Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Good News. WI Carry Helps Win A Case.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Good News. WI Carry Helps Win A Case.

    Greetings in Freedom:

    In July of 2013 Mark Hoffman went for a walk while open carrying. He was stopped by Village of Somerset police. Mark politely declined to answer questions and wished to continue on his walk. The police told him he was "under arrest for being heavily armed". Mark was issued a citation for loitering and obstruction of a police officer. Wisconsin Carry funded an attorney for Mr. Hoffman.

    At the municipal court trial he was found not guilty of obstruction but guilty of loitering. Wisconsin Carry funded an appeal of the guilty conviction on the loitering charge.
    A circuit court affirmed the municipal court ruling finding Mark guilty of loitering. Wisconsin Carry appealed to the District III court of appeals.

    Wisconsin Carry is pleased to announce that today the appeals court has overturned Mark's conviction for loitering. The appellate court found the only reason Mark was cited was because he was engaged in the LAWFUL activity of open carrying a firearm and that Wisconsin's preemption statute 66.0409(6) prohibits one from being convicted of loitering if the sole cause of alarm is carrying a firearm without evidence of criminal or malicious intent.

    Weblink to story on WCI website:
    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/news/w...on-appeal.aspx

    Media coverage:
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscons...379815111.html

    In spite of the salacious headline that indicates Mr. Hoffman was near a school he was never closer than several blocks away from the school. In addition, all of the witnesses who testified indicated that none of them observed anything that gave them reason to believe Mr. Hoffman had a malicious intent.

    Wisconsin Carry would like to thank Attorney John Monroe AND our dues paying members who's annual membership dues provide the monies we use to fund these lawsuits. If you are a dues paying Wisconsin Carry member, please take pride that YOU are responsible for this victory for gun rights in Wisconsin.

    Wisconsin Carry will continue to leverage a 4 pronged strategy to preserve and expand the right to carry in the state of Wisconsin that includes: 1) Grass roots legislative activism 2) Litigation 3) Education 4) Public relations

    Carry On,

    Nik Clark
    Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    nik@wisconsincarry.org
    www.wisconsincarry.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    From the link above
    Though the village claimed Hoffman was not cited for carrying the gun, his own recording revealed the police chief saying Hoffman was "under arrest for being heavily armed."

    The District 3 Court of Appeals agreed that the circuit judge should have dismissed the case at the close the state's presentation, since the evidence all suggested that the reason Hoffman was stopped was the guns.

    Under state statute, merely carrying a gun is not enough reason to be guilty of disorderly conduct or similar offense unless facts suggest the armed person has some criminal or malicious intent.

    Prosecutors argued that the fact Hoffman brought a voice recorder along proves he was expecting his display would alarm people and draw the police. That, they say, amounts to malicious intent because it is "spiteful, vindictive and vengeful."[my emphasis]

    But the court sided with Hoffman.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    From the link above
    The court did not rule that carrying a recorder could not be excluded from evidencing malicious intent ... but that at the time of the motion to dismiss this evidence was not in the record and therefore irrelevant to the examination of the motion to dismiss [which in same other states would have been a motion to acquit upon the state resting].

    Lesson to be learned for all : always file a motion to acquit/dismiss after the state rests its presentation of their case.

    If he did not then the recorder evidence would have been considered by the appellate court and he may have been found guilty. After all, the defendant testifies that he was aimlessly hanging about, the definition of loitering.


    People on this site say "record, record, record" but see how recording can help and hurt you with this case.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-17-2016 at 03:51 PM.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Greetings in Freedom: ...
    Congratulations Nik, Mark, and the rest of you Wisconsinites! Keep up the good work.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    Lawsuit?

    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Congratulations Nik, Mark, and the rest of you Wisconsinites! Keep up the good work.
    Is it now time for the lawsuit to begin?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    What I am gathering from this case is you can be arrested for lawful carry depending on whether an officer agrees or disagrees with 2A. I mean if an officer believes a citizen does not have a right to carry and that 2A means something else I guess we will get arrested. I know that my friend is very familiar with state statutes. I was surprised to the degree he knew 175, 940 etc and recited many of them. But he had never read Act 35 etc...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    One can be arrested for any reason the cop wants. The cop only recommends a charge to the prosecuting attorney that is free to agree with the recommendation or make his own charge.

    2011 Act 35 is legislation and not law, but it did create 175.60. A cop needs only to know to say Yassa Boss when his superior lays out policy.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-17-2016 at 06:06 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    What I am gathering from this case is you can be arrested for lawful carry depending on whether an officer agrees or disagrees with 2A. I mean if an officer believes a citizen does not have a right to carry and that 2A means something else I guess we will get arrested. I know that my friend is very familiar with state statutes. I was surprised to the degree he knew 175, 940 etc and recited many of them. But he had never read Act 35 etc...
    all of which tells me this individual went to the O.K. Corral looking for Wyatt, Bat, & other nefarious individuals and then forgot rule #1 when the baile began once all the guest(s) gathered ~ keep you mouth shut!!

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    Is it now time for the lawsuit to begin?
    Ask John Monroe!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Ask John Monroe!
    Ask Monroe's client's banker.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    One can be arrested for any reason the cop wants. The cop only recommends a charge to the prosecuting attorney that is free to agree with the recommendation or make his own charge.

    2011 Act 35 is legislation and not law, but it did create 175.60. A cop needs only to know to say Yassa Boss when his superior lays out policy.
    Any reason. Sounds like tyranny. You could be arrested for being too good of a citizen. No. Sounds like malarkey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member wimwag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Doug
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    What I am gathering from this case is you can be arrested for lawful carry depending on whether an officer agrees or disagrees with 2A. I mean if an officer believes a citizen does not have a right to carry and that 2A means something else I guess we will get arrested. I know that my friend is very familiar with state statutes. I was surprised to the degree he knew 175, 940 etc and recited many of them. But he had never read Act 35 etc...
    What I took from it is that it largely depends on who you are and the threat level you present to the arresting officer. Tyranny has a steep price...for both sides. It seems a lone man is an easy target wheras an armed group consisting of a state senate candidate, local business owner and militiaman are seemingly intimidating both legally and physically. And why not be intimidating? Had Briggs honored his Oath none of this would have happened.

    I hung around the police station a bit when we walked with Mark. They drove past us once and avoided us after that. Seems "loitering" is very broadly interpreted in Somerset.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by wimwag View Post
    What I took from it is that it largely depends on who you are and the threat level you present to the arresting officer. Tyranny has a steep price...for both sides. It seems a lone man is an easy target wheras an armed group consisting of a state senate candidate, local business owner and militiaman are seemingly intimidating both legally and physically. And why not be intimidating? Had Briggs honored his Oath none of this would have happened.

    I hung around the police station a bit when we walked with Mark. They drove past us once and avoided us after that. Seems "loitering" is very broadly interpreted in Somerset.


    Yeah very broadly. Just like disorderly conduct, it could be just about anything. These loitering laws, weren't they made esp during the segregation era?

Posting Permissions

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