OC/CC in Wisconsin RIP

imported post

Folks,

I will say this before and I will say it again: I invited Dick Baker (Monkeyleg) here. A lot of people are jumping on him saying that he screwed up and that WCCA should have open carry marched years ago. The time for recrimination and back biting is long passed. We need a concealed carry law in Wisconsin to help us open carry in our cars without a problem there. Open carry marches got CCW passed in Ohio over an anti-gun governor who finally caved after hearing his anti-gun liberal constituancy freak out at the sight of guns being openly carried. It's going to happen here in Wisconsin now that there simply is no other option to get CCW/loaded carry in a car passed.

Wisconsin law enforcement has been regarded as one of the MOST abusive users of "DC/DTP" laws. I cannot emphasize how strongly the law enforcement here in Wisconsin is on a power trip from hell. It makes Washington State's problems with open carry look like a cakewalk. Repeatedly the State Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court has struck down convictions for DC/DTP by overzealous law enforcement officers, and the Wisconsin law enforcement officers continually keep doing the same bullcrap.

Wisconsin should be regarded in a similar light to Washington before I started the training bulletins. I am doing my best to assist in this endeavor, and it might involve me flying back to Wisconsin to assist.

As someone who's been around the block on this issues.

imported post

Lonnie, thanks for coming to my defense.

My defense, such as it is, is that I've done things the way that I've believed was right, was advised that were right, and looked like they were the right way to go.

Again, I have no special powers over the carry movement here, other than the fact that I've spent probably more unpaid time working on this cause than just about anyone else.

In the past week that I've been visiting this forum, I've noticed a lot of harsh criticism coming from people who don't reside in Wisconsin, and who haven't been subject to the sometimes amazing abilities of law enforcement here to just arrest someone for anything.

Here's a story: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=532822

Yup. The guy was arrested for carrying a concealed nut-cracker.

About three or four years ago, a guy was arrested on a city bus for carrying a switchblade knife. He was a carpet installer, and was carrying his carpet knife with him when he was arrested.

Me? I've been held for suspicion of rape (subject description was black male, early 20's; I'm white); suspicion of murder (oh, that was a fun one; the killer wore a black leather jacket. So did I, and 100,000 other guys in the city); and suspicion of just about everything else.

I've spent more time on the hood of squad cars than probably most of the "notorious" gangsta rappers.

The funny thing is, the only crime I've ever committed was shoplifting a Beatle's album from a department store in 1969. Why did I do it? To this day, I couldn't tell you. But that's it.

But that's the power of the police here. The murder beef? The two TAC squad officers told me that they could just throw me in jail for the weekend, just on suspicion of being suspicious. That's all they needed.

I have this sick feeling in my gut that, when we get a concealed carry march put together, it's just going to be two or three people. And we'll spend a weekend behind bars.

And, then, all the testoserone-driven members of online gun forums will be all up in rage. Raging from their keyboards, of course.

imported post

pkbites, is DC/DTP defined in state or local statutes? Would you able to give me the code reference for either state law or Milwaukee? A quick Google search is yielding nothing.

imported post

Id like toknow their official policy.

pkbites barking dogs is a disturbance it infringes upon someone, bearing arms is a problem in what way? Why wouldyou bring up barking dogs?The only argument unless your brandishing a weapon is someone complaining was ignorant and wrong.The police and lower courtsmake mistakesobviously they are in Milwaukee.I doubt itsofficial policy they most likely highly discourage you carrying arms and will tell you all about the distrubing the peace charges and disorderly conducts that they can give you. But like was said they can give them for any reason or none at all it wont fly in a lawful court.

imported post

Just my two cents, but I don't have a problem with how WCCA worked to get CC passed in Wisconsin. I certainly do not place the blame on them, or any pro-gun group for it's failure to pass. The blame lays squarely on the Governor and a few legislative morons. I would have liked to have seen an earlier movement towards OC as a means of applying some political pressure, but I respect the opinions of those who argued it might be counterproductive too. But I believe it's now, without a question, the time to gear up for OC on a widescale in WI.

Monkeyleg, I appreciate your help. But just one thing.... that article about a concealed nutcracker. That happened in Waukesha, which is on your list of places "friendly" to us. Hmmm... maybe you'll want to rethink Waukesha. Or we should openly carry nutcrackers in Waukesha before trying firearms?

But the story is a wonderful illustration of Monkeyleg's point: Police abuse of their power and failure to use discretion. For something to be a "concealed weapon" it has to be either 1) designed to be used as a weapon, or 2) actually USED as a weapon. I do not believe merely carrying something constitutes "use." Naturally, if requested, I can find the courtcase to back up that definition of concealed weapon.

