Summer 2009 Milwaukee Open Carry Picnic: May 25th, 2009 (Memorial Day), Time: 3PM-7PM

[semperfiws6]

imported post

No interest lost here. I check for updates regularly and still plan on going.

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

I am still working the county parts front. While it appears that state statute will preempt 47.05, I would like to have more of a warm and fuzzy feeling about it. I'm not afraid of being arrested, I just want to have a reasonable certainty of winning in court.

 

[GJD]

imported post

It sucks about the law, but I am sure that the picnic will be nice. We will still have media attention and we can all meet each other.

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

No lost interest here either, still planning to have it at my place.

pvtschultz wrote:

I am still working the county parts front. While it appears that state statute will preempt 47.05, I would like to have more of a warm and fuzzy feeling about it. I'm not afraid of being arrested, I just want to have a reasonable certainty of winning in court.

Exactly. I wasn't afraid of getting arrested by having it in the pack, as I knew that was a possibility. I'm just not sure I can win in court anymore with that "up for interpretation" stuff in the preemption law.

 

[skamp]

imported post

how big is the yard over there?

seem like we are going to fill it up pretty quick.. especially if we have good weather

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

ayskamp wrote:

how big is the yard over there?

seem like we are going to fill it up pretty quick.. especially if we have good weather

I'd say 25-30 is the max I could have comfortably. Seeing as no one else has expressed interest since last week, I think that we've reached a good size as of now.

 

[BJA]

imported post

Mr. Greg now in regards to parking. I assume we will be parking on the street. Therefore there must not be a school or school property within 1,000 feet of the streets we park. I believe I am correct in stating that but not absolutely sure.



Ben

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

BJA wrote:

Mr. Greg now in regards to parking. I assume we will be parking on the street. Therefore there must not be a school or school property within 1,000 feet of the streets we park. I believe I am correct in stating that but not absolutely sure.



Ben

Unfortunately, Greenfield Middle is nearby, so you cannot holster up until you're on my property; you'll have to walk to my property with an unloaded, encased, firearm, and load & holster it on the property, and do the reverse when leaving.

 

[Birdhunter]

imported post

Mr Greg,

Food for thought - I have it on good authority that the Greenfield Police Department's policy on open carry is as follows:

The individual open carrying will be asked to put away the firearm. If they refuse, they will be ticketed for having an uncased weapon within the city limits. Note that you will not be arrested, just ticketed.

Of course, we all know that this muni ordinance is preempted, but this is what the city attorney is recommending at this time. I don't know how they will handle someone pleading not guilty - I'm guessing that the city is hoping to keep a lid on OC by figuring that the individual in question will simply pay the fine and not OC anymore.

AFAIK, a test case has not been presented to the city as of yet.

I'm not trying to kill the picnic idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the current situation in Greenfield.

Disclaimer - IANAL and I don't work for or represent the City of Greenfield in any way, shape or form.

 

[Max]

imported post

I am going to sneak my gun onto the property in a bowl of shrimp salad. Do you think the mayo will harm the blueing? :lol:

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

Birdhunter wrote:

Mr Greg,

Food for thought - I have it on good authority that the Greenfield Police Department's policy on open carry is as follows:

The individual open carrying will be asked to put away the firearm. If they refuse, they will be ticketed for having an uncased weapon within the city limits. Note that you will not be arrested, just ticketed.

Of course, we all know that this muni ordinance is preempted, but this is what the city attorney is recommending at this time. I don't know how they will handle someone pleading not guilty - I'm guessing that the city is hoping to keep a lid on OC by figuring that the individual in question will simply pay the fine and not OC anymore.

AFAIK, a test case has not been presented to the city as of yet.

I'm not trying to kill the picnic idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the current situation in Greenfield.

Disclaimer - IANAL and I don't work for or represent the City of Greenfield in any way, shape or form.

Good, we'll be able to get another city in the news for Constitutional Rights violations. Unfortunately, there probably isn't going to be a means to collect damages unless they actually try to detain us/confascate our weapons.

