City Employees' Safety Behind Move to Approve Gun Ban
The Port Washington Common Council approved an ordinance banning concealed weapons in all city buildings, adding a requirement for annual security inspections of such buildings by city officials.
Photos
City officials point to conversations with their employees about safety concerns in their decision to approve an ordinance banning concealed weapons in all city buildings.
"While your number one duty is to represent the city, your employees have asked you that they don’t want the guns," Port Washington Mayor Scott Huebner said to the council Tuesday night. "(City employees) strongly don’t want them in here, and there hasn’t been a strong outcry from the public that they do want them in here."
The council voted 5-3 to approve the ban, with aldermen Joe Dean, David Larson and Burt Babcock voting against the ordinance. The ordinance includes an amendment that calls for the city administrator and the police chief to jointly conduct an annual security review of public buildings, with notice of such review given to both the Common Council and the Police and Fire Commission.
Dean suggested the amendment, "because protecting our employees and our citizens is much more than putting signs on the door."
"Frankly, I feel this ordinance is about to pass — and I want to make it as best I can before I vote no," he said.
Babcock expressed disapproval of parts of the statewide carry conceal ordinance — namely the fact that citizens are no longer required to get any specified amount of hours of training before obtaining a permit — but hoped for common sense to apply.
"I think it was very stupid to pass a concealed carry law in the state of Wisconsin that has basically no way to verify (someone has been trained)," Babcock said. "This is not Milwaukee County, and I trust our citizens to have common sense not to be packing when they come down to City Hall."
The council has been debating this issue since Nov. 1 — the day the conceal carry law went into effect statewide — including a discussion over whether the ban would actually be effective at keeping out citizens intent on coming in with guns and whether the ban increases liability for the city.
Brought up at Tuesday night's meeting was whether the ban violated rights as stated in the Constitution and re-emphasized with the carry conceal ordinance.
"I don’t want guns in City Hall either … but there is the Constitution to listen to here," Larson said.
But Ald. Paul Neumeyer, who works at the Ozaukee County Courthouse and carries a firearm for his occupation, noted that the Supreme Court has even granted reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights.
"I do take the Bill of Rights and the Constitution very seriously, and I think most people do," he said. "There are certain areas you just don’t want to have them in. ... I’m sticking to my guns on this, we need to protect our employees."
Tom Kamenick
7:15 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Really, how are city employees made any safer by banning permit-holding law-abiding citizens from carrying guns? Show me the statistics that places that ban guns are actually more safer than similar places that don't ban guns.
Ray F Nicholas
12:50 pm on Sunday, December 11, 2011
They aren't any safer as we know. ;) - And that's why the left from the Top on down started exploiting the Gun Walking that was started under Bush late in his term, but was left winger-ized and abused by Obama and Holder to set up a false scenario where the UN and Mexico would collude to demand the US have more stringent gun laws, as they BOTH did in press conferences in Mexico RIGHT before the walls came down on Fast and Furious...Obama and Hillary BOTH.
In other words, manipulating the skeptical border gun dealers by dumping all over them, US and our constitution, all in order to create (again) this false scenario to help them make the case for taking our guns away, all for the good of Mexico and other third world shiiteholes.
UN FREAKING REAL. If that's not treason, I don't know what is..
Every single modern society that's been overrun by tyranny started with the confiscation of guns if they were ever allowed in the first place. In fact Britain gave up their gun rights and their citizens have regretted it ever since. http://youtu.be/KCkr2psNvCs
Our founders didn't give us that 2nd amendment right (the freaking second one!!) just for protection from rogue citizens and other scum, they did it to keep the government at arms length at all times... and that's the only thing keeping THIS CABAL from eating us all alive.
Joseph
7:40 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wisconsin Carry, Inc is offering free training.
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/default.html#
MKEgal
7:58 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Why can't people in Pt Washington understand evidence from across the country?
1: Places where lawfully-armed citizens are rarely have mass murders, because a) criminals don't want to try anything and b) if they do, there's more likely to be someone there who can try to stop it LONG before police can respond.
2: "(legal) gun-free zones" are the places where most mass murders happen. (Schools, churches, malls, military bases...)
3: Signs don't stop criminals. Laws don't stop criminals.
4: Lawfully-armed citizens are NOT the ones causing problems.
