Primus
Regular Member
Got it, thanks Knight appreciate the clarification.
-
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
Got it, thanks Knight appreciate the clarification.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The fact still remains it is a federal felony on the books. You can throw insults until the cows come home, it does not change fact. Because the law has not been used much, it has been used, does not change it still is a valid law. And the chief was correct to state that a GFSZ violation was a felony, which is how this all started by the OP. Federal law almost always trumps state law unless the courts rule that it is a state matter. Which has not happened.
So far people have been lucky and the feds have not been going after LAC, they do go after criminals with supporting charges. I would highly suspect that this will change once Scalia retires and Obama, or Hillary appoints a liberal judge. Feds will no longer fear a SCOTUS ruling against them.
In two of them (Danks and Dorsey), the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the law and the appellate courts found that the minor changes to the 1990 version of the GFSZA do, in fact, correct the constitutional defects, so both convictions were upheld.
Nieves-Castaño challenged the GFSZA on grounds of vagueness because it doesn't specify how to measure the 1000-foot distance. Her challenge also failed and her conviction was upheld.
Tait got off on the grounds that he had a concealed carry license. The government had argued that while this was true, Alabama's CCW issuance standard was so low that it was meaningless. The court replied that Congress had decided to let the state decide what the requirements should be.
Haywood got off on the grounds that the government failed to prove that he knew or should have known that he was in a school zone (He was in a bar, 421 feet from school property, but the prosecution failed to established that he knew the school was there).
Two others (Weekes and Cruz-Rodriguez) appealed on procedural grounds and lost, their convictions upheld.
Benally appealed on the grounds that she did not actually possess the gun when she entered the school grounds, and that even if she did possess the gun her possession was necessary for self-defense. The court found that she did possess the gun and that at the time she entered the school grounds she had no reason to believe that there would be a fight.
These were compiled by a Utah Concealed Carry member~~http://utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10680
So far people have been lucky and the feds have not been going after LAC, they do go after criminals with supporting charges. I would highly suspect that this will change once Scalia retires and Obama, or Hillary appoints a liberal judge. Feds will no longer fear a SCOTUS ruling against them.
In two of them (Danks and Dorsey), the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the law and the appellate courts found that the minor changes to the 1990 version of the GFSZA do, in fact, correct the constitutional defects, so both convictions were upheld.
Nieves-Castaño challenged the GFSZA on grounds of vagueness because it doesn't specify how to measure the 1000-foot distance. Her challenge also failed and her conviction was upheld.
Tait got off on the grounds that he had a concealed carry license. The government had argued that while this was true, Alabama's CCW issuance standard was so low that it was meaningless. The court replied that Congress had decided to let the state decide what the requirements should be.
Haywood got off on the grounds that the government failed to prove that he knew or should have known that he was in a school zone (He was in a bar, 421 feet from school property, but the prosecution failed to established that he knew the school was there).
Two others (Weekes and Cruz-Rodriguez) appealed on procedural grounds and lost, their convictions upheld.
Benally appealed on the grounds that she did not actually possess the gun when she entered the school grounds, and that even if she did possess the gun her possession was necessary for self-defense. The court found that she did possess the gun and that at the time she entered the school grounds she had no reason to believe that there would be a fight.
These were compiled by a Utah Concealed Carry member~~http://utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10680
Last edited:
How many are multiple calls?
Cops could call the warden and find out who you were by your tag #.
WI doesn't have a brandishing law.
1,300' it still outside the magical 1,000' bubble.
How is following you all the way home making sure you aren't homicidal or suicidal, especially with wearing hunting attire?
Nothing wrong with taking photos of police, especially in uniform, in public.
The ID issue was what made me initially question the deputy's intent. I turned to walk away and in doing so my backtag was right in front of her. The name is visible enough from ten feet, the numbers are visible from a distance, as is the reason for the size of the font used.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
I tried looking (and failed to find the exact number), but IIRC, there have been only 10-11 convictions of the federal GFSZ, only because the "people" were committing other violent felonies in the process.
I believe the term Mike used was "shooting" pictures lol
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Cite that there are only 10-11 convictions? And it still does not change that it is a federal felony to violate GFSZA.
Did you or did you not read my sentence (or just not comprehend it)? I said there were 10-11 convictions, I just can't find that post.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
WOW!!! You're Right!!! Nobody has ever heard of this before!! Thank You for bringing this to our attention and removing our ignorance on this matter!! You are really a swell fella and the hero of today!!
