• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Good News. WI Carry Helps Win A Case.

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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/wisconsin-carry-funded-case-wins-on-appeal.aspx

Media coverage:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscon...-rifle-near-school-b99726954z1-379815111.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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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...
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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.
 

wimwag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
1,049
Location
Doug
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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?
 
Top