If your looking for a no guns sign for your home or business, you can download a nice one at City of Madison's website.
I thought this comment provided a few other suggestions to get your signs:
And if you'd like to help organize and ask businesses to post signs, contact the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice in Madison or Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, Veterans for Peace Chapter 102, or Peace Action Wisconsin, all in Milwaukee. They all have signs available in quantity.
I have a question for the legal scholars here. First, does the law in Wisconsin allow for public facilities (restaurants, hotels, or other businesses open to the public) to bar the lawful carrying of weapons?
ReplyDeleteHow is this different from laws banning discrimination against people for their race, sex, etc as discussed in another post about the TX firearms trainer? While these places are privately owned, they are not allowed by law to discriminate because they are considered public facilities right?
These signs are always such a joke. As if someone hell bent on robbing a store is going to change his mind because it would be wrong to carry a gun in there.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't the businesses just post a "no robbery" or "no murder sign"?
FWM, there you go again pretending we're all so dumb on this side of the argument that we'd expect "omeone hell bent on robbing a store" to obey the sign.
ReplyDeleteNo, the signs are meant for you and your kind. Presumably, you guys will obey the request and then the shop owner will only have to worry about the criminals, he won't have to worry about them and you both.
Jim, you can call it discrimination if you like. That way you can play the victim. Is that what you want?
ReplyDeletemikeb - I am curious on the legal side how that compares...
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, you are not discriminating against the person per se, just his carrying of an object into your store. I think places are allowed to keep you from carrying certain items like umbrellas or large bags into ball parks, food or drinks, etc. so most likely this is a moot point.
Still any opinions from those more knowledgeble in the law?
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe shop owner will only have to worry about criminals, not about those with a carry license. I'm sure that's such a relief to the shop owner. Between the two groups, which one would you rather have around? Gun control advocates take great pleasure in pointing out licensees who commit crimes with their guns, but which group, criminal or person with a license, has a higher probability of committing a crime?
The only thing those signs to is make it likely that the shop owner will face the criminal's gun with no chance of getting out of the situation, unless the criminal feels generous.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteReally? Do you think that up till now, Wisconsin businesses have been being protected by the "Silent majority" of LGO's with CCW's? And that, now, that will stop?
No, Democommie, I don't think that Wisconsin businesses have been protected by legal gun owners with carry licenses. Wisconsin didn't allow concealed carry until this last Tuesday. My point was that those of us with carry licenses aren't the people to fear. I'm sure you'll provide me with stories of licensees who go astray, but perhaps even you'll agree that the vast majority of us don't. An armed robber, by contrast, has a much higher likelihood of using violence.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, those signs merely disarm the people who weren't going to cause a problem in the first place.
"No, the signs are meant for you and your kind. Presumably, you guys will obey the request and then the shop owner will only have to worry about the criminals, he won't have to worry about them and you both."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you prove that gun control is only for the law abiding.
An experiment for the gun haters.
ReplyDeletePut big signs in your yards and windows that say: GUN FREE ZONE and see what happens.
I have an even better experiment, place out two identically looking bowls with 100 M&Ms each:
ReplyDeleteBowl One has 100 fresh M&Ms reap for picking by anybody.
Bowl two has 95 fresh M&Ms and 5 M&Ms laced with a very fast acting poison but indistinguishable from the rest.
Mark both as to the dangers they contain, which bowl will be avoided like the plague?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteMuch like the scenario of every man, woman and child having to be armed to be safe, on the proverbial "dark street", there is no evidence that CCW's are going to be where and when they're needed--none.
Sure, it happens that ocassionally there is a situation where one or more perps is taken down by a CCW type. Otoh, we have something like 14,000 suicides by gun, in this country, every year. The odd thing is that you guys seem to think that a small number of verifiable "take downs" by armed citizens = we gotz to haz gunz but the 14,000 suicides are statistically insignificant where your favorite toys are concerned.
Much like the scenario of every man, woman and child having to be armed to be safe, on the proverbial "dark street", there is no evidence that CCW's are going to be where and when they're needed--none.
ReplyDeleteSorry Commie I am only interested in protecting me and mine.....
No altruism for you here commie, you are on your own....
Doc said, "Otoh, we have something like 14,000 suicides by gun"
ReplyDeleteDoC are you joining the right to life movement, a PRO choicer?
It is good to see some tigers can change their spots..... there is hope for you yet.....
Greg says, "My point was that those of us with carry licenses aren't the people to fear."
ReplyDeleteI wish that were true, Greg, but it's not. Maybe you're talking about percentages, that most or almost all licensed gun owners are not going to hurt anybody, but that's not good enough. Some of you do. It's in the news every day.
In addition, some of you hurt us in indirect ways. You allow your guns to end up in criminal hands. The more of you there are, the more often that happens. It's simple arithmetic.
