La Crosse County Sheriff Responds to Open Carry Letter

imported post

I won't quote shotgun, or the post about the exchange with the DA, but the rest of the post shows I did just what he(shotgun) suggested, and the DA changed his tone.

imported post

I assume the DA is talking about a government owned/leased building when he says "public building" since it is not illegal to carry in non-governmental buildings with the exception of places with class B liquor licenses.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

I won't quote shotgun, or the post about the exchange with the DA, but the rest of the post shows I did just what he(shotgun) suggested, and the DA changed his tone.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I couldn't resist sarcasm.

imported post

Wow. Imagine that - a DA in a mid-sized Wisconsin city is a complete weasel. I understand that a DA does not want to give someone an affirmative defense by telling them "sure, you can open carry," but yeeeesh. They could at least answer; you're not asking them to go out on a limb here, just to affirm current state law.

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

Wow. Imagine that - a DA in a mid-sized Wisconsin city is a complete weasel. I understand that a DA does not want to give someone an affirmative defense by telling them "sure, you can open carry," but yeeeesh. They could at least answer; you're not asking them to go out on a limb here, just to affirm current state law.

Click to expand...

it appears you havegood understanding of the relevant statutes and case law that would prohibit either concealed or openly carrying a weapon, and when such behavior would usually not be prohibited by statute or ordinance.

Click to expand...

I'll take that as it's legal. I'd say that's a pretty friendly response considering the DA is a Doyle appointee.

imported post

I don't know when it will happen, but I envision a court case at some point which will address one or both of the following:

1. The suggestion by those appearing to be in positions of authority that a citizen would need to notify local LE when they are about to go out and exercise a right constitutes some kind of prior restraint, and/or,

2. Increased handling/clearing/reloading of a firearm being statistically more likely to be the precursor to some type of accident, open-carry transition to vehicle carry creates enough of an inconvenience and safety issue that it effectively denies the reasonable exercise of the right. Might even result in overruling that piece of caselaw regarding any type of carry being considered "concealed" for purposes of 941.23. (That one is bad law anyway, as anyone knows that because vehicles have seats there is usually no way to really perceive presence of a weapon without staring in the passenger side anyway. Oh, that's right. Criminals don't care about that anyway - oops.)

imported post

I've been sending those letters to municipalities in my area.

-- Added

Instead of starting new threads, I just reply to this one as I get replies.

imported post

When discussing the issue of vehicle carry we must look at it init's true context. When vehicle carry is discussed it invaribly centers around carry in cars and trucks. Vehicle carry appliues to any kind of vehicle that is propelled by a motor. Everything from an RV to a rubber raft powered by an electronic trolling motor. The question of whether or not a weapon is concealed varies with each type of vehicle. Even the State Supreme Court gets confused.

For example:
The SSC laid down the conditions that define concealment in both Kieth and Hamdan. The conditions are:
1. The weapon must be hidden from ordinary view.
2. The person must know the weapon is present.
3. The weapon must be within reach.

After citing those conditions the SSC was asked in case footnote how those conditions play with the requirements of statute 167.31 which requires that a weapon be concealed in a carrying case when being transported in or on a motor vehicle. The SSC answer was that it did not see a conflict between the concealed weapon prohibition and statute 167.31 but if a person wanted to avoid any such conflict the person only needs to carry the weapon out of reach thereby eliminating one of the conditions that defines concealment.

In making that statement the SSC fell into the same trap many people do. They equate motor vehicle with cars, trucks and busses. They overlook motorcycles, snowmobiles, ATV's, rubber rafts and other single passenger vehicles that are constructed in a way that prevents a person from carrying a weapon out of reach. On such vehicles it is impossible to avoid meeting all three conditions of concealment. That is why it is my opinion that statute 167.31 is unconstitutional. State law strictly prohibits concealed carry of weapons in/or on a motor vehicle(941.23) and state law prohibits the open carry of weapons in/or on a motor vehicle.(167.31). The State doesn't allow a manner of carry on motor vehicles that can't avoid the three conditions of concealment. That is also why when we discuss vehicle carry we must consider all conditions.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

The State doesn't allow a manner of carry on motor vehicles that can't avoid the three conditions of concealment. That is also why when we discuss vehicle carry we must consider all conditions.

Click to expand...

Completely correct, and about as well articulated as any barrister.

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

warlockmatized wrote:

Ohio Patriot wrote:

He wants you to notify him before you exercise a right? :uhoh:

I have a better idea... why doesn't he gather the deputies together and inform them that OC is not a crime and that no one is allowed to be detained unless they have RAS that a crime has occurred?

