tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4661495419499441274..comments2024-03-29T00:04:32.434-05:00Comments on Althouse: Matt Rothschild — editor of The Progressive — arrested for taking photos of someone getting arrested for taking photos.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58780629782933541052011-11-03T15:22:48.505-05:002011-11-03T15:22:48.505-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.sorepawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05897026983666453798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27610326168357552422011-11-03T15:20:36.257-05:002011-11-03T15:20:36.257-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.sorepawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05897026983666453798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24188005395475393192011-11-02T22:18:48.237-05:002011-11-02T22:18:48.237-05:00In the days of flashbulbs (remember those?) I can ...In the days of flashbulbs (remember those?) I can see a ban on photographing inside the legislature. Not just a huge visual distraction, but very audible. And motion-picture film equipment is pretty noisy too.<br /><br />But with current-generation digital photography, what's the issue? Just prohibit flash and other illumination, and simulated shutter sounds! What else is needed to preserve "decorum" as the legislators go about their work?Kirk Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921711310191924997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68973029208876444152011-11-02T21:47:40.297-05:002011-11-02T21:47:40.297-05:00"Would you make this same complaint in refere...<i>"Would you make this same complaint in reference to, say, the 1,800 ObamaReidPelosiCare exemptions handed out by Kathleen Sebelius?"</i><br /><br />Sorepaw, would you elaborate? I'm not familiar with your reference.<br /><br />Speaking more broadly, I would voice this same complaint about <i>any</i> efforts by the government--whoever the President or whichever party is in power--to black out public scrutiny of its doings.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41930749444933506512011-11-02T21:34:02.111-05:002011-11-02T21:34:02.111-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.sorepawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05897026983666453798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59388204262618571262011-11-02T16:39:43.954-05:002011-11-02T16:39:43.954-05:00"Everybody was fine with this law when Democr...<i>"Everybody was fine with this law when Democrats rules the legislature."</i><br /><br /><i>Who</i> is <i>"everybody"</i>?Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50847490218970064082011-11-02T16:22:41.004-05:002011-11-02T16:22:41.004-05:00No wonder we don't have to formally announce t...<em>No wonder we don't have to formally announce that we're a police state: too many of our (loudest-mouthed) citizens are serfs by nature or acculturation, and are only too happy to allow the government they readily condemn as "too big" to black out public scrutiny of its doings, as they also condemn citizens exercising their rights as "disruptive" bums.</em><br /><br />Jesus, but you're an asshole Kookie.<br /><br />Everybody was fine with this law when Democrats rules the legislature.<br /><br />This is just an attempt to harass the legislature now that Republicans control it.Shouting Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09813058890609756982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32043623629179359102011-11-02T14:51:10.187-05:002011-11-02T14:51:10.187-05:00Well, hell then, I wonder where they stand on muzz...<i>Well, hell then, I wonder where they stand on muzzle flash?</i><br /><br />Also disruptive, also banned. Make an original point please.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29392503788629810642011-11-02T13:59:31.971-05:002011-11-02T13:59:31.971-05:00So what's the issue? You can't use a camer...So what's the issue? You can't use a camera because it's disruptive due to camera flush? Well, hell then, I wonder where they stand on muzzle flash?Methadrashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828014989470539375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60655959328697230922011-11-02T13:58:16.475-05:002011-11-02T13:58:16.475-05:00As for pressing for some sort of C-Span styled pub...<i>As for pressing for some sort of C-Span styled public access videotaping of state and local legislatures and other governing bodies--great! But will the taxpayers agree to pay for it? If they won't, who will? <br /></i><br /><br />Asked and answered already.<br /><br />http://www.wiseye.org/AboutWisconsinEye/SupportUs.aspx<br /><br />Your police state rhetoric is transparently silly. Full coverage of proceedings is already available. There may be reasons to argue for allowing photography and videotaping in the gallery, but providing public access is NOT one of them.