says "Don't do that."
http://www.adn.com/2010/09/30/1480077/state-supports-man-arrested-on.html
Well Defender... that works out fine if the person who was violated manages to survive the original outrage. Suppose four days in the slammer without medication was a death sentence, even if they didn't shoot him off the boat to start with?
I'm sure his survivors would be pleased to know that "the state" was "supporting" him.
Do we really want "state support" or freedom?
Hi David,
I did a rewrite of The Journal Times.com article on their discussion page. Please check it out.
JJ Swiontek
Denver, CO
More examples of citizens who are guilty until proven innocent.
It is interesting that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is mostly applied to the citizens, rarely to the police.
Post a Comment