Click to expand...

all i can say is ditto. inform him FIRST?.......i don't remember reading in the constitution we had to inform anyone of anything lol

Click to expand...

Guys, come'on.

What he IS saying is that it would be better to contact them so that they are aware of you OCing and the department doesn't have to "waste" UNNECESSARY resources when they recieve a "MWAG" call.

They WILL then be aware of you and be able to state to the caller that you are know to them and that you are "OK".

I did one time call the local dispatch when I was about to go out running and I told them the route so that they would not have to waste their time IF they recived a "MWAG" call. It appears to me that they appreciated that

Just my .40



TJ

Click to expand...

... and what WE'RE saying is that this can happen without any notification by the OCer to the police. All the dispatcher needs to do is ask a couple of questions: "Has the person removed the weapon from his holster or waved it around? Has the man made any threats or is he trying to bully or intimidate anyone?" If the answer is no, the dispatcher can simply inform the caller that the activity is legal, cite the applicable section of law, and disconnect. If it results in a call, the officer should be trained to observe. If there does not appear to be anything illegal happening, the officer should turn around and head back to his car.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

UTOC-45-44 wrote: All the dispatcher needs to do is ask a couple of questions: "Has the person removed the weapon from his holster or waved it around?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, currently in Wisconsin onehas to unholster and unload their firearm before getting into a vehicle to stay 100% legal. Likewise, upon exiting the a vehicle one would have to uncase, load and holster a firearm. Most people are in low level of awareness and won't notice. But there's a risk that eventually somebody will see you handling the firearm and will tell the dispatcher, "Yes, I just saw him/her get out of a car and load a gun!"

imported post

... and what WE'RE saying is that this can happen without any notification by the OCer to the police. All the dispatcher needs to do is ask a couple of questions: "Has the person removed the weapon from his holster or waved it around? Has the man made any threats or is he trying to bully or intimidate anyone?" If the answer is no, the dispatcher can simply inform the caller that the activity is legal, cite the applicable section of law, and disconnect. If it results in a call, the officer should be trained to observe. If there does not appear to be anything illegal happening, the officer should turn around and head back to his car.

Click to expand...

There are actually two contacts in the above. One is your assumption that the dispatcher is going to somehow distill a call based on what the 911 caller "perceives" is happening. I can almost assure you that is very unlikely to be put into place; mostly because of the 2nd contact. That of the officer observing conduct and exercising judgement that there is no issue and doing the follow-up to the caller that the conduct is perfectly legal. (If the dispatcher filters the call, at grave liability risk, SCOTUS caselaw or not, the officer doesn't get to the call in the first place.)

Like it or not, there is an education piece to this, but one of those is almost certainly NOT going to be dispatchers filtering MWAG calls - they get one of those, someone is gonna roll on it - COUNT on it.THEN comes the observation piece you speak of, perhaps even a brief contact.

In WI, part of theimpetus toward a PPA is going to involve non-gun (not anti, just non-gun) people getting to the point of telling their legislators "I'd prefer not to see those openly anymore, can't you just make a law like they talked about so they just tuck them under their coat or something?" In order for that to happen the public education piece has to run:

1. MWAG call; dispatcher advises a squad in the area.

2. Officer observation/contact, no criminal issue.

3.Officer follow-up with complainant.

4. Complainants (Jane Q Public) gains awareness that OC is perfectly legal and what really matters is how the person conducts themselves otherwise, gun notwithstanding.

Making local LE who you're likely to deal with most a part of the process proactively isn't a bad thing. Over time, you WANT those relationships with law enforcement. I realize much of the above relates to a PPA as one of the desired end-states, but that's OK too. Then OC becomes what it should be; simply another method of carry based on the individual's personal considerations.

imported post

I agree with WIG19. 911 dispatchers will not and generally are not allowed to make a determination of whether or not a call is legitimate. It certainly won't happen in a MWAG call. I frequently hear on my scanners that a 911 dispatcher received a 911 call and on call-back made contact with some adult that says the call was in error. The adult says a child was playing on the phone and accidentaly pressed the 911 emergency call button. Even though the adult claimed that there was no emergency the dispatcher contacts a squad which then makes a verification. If that kind of action is taken on such a seemingly innocent situation you can darn well believe a squad will be dispatched to a MWAG call. If for nothing else to verify the identity of the MWAG and that a crime is truly not in progress.

