EAA bans guns at OSH

[somorris]

Your life -- your call.

I think Tom hit the nail on the head with this statement. No need to argue among ourselves since nobody's mind will be changed. This is supposed to be a free country. If OSH says no guns and you don't agree, just don't go. Simple.

 

[TripleZ]

I think when you re-read this:
Appendix V - Survival Equipment
Operations in Canada

shelter, water, fire and signalling. This section does not apply where the aircraft is being operated in an area and at a time of year such that survivability is not jeopardized. Specific information on the geographic location requirements is included in A.I.P. Canada. A.I.P. information can be obtained by calling 1-800-305-2059 or visiting

Canada does not require a US citizen to bring fire arms into Canada, in fact they discourage it.

If in doubt call the number and ask.

Fire arms are discouraged, some handguns are prohibited, all handguns are restricted.

• ALL handguns are either prohibited or restricted in Canada.
  • Handguns with a barrel shorter than 105mm (4.14 inches) and/or in caliber .25 or .32 are prohibited in Canada and are illegal to possess in Canada.
    DO NOT EVEN THINK OF ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE BORDER INTO CANADA WITH A PROHIBITED FIREARM!
  • Most handguns with a barrel longer than 105mm (4.14 inches) are restricted and thus legal to possess in Canada with a Canadian firearms license and registration certificate. Transport within Canada requires transport authorization paperwork obtained in advance.
  • The rules on which firearms (including long guns) are prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted are complex. Follow the links to learn more. In any case, ALL handguns are either prohibited or restricted.
• It is possible to enter Canada with restricted handguns, including to transport between Alaska and the Lower 48, provided that you have the proper license, registration certificate, and transport authorization paperwork.
• It requires a lot of work and time (a minimum of several months for the first time) to obtain the license, registration, and paperwork approvals; but it is possible. People do it, myself included. Do not attempt to enter Canada with a restricted handgun unless you have these documents in your possession. They won't issue them at the border.

 

[Skylane81E]

One thing, deffence of yourself and others =/= taking law enforcement into one's own hands. It is not the cops job to protect you, it's their job to investigate the crime, arrest a suspect and present a case to the prosecuter. Fat lot of good that does while the crime is in progress.

Vigilante

1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilence committee.

"There are many occasions the gun will not protect you, as told to me by my local city police, there is no way to defend against a person who wants you dead. Unless you commit murder first. "

"The police are not the first responders. They show up after it's over, in most cases. WE are the first responders, and whatever happens in the first 10 seconds will determine the outcome."

"When someone on the scene can stop the murders before the cops arrive, that lessens the risks as it reduces the body count. School shootings have been stopped by citizens with their guns (before the police arrived). Church shootings have been stopped by citizens before the police arrived. Robberies and rapes and murders are stopped every day by citizens with their carry guns -- acting before the police arrive."

"If I know Im going into a rough area I will carry, if Im staying in a decent area I don't as a rule."

"I really don't carry much, although, permitted. Usually if I do, it's in the car or plane when traveling. There are times, it is appropriate and I want that right (to protect myself--not be a cowboy) just like other rights we have in this country. I don't always exercise those either, but am sure in the knowledge I can."

 

[TripleZ]

One thing, deffence of yourself and others =/= taking law enforcement into one's own hands. It is not the cops job to protect you, it's their job to investigate the crime, arrest a suspect and present a case to the prosecuter. Fat lot of good that does while the crime is in progress.

So the "Serve and Protect" on my friends badge is just there for show?

 

[Anthony]

I think Tom hit the nail on the head with this statement. No need to argue among ourselves since nobody's mind will be changed. This is supposed to be a free country. If OSH says no guns and you don't agree, just don't go. Simple.

Totally agree. However, there is a bigger question here. At what point do these restrictions by private businesses, (and that is all the EAA is), does it restrict our ability to have a firearm outside of these venues, when it can be logistically impossible to store it in a safe and secure place. When it is on our person, it is safe and secure. When it is in my Tiger, it is not.

 

[Skylane81E]

So the "Serve and Protect" on my friends badge is just there for show?

Ask him how he does the protect in his day to day job. He can't be every were at once, so often the best he can do is lock up the perp and hope he stays there long enough to spare further victims.

My Fiance is a cop, I have no illusions as to what the police can pull off.

 

[Tom-D]

Fire arms are discouraged, some handguns are prohibited, all handguns are restricted.