If employees are really concerned for their safety, they should demand that the city stop infringing their rights & the rights of non-employee citizens.
Doug Huffman
8:49 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Such ignorance is inexcusable, especially now that John R. Lott's More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition is a $3.50 e-book. The e-book is my fourth copy, preceded by the first, second and third printed editions.
Gun control is control only, be it from the right or the left political extremes. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.
Merry Christmas to the Sandy Beach Road South biker gang.
jon smith
10:32 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Gun Control is the theory that the woman found dead in the City Hall parking lot, after being raped and strangulated, is somehow morally superior to the woman explaining to the police why she shot her attacker.
jon smith
10:35 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
For those who say "guns don't belong in city hall", can I ask why? Is city hall immune to crime and violence? What is it that you fear will occur?
CCW license holders are the following:
-passed a state background check
-passed a federal background check
-have no history of mental illness
-have never committed a felony
-have never committed a crime of domestic violence
-have undergone training for carrying/handling a firearm
So, we BAN those people from city hall and public buildings. Yet we don't ban convicted felons from city hall and public buildings. Why do we allow convicted felons in the city hall and public buildings, but not the citizens I described above?
Sam Vedder
10:54 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Good luck with your magical bullet stopping signs! Make sure they are the right color and size for maximum protection.
Greg
11:57 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Once again I will point out that this is why the LEFT side of the boat is called PORT.
Laws should only be enacted for reasons, not because some city employees feel better.
Dave
12:17 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
can guns be carried at the high school?
Joseph
12:34 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Under current state and federal laws, no.
Doug Huffman
2:59 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Who might fit into §948.605(2)(b)?
Wisconsin Statutes §948.605(2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony. Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following:
MKEgal
8:44 pm on Friday, December 9, 2011
Only under certain conditions.
See WI 948.605 (2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/948/605
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony.
Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following:
1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii). [hotlink is given in the statute]
1r. Except if the person is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee... or an out-of-state licensee...
2m. A state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity.
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
3m. A person who is legally hunting in a school forest...
So if it's unloaded & in a case it's legal in your car or even in the building.
Otherwise, only with permission, a contract, on-duty LEO, school program... (see federal law).
Sammi
12:22 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Hey Port Washington, I work in a local governmen office and have been threatened. Thankfully it's a small town where I work and the cops arrived within 10 minutes. Oh wait, I could have been dead before they arrived. Thank God there were other employees trying to keep a convicted felon away from me who stands 6' 8" and weighs over 300 lbs. Just how is your decision going to protect employees from criminals who don't care about the so called 'signs'?
Greg
2:08 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ohhhhhh, a bad guy with a gun... Never thought of that.
Sam Vedder
2:51 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Because Sammi... the felon would see the sign and not bring in his illegal gun. I mean really; the only reason he is a criminal in the first place is because there wasn't a sign telling him what he can and cannot do. Just like there are no traffic citations written anymore because everyone reads and follows the orders of all the signs. Think of all the crimes that would have been prevented if only we had the right sign posted.
Ray F Nicholas
12:34 pm on Sunday, December 11, 2011
No Gun Zones = Easy Killing Zones. It's been proven time and again the more people who are armed, the less crime there is. Criminals are cowards and they look for the easiest targets wherever they slither, and knowing that literally every possible 'target' is armed will send them looking for honest work sooner than anything else then their premature death.
http://chrisinmaryville.net/allowing-guns-into-bars-has-surprising-result.html
And the ones who challenge the odds will be taken out with ease and pleasure by most of us eager, legal and sharp shooting citizens like myself who shoot bi monthly at the local ranges to keep our skills sharp for that day we get the chance to thin the herd during crime where police are not on the scene..
Say What?
1:02 pm on Sunday, December 11, 2011
Prior to the concealed carry law, how many people were killed, harmed, or threatened in the "easy killing zones" of Port Washington? I don't know the statistic, but using your logic, it must have been lawless and dangerous.
Joseph
9:01 pm on Sunday, December 11, 2011
While crime is "low," it still exists. Would you want to be another statistic?
http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Port-Washington-Wisconsin.html
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Port-Washington-Wisconsin.html
http://www.usa.com/port-washington-wi-crime-and-crime-rate.htm
Rick
2:44 pm on Sunday, December 11, 2011
"Gun Free Zones". They worked for VA Tech, they'll work for you.......