I live 6 blocks from here.Do you think we could get CCW?


WEDNESDAY, Dec. 28, 2005, 5:48 p.m.
Police investigating 122nd homicide of '05

Milwaukee Police are investigating a homicide at Wong's Kitchen, a restaurant near 92nd and Capitol. The shooting was reported at 5:10 p.m. It would be Milwaukee's 122nd homicide of the year, compared to 88 in all of 2004.

Quoted:   I live 6 blocks from here.Do you think we could get CCW? WEDNESDAY, Dec. 28, 2005, 5:48 p.m. Police investigating 122nd homicide of '05 Milwaukee Police are investigating a homicide at Wong's Kitchen, a restaurant near 92nd and Capitol. The shooting was reported at 5:10 p.m. It would be Milwaukee's 122nd homicide of the year, compared to 88 in all of 2004.

I'm with ya bro as I was born and raised in Chicago. The murder rate there is 3 times higher that the world average (yeah for gun control!) Even now, homicides are buried well back from the front page of the Trib unless they're really heinous in nature. I like where I'm at now, if a woman gets raped, it would be on the front page for weeks.

Bunch of youths attacked a 50 year old man yesterday, drug him from his vehicle, nearly beat him to death and left him for dead. I have no idea why he didn't floor it down the block. Even the paper is admitting that we have a trend of sorts.

Mrs. T-J says that she heard coverage with witness testimony that described the attackers laughing it up and having a good time as they climbed on top of cars and jumped down on the man's head.

LINK TO STORY.

Article I, §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.  [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]
 
Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute.  
This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns.  The standard of review for 
challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the statute is a reasonable
 exercise of police power.  State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 
01-0350.
 
Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used.  
It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25.  Only if the public benefit in the exercise of
 the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in
 the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be
 unconstitutional.  The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter,
 must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of 
a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within 
those premises.  State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.
 
Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires 
affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 
1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to 
facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's
 interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his 
or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to 
exercise his or her right to bear arms?  
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113,  264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.
 

I'd say that defending yourself against from roving mobs that beat people to death for little or no reason substantially outweighs ANY other interest of ANY third party. So, answer to constitutional defense question 1 is AFFIRMATIVE.

If you open carry, you'll be arrested and disarmed. Therefore, concealment is the onlt reasonable means under which one may exercise thier right to bear arms. Answer to constitutional defense question 2 is AFFIRMATIVE.

What was the point of wading through the legislative process to recognize 2A as a right of Wisconsin Citizen's only to disseminate it as a privilege?

Our legal battle to carry in WI should be aimed at forcing the state to honor it's own constitution, rather than begging for privileges.
Fuck the permit. Don't request permission to exercise a right. That's what RIGHT means.

I live 8 blocks from there
whenever i drive through the shit, i have al doors locked, windows up, pounder of fox gas in hand or within reach. If anyone tried to stop my car i would keep it moving... if they get run over that’s their own fault, and another reason why i have liability insurance
I always try keeping a good 2 car lengths in front of me when stopped for a light incase im approached and do not wish to remain waiting till the light turns green.

i have a question though, in this situation when would have been the right time to draw a concealed weapon? assuming we had permits and the guy was carrying. is having your vehicle forcibly stopped and many unsavory individuals approach your vehicle grounds for drawing a weapon on them

Quoted: Bunch of youths attacked a 50 year old man yesterday, drug him from his vehicle, nearly beat him to death and left him for dead. I have no idea why he didn't floor it down the block. Even the paper is admitting that we have a trend of sorts. Mrs. T-J says that she heard coverage with witness testimony that described the attackers laughing it up and having a good time as they climbed on top of cars and jumped down on the man's head. LINK TO STORY. Article I, §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.  [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998] Article I, §25 - ANNOT. The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute.   This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns.  The standard of review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the statute is a reasonable exercise of police power.  State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01-0350. Article I, §25 - ANNOT. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used.   It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25.  Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional.  The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises.  State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056. Article I, §25 - ANNOT. A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms?   State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113,  264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056. I'd say that defending yourself against from roving mobs that beat people to death for little or no reason substantially outweighs ANY other interest of ANY third party. So, answer to constitutional defense question 1 is AFFIRMATIVE. If you open carry, you'll be arrested and disarmed. Therefore, concealment is the onlt reasonable means under which one may exercise thier right to bear arms. Answer to constitutional defense question 2 is AFFIRMATIVE. What was the point of wading through the legislative process to recognize 2A as a right of Wisconsin Citizen's only to disseminate it as a privilege? Our legal battle to carry in WI should be aimed at forcing the state to honor it's own constitution, rather than begging for privileges. Fuck the permit. Don't request permission to exercise a right. That's what RIGHT means.