 

[skamp]

imported post

well we are on private property.. so i doubt they can ever go with that..

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

Birdhunter wrote:

Mr Greg,

Food for thought - I have it on good authority that the Greenfield Police Department's policy on open carry is as follows:

The individual open carrying will be asked to put away the firearm. If they refuse, they will be ticketed for having an uncased weapon within the city limits. Note that you will not be arrested, just ticketed.

Of course, we all know that this muni ordinance is preempted, but this is what the city attorney is recommending at this time. I don't know how they will handle someone pleading not guilty - I'm guessing that the city is hoping to keep a lid on OC by figuring that the individual in question will simply pay the fine and not OC anymore.

AFAIK, a test case has not been presented to the city as of yet.

I'm not trying to kill the picnic idea, I just want everyone to be aware of the current situation in Greenfield.

Disclaimer - IANAL and I don't work for or represent the City of Greenfield in any way, shape or form.

Hilarious.

It'd be a kick to see an overzealous cop try to write tickets for 30+ people when both the cop, and the "ordinance breakers," know that said tickets would be challenged, and dropped, should they go through with the ticketing.

Doesn't deter me in the least. I know its legal, they know it's legal. If they choose to waste officer hours and taxpayer money issuing unlawful tickets for an uninforcable statue, that's their choice.

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

Max wrote:

I am going to sneak my gun onto the property in a bowl of shrimp salad. Do you think the mayo will harm the blueing? :lol:

Not sure. Just make sure it's unloaded and fully submerged in the salad muck!

 

[Birdhunter]

imported post

Yes, I found it rather humorous myself.

The term "grasping at straws" comes to mind....

 

[BJA]

imported post

2)Possession of firearm in
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a
(b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:

1. On private property not that of school grounds.


2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and


3. That is not loaded and is:

a. Encased; or

b. In a locked
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;



So under 948.605(2)(b)3. it's saying you are legal to walk or drivewithin a school zone with an encased and unloaded firearm right? Is there a lwayer or someone who could verify this meaning of the statute. I know it sounds wierd but sometimes they word it wierd for no obvious reason. But it thankfully looks pretty clear cut to me .


Ben

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

BJA wrote:

2)Possession of firearm in
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a
(b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:

1. On private property not that of school grounds.


2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and


3. That is not loaded and is:

a. Encased; or

b. In a locked
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;



So under 948.605(2)(b)3. it's saying you are legal to walk or drivewithin a school zone with an encased and unloaded firearm right? Is there a lwayer or someone who could verify this meaning of the statute. I know it sounds wierd but sometimes they word it wierd for no obvious reason.


Ben

If it wasn't legal, there would be no way for someone living within a "1000 feet school zone" to possess a firearm, as the mere action of transporting it to/from their property would be a crime.

 

[BJA]

imported post

True that, it looks pretty clear cut just erring on the side of caution.

Ben

 

[jjcharris]

imported post

Spongebob wrote:

Wow. I pretty much figured nobody around my age cares about this issue.
Do we have any more peers around here?

Have you had a pistol since you were 18, or did you wait until you could buy one.

I'm 20 y.o. and I WILL BE ATTENDING, with one(possibly two) guests.

I WILLBE CARRYING, but probably not my guests.

Looking forward to meeting all of you and having a good time.

--Jared

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

jjcharris wrote:

Spongebob wrote:

Wow. I pretty much figured nobody around my age cares about this issue.
Do we have any more peers around here?

Have you had a pistol since you were 18, or did you wait until you could buy one.

I'm 20 y.o. and I WILL BE ATTENDING, with one(possibly two) guests.

I WILLBE CARRYING, but probably not my guests.

Looking forward to meeting all of you and having a good time.

--Jared

Just an FYI - make sure you read the rules and guidelines in the first post. Due to space limitations, the only people invited are members and their families. If your "guests" are family members, no problem.

I hate to turn people away, so don't get me wrong, but my yard can only handle so much. :?