Tommy sez:
ReplyDelete"DoC are you joining the right to life movement, a PRO choicer?"
Umm, wtf are you talking about? Are you equating a medical procedure that is/should be optional and decided upon by the person who is going to undergo the procedure to having some distraught person stick a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger. I mean I know you don't give a fuck about other LIVING people--you said so, but damn, son, you really think that the two are equivalent?
Luckily, for you, breathing, heartbreat and elimination of feces are pretty much autonomic functions (I think you need to have the docs run a few tests for that last function, you seem to be filling up fast) otherwise a braindead bozo like yourself would be in trouble.
Oh, that's right, I almost forgot the original point of your comment. So 14,000 suicides don't bother you and they are meaningless in terms of your beliefz about the sanctity of gunz? Otoh, for the sake of the small number of actual, verifiable DGU's that occur every year you would arm everyone who can cock a hammer or rack a slide? Yeah, you've got your priorities straight--for a misanthrope.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe best that the Violence Policy Center can come up with is that since 2007, some three hundred licensed handgun carriers have used them to commit murder. That's out of six million licensees. Name another group with that record of safe and legal behavior.
In addition, I don't sell guns to criminals, nor do I allow them to take guns from me. Blaming gun owners if their guns get stolen is like blaming a car owner whose car is stolen and then gets involved in a wreck.
Democommie,
Is it possible for you to express yourself without fits of vulgarity and anger? You strike me as an illustration of just the kind of person who shouldn't have firearms.
No, Greg. Do you really believe some 300 murders are acceptable? I don't know you but I'd bet if one of them involved your friends or family, your attitude might be a little less cavalier.
ReplyDeleteThe point you seem to miss is that CCW holders are supposed to be the law-abiding, remember? They're supposed to be the ones who aren't felons, who aren't criminals. The fact that 300 have committed murder (and many, many other crimes) speaks loud and clear the process doesn't work.
There's something very wrong with the gunloon mindset that believes 300 murders is ok. That other gun crimes are just acceptable.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteSure, it's possible for me to express myself without swearing, but why bother when I'm dealing with a fucking clown like Tommy or any or any of the numerous cowardly piece of shit sockpuppets who refuse to sign their comments with anything other than "anonymous" or their blognomen of the day?
I give a flying fuck whether lying scumbags think I'm impolite or intemperate.
I don't own any guns, although I have a nice one sitting near me at the moment. It belongs to someone else and I'm trying to get an appraisal for it so she can get a fair price. It might come in handy if someone broke in to my house, If it's closer than the rake, an ice chisel, various caustic or flammable household chemicals and other near to hand improvised weapons.
If I thought I needed a gun on my person or in my house, I would move or stay away from a place that was dangerous enough to require that I go there armed.
Someone I know was robbed in Spain, at gunpoint (as far as he knows) last week. He's happy to be alive. He had no warning, none whatsoever, he was simply clubbed in the back of the head and robbed. If he had been carrying a gun (a big no-no in Spain,btw) he might have been able to defend himself. More likely, he would have been robbed of the gun as well as his other belongings, increasing the number of guns in the hands of criminals by at least one.
Since I typed this I just realized that you and others who share your penchant for CCW or open carry are pretty much fucked when it comes time to vacation. You can't travel to any countries outside of the U.S. with a CCW. You can't carry a weapon in your luggage unless it's legal to possess it in the state or country you're travelling too. You certainly can't go on a commercial cruise with a gun on your person. Same for the Greyhound and Amtrak, I'm fairly sure--unless of course you have the necessary permits and authorizations.
As for driving, the same sorts of restrictions apply if you want to drive from point a to point b and there's a state without reciprocity for CCW or open carry on that route.
Now, you say you're a law abiding guy, so I gather you don't carry your guns where it's illegal to do so. I know a guy who did that a few years ago. He spent about six months in a VA jail and damned near lost his guns and his FFL for what was not a deliberate act on his part. He simply forgot that one of his guns, a recent purchase. wasn't allowed--sans documents in VA. Big hassle.
I can't travel anywhere, 'cuz I'm tapped out. If I get some money to travel I sure don't want to skip the Smithsonian or the Whitney because I can't take my guns to NYC or Washington, D.C.
Geeze, I only said "fuck", like, three or four times. I'm slippin'-)
Greg, Would you be in favor of stricter requirements for the CCW permit, including mental health screening?
ReplyDeleteI'm speaking in general terms, I'm not looking for a tit-for-tat argument about how such screening and heightened requirements might work.
I'm asking would you accept a situation where the worst 25% of CCW permit holders could be screened out? Or would that violate your ideas of 2A gun rights for individuals?
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"In addition, I don't sell guns to criminals, nor do I allow them to take guns from me. Blaming gun owners if their guns get stolen is like blaming a car owner whose car is stolen and then gets involved in a wreck."