You said it way better then I could have. I totaly agree with you 10000000000000000000%


Also when you go back and look at the reasons the court gives in Hamdan as to why CCW should be regulated you can see that they are bullshit reasons. And the beatings in Milwaukee both this year and last year all show it too.

It's a shame to see that part of the city thrown int the crapper.
I grew up on that end of town.(76 and Capitol area)
I can remember walking to Capitol Court.
I really like the idea of CCW, however I just don't trust people not to play
policeman or cowboy.
CCW is the right to carry, not become the law.
Proper screening is a must.
There have been times in my life when I have carried.
This was done only where i felt my life could be in danger.
it was not to be cool.

Having the criminal element thinking twice before the crime is priceless.
Milwaukee IS becoming a dangerous city.
It will be interesting to see waht becomes of CCW.

Quoted: It's a shame to see that part of the city thrown int the crapper. I grew up on that end of town.(76 and Capitol area) I can remember walking to Capitol Court. I really like the idea of CCW, however I just don't trust people not to play policeman or cowboy. You may not but I do CCW is the right to carry, not become the law. No one wants to become the law, we want to be able to protect our own asses something the UNITED STATES supreme court has already said is OUR responcibility not the responcibility of LE Proper screening is a must. Bullshit it's a right protected and recongnised by the constitution of the united states and the state of wisconsin, do you need to be screened to exercise yer 1st amendment rights? or your fouth or fifth amendment rights? Nope There have been times in my life when I have carried. same here, every damn day in fact This was done only where i felt my life could be in danger.thats nice and all but what why not avoid the situation then? Going into a situation where your life may be in danger is asking for trouble. The only way I'll do it is to go get a friend or family member out of that area. So unless you have a good excuse for going into a situation like that, thats pretty damn dumb to do. it was not to be cool. I don't carry because its "cool" never have, I carry to protect my ass period. I've had to pull my gun twice in that last three months, anyone who thinks that shit is cool/fun is clueless and needs to rethink thier priorities Having the criminal element thinking twice before the crime is priceless. Milwaukee IS becoming a dangerous city. It will be interesting to see waht becomes of CCW.

If any of this comes off bitchy sorry, but I had a fucked up night last night and I'm still pissed about it.

Quoted: Quoted: It's a shame to see that part of the city thrown int the crapper. I grew up on that end of town.(76 and Capitol area) I can remember walking to Capitol Court. I really like the idea of CCW, however I just don't trust people not to play policeman or cowboy. You may not but I do CCW is the right to carry, not become the law. No one wants to become the law, we want to be able to protect our own asses something the UNITED STATES supreme court has already said is OUR responcibility not the responcibility of LE Proper screening is a must. Bullshit it's a right protected and recongnised by the constitution of the united states and the state of wisconsin, do you need to be screened to exercise yer 1st amendment rights? or your fouth or fifth amendment rights? Nope There have been times in my life when I have carried. same here, every damn day in fact This was done only where i felt my life could be in danger.thats nice and all but what why not avoid the situation then? Going into a situation where your life may be in danger is asking for trouble. The only way I'll do it is to go get a friend or family member out of that area. So unless you have a good excuse for going into a situation like that, thats pretty damn dumb to do. it was not to be cool. I don't carry because its "cool" never have, I carry to protect my ass period. I've had to pull my gun twice in that last three months, anyone who thinks that shit is cool/fun is clueless and needs to rethink thier priorities Having the criminal element thinking twice before the crime is priceless. Milwaukee IS becoming a dangerous city. It will be interesting to see waht becomes of CCW. If any of this comes off bitchy sorry, but I had a fucked up night last night and I'm still pissed about it.

Don't apologize photoman.  You beat me to it, and according to your response your night must have been better than mine, because you were nicer than I might have been.  Your rebuttal is right on target.

Quote:I really like the idea of CCW, however I just don't trust people not to play
policeman or cowboy.
You apparently don't understand what CCW is then!

Quoted: Bunch of youths attacked a 50 year old man yesterday, drug him from his vehicle, nearly beat him to death and left him for dead. I have no idea why he didn't floor it down the block. Even the paper is admitting that we have a trend of sorts. Mrs. T-J says that she heard coverage with witness testimony that described the attackers laughing it up and having a good time as they climbed on top of cars and jumped down on the man's head.

