Wisconsin City Police Refuse to Enforce Public Park Gun Ban

It started when one “concerned” mother Heather Karenz posted to Facebook a picture of her son at the park. Adjacent to her son in the picture was a man with a gun on his hip. More than likely, it was just another parent watching his own kids at the park. But it alarmed this mother, and she wanted to know if open carrying a gun in a public park where kids are around was allowed.

It turned out that the city of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin has a ban on openly carried firearms in public parks. But thanks to gun rights advocacy group Wisconsin Carry, it was revealed that that particular city ordinance was invalid because of Wisconsin’s preemption laws on firearms.

AWR Hawkins with Breitbart reported:

…Chief Beguhn reviewed the local ordinance after Karenz’s complaint and found that the ordinance is no longer valid.

According to GunsSaveLives.net, the chief said the ordinance is invalid because of Wisconsin’s “preemption laws on firearms.” He has ordered signs banning guns to be taken down and pledged that he will not enforce the ban even while the signs are up.

Wisconsin Carry receives credit for bringing the Wisconsin “preemption” to everyone’s attention, and Chief Beguhn has followed up by choosing not to enforce an outdated ordinance.

People these days are brainwashed into being scared to death the moment they see some guy with a gun on his hip. I’m glad that this small city has a police chief that refuses to be ruled by people’s irrational emotions and fears over guns.

Source:  http://lastresistance.com/5704/wisconsin-city-police-refuse-enforce-public-park-gun-ban/

Editor’s comment:  At last, a sound and sane Police Chief who lives by the law, not by the politics.

2 thoughts on “Wisconsin City Police Refuse to Enforce Public Park Gun Ban

  1. I’m not sure you can really call this woman’s concern an irrational fear of guns. I mean, it’s actually a pretty rational fear of guns. The wave of pro-gun legislation that is epitomized by Georgia’s “Guns Everywhere” legislation(http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/), gives people like me (a college instructor) pause when I think of my students being armed. I’m reminded of the gun restrictions that ‘tamed’ the wild west as Marshall’s realized that the proliferation of weapons did not result in safer streets (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/).

    That said, I don’t think I am an unreasonable person. I presently live in a modestly rural area of Kansas, where many people have guns, but they are used for hunting or target shooting. I used to live in West Philadelphia. When we heard gun shots there, there was no doubt that they were shots fired either to threaten or injure other people. I seriously think it would be much more helpful to have greater local jurisdiction of these weapons.

    If I asked you how you could solve the ‘problem’ of guns (without political resistance), how do you think it should be addressed?

    • Thank you for your comment. You open by saying you are not sure you can call this woman’s fear of guns irrational. In so saying, the blame again is placed on the tool (the gun) and not the person who uses the tool to cause the damage. However, you then express your apprehension of your students being armed. In my opinion this is more realistic as you are removing the blame from the tool to the person using that tool. As you are a college instructor, I am sure if you examine American History, you will find that we lived in a much politer society in the times before we politicized gun control, i.e. people control. A common theme I have read was you never knew what the man you were speaking with had in his pocket.

      As a Police Officer for over two decades working in New York, I can truthfully state that in the many, many shooting situations I handled during that period, had a legally gun licensed person been present, AND been willing to become involved (it’s rather easy to make that decision when someone is shooting at you), the carnage would have been greatly reduced. I am not saying that in a scenario where 10 people were shot and killed that no one would have been; I am saying that in all probability far less carnage would have occurred. And the shooter in all probability would have been killed.

      Regarding the “problem of guns”, I am rather a hard ass on that point. Our forefathers said it eloquently in the late 1700s when they penned “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      We do not need more gun control laws. We do need to enforce the ones that have already been passed. We do need to remove the stigma of a mental health professional notifying the authorities of a real (not imagined) threat – e.g. the patient states “I am going to kill a lot of (or even one) people rather than “the patient is agitated and I FEEL he may harm others.” The problem is that the mental health professionals are doing neither – at risk of being sanctioned by their peers. The subject is a hot button with me, having seen its realities and tragedies.

      That being said, I respect your opinion and have enjoyed our written discourse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s