Alderman proposes tougher gun legislation for Milwaukee gun owners
Pseudo quote: I’m Doing Something!
“It’s puzzling how many people in the community have guns,” said [Milwaukee Alderman Russell] Stamper.
The proposed ordinance “requires a firearm owner to properly store and supervise the whereabouts of any firearm owned at all times to ensure the firearm is not acquired by any person and used in the commission of a crime,” according to Milwaukee Common Council records. “It also requires the firearm owner to report the theft or misplacement of any firearm to police within 24-hours of discovery.”
His idea is that the law should punish the victims that have their guns stolen and don’t know about it or don’t know they have to report it or the parent of a child that just killed themselves.
Some animal breaks into my home, takes my gun and kills somebody and I’m the person at fault because I didn’t stop the animal.
For those bleeding hearts, humans don’t break into my home to steal or harm me and mine, thus it must be an animal.
Of course this politician uses Everytown as his source for scare numbers.
And of course he doesn’t mind violating the constitution in his endeavors to “do something”
Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, adopted in 1998, states: “[t]he people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”
FYI: Most states have a “right to bear arms” clause in the state their state constitutions. I just don’t know of any cases where people fought state laws on the grounds of state constitutional rights.
Comments
5 responses to “Lawmaker Doesn’t Understand the Law, WI Edition”
Look, it sounds good. Gun owners should be responsible for their guns. But, this “you are at fault if it is stolen, and you do not immediately report it, and it is used in a crime” is crap. I am responsible for transferring the extended warranty on my TV when it is stolen? What about any prescription or recreational drugs (assuming you have them legally)?
.
Is the parent responsible if their teenager steals a bottle of booze for a party?
.
There is a point where the gun owner must be absolved of responsibility. Yeah, if you leave a bunch of loaded guns around the house, and one of your children’s friends gets harmed due to a negligent discharge, you hold some responsibility. But, seriously? Someone robs you and the police will scrub your house to see if your did not secure your firearms correctly?
.
I am thinking that is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and likely the 8th Amendments.
Re state laws and state constitutions: I once read, some years ago, that Vermont acquired “Vermont Carry” (now known as Constitutional Carry) about a century ago, when its Supreme Court held that the Vermont constitutional rule about the right to bear arms meant the state could not limit it, i.e., could not require a permit for it. Interestingly enough, that ruling has held ever since, even though VT went way far left in more recent decades.
There are ALREADY laws in most states that spell this out…. Politics = dumbass
Will the alderman give fair judgement to a man who shoots an intruding thief or home invader?
Easiest way to keep track of your gun is to carry it all the time. So this alderman is in favor of Constitutional Carry?