| Author | Post |
|---|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 04:56 pm |
|
| Can anyone tell me how to get a hold of the people at glocktalk.com? Also, can anyone recommend a Milwaukee Area gun store owner(s) that I can interview for my story? Last edited on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 04:57 pm by shernandez
|
Mr. Greg Member

|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:21 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: Can anyone tell me how to get a hold of the people at glocktalk.com? Also, can anyone recommend a Milwaukee Area gun store owner(s) that I can interview for my story?
I'm actually waiting for a reply from Glocktalk myself on registration issues...it's been at least 3-4 weeks now...
As for a Business, Badger Guns ((414) 383-0885) seems to get the most media play as a lot of firearms used in crimes have been traced back to there, however they've become infamous in a lot of circles for poor and service. I prefer to use range time at The Shooter's Shop ((414)327-7044) near 84th and Oklahoma. I don't think either of them would have much to say about Open Carry, though.
Thanks for doing this story, by the way. I've sent you an email about myself.
|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:29 pm |
|
| When you send it please head it Mr. Greg so that I know whom I am talking with. I am getting a lot of emails on the topic. Than you!
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:30 pm |
|
| Samantha - if you can, call the AG's office, say you heard that the AG has told the WI S, Ct. that open carry is legal in Wisconsin and can they please confirm and make a statement?
|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:33 pm |
|
you're talking about the attorney generals office correct? I will add them to my list. I am making all my big calls thursday. i am not in the office on Fridays. I am only in the office between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. Mon-Thur.
Samantha
|
Mr. Greg Member