"WHEN NUTCRACKERS ARE OUTLAWED, THE WORLD WILL HAVE GONE NUTS!"

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Folks,

I will say this before and I will say it again: I invited Dick Baker (Monkeyleg) here. A lot of people are jumping on him saying that he screwed up and that WCCA should have open carry marched years ago. The time for recrimination and back biting is long passed. We need a concealed carry law in Wisconsin to help us open carry in our cars without a problem there. Open carry marches got CCW passed in Ohio over an anti-gun governor who finally caved after hearing his anti-gun liberal constituancy freak out at the sight of guns being openly carried. It's going to happen here in Wisconsin now that there simply is no other option to get CCW/loaded carry in a car passed.

Wisconsin law enforcement has been regarded as one of the MOST abusive users of "DC/DTP" laws. I cannot emphasize how strongly the law enforcement here in Wisconsin is on a power trip from hell. It makes Washington State's problems with open carry look like a cakewalk. Repeatedly the State Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court has struck down convictions for DC/DTP by overzealous law enforcement officers, and the Wisconsin law enforcement officers continually keep doing the same bullcrap.

Wisconsin should be regarded in a similar light to Washington before I started the training bulletins. I am doing my best to assist in this endeavor, and it might involve me flying back to Wisconsin to assist.

As someone who's been around the block on this issues.

Click to expand...

I don't know if WI abuses the DC/DTP laws anymore than any other locations. Its commonly used to arrest people who did nothing wrong other than annoy LE or other officialsacross the country. I think it is unfair to tarnish just WI LE for this blight on our liberties. This kind of abuse of power is not really a LE issue. It is a political problem and if you want it changed you need to deal with the people that can change it. We elect people to protect us from these abuses. Why do we let them off the hook when they fail in that duty?

If you think WI LE is on a power trip, you should go get arrested in Chicago some time. They have a practice of arresting people and "losing" the paperwork so you can't even be bailed out.

I personally do not think Dick Baker's tactics were wrong. They just did not work. It is always easy after the fact for those who did nothing to blame the people actually doing something for a less than desirable outcome.

imported post

Until Iknow Milwaukee's policy on OC I blame brainwashed and ignorant LE. If they do actually have an ordinance or policy against bearing arms its not the officers fault and that needs to be addressed. Either way the law is clear and no case has been brought up to show that Milwaukee has no bill of rights or they they are operating unlawfully. Ive seen scare tactics that are always used such as "you will be cited for OC in Milwaukee" or "lets see how far you get if you OC."

I can easily do the same thing... Lets see a LE officer cite me for OC and that holds up in court, or lets see how long your job lasts when you violate peoples rights.Its silly and does no good, govt works for the people and when they become tyrannical we must take action and fix it. Many people might have been cited for OC in Milwaukee, its the peoples fault as much as any peace officer or judge. So lets work together to get this problem fixed, we can debate and argue about things but we must work on a solution.

I agree with lockman we need a thread for the facts. Then from those facts we can clearly see where the problem lies.

imported post

As for CCW in Wisconsin, if they abuse the OC laws what makes you think they wont with CCW?

They could decide not to honor any out of state permits, they might decide to require a training course that doesnt exist, they might decide that certain cities will brainwash their peace officers and unlawfully charge people for carrying.If they violate one right dont think they wont violate another. We obviously have alot of issues, if we OC everywhere like was said the anti gun cities will beg for CCW.

imported post

minuteman wrote:

As for CCW in Wisconsin, if they abuse the OC laws what makes you think they wont with CCW?

They could decide not to honor any out of state permits, they might decide to require a training course that doesnt exist, they might decide that certain cities will brainwash their peace officers and unlawfully charge people for carrying.If they violate one right dont think they wont violate another. We obviously have alot of issues, if we OC everywhere like was said the anti gun cities will beg for CCW.

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference once a law is in place specifically allowing a certain behavior under the terms of a license.

imported post

From http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/00wb11.pdf

Carrying Firearms in Public.
Wisconsin law does not specifically prohibit the open carrying of loaded or unloaded firearms in public, but a person doing so may risk being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, on the grounds that the display threatens the public peace or safety.

imported post

kynik wrote:

From http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/00wb11.pdf

Carrying Firearms in Public.
Wisconsin law does not specifically prohibit the open carrying of loaded or unloaded firearms in public, but a person doing so may risk being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, on the grounds that the display threatens the public peace or safety.

Click to expand...

So what does that document mean?



1.) It is not a statute.

2.) It is not a legal precedent.

3.) It is not a legal opinion of a statute by any official source.





