Reply With QuoteOut AG wrote a memo to all PDs that open carry in of itself, is not DC.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/file...nCarryMemo.pdf
We've got a city in Ohio where a Wisconsin case was cited (Gonzalez v Village of West Milwaukee), within the Ohio case. In the Ohio case (Butcher v City of Cuyahoga Falls) is mention of Wisconsin's "disorderly conduct" law, and a conclusion that basically "panic at the sight of an open carrier equals grounds for a Terry stop".
My understanding is that the law has been revised, but I am interested in examining the old AND new wording of WI disorderly conduct law for comparison purposes. Any other comments, information would be appreciated also.
If you can provide the text and/or a link, I would be appreciative.
As you can imagine, municipalities like to use threats or actual charges of disorderly conduct, inducing panic, or menacing (under Ohio's revised codes) against OCers.
Thanks for your input, and if you would like to comment on the Ohio matter, here is a link to where the WI case is mentioned:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ncounter/page4
Out AG wrote a memo to all PDs that open carry in of itself, is not DC.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/file...nCarryMemo.pdf
Information on Carry in WI
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson (1776)
I don't think anyone should have to pay for a right...It's already been paid for.
"If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot" - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor
I posted the cite in the thread you linked. Essentially Sub (1) is the "old" Statute and Sub (2) as added in order to explicitly state that Open or Concealed Carry is not DC in the absence of other conduct which is of a disorderly nature.
That was a non-binding opinion only. We now have a Statutory statement proclaiming it not DC by itself.Originally Posted by protias
Thanks for the memo, and the links/explanation of the old and new law.
IMHO your disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional, except for the open carry part. If something LEGAL I'm doing disturbs others, I can be cited and found guilty of D.C.? Unreal!!
And I thought it was bad in Ohio!
I'll find the cite later but the appeal of the Gonzalez case, while technically a loss, bears reading.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I'm posting this here for my and others reference:
947.01 Disorderly conduct.
(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.
As you said on the Vandalia (Ohio) thread, section 2 was added with Act 35 - WI's concealed carry law.
Thanks again.
Read this thread. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...esus-Gonzalez)
It has a link to the 7th court of appeals decision on this case.
It sort of reads that way because of the "otherwise disorderly conduct" line, but (except in the hands of corrupt police) it's not quite that bad, esp. now that part 2 (about carrying a SD tool) was added.
So pick one from the list,947.01 Disorderly conduct.
(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in:
- violent,
abusive,
indecent,
profane,
boisterous,
unreasonably loud
or otherwise disorderly conduct
under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance
is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
do it under the wrong circumstances,
and yes, you could be charged with a crime.
Disorderly conduct ante was often enhanced for mere possession of a weapon.
§ 939.63 Penalties; use of a dangerous weapon.
(1) If a person commits a crime while possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for that crime may be increased as follows:
[ ... ]
(2) The increased penalty provided in this section does not apply if possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon is an essential element of the crime charged.
(3) This section applies only to crimes specified under chs.939 to 951 and 961.
One can assume multiple reasons for WHY Wisconsin's disorderly conduct law was changed to specifically address OC, but I don't want to assume. (I can give more background privately)
By chance, can anyone provide a link to the stated reasons for the change - other than "concealed carry is going to be legal?
Brad Krause being arrested planting a tree in his front yard, Jesus Gonzalez being hassled (ticketed) for carrying openly in Menards and one other place and then Madison issuing DC tickets to 5 folks at Culvers calmly eating their Butterburgers (actually, I thin I had a Reuben).
I think the tidal wave of dumbness finally hit and they (the legislature) fixed it.
As for links, https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...w=1440&bih=799 is a Google search that has a lot of the info about Culvers.
VERY interesting. Thanks!
Don't forget Frank on his front porch...arrested for not talking to the police while open carrying.....
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
—John F. Kennedy
http://www.lawmoose.com/index.cfm?Ac...y.&Topic=WI160http://library.law.wisc.edu/~draftingrecords/Wisconsin Legislative Drafting Records (University of Wisconsin Law Library)
"Written materials, letters, and memoranda given to or created by the legislative drafting attorney in the process of drafting a bill, resolution, or subsequent amendments. Although these records are not designed to document legislative intent, they may provide some insight into the meaning of statutory language."As best as I can tell, drafting records are manuscript and not on line.The page you requested is no longer here [error 404]
My bad. Sorry Frank!!
Posting Permissions
