And how many times have people been charged with a felony for just walking into a magical GFSZ?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Deputies Harass Hunter walking home
- Thread starter wimwag
- Start date
And how many times have people been charged with a felony for just walking into a magical GFSZ?
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
If he were to have been within the 1000' bubble, the chief would have cited him under WI Law which is a misdemeanor. That is hard cold reality. Federal Code is absolutely irrelevant if you are simply being charged under State and local laws.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
He may have or he may have asked the federal prosecutor to file charges, as well as the state charges. Two different statutes two different crimes.
It would be up to the feds whether he would be charged or not, not really even the chief. All they would have had to do is read about it, and arrest him.
The cold hard reality violating the GFSZA IS a federal felony, until the SCOTUS shuts it down.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Feel free to cite a single case where this has happened in WISCONSIN... That kind of thing just does not happen.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It doesn't matter if it has happened what matters is the statement by the chief is correct according to federal law. Maybe you could cite a recent case by SCOTUS finding the current GFSZA unconstitutional.
Is it or is it not a felony under federal law?
Two different statutes, one crime. Charging someone with both would be double jeopardy.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
NO it is not, it is different venues. The feds can and do try those after not guilty verdicts in state courts.
Please cite cases where the federal case was thrown out on the basis of double jeopardy?
A rule from the Fifth Amendment to the U S Constitution that prohibits a criminal efendant from being twice made to stand trial for the same offense. A defendant is put "in jeopardy" once the jury is sworn. If the prosecutor moves to dismiss the case after that, the defendant cannot be retried. When a judge dismisses a case, however, a retrial is generally possible unless the dismissal was engineered by the prosecutor's misconduct, or there was no overriding necessity to dismiss the case. Double jeopardy protects defendants only for retrials brought within the original jurisdiction, which is why a defendant can be tried in federal court after being tried in state court. Double jeopardy does not prevent trial in a civil court on underlying facts that previously formed the basis of a criminal trial.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Rhetorical question is Rhetorical. Your motivation is to show that in your fantasy, someone in WI "could" be charged under Federal Code. We all know this to be a fact and that you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Meanwhile back here in reality within the WI State borders, we also know this to be very unlikely. The odds of winning the WI State lottery are higher.
I will wager that the Chief was simply ignorant to current WI State law and was not making an obscure reference to Federal Code. You are defending/dismissing the Chief's ignorance while the rest of us are pointing it out for the world to see.
OC for ME
Regular Member
If you have standing go forth and seek redress, if not, well, the Interwebz is a fun place to chat it up. Please make no mistake, you were harassed and the cop's blame you for the "hurt feelings." But you hurting their feelings is not unlawful, I hope, and they hurting your feelings is not unlawful.
I would ask how many calls after the initial contact, where they determined that you were law abiding, did they receive and they then told the bed-wetters to zip it, the dude is following the law. And so must you presume any other citizen is in a similar set of circumstances.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It is a fact that WI is in the US. YES only a fool would think they are exempt from federal law. Please be a test case, so maybe we can get the GFSZA ruled on!
It is your fantasy that federal law does not apply to you, and not to wise.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Us "feeling" in our hearts that a law is unconstitutional gets us nowhere. It also holds no credence to our audience on its own when we are taking part in public discourse. In the eyes of the courts right up to the SCOTUS, it is NOT an infringement on our Right to Bear Arms and is NOT unconstitutional. We need better rhetoric and propaganda than regurgitating this practically useless premise if we wish to make progress. This fight begins at the local level and at every level between local and the White House.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Straw Man much?
So the GFSZ has been around since 94 and we need a test case? So nearly 20 years and no one's been charged for merely walking into the magical bubble? Just proves that no one gets charged for it.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Please do not interject reality in this thread... It will harsh WW's buzz...
OC for ME
Regular Member
Normally the house issues a ticket when a patron checks something at the door so that they may retrieve that which they checked at the door. 
Primus
Regular Member
Is this a case?
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/94254779.html
http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20100519/SHE0101/100519119?nclick_check=1
"A 23-year-old Sheboygan Falls man was charged Wednesday with a felony for carrying guns near a school.
Matt Hubing, of 85 Wisconsin St., is charged with possession of a firearm in a school zone, which carries a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison. He was being held Wednesday afternoon in lieu of a $1,000 cash bond.
Hubing was arrested Monday after police learned he had been within 1,000 feet of a school when he openly carried a loaded handgun and unloaded assault-style rifle, authorities have said. Police had contacted Hubing after being alerted by Sheboygan Falls residents who saw him ..."
That is from the second link.
I was under the impression it's a misdemeanor in Wisconsin. So is he being charged at the Federal level or is the reported jacked up? Or even more likely am I jacked up?
I was not able to read the whole article since its "paid archived". But the first couple paragraphs explained he was seen OCing through a school zone and was later arrested for it.
My new tag line .... "Git In The Truck" lmao along with "Come at me bro!"
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/94254779.html
http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20100519/SHE0101/100519119?nclick_check=1
"A 23-year-old Sheboygan Falls man was charged Wednesday with a felony for carrying guns near a school.
Matt Hubing, of 85 Wisconsin St., is charged with possession of a firearm in a school zone, which carries a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison. He was being held Wednesday afternoon in lieu of a $1,000 cash bond.
Hubing was arrested Monday after police learned he had been within 1,000 feet of a school when he openly carried a loaded handgun and unloaded assault-style rifle, authorities have said. Police had contacted Hubing after being alerted by Sheboygan Falls residents who saw him ..."
That is from the second link.
I was under the impression it's a misdemeanor in Wisconsin. So is he being charged at the Federal level or is the reported jacked up? Or even more likely am I jacked up?
I was not able to read the whole article since its "paid archived". But the first couple paragraphs explained he was seen OCing through a school zone and was later arrested for it.
My new tag line .... "Git In The Truck" lmao along with "Come at me bro!"
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
No, it is not a case. In 2010, it WAS a felony. All of that changed in 2011 with the passage of Act 35.
Primus
Regular Member
Doing a bit more research it appears he may not have have been a federal charge since I believe the Fed charge holds a max of 5 years.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Correct. Just the current State Charge at the time. (2010)