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90560448022533467782011-11-02T13:53:42.991-05:002011-11-02T13:53:42.991-05:00I should add that those two exceptions are *affirm...I should add that those two exceptions are *affirmative* defenses, which means that once you are charged, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the circumstances of the exception apply to your case.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88430200009210802952011-11-02T13:50:26.886-05:002011-11-02T13:50:26.886-05:00So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an a...<i>So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an act of apparent self defense, I will be charged with......?<br /></i><br /><br />There are a number of possibilities.<br /><br />There's 941.20, endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon. There's also 941.30, recklessly endangering safety and 947.01, disorderly conduct. There's also Madison City ordinance 25.06 banning the discharge of a firearm without permission. And of course, the big one: homicide or attempted homicide. Shooting a man dead is proscribed by any number of statutes. <br /><br />Of course, there is one get out of jail free card (well two relevant ones, actually): 939.47, the privilege of necessity, and 939.48, the privilege of self-defense or defense of others. In both cases, these are statutory *exceptions* to any other criminal law, which outline special cases where other criminal laws do not apply.<br /><br />Importantly, these exceptions are not specific to use of firearms, they are blanket exceptions. So, they apply just as much to taking photographs as they do to discharging firearms.<br /><br />Now, in a clear-cut case, a savvy prosecutor would realize that there is very little or not possibility of prevailing on the charges to begin with, and you would likely not be charged.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78619224164600832782011-11-02T13:33:35.289-05:002011-11-02T13:33:35.289-05:00"Unless you see the entire, unedited video of...<i>"Unless you see the entire, unedited video of a legislative proceedings, you might very well be getting fleeced by a partisan editor."</i><br /><br />Of course, by prohibiting the use of cameras in the gallery, the government erases this "problem" entirely, as there is <i>no</i> video at all!<br /><br />Rather like the police who will arrest citizens for filming them--"public servants," so-called--fulfilling their tax-payer funded public duties in public spaces, goverment bodies prefer to operate outside the eye of the public, as if they're doing something dirty.<br /><br />I am not surprised that some here see citizens attempting to document the workings of <i>our</i> government--<i>representing us</i>--purportedly--as being some sort of disruptive elements, transgressing for the helluvit!<br /><br />As for pressing for some sort of C-Span styled public access videotaping of state and local legislatures and other governing bodies--great! But will the taxpayers agree to pay for it? If they won't, who will? Why should private citizens not be permitted to make videos of public proceedings, <i>with or without</i> there being some sort of simultaneous official recording of the proceedings?<br /><br />No wonder we don't have to formally announce that we're a police state: too many of our (loudest-mouthed) citizens are serfs by nature or acculturation, and are only too happy to allow the government they readily condemn as <i>"too big"</i> to black out public scrutiny of its doings, as they also condemn citizens exercising their rights as "disruptive" bums.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67502113323021618212011-11-02T13:15:11.315-05:002011-11-02T13:15:11.315-05:00So let the crazies carry them in on their own. Bri...<i>So let the crazies carry them in on their own. Brilliant! </i><br /><br />To carry concealed, you have to get approval, background check, maybe take a class on gun safety (depending on the state). All of that is designed to screen out the ‘crazies’.Shannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15709594638793030086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15202895006586076492011-11-02T12:27:50.916-05:002011-11-02T12:27:50.916-05:00I wouldn't want a lot of guns there for the cr...<i>I wouldn't want a lot of guns there for the crazies to possibly get access to.</i><br /><br />So let the crazies carry them in on their own. Brilliant! <br /><br />You're so full of shit and you know it. If the legislators in charge thought for a second there were left wing crazies out to get them with guns they would not allow them. The fact they are allowing weapons in proves they aren't worried about it.garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83564877814056843522011-11-02T12:22:04.850-05:002011-11-02T12:22:04.850-05:00@Sorun Nice avatar!
