City officials: Guns won't be allowed in City Hall (Eau Claire, WI)

[jpak]

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_36f026f6-bd8a-11e0-8951-001cc4c002e0.html

Eau Claire leaders say City Hall will be posted as a no-gun zone by the time the state's concealed carry law goes into effect Nov. 1, but they're trying to sort out other public spaces where weapons cannot be carried.

In a memo a couple of weeks ago, city attorney Stephen Nick wrote that public buildings can post signs prohibiting concealed weapons, but the law is unclear about other government property.

"I just don't feel in City Hall, in a public building, that we should have anyone with a concealed weapon there," Councilman Dave Duax said.

City Manager Mike Huggins agreed, saying signs will be up in the building before the new law takes effect in fall.

<more>

[jeepnstein]

1. They should install lock boxes.

Post a sign and put up lock boxes at the entrance. Then the monkey is on their back to provide adequate security.

I work in a public building and concealed weapons are not a big deal. We obviously won't allow them in court rooms and judges chambers. The building is posted but for all intents and purposes compliance is voluntary. In other words, lawful citizens obey the sign and the small percentage of criminals among us do as they please. Yes, I've found weapons stashed in the building along with drugs, urine samples, alcohol, and contraband intended to be smuggled into jail. You have to just assume that everyone is armed and not let your guard down.

Right now we have a man who is obviously quite insane threatening to kill a couple of our employees over a civil matter. He won't pay any attention to the signs at the door. We have a plan for dealing with such people when they present themselves. A few years ago we had a woman stalking a judge with the intent to first have sex with him and then shoot him between the eyes. She didn't pay much attention to signs, either.

[jpak]

2. Why should the monkey be on their back?

Why not on the backs of the gun toters?

[Remmah2]

6. Criminals love gun free zones.

Who's going to tell them not to bring their guns in?

[jpak]

8. That's why we have armed security in court houses

to keep the morans out

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

10. So let me get this straight...

...you're ok with the state using guns to prevent the law abiding citizens from carrying theirs?

[jpak]

11. I think there should be armed guards to keep gun toters out of gov't builidings

and real penalties to back them up

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

12. So like i said...

...You want the state to use force to stifle the rights of the law-abiding.

[jpak]

14. If they bring guns into buildings where they are banned - then they are not "law abiding"

go to jail

go directly to jail

yup

[SteveM]

20. This is your intent - to jail the law-abiding gun-owner...

Clearly, you realize that da crinimal and da thug WILL NOT follow instructions (in fact, they take pleasure in NOT following instructions), so they will do as de' pleezes. They are not your concern, though you might harbor some sort of admiration or peculiar attraction to the bloodiest of the lot; you will have to confirm that.

Your concern is punishing those who are law-abiding to satisfy your culture war.

BTW, I rather suspect that cities in WI will not be able to avoid state authority.

[DonP]

21. Don't bother with any messy court proceedings, just lock 'em up

That's the true progressive spirit!

Even if it sounds like something Cheney/Rove would propose and support, it's OK they're just gun owners, lock them guys up.

No trial, no laws required, no admonition or warning.

Between this kind of BS and the people that suddenly fell in love with the Bush/Cheney "Terrah watch list", as long as it was used to stop gun sales, it kind of scares me how totally unprincipled some people are when they have an ox that needs goring.

[SteveM]

23. Yup...

I am bothered as to how da crinimal seems to escape sanction in these threads. There may be a peculiar admiration for these crud bags. Perhaps they are seen as the guiltless sum total of America's bad policies, and are to be protected and nourished; perhaps they represent a metaphor (however twisted) for rebellious strength in a time when many think themselves politically impotent. There is the "all the ladies love an outlaw" cult, but I think that is a limited "groupie"-like phenomenon.

[PavePusher]

32. Yeah, people shouldn't insist on their Rights while dealing with the Government....

that is supposed to serve them. Silly Serfs....

[jeepnstein]

13. No, that's not why.

The armed security is there to protect agents of the state in the business of the state. We also have to protect anyone in our custody. As a practical matter that sometimes means separating factions of citizens having a fight in the hallways, or removing a threat from the building.

The only guy I ever personally had to remove from the building was carrying a firearm illegally and had made threats. I got him out the door and had him picked up later. That was better than letting him make his "last stand" like he intended that day.

Then there was the guy with the knife in the court room the day his sons' murderer was being sentenced. That was really intense.

Those are serious matters of life and death. We don't have time to play ideological games.

[PavePusher]

28. Court houses, with armed security, yeah. What about other public buildings?

Arizona seems to strike about the right balance....

[jeepnstein]

30. It's all about balance.

If I have a pistol on my hip while I'm picking up an application to have a block party or paying a sewer bill it's really no big deal. Most of the publics interaction with government is no different than any other aspect of life.

Although the building I'm discussing is posted, I can say that only certain parts of the building have what I would call strict security. It's kind of a layers of an onion approach. It works for us and balances access to government by citizens against the interests of the state in running an orderly system.

[PavePusher]

31. "...the interests of the state in running an orderly system. "

If the state can not run an orderly system under the restrictions of the Constitution, the problem is not the Citizens who peacefully exercise thier Rights...

[CelticThunder]

5. "We obviously won't allow them in court rooms and judges chambers"

Why not?

[jeepnstein]

16. Simple.

The Judge doesn't want it. When you step into his domain you are entering in to the very place where the power of the state is exercised. There is no need for anyone bringing business in front of the Court to be armed because the state is firmly in charge in that room. The Judge gets what the Judge wants.

I can't say courtrooms are particularly safe. But if you're stepping into one you are acknowledging the legitimacy of the state or you've done fought the law and the law won.

[CelticThunder]

24. ROFL. What a masterpiece of doubletalk.

[iverglas]

29. "We obviously won't allow them in court rooms and judges chambers."

The "obviously" is eluding me.

What's obvious?

Right now we have a man who is obviously quite insane threatening to kill a couple of our employees over a civil matter. He won't pay any attention to the signs at the door. We have a plan for dealing with such people when they present themselves. A few years ago we had a woman stalking a judge with the intent to first have sex with him and then shoot him between the eyes. She didn't pay much attention to signs, either.

How do you determine the intent of all the rest who wander in with guns on their person?

[ileus]

3. public building, the public should keep their rights while inside.

Why be skeert of those that pay your salary? Instead respect is the key...respect the rights of your citizens, don't lord over them like they're serfs.

[DonP]

4. WOW! You guys won - guns banned from an entire building!

Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds when you say it out loud?

That's what we call a pyrrhic victory. You couldn't stop CCW from 49 states, no signs of any repeal movements, so you're reduced to celebrating a city hall building banning CCW.

I guess you have to take anything you can get when you've been beaten so thoroughly and are desperate.

[Hoopla Phil]

7. Don't you get it? It's the backlash!

:rofl:

[jpak]

9. Well you "got it"

Victory is mine!

:D

[DonP]

15. So how is that CCW repeal movement going for ya?

You set up a 501C3 to repeal CCW in Maine and Florida?

How many signatures do you have so far? Have a bunch of legislators meeting with your "group" to craft the repeal? Develop community partnerships that support your cause?

So while many of us are spending money on our sport, possibly paying NRA and state association dues what are you doing?

Or are you still just spouting off online and really not doing anything in the real world to actually support your imaginary "backlash" ... that consists of a single building in Eau Claire Wisconsin so far?

[jpak]

17. We will retake America from the GOP/NRA one building at a time

yup

[DonP]

18. So the actual answer is you're doing nothing,

So ... you are just a "virtual gun control" supporter like all the others that post here for more gun control and don't really ever do anything real. No wonder you're all so successful.

"We will retake America from the GOP/NRA one building at a time"

You really do need to make that your signature line from now on.

It's a perfect example of how successful you are.

[Common Sense Party]

19. How many buildings are there in America?

You have your work cut out for you.

yeppers

[Hoopla Phil]

22. OK, now I'm convinced. You're not real in your convictions. You've just been pulling

everyone's chain. I've suspected it for a while now but in this line of commentary you have outed yourself.

[DonP]

25. "One building at a time" ... Ooooh damn! You just lost every building in Florida

At least that's what your other thread bemoans. By FLA law they can not ban CCW in public buildings.

Tough loss.

Consider coaching the Cubs next season, you have exactly the kind of experience they can use. They have been waiting for the "backlash" for over a century now.

Patience pays off and maybe your great great grandchildren will see another building, maybe in Ozaukee County, ban guns in the courthouse by the turn of the next century.

[rl6214]

26. Unrec for drive-by news reporting.

[DWC]

27. Enjoy it while you can

State preemption law will prevail.

You know it. We all know it.

"YUP"

Semper Fi,