Posted on 01/20/2002 4:46:48 PM PST by CFW
Baumgart, Doyle Propose Gun Ban
Pump Shotguns and Most Other Firearms Banned
Virtually every gun used to hunt in Wisconsin would be illegal to use under a bill authored by Senator Jim Baumgart at the request Attorney General Jim Doyle. The supposed terrorism legislation would outlaw the use of any pump, lever or bolt action rifle or shotgun as well as any revolver or semi-automatic firearm for hunting, self-defense or target practice.
In fact, only single-shot firearms, less than one-percent of all firearms, could be used by anyone except law enforcement and the military. Anyone using a firearm that holds more than one bullet or even owning a single bullet would be guilty of a Felony.
“If Baumgart and Doyle get their way, every hunter in Wisconsin would be an instant criminal, facing prison and a lifetime loss of voting rights,” said state Senator Dave Zien (R-Wheaton).
“Reloading your own shotgun shells could send you to prison for 15-years.” Rather than ban firearms outright, Doyle and Baumgart ban all types of ammunition by defining the bullet as both a “destructive device” and an “explosive,” the gunpowder as an “explosive” and even the tiny primer that ignites every bullet is specifically called a “detonator.”
Owning, possessing or using any of these items would be a felony offense, unless the citizens could prove they were only for use in “firearms that are designed to shoot no more than one shot without manual reloading” (i.e. single shot firearms).
“Can you imagine a Wisconsin elected official outlawing the use every pump shotgun and labeling every duck hunter a terrorist?” asked Zien. “Maybe the Attorney General should concentrate on the real terrorists and leave law-abiding gun owners alone.”
The bill even goes as far as allowing photographs of a person with banned material to be used as evidence of a crime. “This will make the picture of a hunter with her Remington 870 and a trophy buck evidence of terrorist activity,” said Zien.
In 1998, Wisconsin voters amended the state Constitution to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to posses and use firearms. Because the Constitution prevents Doyle from banning the gun, the only way he can deny hunters the use of their guns is to ban the ammunition.
“It is no wonder people are cynical about their government,” said Zien, author of Wisconsin’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “When the attorney charged with upholding our Constitution deliberately tries to thwart that Constitution and deny the will of the people, it gives all public servants a bad name.”
Information on the Attorney General’s website describing the points of Doyle’s “Anti-Terrorism Legislative Package” mentions nothing about the gun ban provisions. Zien noted the information distributed to legislators also mentioned nothing about the bans. Doyle can only propose the language to legislators. The legislative author (Baumgart) takes whatever he chooses from Doyle’s draft and introduces his own bill.
Baumgart likewise mentions nothing about the bans in his memo to legislators asking them to join as cosponsors of his bill.
Exactly. And one of the arguments that gun-grabbers use is, "No one needs to hunt anymore. Get your food from the grocery store. No one needs guns."
That has NOTHING to do with it.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Federalist Papers
Unfortunately it changed alot.
Now you have people demanding that the government take their freedoms away in the name of "security".
At this time, when you enter an airport, you are considered to be a potential criminal.
This is just the begining.
Wrong, Mr. Zien!!! Any legislator who signed his name to this piece of trash would be an instant criminal by virtue of breaking his sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
IMO
How long and what's it gonna take before we stand for (and take back) what is rightfully ours. Namely our Constitutional Rights and ultimately - our FREEDOM.
Care to explain the difference? How about just defining "assault weapon"?
Take your time. I can wait.
The Constitution reads that until it has been proven to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, we have the right to be presumed innocent of comitting a crime.
Once you enter airport property, this is not true.
I LIKE to think that Wisconsin is at least like Michigan on guns. He probably will be knocked off in the primary if it's an open primary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.