Can you now please let it go? Your point has been made. Even though the Chief was misspeaking regarding Wisconsin Statutes, his error actually had some merit to it when we consider Federal Code, something which could have not been further from his mind at the moment he opened his mouth and the words came out.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
More silly antics to avoid the facts. Something I usually expect from less than intelligent folks. Must be the water up there.
What are you a mind reader that you think he was talking about state statutes. He did not define, he did not even state a statute number. He clearly said that violation of a GFSZA is a felony, which it is.
Last edited:
Law abider
Regular Member
Shilts is supposed to be a constitutional sheriff, as all sheriffs are supposed to be. His letter was read in our 2A meeting when Robin Cole Pine County MN gave a talk to our group on 2A, supporting our 2A.
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
Apparently, something else transpired when you "turned to walk away", at least according to your accounts in "The Truth About Guns".
"At that point I got angry and told her: “No, I will not be going to jail. That is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Leave me alone or I will get an attorney and sue you.” I then turned and walked away, but unsnapped my Smith & Wesson SD40, and the jacket pocket containing my BUG just in case she attacked me.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20.../omg-another-hunter-walking-in-wisconsin-omg/
I ain't tellin' ya how to fight your battles dude. I do have a moral obligation to warn you about provoking police that have little to no accountability, and a "get out of jail free card" that pops up right after they recite one of two ingrained phrases: "aw feared fer ma life" or "he failed to immediately and satisfactorily comply with all commands, so we shot him until the threat was ended". We have police snipers taking out homeowners with water hose nozzles in their hand. Don't be surprised what brainwashed low IQ / low impulse control police do with a "domestic terrorist" with a shoulder slung Mosin Nagant.
Having your rights violated bothers me. Unsnapping your weapon in response to badgering by a thug cop bothers me more. Maybe this was an exaggeration on your part, maybe the movement was missed by the cop. I'm just urging you to not act in a way that gets you ventilated, and the police can use the incident as an excuse to treat all open carry people as a felony stop.
He is. I know him to be a very good man. His statement in the article reinforces my faith in him.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
I did not provoke her in any way. If you read the whole story, she stopped me more than once and got increasingly aggressive as she talked to me. The only thing I did to provoke her wad stand my ground. She chose to act like a thug and nearly hit me with her vehicle. I will not be bullied, nor will I surrender my rights out of fear. I don't care if my attacker has a badge or not. I did nothing wrong, she acknowledged that and continued to act like a thug.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
Law abider
Regular Member
Yes. I agree. Don't provoke a cop. Get a lawyer and obtain the dash cam evidence, or as others have suggested to me carry a voice/cam recorder. If cop/deputy acts up everything will be recorded. Fuller, why do you find his remark on his rights being violated dangerous?
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
Again, not telling you how to fight your battles. I did read the whole story. Three times. Understand, I'm all about resisting intrusions. I just don't see unsnapping your holster in response to a badgering cop working out well for most of us. Carry on.
BTW: Any flowers you like more than others?
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
The fact that you mentioned preparing to draw down on a cop would make you the thug here. You may wish to lay off of the caffeine and get your head on straight before picking up a firearm in the future.
The remarks would lead someone to believe that he is bent on suicide by cop...
Last edited:
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
My concerns are only regarding the unsnapping of his holstered sidearm in response to the badgering by the deputy. Nothing more or less. But as I look at what was posted on the Truth About Guns site again, I don't know that telling a cop you aren't going to jail might not invite some less than pleasant responses from some cops, especially if you are armed and have unsecured your weapon.
I'd love to take a rubber hose to every cop that acts less than respectful towards anybody, so don't confuse me with an apologist or fair weather Constitutionalist. The objective, as I see it, is to have our rights, as recognized in the social contract, AND live to enjoy them. Being a dead martyr Patriot is overrated.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
Maybe you should stop fluffing and look tyranny in the eye.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Do you believe your own rhetoric? You may not use force to resist arrest even if you believe it to be unjustified Suicide by cop makes you useless to those advocating for our 2A rights. You would only succeed in contributing to the negative propaganda against our Right to Bear Arms by looking like a dangerous person.
Perhaps you do not understand the purpose of this board and movement. We are law abiding reasonable responsible adults advocating for our Rights.
Last edited: