Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Man OCs to youth football game

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318

    Man OCs to youth football game

    http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-...?absolute=true

    1) People shouldn't get in a tizzy for someone carrying.
    2) He shouldn't have put it in the woods, he should have told them TS.
    3) They can't post the park, only the buildings (I see a lawsuit happening here).
    4) Why is the man banned from attending the events?!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    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 ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-...?absolute=true

    1) People shouldn't get in a tizzy for someone carrying.
    2) He shouldn't have put it in the woods, he should have told them TS.
    3) They can't post the park, only the buildings (I see a lawsuit happening here).
    4) Why is the man banned from attending the events?!
    The fact that he hid it in the woods will be a point of contention. I am not sure what WI statutes the DA will quote in order to bring charges. Endangerment of a child? abandonment of a firearm? Ha! Hiding a firearm without criminal intent? Ha! I am sure they'll pull something out of the hat, anything to punish an innocent man with a gun so that he will not be able to own one for a long time or at all.

  3. #3
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    The fact that he hid it in the woods will be a point of contention. I am not sure what WI statutes the DA will quote in order to bring charges. Endangerment of a child? abandonment of a firearm? Ha! Hiding a firearm without criminal intent? Ha! I am sure they'll pull something out of the hat, anything to punish an innocent man with a gun so that he will not be able to own one for a long time or at all.
    I am guessing that the charges will be something related to this:

    948.55  Leaving or storing a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child.
    (1) In this section, "child" means a person who has not attained the age of 14 years.
    (2) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if all of the following occur:
    (a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.
    (b) The child under par. (a) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes bodily harm or death to himself, herself or another.
    (3) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor if all of the following occur:
    (a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.
    (b) The child under par. (a) possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place or in violation of s. 941.20.
    (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply under any of the following circumstances:
    (a) The firearm is stored or left in a securely locked box or container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
    (b) The firearm is securely locked with a trigger lock.
    (c) The firearm is left on the person's body or in such proximity to the person's body that he or she could retrieve it as easily and quickly as if carried on his or her body.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  4. #4
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    "He decided to hide it in the woods behind our field," said OYFL President Kevin Kurtz, "A couple of kids that were playing back there found it."

    Read more: http://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-...#ixzz29aFoRq2k
    What an irresponsible moron. I don't think a man should be hassled for lawfully carrying a firearm, but he deserves to be reprimanded for his choice to "hide it in the woods"... if that is in fact the case...

  5. #5
    Regular Member TyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    775

  6. #6
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by TyGuy View Post
    We salute you, Mr. Gun Circle Engineer.... (real men of geeeeniuuuuuss)

  7. #7
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I agree with protias on all points.
    As for why he's "banned",
    a) it's an expression of how the board of directors of that organization feels about people who peacefully exercise their civil rights [I think they need a new BOD]
    &
    b) they think they could have him charged with trespass if he shows up again

    I think they need to read the law about posting land:
    943.13(1m)(b)
    (1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture: [up to $1000]
    (b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises.
    This paragraph does not apply to a licensee or out-of-state licensee if the owner's or occupant's intent is to prevent the licensee or out-of-state licensee from carrying a firearm on the owner's or occupant's land.
    I'm curious to know how many other parents were lawfully carrying (concealed) & nobody knew so nobody made a fuss? And will those parents, now thinking that they have to obey the new "keep out, evil people" signs, put up a fuss of their own?

    948.55 Leaving or storing a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child.
    (1) In this section, "child" means a person who has not attained the age of 14 years.
    (2) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor [up to 9mo / $10,000] if all of the following occur:
    (a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.
    (b) The child under par. (a) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes bodily harm or death to himself, herself or another.
    Nobody has claimed there was anyone shot, luckily - and that's probably all it was.

    (3) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor [up to $500 / 30d jail] if all of the following occur:
    (a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.
    (b) The child under par. (a) possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place or in violation of s. 941.20.
    So if the kids or the guy who attempted to steal the gun are charged with / convicted of 941.20, the idiot who was negligent in storing his pistol could be charged / convicted for that.
    941.20 is a much more serious crime than 948.55(3) - potential penalty of 9mo / $10,000 vs. 30d / $500.
    Of course, being convicted of 948.55(3) means the state would steal & destroy his pistol.
    If they go after the lesser crime just to make an example of him, and let the kids / thief skate on the more serious crimes, I'd be pretty upset with the prosecutor. Doing it the other way around makes sense.

    ETA: the kids were 5 & 6 years old. No way they're competent to be charged with anything. But their parents should be proud that at least some of their instruction about gun safety paid off.

    941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.
    (1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
    (a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon
    It sounds like the kids were responsible & safe (though it would have been safer to leave it there with 1 standing by & the other going for an adult), so I don't think the DA can make a case against them either.
    Not to say that s/he won't try... DAMHIK

    And how about the thief? He committed a felony.
    943.20 Theft.
    (1) Acts. Whoever does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub. (3):
    (a) Intentionally takes and carries away, uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of such property.

    (3) Penalties. Whoever violates sub. (1):
    (a) If the value of the property does not exceed $2,500, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor [9mo / $10,000].
    ...
    (d) If any of the following circumstances exists, is guilty of a Class H felony [6 years / $10,000]:
    5. The property is a firearm.
    I think that lying about giving it to someone else + hanging onto it for an hour when it was very obvious that the police were looking for it shows pretty clear intent that he meant to keep the pistol.

    Looking forward to seeing who gets charged with what in this mess.
    If they're all charged with their respective bits of idiocy, that's fair.
    But if only the LAC who was an idiot gets charged (with the lowest crime of the bunch) there's a definite bias.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 10-17-2012 at 11:27 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    BTW, here's a more detailed account.
    Feel free to join me in posting comments.
    http://www.livinglakecountry.com/oco...21859#comments

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I would prefer to think he was banned because he is a mmoron and they are afraid it might be catching.

    Unfortunately, it is more likely an expression of social control of thought and behavior.

    I just cannot decide who I want to whack up side the head first.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    was legally open carrying a handgun in the front pocket of his jeans
    Huh? Someone please draw me a picture of how you do that. I'm thinking he stuffed it down there with the butt sticking out. That is just wrong.

    The youngsters turned it over to a 60-year-old Illinois man, "who for some reason did not reveal that he had it and instead made it known that he had turned it in to the concession stand when he was in fact in possession of it
    Sounds like someone was looking to wind up with an off-the-record handgun. Hope he knows that he needed a FOID just to touch the thing. As I understand it, thast included outside Illinois.

    Maroons! Both of them.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •