Wisconsinites, Your God-Given Right

.
More from the Wisconsin paper of record, The Lakeland-Times.

"12/14/2009 11:46:00 AM
How easily Wisconsinites forget their basic rights

By James Gleason

It has become apparent over the last 20 years that the people of this state have forgotten their very rights of which this country was founded.

In this coming year, the gun rights advocates in this state are uniting in a movement that will campaign against any state representative, senator or legislator who does not support an individual's God-given right to keep and bear arms or their God-given right to self-defense.

That's right, a campaign against incumbents and candidates who do not support these rights.

Wisconsin has long been a state that is always the last to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to such issues. Now it would seem that through some corrupt movement of the city government of Milwaukee, just maybe there will be some legislation for a firearms carry bill in Wisconsin.

Well, let's not jump for joy just yet. Let's look at the means of infringement that will follow.

First, the Legislature will try to impose as many obstacles as possible to be able to exercise this God-given right.

Starting with a ridiculously unaffordable permit fee and then imposing a mandate on training that will again be ridiculously unaffordable to the average citizen. Without a doubt, following these will be gun and gun owner registration.

So let's look at these issues.

First, the United States Supreme Court has on many occasions stated that a person does not have to be permitted, pay a fee, be trained or registered to exercise their rights under the Constitution.

With that in mind, why doesn't the Legislature in Wisconsin set an example by adapting the Vermont system of firearms carry? This would make sense.

Instead, there is already talk of mandatory training. Why would you need to be trained to do something you already know? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to use a firearm. Training should only be an option and nothing more.

There are already so-called firearms instructors lining up and weaseling their way to the legislative training with no other thought in mind than lining their pockets with greenbacks at the citizen's expense. Any legislator in support of these weasels will surely get compensation of some kind.

Being permitted, to exercise a right; makes that right nothing more than a privilege.

Therefore, Wisconsin should pass a no compromise concealed carry/open carry, non-permitted system such as Vermont's, which is the oldest recognized system in the country. If it works for Vermont it can work for Wisconsin. After all, if the legislators are only going to copy another state's system then why not Vermont's?

The unconstitutional firearms laws that plague this state are the cause of the high crime rates we enjoy today.

The gun-free school zone laws which have already been declared unconstitutional at the federal level do nothing more than assist criminals who ignore these laws anyway.

Why can't the legislators or this state understand that if the teachers and law-abiding adults at Columbine High School would have been armed the outcome would have been different and the massacre would have ended with fewer deaths or injuries?

The same goes with Virginia Tech. Do you think this cannot happen in Wisconsin? Think again.

The gun-free school zone law needs to be amended to read that no person may carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school used for the education of children in grades K-12, illegally or for unlawful purposes.

It is as simple as that.

This would allow law-abiding citizens to carry within the school zone for self-defense and for the defense of others.

The transportation restriction for firearms in this state are nothing more than an extension of the long arm of the already corrupt Department of Natural Resources trying to restrict and infringe on our rights.

A firearm must be unloaded, encased and out of your reach in order to be transported legally in Wisconsin.

With that in mind, if you are being carjacked, simply request that the carjacker wait until you have retrieved your firearm from the trunk or farthest out-of-reach area of your vehicle and load it before resuming the carjacking. I am sure the carjacker will understand and abide by your request. Or you can always just give up your vehicle with possibly your children and your firearm inside in an effort to save yourself.

Why should these legislators ever be allowed to put us in such a position? They shouldn't. It is abuse of authority and blatant infringement on our rights.

How about the law which states, that you cannot carry a firearm into a business that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Let me bring to your attention the true story of former Texas legislator Susanna Hupp. I will quote a Wikipedia article which reads,

"On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband. Hupp's mother and father were killed along with 21 other persons. Hennard also wounded some 20 others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant."

Don't think this could happen in Wisconsin or to your family? Think again.

Look to the recent terrorist incident at Fort Hood. Again, Wisconsin paid the price for not allowing Americans to defend themselves. We lost two of our soldiers because even on a military base, our soldiers are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense.

What has happened to our country that we will allow our soldiers to carry a weapon in foreign lands but not here at home? God bless our soldiers who have lost their lives because of these ridiculous laws.