Whoa. First of all, car owners are required to have insurance in case their vehicle - whoever is driving it, including a thief - harms someone.
I'd love to see that requirement for firearms. It means that whoever gets control of your vehicle, you are still responsible for the damages.
Further, as someone who spent 14 years in the executive home office claims division of the then largest insurance company in the U.S., with subsidiaries in the UK and Europe -- damn straight if you don't take prudent measures to secure your vehicle, you are going to have consequences. Because of our weather here in MN, it is not uncommon for people to keep their engines running, where they would normally turn them off. You do that AND leave the car unlocked, while say, you go inside a gas station to pay for gas, or a convenience store for 5 minutes to pick up a carton of milk on the way home or a cup of coffee, and your car is stolen, your rates will damn well go up, and you WILL be lectured by law enforcement for having contributed to your vehicle being stolen, for failing to use prudent measures.
We're the land of 10,000 lakes, the mosquito as the alternate state bird, and two keys carried by drivers in winter so they can lock their car while it is running, and for most of us that also means a heavy duty sleeping bag, snow shovel, and full winter emergency kit in the trunk as well.
But I'm sick and tired of hearing that no one is responsible for acting stupidly and then being the victim of a crime.
If you can't secure it from abuse or theft, you shouldn't be allowed to have it, If you can't afford to insure against damage done with it, you shouldn't be allowed to have it or a license for it.
That should go for every firearm, every vehicle, and for things like swimming pools or other so-called attractive nuisances. The reasonable criteria for any of the above is can it harm someone, even if used normally, and is there statistics to document that this happens often enough to justify the regulation. That is true of all of the above.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI'm suspicious of mental screenings because I've known psychologists and have seen how their field operates. I've worked in a treatment facility. That experience scared me about how much power a shrink has. The psychologists I've known were entirely too smug about their supposed abilities. My point here is that I don't trust power that operates in secret. I also dislike judging a person who hasn't done anything. I have no problem with denying licenses to those who have done wrong. (I do think that we need a way to restore criminals to full citizenship, whenever that's possible.)
This leads me to Jadegold,
I'm not pleased when any innocent person dies, but let's compare the number of deaths of innocents caused by people with concealed carry licenses to those caused by medical doctors or automobile drivers.
I never said that three hundred deaths is acceptable. My point is that the number is far smaller than for many other groups. Why are you focusing on guns when there are so many other more dangerous activities?
In addition, the cost of taking away the rights of millions is too high.
Democommie,
My concealed carry license is recognized in forty states. There are a lot of places that I can travel and carry. Once H.R. 822 passes and becomes law, that'll go to fifty. I do follow the law.
As to your other point, you show your personal nature by how you act--not by how your opponents act and not by the behavior of fools, but by how you act.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAttractive nuisance laws are a way of avoiding assessing responsibility to the person who actually did the wrong. I have car insurace, but I shouldn't be liable for what a thief does if he steals my car. My property is just that: mine. It's good judgement to keep it safe, but I have no moral responsibility if someone commits a crime by breaking into my property to steal.
Again, you view things from the perspective of a collectivist, while I'm for individual rights and choice.
"The reasonable criteria for any of the above is can it harm someone, even if used normally, and is there statistics to document that this happens often enough to justify the regulation."
No, good sense is to demand that persons take responsibility for their own actions. If I break into my neighbor's back yard and drown in his pool, I get what I deserve.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"Attractive nuisance laws are a way of avoiding assessing responsibility to the person who actually did the wrong."
No, they are reasonable precautions required to protect both adults, but particularly children. It - correctly - focuses on the RESPONSIBILITY that someone has for securing their property if that property is in some way unusually attractive or tempting to others AND is also potentially dangerous. It is entirely about personal responsibility - the responsibility we have for dangerous things. You seem to be advocating for others to be held responsible while ignoring the owner's responsibility for securing something dangerous here.
I have car insurance, but I shouldn't be liable for what a thief does if he steals my car.
And if that thief runs over your next door neighbors children with that car - why should it NOT be your responsiblity for your personal property? The rationale for such laws is that no one else should be liable for the harm done either by you or by your property to innocent third parties. It DOES still hold the thief responsible for theft, but it is impractical to hold the original owner harmless for the liability for what is done with his property, and it is most certainly unfair to any victim of harm from that item.
Rather it is clear - and I'm sure that it is the case in all 50 states, DC, and has been the case in pretty much every part of the world where I have traveled, that if you choose to have an item of property that can harm, you are responsible for that harm whether done by you, by someone using it with your permission or using it without your permission. It is a responsiblity you assume in having something potentially dangerous -- and I might add a premise that has an exceptional world-wide consensus.
So, you may think it is unfair,but if you do not comply with what is the consensus on this, you are the one in the wrong. Beyond that, I think you are a bit naive about responsiblity.