The easiest crossing I have made was with a gun, saved the 20 questions about "did you bring any"

When I decided to take the weapon, I down loaded the forms from Firearms centre and filled them out, and as I entered the customs gate, I handed the dogs rabies certificate our 2 pass ports and the fire arms forms to the attendant, He looked at them and handed the 2 passports and the dogs rabies certificate back to me, and told me to park over there and come inside, when I got in the customs building he said that will be 25 CD, I paid him and he stamped the forms and I was good for 90 days in Canada.

It's an easy do, if you do it right.

 

[TripleZ]

Totally agree. However, there is a bigger question here. At what point do these restrictions by private businesses, (and that is all the EAA is), does it restrict our ability to have a firearm outside of these venues, when it can be logistically impossible to store it in a safe and secure place. When it is on our person, it is safe and secure. When it is in my Tiger, it is not.

Yes, but ultimately it's the responsibility of the gun owner to keep their gun (and other people) safe. If that means you don't have a viable place to store it, the gun should be left at home.

If you know you can't carry, why bring it. If you truly feel there is danger, then the risks outweigh the benefit of going unarmed, and one shouldn't go to an event. In general, living in the Oshkosh / Fond du Lac area, I'm not really concerned with walking down the street at night.

 

[Anthony]

Yes, but ultimately it's the responsibility of the gun owner to keep their gun (and other people) safe. If that means you don't have a viable place to store it, the gun should be left at home.

If you know you can't carry, why bring it. If you truly feel there is danger, then the risks outweigh the benefit of going unarmed, and one shouldn't go to an event. In general, living in the Oshkosh / Fond du Lac area, I'm not really concerned with walking down the street at night.

It is not only the destination when you travel it is where you travel through. I like to keep a firearm in the plane for self protection over hostilie terrain or wherever. I feel it is my right. If I have no place to keep it at OSH, I won't go. It just not OSH or the environs.

I will say this about "safe" places or "nice" neighborhoods. Bad things happen to good people in nice places. Criminals go where the money and material wealth is located. I am not saying OSH is "unsafe" or that I am afraid to be there without a gun. I have gone before without firearms, no worries. Now I feel differently about things, and I do not want to be a helpless victim, especially if I am stranded with a broken plane somewhere, to or from OSH.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with vigilantism. It is personal protection when your life is in imminent danger. It has nothing to do with catching criminals, revenge or taking the law in your own hands. It is pure self preservation on a very basic level.

 

[jesse]

Vigilante

1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilence committee.

"

Luckily the law is still smart enough (in most places) to grant someone the right to defend themselves up to and including lethal force when necessary.

 

[Anthony]

Luckily the law is still smart enough (in most places) to grant someone the right to defend themselves up to and including lethal force when necessary.

Correct. Defending one's own life is not "taking the law into your own hands". With that logic, we would allow people to beat us to death or shoot us and not be able to resist, only scream "help police!".

We are not "SHEEPLE".

 

[nddons]

Vigilante

1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilence committee.

That's an interesting "definition" of vigilante, Peggy. Where did you get it? Sure fits your narrative.

I ask because Webster has a decidedly different definition of the word, and "law enforcement" is not part of it:

<H2>vig·i·lan·te

noun \ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\




Definition of VIGILANTE

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

</H2>

Either way, unless you can guarantee that law enforcement will magically appear before a crime occurs, then we are left with the choice of being a victim, or a defender of ourselves. I choose the later.

 

[Henning]

The world of gang and drug violence tells us that an armed opponent is no deterrent to crime. They know that their opponents are armed, doesn't stop them from engaging them in drive-bys or raids.

This is the problem when non criminals try to regulate crime. They don't understand the criminal mind so the system fails.

 

[Steve Foley]

That's an interesting "definition" of vigilante, Peggy. Where did you get it? Sure fits your narrative.

I ask because Webster has a decidedly different definition of the word, and "law enforcement" is not part of it:

</H2>

Either way, unless you can guarantee that law enforcement will magically appear before a crime occurs, then we are left with the choice of being a victim, or a defender of ourselves. I choose the later.

Black's Law Dictionary's definition is closer to Peggy's (from thefreedictionary.com)

Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), vigilante


VIGILANTE​

vigilante (vij-<<schwa>>-lan-tee). (1856) A person who seeks to avenge a crime by taking the law into his or her own hands.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, it's the EAA's house,

That's what I said.

and many of us are dues paying members.