|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:34 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: When you send it please head it Mr. Greg so that I know whom I am talking with. I am getting a lot of emails on the topic. Than you!
Re-sent my email with an altered Subject heading.
|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:36 pm |
|
| much appreciated have returned said email to you.
|
hugh jarmis Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
Hey Sam,
I assume you will anyway, but please keep us posted as to when the story might run. Very interested to read it.
|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 05:54 pm |
|
| Currently there is no set date. My deadline in july 21, I hope to start writing by July 10 or 15. Thanks for your interest.
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Interesting ruling by the 5th Circuit:
Original URL: http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05topin.ask+D+402639
Opinion Filed May 22, 2008
Here is the part of the case dealing with disorderly conduct re firearm:
"The State argues the officers had probable cause to believe
evidence of disorderly conduct would be found in appellant's apartment.
A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct if he displays a
firearm in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 42.01(a)(8) (Vernon Supp. 2007). A “public place” is any
place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has
access, including common areas of apartment houses. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 1.07(a)(40) (Vernon Supp. 2007). The record shows the
officers responded to a call about someone “displaying” a gun on a
balcony in a different building than appellant's apartment. Based on
“other descriptors and the conversation with the dispatcher,” the
officers determined the gun was displayed on appellant's balcony.
However, the record does not contain any facts regarding the “other
descriptors”, the conversation with the dispatcher, who saw the gun
displayed, the manner in which the gun was displayed, or whether the
balcony was in fact open to public view. Although the State maintains
the fact that someone called the police is sufficient to show the gun
was displayed in a way calculated to cause alarm, we cannot agree. The
mere fact that the police were called is not evidence of the way in
which the gun was displayed. Nor is the mere fact that a person saw a
gun “displayed” on a balcony evidence that the balcony was in a public
place. Without some evidence describing the balcony or the manner in
which the gun was displayed, we cannot conclude there were any facts or
circumstances showing the gun was displayed in a public place in a
manner calculated to alarm."
|
Rick Finsta Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
I might recommend The Shooter's Shop; I spoke at some length with the proprietor there once (in casual conversation) about open vs. concealed carry, and he seemed to care more about the ability to carry in general than the manner in which that was achieved. They also have a Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association donations jar on the counter...
Thanks for doing the leg work on this, Ms. Hernandez, and I understand your limited space will preclude many details we might like to see. I am eagerly awaiting reading the end product!
|
Andrew Rothman Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 12:00 am |
|
Hi, all. I am the director of the Minnesota Association of Defensive Firearm Instructors ( http://www.madfi.org ), a journalism graduate, and a gun rights activist.
With all due respect to Samantha, those of us in the gun rights movement often get get burned by reporters. This may or may not happen with this article, but look at Milwaukee Magazine's treatment of firearms issues so far:
http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=14774
If you talk to Samantha, I am sure she will understand your desire to bring a pocket tape or digital voice recorder, so that both parties can be assured that the quotes are accurate and in context.
Last edited on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 12:02 am by
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 12:05 am |
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: With all due respect to Samantha, those of us in the gun rights movement often get get burned by reporters.
I hear this time and time again - but it's never happenned to me. Reporters are just trying to write a story that has public interest so people buy the publication and others pay for ads - if you give them your side, it tends to get in the news!
The article is about criminal activity, no? What exactly in the article appears to be so bad to you?
|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
| As far as bringing recorders when you speak with me is fine. Most politicians record interviews or have someone in the room taking notes. There is also the one person recording laws which i am sure that everyone is aware of.
|
Rick Finsta Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 04:16 am |
|
The "one party" law simply requires that one of the parties involved in a conversation knows it is being recorded, right?
edit: It is my understanding that this law is what allows us to record contact with law enforcement officers without need for their consent or knowledge.
Last edited on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 04:17 am by Rick Finsta
|
shernandez Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
| On the flip side law enforcement can record calls/conversations between two other people without asking for their consent. Hence wiretaps/body wires. When outside the confines of ones own four walls anything you say is pretty much fair game. Last edited on Wed Jun 25th, 2008 02:43 pm by shernandez
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 03:15 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: On the flip side law enforcement can record calls/conversations between two other people without asking for their consent. Hence wiretaps/body wires. When outside the confines of ones own four walls anything you say is pretty much fair game.
But only thru a warrant or willing person to be a snitch and carry the wire. Concealed carry, that is 
|
Andrew Rothman Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 04:10 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: With all due respect to Samantha, those of us in the gun rights movement often get get burned by reporters.
I hear this time and time again - but it's never happenned to me. Reporters are just trying to write a story that has public interest so people buy the publication and others pay for ads - if you give them your side, it tends to get in the news!
The article is about criminal activity, no? What exactly in the article appears to be so bad to you?
Well, it happens all the time -- you must be extraordinarily lucky, or not spend much time talking to reporters.
It never hurts to be cautious, and Samantha surely understands, even if she happens to be immune, of the exceeding media bias against guns and the people who own them.
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 04:30 pm |
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Mike wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: With all due respect to Samantha, those of us in the gun rights movement often get get burned by reporters.
I hear this time and time again - but it's never happenned to me. Reporters are just trying to write a story that has public interest so people buy the publication and others pay for ads - if you give them your side, it tends to get in the news!
The article is about criminal activity, no? What exactly in the article appears to be so bad to you?
Well, it happens all the time -- you must be extraordinarily lucky, or not spend much time talking to reporters.
It never hurts to be cautious, and Samantha surely understands, even if she happens to be immune, of the exceeding media bias against guns and the people who own them.
Well if gun owners never talk to the media, no wonder their reports appeared biased - a self-fulfilling prophesy - the fact that gun owners are coming out of the closet is why we are starting to cream the anti's clocks on the publicity scene.
|
Pointman Member

|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: With all due respect to Samantha, those of us in the gun rights movement often get get burned by reporters. This may or may not happen with this article, but look at Milwaukee Magazine's treatment of firearms issues so far:
http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=14774
Milwaukee Magazine has a left-leaning slant, like most Milwaukee news outlets. The articles Samantha was able to have published seem to have a slightly-left slant. She seems to mainly report the facts as presented, and we should remember what is published is subject to editorial review before publication.
The linked article describes many reasons for law abiding citizens to carry a weapon for personal security and the security of their families against unprovoked violent criminal attacks.
|
 Current time is 10:14 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... |
|