Thanks!<i>@Sorun Nice avatar!</i><br /><br />Thanks!Sorunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01024561849195222416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90676103004951911672011-11-02T12:20:35.310-05:002011-11-02T12:20:35.310-05:00On the suggestion that the police should collect a...On the suggestion that the police should collect and store guns while you're in the Capitol... <br /><br />I don't like this. For one thing, it's an expensive procedure and the police would need to secure those guns properly. I've seen throngs of protesters overwhelm the police at the Capitol. I wouldn't want a lot of guns there for the crazies to possibly get access to.<br /><br />Second, if I were carrying a concealed gun, I would want that to be kept private. I think having to reveal to the world that I carry a gun would be an unwarranted intrusion, and it might endanger me. Even worse, I wouldn't want it to be made evident that I'm NOT carrying a gun. <br /><br />Third, it's much better not having a security check going into the building. It was really unfortunate last winter when the protesters' antics led to the constriction of access. To bring that back just because some people are exercising their concealed carry right it ridiculous. A person bent on a shooting spree or assassination would have carried a gun into the Capitol without regard to whether it was legal to carry.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89938635742743702722011-11-02T12:19:15.791-05:002011-11-02T12:19:15.791-05:00@Sorun Nice avatar!@Sorun Nice avatar!Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52388792780010086432011-11-02T12:16:41.579-05:002011-11-02T12:16:41.579-05:00So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an a...<i>So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an act of apparent self defense, I will be charged with......?</i><br /><br />Probably nothing, though make sure you're defending yourself and not your mom. The Capitol Police are unpredictable on the latter.Sorunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01024561849195222416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17923887377521761382011-11-02T12:05:40.332-05:002011-11-02T12:05:40.332-05:00"Allie's Apple said...
Meade again if tha..."Allie's Apple said...<br />Meade again if that were a realistic task I would gladly do it."<br /><br />Can you name any example of "during all the hottest debating last winter, it was unreliable and off air during times when it should've been broadcasting."?Curious Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14440726941494085334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11228802478819931542011-11-02T12:03:29.274-05:002011-11-02T12:03:29.274-05:00Both the taking of photographs and the discharge o...<i>Both the taking of photographs and the discharge of firearms are legally prohibited in the Capitol. The criminal privileges of defense and necessity excuse either activity when necessary to prevent great body harm or death. There is literally no inconsistency in the law here, except in your own fevered imagination.</i><br /><br />You just made that entire bit up. You should be working for the WIGOP. <br /><br />So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an act of apparent self defense, I will be charged with......?garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82341800579735940312011-11-02T12:03:18.979-05:002011-11-02T12:03:18.979-05:00"That's not a good argument for disprovin..."That's not a good argument for disproving my assertion."<br /><br />Assertions that are taken seriously typically are backed with evidence.TosaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08520232078421382322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16410299973751737272011-11-02T11:45:43.585-05:002011-11-02T11:45:43.585-05:00The argument from people like Althouse and Rep Vos...<i>The argument from people like Althouse and Rep Vos is that you can carry inside the Capitol, but cannot use it. But apparently we have established that guns can be used, but a camera, never? <br /><br /></i><br /><br />Both the taking of photographs and the discharge of firearms are legally prohibited in the Capitol. The criminal privileges of defense and necessity excuse either activity when necessary to prevent great body harm or death. There is literally no inconsistency in the law here, except in your own fevered imagination.Sofa Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07659133819240484346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77487279899902992092011-11-02T11:42:53.731-05:002011-11-02T11:42:53.731-05:00Kirk,
Private businesses can of course do what t...Kirk, <br /><br />Private businesses can of course do what they want. But with regard to the "sensitive places" the SCOTUS talked about in <i>Heller</i>, I agree that some specific requirements are called for. <br /><br />One proposal I've heard--which would require the aforementioned secure gun checks (so as to avoid disarming citizens on their way to and from said places); screening to ensure others were complying with the ban; and alternative security in the form of a police presence--would force policymakers to honestly think through how necessary the prohibition is, rather than just saying "What the hell, let's ban guns in all Post Offices. Sensitive places, donchyaknow."elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9715010405022243212011-11-02T11:37:18.661-05:002011-11-02T11:37:18.661-05:00And that's when the metal detectors were insta...<i>And that's when the metal detectors were installed. Hmmmm. Presumably to keep out weapons that they are going out of their way to now allow. </i> <br /><br />Of course, back then before Wisconsin joined the 21st century, a gun-detector was also a criminal-detector. One could reasonably argue that prior to the concealed carry reform, screening for guns <i>was</i> detecting people more likely than average to be violent criminals, since they were by definition armed people knowingly violating a law. Even if the law was unjust, you'd still presumably be selecting a group with a higher ratio of violent criminals.elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.com