As members, we don't get to make the rules, only to vote on the officers and board who do. If you don't like it, work to vote them out and replace them with others who feel differently on this topic.

 

[Anthony]

Black's Law Dictionary's definition is closer to Peggy's (from thefreedictionary.com)

Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), vigilante


VIGILANTE​

vigilante (vij-<<schwa>>-lan-tee). (1856) A person who seeks to avenge a crime by taking the law into his or her own hands.

Defending yourself from death or harm is not "avenging a crime by taking the law into his or her own hands."

Self defense does not equal vigilantism.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think when you re-read this:
Appendix V - Survival Equipment
Operations in Canada

shelter, water, fire and signalling. This section does not apply where the aircraft is being operated in an area and at a time of year such that survivability is not jeopardized. Specific information on the geographic location requirements is included in A.I.P. Canada. A.I.P. information can be obtained by calling 1-800-305-2059 or visiting

Canada does not require a US citizen to bring fire arms into Canada, in fact they discourage it.

If in doubt call the number and ask.

I wasn't speaking about US citizens on their way to Canada via AirVenture, I was speaking about Canadian visitors from the areas where firearms are required survival gear.

 

[poadeleted20]

Totally agree. However, there is a bigger question here. At what point do these restrictions by private businesses, (and that is all the EAA is), does it restrict our ability to have a firearm outside of these venues, when it can be logistically impossible to store it in a safe and secure place. When it is on our person, it is safe and secure. When it is in my Tiger, it is not.

Sorry to be blunt, but that is your problem, not EAA's. As was said, you don't have to attend, but if you do, you leave your firearms home, or at least somewhere outside EAA grounds.

 

[poadeleted21]

3-7-77

 

[AuntPeggy]

Wow. I used the word 'vigilantism'. I was asked to define it. I did define it in the context in which I used the word. I was asked to provide examples. I did provide examples in the context in which I used the word.

Unfortunately, after providing both a definition and examples, you have your own definitions and examples. I cannot help that. I stand by what I said.

 

[Steve Foley]

Defending yourself from death or harm is not "avenging a crime by taking the law into his or her own hands."

I didn't say it was.

All I said was that the Black's Law Dictionary definition was closer to Peggy's quoted definition than Webster's.

Black's Law Dictionary is pretty much accepted as the standard by the courts.

Self defense does not equal vigilantism.

I completely agree. I don't think any of the referenced definitions appear to relate to self defense.

 

[Skylane81E]

That's fine, I still say that even given your definition deffending yourself with a firearm (or fist, feet or teeth) is still not vigilantism

 

[Henning]

So the "Serve and Protect" on my friends badge is just there for show?

Pretty much.

 

[dmccormack]

No one put a gun to your head to make you send in that check.

Such a cogent syllogism, professor...

 

[poadeleted21]

I'm glad we all reached a consensus on this. Anybody want to take on religion? It'll probably be a lot easier to agree on. Then we can sort out something easier, like republican/democrat.

 

[MSPAviator]

If somebody wanted to come to Oshkosh or anywhere else and shoot the place up, the prohibition on legally carried guns wouldn't stop them.

Wisconsin is a dangerous place, just ask the Mayor of Milwaukee! http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-19/...sconsin-state-fair-anthony-peters?_s=PM:CRIME

 

[airbornejohnny]

If somebody wanted to come to Oshkosh or anywhere else and shoot the place up, the prohibition on legally carried guns wouldn't stop them.

Wisconsin is a dangerous place, just ask the Mayor of Milwaukee! http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-19/...sconsin-state-fair-anthony-peters?_s=PM:CRIME

Yup. Pretty much what some of us are eluding toward.
I just think it is a little hard to believe that some folks think that people who would carry would therefore go straight to their gun in some confrontation. Sure they have it on them, but Confucious say, "Do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito." My point being that anyone legally carrying has some clue about a legitimate need for it, and the consequences they could face if using it is not legal and justifiable.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm glad we all reached a consensus on this. Anybody want to take on religion? It'll probably be a lot easier to agree on. Then we can sort out something easier, like republican/democrat.

High-wing vs. Low-Wing.

 

[poadeleted21]

High-wing vs. Low-Wing.

Let's be real here.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Heck, they have their own 850 officer police force, K9 unit and everything.

The Smithsonian has an 850 (!) officer police force?