I don't beleive Sheriff Helgeson's comments had anything to do with changing 911 protocol. Ithink his intention was tobe able to provide his deputies with a name so that they can verify it against the MWAG's identity. Having that cross reference would without a doubt save some deputy and 911 dispatcher time and taxpayer money.

imported post

I agree with Shotgun and WIG. It is not the responsibilty of the 911 operators to be able to quote laws over the phone.

imported post

Not to mention the fact that it scares me to think of the incompetents running the 911 lines making such determinations... I mean, it worked soooo well in Madison for Ms. Zimmerman, right?

imported post

I agree, It sounds like the Sheriff is favorable to the Second Ammendment. He understands the procedures, the time and hassle involved to have to follow-up on every call.

He stated it is not a requirement to call in before open carry. I think he is simply saying you have a legal right to carry it would just do us a big favor if you let us know you intend to carry, not every time but just stop in once, say hey this is what I plan to do and save everyone a lot of time and hassle if they already know who you are.

Imagine if a MWAG call came in and the Police did nothing because it is legal for us to that but, this one time it was someone up to no good and they did not respond. He would be in a world of hurt.

On the other hand, if you develop a relationship with them, are respectful, and say hey-I just want to let you know I'm gonna carry-you may find they actually become our advocates and many more people become edjucated.

Of course we don't have to tell them and we should not have to tell them. But if we help them out they may help us out and OC becomes so common place very few calls ever come in, crime goes way down were OC is done by many law abiding citizens, and we all live in a much safer America because the bad guys are afraid of us.

It sounds like the guy is being genuine and not trying to threaten our second ammendment right.

imported post

Virtus Honoris wrote:

Imagine if a MWAG call came in and the Police did nothing because it is legal for us to that but, this one time it was someone up to no good and they did not respond. He would be in a world of hurt.

Click to expand...

Exactly; think... you're travelling. Think... it's a concerned neighbor calling about someone creeping around YOUR house with YOUR family inside. You want them to roll or not?

imported post

WIG19 wrote:

Virtus Honoris wrote:

Imagine if a MWAG call came in and the Police did nothing because it is legal for us to that but, this one time it was someone up to no good and they did not respond. He would be in a world of hurt.

Click to expand...

Exactly; think... you're travelling. Think... it's a concerned neighbor calling about someone creeping around YOUR house with YOUR family inside. You want them to roll or not?

Click to expand...

There are clearly two different situations being laid out, and they are not related, and police should not react the same way to both.

1.) Whena person iswatering their lawn /walking down the street / talking to neighbors/ shopping for watermelon, police involvement is clearly not necessary.

2.) When someone is sneaking about or acting in a clearly suspicious manor. Note that in such cases, a gun will usually not be visible, might rarely be seen tucked in a waist band, or will be in hand. The gun will not be in a holster, especially a positive-retention holster on a well-dressed person.

imported post

WIG19 wrote:

Virtus Honoris wrote:

Imagine if a MWAG call came in and the Police did nothing because it is legal for us to that but, this one time it was someone up to no good and they did not respond. He would be in a world of hurt.

Click to expand...

Exactly; think... you're travelling. Think... it's a concerned neighbor calling about someone creeping around YOUR house with YOUR family inside. You want them to roll or not?

Click to expand...

You may have provided a good example of a straw man argument.

Of course the police ought to respond to a report of a person "creeping around" a house.Creeping around (armed or not)is suspicious behavior.

But as we know from the posts on OCDO many "man with a gun" calls involving open carriersare not about somebody "creeping around" but rather individuals do such "suspicious" activities asshopping, or walking their dog or enjoying a meal.What about these other cases-- namely, the majority of instances reported in this forum? Should merely being armed be regarded as suspicious behavior?If you see a kid walking down the sidewalk with a baseball bat, do you assume he's up to no good, intending to assault somebody or bash car windows, or do you consider the possibility that, absent any other behavior, he might just be going to the park to play ball? Truea person might appear to be engaged in any conceivable innocuous behavior while masking some evil activity. But that fact does not justify a response from the police to reports of innocuous behavior. In order to maintain your position you have to admit that you believe the mere act of being armed ought to be automatically regarded as suspicious behavior.

What a sad state we're in if the exercise of a constiutionally protected right is regarded as grounds for suspicion of criminal activity.

imported post

Pointman wrote:

There are clearly two different situations being laid out, and they are not related, and police should not react the same way to both.

Click to expand...

No dispute there. Point is they will be checking out the call, regardless. Everyone's circumstances (and likely threat) are different.