15-30 participated...

At 2-3rds of 9mm per target, this is a perfect example of WHY you need those 15-20rd pistol mags, (or a bunch of spares, for all you .45-or-die guys out there)....

Quoted: I live 8 blocks from there whenever i drive through the shit, i have al doors locked, windows up, pounder of fox gas in hand or within reach. If anyone tried to stop my car i would keep it moving... if they get run over that’s their own fault, and another reason why i have liability insurance I always try keeping a good 2 car lengths in front of me when stopped for a light incase im approached and do not wish to remain waiting till the light turns green. i have a question though, in this situation when would have been the right time to draw a concealed weapon? assuming we had permits and the guy was carrying. is having your vehicle forcibly stopped and many unsavory individuals approach your vehicle grounds for drawing a weapon on them

Yes.

WI standard is 'A reasonable person would fear death or great bodily haarm', if this is the case you are authorized ANY LEVEL OF FORCE to defend YOURSELF OR A 3RD PARTY.

Any level of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is authorized in defense of self or third parties not in the above danger, or of property....

Wisconsin DOES NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT OF RETREAT.

Now where's the M4 when you need it?

One of these days, folks in the city will just get sick of the shit...

I would love to see the next group of kids who try this BS take a few rounds from neighbors/other traffic, if not the intended victim himself...

It's the only way they'll learn not to pull this shit - if their buddies start getting SHOT....

Quoted: WI standard is 'A reasonable person would fear death or great bodily haarm', if this is the case you are authorized ANY LEVEL OF FORCE to defend YOURSELF OR A 3RD PARTY. Any level of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is authorized in defense of self or third parties not in the above danger, or of property....

The section in blue is misleading.

Statute 939.48(1) governs self defense and is the standard by which the criminal court system will judge you.  However, it does not authorize "any level of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm" in self-defense.

It says, "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.  The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.  The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Statute 939.49 governs protection of property.  It also does NOT authorize "any level of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm" in protection of property.

"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property.  Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.  It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property."

There is an important difference between the original statement: "Any level of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is authorized in defense of self or third parties not in the above danger, or of property.... and what state law actually says.  Understanding that difference is extremely important.

Quoted: Understanding that difference is extremely important.

Thank you, Glenn!  You make me wish I lived in your AO, friend.

Gentlemen.  Y'all know (or at least some of you do) my take on CCW without a licence.   I've gotten a lot of heat on this forum (and others) over what I've said when it comes to the PPA.  I need to make a point here that illustrates my position:

Quoted: If you open carry, you'll be arrested and disarmed. Therefore, concealment is the only reasonable means under which one may exercise thier right to bear arms. Answer to constitutional defense question 2 is AFFIRMATIVE.

I'm not picking on you TJ, but this statement is dead wrong.  The arrest and disarmament (on Disorderly Conduct charges) for open carry has NOT been legally established.  We know ithe arrest will happen, hell; we've had Milwaukee cops on this forum confirm that it will, however that carries zero legal weight.

Until the open carry position has been heard by the Courts and been ruled on one way or another, you'd be taking serious chances by arguing that Hamdan applies to CCW on the street (read: you won't be able to make the argument at all, because you can't positively answer in the affirmative to #2) .  The open carry question is the  State's Catch 22 when it comes to CCW.

Quoted: Our legal battle to carry in WI should be aimed at forcing the state to honor it's own constitution, rather than begging for privileges.

Which is what I've been trying to get people to understand since the Hamdan ruling was released. WCCA/NRA/Zien/Gunderson/et.al. ain't having it folks.

Don't request permission to exercise a right. That's what RIGHT means.

I agree in principal  , but a prosecuting attorney (or a "nut case cop" [Trademark, FMD]) would have a hard time finding an overt statement of the same (or admission of an illegal act) made by me in a public internet forum.  Something to think about, as there is an "edit" button on each of the posts above.

Back on topic:

The beat down of the 50 year old man would certianly have gone differently if it were me or AnnieO that got attacked.  A truck or car makes a great vehicle of escape, and if that's not possible; it can be a used effectively as a defensive weapon. Pistols are poor fight stoppers, folks.

Getting ANY form of (legal) carry will be a step in the right direction, but your first line of defense is your attitude.  I'm proud to say that I know a lot of you guys "get it".

FOX 6 news reported the 50yr old guy was attempting to buy crack cocaine from these punks.