850 uniformed police? 850?

Tell me that's a typo, please!

 

[MSPAviator]

The Smithsonian has an 850 (!) officer police force?

850 uniformed police? 850?

Tell me that's a typo, please!

I believe it. Think beyond the Air & Space museums for a sec... In many of the rooms in the art galleries, they have security drones just sitting there in their frumpy uniforms looking bored.

 

[weilke]

The Smithsonian has an 850 (!) officer police force?

850 uniformed police? 850?

Tell me that's a typo, please!

No typo, the number is correct.

http://www.ops.si.edu/about.html

Dont think they are all uniformed and accredited as 'special police'. Smithsonian has 18 museums, 9 research facilities including some big slabs of land, Udvar Hazy, The Washington Zoo ...... It is a 24/7 service, most of the staff of course during the day but also watchmen overnight. It all adds up.

Thanks for your taxes btw.

 

[Anthony]

I just think it is a little hard to believe that some folks think that people who would carry would therefore go straight to their gun in some confrontation. Sure they have it on them, but Confucious say, "Do not use a cannon to kill a mosquito." My point being that anyone legally carrying has some clue about a legitimate need for it, and the consequences they could face if using it is not legal and justifiable.

Bingo! The first thing they teach you in CCW class is to AVOID, AVOID, AVOID, along with judgment, and the legal ramifications of pulling a gun. It is totally an absolute last resort to preserve your life.

You DO NOT want to be involved even in a perfectly legal, "good" shooting event. It will cost you large sums of money for legal defense, may cost your job, and lots of negative speculation about your character. It is a life changing event, and not in a good way. You may be cleared in the end, but the journey to get there may also be long, expensive and horrible. Not to mention the mental anguish, and moral angst about harming another human being, even in self defense.

 

[airguy]

Bingo! The first thing they teach you in CCW class is to AVOID, AVOID, AVOID, along with judgment, and the legal ramifications of pulling a gun. It is totally an absolute last resort to preserve your life.

You DO NOT want to be involved even in a perfectly legal, "good" shooting event. It will cost you large sums of money for legal defense, may cost your job, and lots of negative speculation about your character. It is a life changing event, and not in a good way. You may be cleared in the end, but the journey to get there may also be long, expensive and horrible. Not to mention the mental anguish, and moral angst about harming another human being, even in self defense.

My CCW instructor told us that even in the best scenario outcome where it was clearly self-defense and there is no argument about it, it's going to cost you an average (based on previous occurrences and statistics) of $50,000 per shot that you fire. Thats best case - and it goes downhill quickly. You had better be sure that you're about to be dead before drawing your weapon, but it's better to be alive and broke than dead.

 

[weilke]

My CCW instructor told us that even in the best scenario outcome where it was clearly self-defense and there is no argument about it, it's going to cost you an average (based on previous occurrences and statistics) of $50,000 per shot that you fire.

Unless you are in Florida. You make sure every witness is dead and claim that 'he atttacked me'. Costs you nothing .

 

[Steve Foley]

Unless you are in Florida. You make sure every witness is dead and claim that 'he atttacked me'. Costs you nothing .

Wanna bet?

Even if no charges are filed, there WILL be a wrongful death civil action coming.

 

[jtheune]

Unless you are in Florida. You make sure every witness is dead and claim that 'he atttacked me'. Costs you nothing .

Don't even start with that BS. That case may or may not end up in a arrest but so far the media is blowing a ton of smoke without any facts.

 

[Anthony]

Wanna bet?

Even if no charges are filed, there WILL be a wrongful death civil action coming.

That depends on the state you're in and its laws. Many states are now adopting "Castle Laws", and others that protect you from civil suits in the even it is a "good shoot". Still, it is going to cost you $$$ for other reasons.

 

[Gerhardt]

Don't even start with that BS. That case may or may not end up in a arrest but so far the media is blowing a ton of smoke without any facts.

Not true. There are plenty of facts available. Not all of them, of course, but enough to know that the investigation wasn't handled properly and that Zimmerman was the bad guy. Just how bad we don't know yet, but it's obvious he created a situation he didn't have to be in.

 

[dmccormack]

That depends on the state you're in and its laws. Many states are now adopting "Castle Laws", and others that protect you from civil suits in the even it is a "good shoot". Still, it is going to cost you $$$ for other reasons.

Thank God -- and the NRA.