I also came across that document while researching this issue and since it did not conform to any of the above criteria, nor cite any other source that does I disregarded it as a credible source of information. I would take the public advice of the governor before I would place any faith in an unsubstantiated “quasi-legal advice”.

imported post

lockman wrote:

kynik wrote:

From http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/00wb11.pdf

Carrying Firearms in Public.
Wisconsin law does not specifically prohibit the open carrying of loaded or unloaded firearms in public, but a person doing so may risk being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, on the grounds that the display threatens the public peace or safety.

Click to expand...

So what does that document mean?



1.) It is not a statute.

2.) It is not a legal precedent.

3.) It is not a legal opinion of a statute by any official source.





I also came across that document while researching this issue and since it did not conform to any of the above criteria, nor cite any other source that does I disregarded it as a credible source of information. I would take the public advice of the governor before I would place any faith in an unsubstantiated “quasi-legal advice”.

Click to expand...

The legislative reference bureau is not exactly a non-credible source of information.

I am not so sure any official source other than a supreme court ruling would make much difference. Who would make such a ruling?

You can't really believe that a politician's off the cuff remark is more believable than something from the LRB, can you?

imported post

The Legislative Reference Bureau is a state agency that provides the legislature it's non-partisan analysis of proposed legislation. It's analysis does not carry any force of law of course. This particular piece was written in 2000, which of course is prior to some significant court case, e.g., Hamdan and Cole. A careful analysis which included those cases might read somewhat differently regarding the issue of open carry in Wisconsin. The 2000 analysis probably accurately reflected the situation in that year.

A supreme court opinion which is directly related to open carry, of course would carry the greatest weight. An official opinion from the Attorney General also has for practical purposesthe force of law in Wisconsin. Not every opinion issued by the AG is considered "official." It is not likely that the legislature will ask the AG for an opinion on open carry, but certainly a municipal official might.

Note:


The attorney general shall . . . [g]ive his or her opinion in writing, when required, without fee, upon all questions of law submitted to him or her by the legislature, either house thereof or the senate or assembly committee on organization, or by the head of any department of state government.
— Wis. Stat. § 165.015

By statute, the Attorney General must, when asked, provide the legislature and designated Wisconsin state government officials with an opinion on legal questions. As a courtesy, the Attorney General sometimes answers questions submitted by government officials from counties and other municipalities.

Opinions of the Attorney General (OAG) typically provide guidance when confusion exists about the meaning of a statute and Wisconsin appellate courts have not yet definitively answered the question. Wisconsin courts do not have any obligation to follow an interpretation provided by an OAG, but they often do. As the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has written, “Well-reasoned attorney general’s opinions have persuasive value when a court later addresses the meaning of the same statute.”

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

As the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has written, “Well-reasoned attorney general’s opinions have persuasive value when a court later addresses the meaning of the same statute.”

Click to expand...

Courts will generally go along with any well reasoned legal opinion.

AG opinions in most states have a fair amount of credibility behind them because usually the people doing the staff work are pretty good at it.

imported post

ilbob wrote:

You can't really believe that a politician's off the cuff remark is more believable than something from the LRB, can you?

Click to expand...

Politician, of course. But he happens to also be the chief executive and LEO of the state.

imported post

Many things could threaten peace or safety. A vehicle comes to mind, that doesnt mean we cannot drive. Loud music in a vehicle comes to mind, that doesnt mean we cannot play music. Most likely it would be disturbing the peace but they can charge you with anything, especially if someone complains. I know someone who got a disorderly conduct for not going to bed, its nothing but scare tactics.

imported post

lockman wrote:

ilbob wrote:

You can't really believe that a politician's off the cuff remark is more believable than something from the LRB, can you?

Click to expand...

Politician, of course. But he happens to also be the chief executive and LEO of the state.

Click to expand...

And its still an off-the-cuff unwritten opinion attributed to him by a newspaper report. Not exactly something I would want to hang my hat on. But you go right ahead. I am willing to contribute $25 to your legal defense fund.

imported post

wrote: I am willing to contribute $25 to your legal defense fund.

Click to expand...

Thats the spirit! You, me and afew hundred more andthat would at least remove any financial burden.

imported post

lockman wrote:

wrote: I am willing to contribute $25 to your legal defense fund.

Click to expand...

Thats the spirit! You, me and afew hundred more andthat would at least remove any financial burden.

Click to expand...

Twohundred at $25 each would only be $5000.I am not sure what quality of legal representation $5000 would buy you these days. Especially if youhad to appeal.

imported post

Thread on WCCM Meeting, Open Carry on the table

For those who are viewing this thread a lot more than the other one.