It’s sad enough to see those thuggish paranoid scaredy-cats carrying guns everywhere they go, but who do they think they are bringing a gun on your property, without permission?
WSJ: A day after Dane County officials introduced a resolution that would ban concealed weapons in county buildings, Mayor Paul Soglin released a statement of his intent to enact an ordinance that would require written permission for gun owners to carry a weapon on private property in Madison.
"We will consider ordinances that give the property owners and lease holders a presumption that individuals may not bring firearms onto someone else's property without their permission," Soglin said in a press release.
Soglin said in an email to the State Journal that he thought the Constitution favored the rights of property owners over the rights of gun owners. "I believe that the Wisconsin and United States constitutions give precedent to property rights and therefore the presumption favors the desire of the property owner," Soglin said. "This will probably be decided in the court."
I’m loving the idea that the loony right, the ones who take property rights to an extreme level, will either have to back away from those strong beliefs or give up their guns in most places. Truly brilliant.
Here's the coverage from WKOW 27 News:
You are overlooking the obvious. State law.ReplyDelete
66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.
(1) In this section:
(a) “Firearm” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
(b) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or county.
(c) “Sport shooting range” means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.
(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
The city can not enforce such an ordinance as is being proposed by the mayor. He knows that.
Why not just ban crime? Then we could all ride naked through the streets!
He's not threatening of the listed areas you've supplied here:ReplyDelete
He's empowering private property owners to take control of the people on their premises, unless gun toting loons are now a protected class that can't be discriminated against. We'll leave that up to the courts. And yes, I think Paul knows what he's doing.
We'll see. Anyway, what's to worry about, you've got your activist conservative Supreme Court in your back pocket.
"Anyway, what's to worry about, you've got your activist conservative Supreme Court in your back pocket."ReplyDelete
Add to this the full force of the state law and well, the outcome is a done deal.
Since there is no state law to demand a permission slip to go armed on private property, the city can not create one.
One more time - "no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm"...
"unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute."
Let's see, my bearing (carry) permitting (only the state can do that), my use, my possessing, is exactly what he is attempting to regulate and control, and can't.
Think of it this way, what if the Mayor said, "no one can say anything stupid". Wouldn't you fight for your right to say stupid things?
The permission slip is similar to a sign posting.ReplyDelete
Think about it. Got it.