Alderman Wants to Restrict Freedom

This guy just doesn’t get it. 

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.

Here’s the thing about rights… we don’t have to explain it to the government when we choose to exercise them.  I don’t have to justify my blathering on this blog and the overall societal value because I have a right to speak freely.  I don’t have to explain it to my government when I assert my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.  I don’t have to justify my right to due process or to assemble in protest.  And I don’t have to explain myself if I want to strap a sidearm to my hip and go about my business.  It’s my RIGHT. 

That point aside, the alderman’s proposal is illegal.  Wisconsin state law does not allow municipalities to impose restrictions on guns that are more restrictive than state law. 

1. mmmm

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 1545 hrs




2. Your rights are not without limits.  You cannot commit slander or libel.  You cannot shout, “Fire” in a crowded theater or incite to riot.

   OTOH, it seems to me that the alder isn’t asking for an infringement of the 2nd but merely looking for a clarification of the local DtP ordinances, which AG Goodhair has said is entirely appropriate.

   I do think you’re right that it won’t make it into law, though.  The last thing St Francis wants is to be a test case on these flimsy grounds.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 1739 hrs




3. “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.
   <>

   I know a young man who was working on a lawn as part of his business.  A robber came up and shot him.  My friend will carry that bullet in his liver to the end of his days.

   I’m not saying carrying a gun would have saved him from being shot.  But seeing him armed might have prevented the crime, and being armed might have allowed him to drop the criminal for the police or coroner to deal with.

   Part of having rights and the free exercise thereof is that we always have them when we need them or want them.  And we don’t need permission of the government—although _common sense_ is always good.  More people should read that book.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 1814 hrs




4. grumps, you can shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, and sometimes it is morally encouraged to do so (such as when warning people of an actual fire).  In the same respect, you can shoot a person, and sometimes it is morally encouraged to do so (such as when you are being threatened with deadly force).

   The problem with your thought process here is your lack of application of the concept of prior restraint.  Were speech to be treated as a firearm in your hypothetical, everyone in the theatre except for trained and licensed individuals would have their vocal chords cut.  This way, you can be sure that none of them can ever shout anything in the theatre, much less shout “fire” when no fire exists.

   The proper parallel to draw is that your 2A rights are not unlimited because you cannot commit murder with a gun simply because you have a right to own and carry one.

   I find that this common misunderstanding plagues many people these days, who would shudder at a “poll tax” but give no second thought to a “background check fee” or “ban on ugly firearms.”

   Posted by Mike Gallo on May 04, 2009 at 1827 hrs




5. Good comment Mike.  You straightened out some common circular logic…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 04, 2009 at 2037 hrs