For example, if you have a child - or a pet - that damages your neighbors yard or building, you DO know that you are responsible for that damage, even if YOU didn't approve it or do the damage yourself, right? The responsiblity for a stolen car etc.is pretty much consistent with that reasoning.
GC wrote: My property is just that: mine. It's good judgement to keep it safe, but I have no moral responsibility if someone commits a crime by breaking into my property to steal. Sorry, but you do - and the consensus is on my side,not yours, including the reasoning of professional ethicists.
Again, we see the collectivist impulse--spread the blame. The fault doesn't lie with the thief. His mother made him do it. Or the owner of the shiny object made him do it. Or it was society that made him do it. Of course, it couldn't be solely the fault of the thief. . .
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteAgain, we see the collectivist impulse--spread the blame. The fault doesn't lie with the thief. His mother made him do it. Or the owner of the shiny object made him do it. Or it was society that made him do it. Of course, it couldn't be solely the fault of the thief. . .
Bullshit. What it does do is hold the criminal accountable for the theft; it is the criminal who does the jail time for the offense. What it does do is hold the owner of the property responsible for harm done with his inherently DANGEROUS property- ie. weapons etc..
False reasoning on your part; you are recommending less, not more personal responsibility. You don't get to wash your hands that easily - you have too much law to overcome to do that.
I had the 'aw, attractive nuisance laws are unfair' discussion with my parents when I was four; right before they had built a large,cement in-ground swimming pool for me for my fifth birthday. It was part of the 'you don't get this unless you agree to help us keep the gate locked' conversation. I didn't think it was fair then; I do now, because I'm no longer a 4 year old, and I'm much more familiar with the application of the concept of liability.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThere are many areas in which the current law makes no sense. If I flood your yard because I build a poorly constructed pool, then I'm responsible. If you break into my property and swim in my pool without my permission, you are responsible for what happens to you.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteThere are many areas in which the current law makes no sense. If I flood your yard because I build a poorly constructed pool, then I'm responsible. If you break into my property and swim in my pool without my permission, you are responsible for what happens to you.
uhm...no, that is not what you call
'current law'; it dates back to old old old old common law.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with both the traditions and origins of liability and more generally familiarize yourself with attractive nuisance doctrine, and the concept of reasonable care.
Weapons are inherently dangerous, they have the capacity as an intentional part of their design to be capable of harming people. THAT justifies a different standard for responsibility than say, a bowling ball, or a garden hose. You have a very laissez-faire attitude; "hey, if that gun is stolen, not MY problem what happens; I'll just go out and buy me another one." Meanwhile someone else gets shot.
Sorry - not my idea of responsible gun ownership.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteAfter having read a number of your comments I'm going to have to peg you as being in the same class of gun owners as mikeyw and weer'd beard. Your comments indicate to me (and I think to other regulars here) that you are only concerned about getting what YOU want, screw the rest of society. You are one of the folks whose attitude seems to be, "I kin haz all the gunz I want, I kin haz them on my person, in my car, layin' around my house and there ain't NOTHING you commies can do about it! ("collectivist" is a dogwhistle, pal).
Your comments indicate that you think that the chances of something bad happening when improperly trained or untrained gunners are doing CCW are vanishingly small. They are not--you may dispute that all you like, the stats are not on your side.
I think you said, in one of your comments on a different threat that you are a "classic liberal" which means, in your mind, libertarian. I see that mode of thinking as being classist, self-centered and arrogant. A true libertarian would eschew ALL government aid, use of publicly constructed infrastructure and the protection of public safety departments. You apparently want to live "off the grid" where your gunz are concerned but I doubt that you're living in a hut on some piece of land that has no public amenities.
I think a more accurate description of "libertarianism" is, "I'll obey the laws I agree with.".
Greg, what is this supposed to mean exactly?
ReplyDelete"If you break into my property and swim in my pool without my permission, you are responsible for what happens to you."
Is that some castle-doctrine kinda extremism? I was just about to defend you to democommie and say I don't put you in the same category as some of our former commenters like he does, but this statement made me think twice.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteMy comment means that in a properly organized society, if you break into my property, whatever harm you suffer is your responsibility alone. I am only morally obliged to protect you if I accept you as my guest.
The law, of course, has little to do with morality.
Greg, what passes for morality with you has no real relationship to reality.
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest you might consider taking either a good class in the fundamentals of ethics, or maybe the history of law. I'd recommend paying particular attention to the concepts of liability, and duty to others.
Certainly what appeals to you as a 'so-called' properly organized society, is not much of a society at all. It is more like anarchy.
Greg, Thanks for clarifying. I suspected you wouldn't be able to maintain that facade of reasonableness for long. I was right. You're comin' right out of the closet, man.
ReplyDelete