Another blatant infringement on our rights is the law that states you cannot carry a firearm into a building which is owned by the government or its subdivisions or in state parks.

This means you cannot protect yourself from a serial killer who may be stalking the state parks in search of their next victim, nor can you use the public bathrooms in city parks or on county trails. I guess you have to simply leave a yard biscuit on the lawn or disarm and leave your firearm lying on the grass outside the bathroom.

Maybe you could ask a passerby (who may even be a felon) to hold the firearm for you until you exit the bathroom.

Am I the only one who sees just how ridiculous these laws are?

I hope not.

This coming January when the new Legislature session begins, it is hopeful that the Castle Doctrine allowing a person to defend themselves and their families within their private property will pass legislation and become a law that will be signed into law by the governor. Keep in mind this is one of the most anti-gun governors Wisconsin has ever had. So don't hold your breath, he is not looking to do us any favors. He has an armed entourage at his disposal so he could care less about your ability to defend yourself or your family without having to worry about being sued by the criminal or the criminal's family for doing so.

Make an effort to become familiar with your rights and remember a right not exercised is a right lost.

Check out opencarry.org and sign the petition to repeal or amend these ridiculous laws and stop the infringement on our rights.

Call your state representative or state senator and demand that they support the Castle Doctrine and legislation for a no-compromise open carry/concealed carry non-permitted system here in Wisconsin. Tell them if they don't support your rights as afforded to you under the U.S and the Wisconsin constitutions, you will not support them at election time.

It is time we as law-abiding citizens take a stand. Wisconsin should stand united.

James Gleason, 46, is a sergeant for the Department of Corrections and currently resides in Chilton. He also has family ties to the Minocqua area.

" How easily Wisconsinites forget their basic rights

This Day In History 1773

"The Boston Tea Party, 1773

Victory in the French and Indian War was costly for the British. At the war's conclusion in 1763, King George III and his government looked to taxing the American colonies as a way of recouping their war costs. They were also looking for ways to reestablish control over the colonial governments that had become increasingly independent while the Crown was distracted by the war. Royal ineptitude compounded the problem. A series of actions including the Stamp Act (1765), the Townsend Acts (1767) and the Boston Massacre (1770) agitated the colonists, straining relations with the mother country. But it was the Crown's attempt to tax tea that spurred the colonists to action and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution. "
The Boston Tea Party, 1773

The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea - a demonstration of Parliament's ability and right to tax the colonies. In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.

The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.

In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.

Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.

Take your tea and shove it.

You know the rest of the story.

A Nevada RINO

"RINO's", there all over the place. Commentary from the Nevada Appeal.

"What exactly is a RINO? RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only,” a derogatory term used by conservatives to describe Republican elected officials who vote like, well, Democrats. And to ascertain whether or not some Nevada Republican state legislators are RINOs, let's take a Jeff Foxworthy-like look at the 2009 Legislature:

If you're a Republican who voted for Democrat Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley to be Speaker of the Assembly for the 2009 legislative session, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a $292 million tax hike on the state's lifeblood, tourism, as a payoff to the teachers' union, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill to increase the cost of obtaining a government-issued marriage license, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a nanny-state bill that allows the government to tell you how long your dog leash has to be, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill to increase fuel taxes, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill to require government registration for off-road vehicles, including a hefty new government registration fee, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill in which the government tells private hospitals how many nurses they have to hire, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill to require that all cigarettes sold in Nevada be self-extinguishing, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill forcing employers to give workers time off to go to school plays and sporting events, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill making the taxpayer-funded position of Ombudsman of Consumer Affairs for Minorities permanent, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a nanny-state bill that expands police powers by making failure to wear a seatbelt a “primary” offense, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a bill that raids local governments and shifts local money into the state government's coffers, you might be a RINO.

If you voted for a spending bill that increased government spending by about $800 million over and above the governor's proposed budget, you might be a RINO.

Now, if you're a Republican legislator and you voted for all of these bills in the 2009 legislative session, it's not that you “might” be a RINO, you are a RINO.

The above, by the way, is the voting record of Republican state Assemblyman Tom Grady. If it walks like a RINO and votes like a RINO….



• Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy grassroots advocacy organization. "
Commentary: You might be a RINO if… | NevadaAppeal.com