Posted on 05/04/2009 7:10:55 AM PDT by marktwain
St. Francis - An alderman who hunts and owns guns plans to seek an ordinance to limit the open carrying of firearms in the city.
Ted Jarosh, who describes himself as a strong defender of the right to own and legally carry guns, said last week he will ask the city attorney Tuesday whether the city could classify certain acts of so-called open carry as disturbing the peace.
Jarosh cited a case from earlier this year in which a West Allis man was ticketed for carrying a gun in a holster while working in his yard. Police issued a ticket, but a judge dismissed it.
"I think that if you carry a firearm to mow your lawn - unless you fear polar bears or pterodactyls are going to attack you - you're disturbing the peace," Jarosh said.
Attention to the open carry issue is growing.
Last month, a lawsuit challenging the statewide police practice of arresting people who openly carry handguns was filed in federal court.
Several days later, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a memorandum saying that openly carrying a gun is legal and does not, in itself, warrant a charge of disorderly conduct. 'Misuse of the law'
Jarosh, 52, a nine-year alderman and president of Kyle Central Credit Union in South Milwaukee, said he wants to prohibit the open carry of guns when there is no apparent purpose for doing so.
"Carrying a firearm just to incite the public or prove that you have the right to do it, that is a misuse of the law," Jarosh said.
The Common Council is expected to have a limited discussion of the issue Tuesday. The city attorney will likely be asked to research the issue, which would then be considered at a future council meeting.
So what if your purpose is not apparent? Are we going to have the cops attacking law-abiding people in order to find out what their "purpose" is for following the law?
Nor do they bother asking and quoting someone with another opinion...imagine that. Another rag I wouldn’t spend a dime on, even to let my dog pee on.
Milwaukee, at least in some parts, has gotten worse since 1963. However, it seems that the residents of those areas are sick and tired of putting up with the criminal element and they are actually starting to voice their opposition. I hope they're smart enough to start voting out the aldermen who seem to be part of the problem.
What with the arctic ice melting and the polar bears not able to swim, they might be moving south looking for food. Therefore, fear of being attacked by a polar bear is not quite so far fetched as it was at the start of the Bush administration, is it? As for the pterodactyls, aren't they on the endangered species list?
How can my purpose for carrying a firearm be apparent?
The most obvious purpose would be to protect my life, my family’s life and my property. Other than those reasons someone would necessarily have to ask.
The above in no way should be suggestive that I agree with the alderman that any law-abiding citizen needs any reason to carry openly or concealed.
Not being from Wisconsin I will ask; What are the concealed carry laws in the state. Does it require a permit to conceal carry there?
If Wisconsin requires a CCW then the obvious reason to open carry becomes “I don’t want ot bother getting the CCW permit so I carry openly".
Wrong dip$hit! Try this:
"Exercising your free speech just to incite the public or prove that you have the right to do it, that is a misuse of the law." See...sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?
I find the attitude of these people to be short sighted and foolish. Relying on the “good old boys” is problematic at best. In many urban centers, the “good old boys” are thuggish demagogues who cherish the ability to lord it over white suburbanites.
I think Jarosh believes his political connections make him invulnerable. Wisconsin is not like Chicago, where the politicians can carry and the peasants cannot. Wake up, Alderman Jarosh. The rights you are destroying are your own.
“...shall not be infringed...”
Why is it so hard for these people to understand that?
“Carrying a firearm just to incite the public or prove that you have the right to do it, that is a misuse of the law,” Jarosh said.
There is no law that lawfully negates a constitutional right.
Guess it depends on what the definition of legal is.
Let's see: concealed carry is already illegal where Ted Jarosh is. Ted Jarosh wants to make open carry illegal. Exactly how is Ted Jarosh defending the right to legally carry guns by making every manner of carrying guns illegal?
“Carrying a firearm just to incite the public or prove that you have the right to do it, that is a misuse of the law,” Jarosh said.
And who makes Mr. Jarosh the arbiter of the reason why I or anyone else is carrying a gun?
Let’s remember that carrying a gun is a RIGHT. What must be justified is restricting that right, not the use of it.
Nope. he was ticketed for OBEYING the law! The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
“The 2nd says, “shall NOT be infringed!”” You are correct, but the part of the 2nd Amendment that should be emphasized here is “The right to keep and BEAR arms” note the emphasis on bear. That is the heart of this debate. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But convincing a leftist Alderman of this fact will be next to impossible. Time for the WI voters to loose the dead weight.
rope...tree...assembly[man] required...
Even here in the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia I can do that.
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.