Pro-open carry letter to editor published in Hudson Star-Observer

imported post

http://www.hudsonstarobserver.com/articles/index.cfm?id=29867&freebie_check&CFID=53280621&CFTOKEN=57674374&jsessionid=8830eb18e4ca51754ec7
Letter: Offers pro-gun arguments
Lee Christianson, Baldwin, Hudson Star-Observer
Published Friday, July 04, 2008
Dear Editor,


In the past few years the effort to bring a reasonable concealed carry law into Wisconsin have all been thwarted by our anti-gun Gov. Doyle. Wisconsin is one of only two states to have no provision for lawful concealed carry.

As I look back on it, Gov. Doyle should be congratulated in keeping yet more unreasonable regulations out of our already bloated legal system; especially those regulations or laws designed to infringe upon certain rights of the citizens. As a pro-gun advocate I recognize that Wisconsin has no statute that prevents open carry by residents of the state.

Therefore, it will be Gov. Doyle’s legacy that by reason of his vetos nearly anyone over the age of 21 can carry a handgun openly anywhere in the state (except state parks etc.) perfectly legally and with very few restrictions.

An organization rooted in pro-gun and open carry advocacy is already preparing documents to be presented to every Wisconsin county board to affirm the right of Wisconsin’s residents to carry openly and to prevent law enforcement agencies from interfering with that right by way of dubious and harassing charges of “disturbing the peace” or similar.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms petition affirms that the people have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Whereas, it is unlawful for citizens to carry a concealed firearm publicly for security, self defense, hunting, recreation or any other purpose the state must then declare that open carry is not an unlawful means to exercise these rights, and that no one may restrict or infringe the citizens’ lawful exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.

imported post

Whereas, the County of ____________, Wisconsin, affirms that the people have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Be it resolved that open carry is not an unlawful means to exercise these rights, and that no one may restrict the lawful exercise of these constitutionally protected rights.

There is a petition to consider and a petition to adopt.

imported post

By ALLAN J. KNEPPER
Posted: July 8, 2008

With the recent Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment in the Heller vs. District of Columbia case, it seems like a good time to collect my thoughts on guns, crime, self-protection and human behavior.

I am a faithful National Rifle Association member, and I own a legal, properly stored handgun. In fact, it has engraved on the barrel "Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty." It was a gift from my wife during the Bi-Centennial celebration in 1976. And during the month that we celebrate Independence Day, our nation is trying to reconcile the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in the Constitution and Bill of Rights with current needs of society.

The founders were absolutely right in that individuals need to keep and bear arms in their homes and if needed on their person to protect their lives, family and property. And given the events that shaped our nation (which most of us seem to forget), we also may need them to protect us from the tyranny of our own government.
The District of Columbia and, closer to home, Chicago have had handgun bans in place for more than 25 years, yet both cities sadly continue to have some of the highest murder rates among major U.S. cities. There already are laws against robbery, rape and murder. Why would anyone think that a law against owning a gun suddenly would change the behavior of the thugs who have no qualms about breaking these more serious laws?

Common sense among politicians seems in steep decline. Several candidates and big-city mayors have made statements recently implying that while certain forms of gun ownership may be OK for places like Wyoming and Montana, gun ownership has no place in large metropolitan areas. While there may be some need to defend against angry gangs of elk in the West, there would seem to be a need for more legal guns in the hands of trained owners in our largest cities because that's where the bad guys are preying on the poor and defenseless every day.

More common sense: While most people think that law enforcement is going to be there to protect them in the case of a life-threatening event, the sad fact is that most law enforcement functions involve investigating a crime after the fact. Law-abiding citizens must be allowed to carry a gun if they so choose in order to react immediately to mortal danger.

Lack of common sense: You simply cannot erase guns by declaring "gun-free" cities like the District of Columbia or Chicago or other locations such as Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University or the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb.

Common sense: The knowledge that a citizen may be carrying a legally concealed gun or may have a legal gun properly accessible in his home will do more to stop the bad guys than any new "uncommon sense" laws that our politicians likely are drafting at this moment.

It makes sense to me.

Allan J. Knepper of Pewaukee is a retired automotive industry manager. E-mail ajk283@aol.com

imported post

I have sent e-mails to two agencies the south milwaukee PD and the milwaukee county sheriffs, in my letters i try more to educate them and make sure that they know the legality of open carry. I didn't get a response from the SMPD but i did get one from teh milwaukee county sheriffs here it is.







Ben:
As you correctly note, carrying a weapon without concealment is only illegal if that carry results in conduct that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Of course charging decisions are the purview of the District Attorney's Office, so only they can definitively state what conduct may result in a criminal charge being issued.
I do note (of dubious interest) that under State v. Schwebke, disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. The statute does encompass conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that may be private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that a subsequent disturbance or disruption would spill over and disrupt the peace, order or safety of the surrounding community as well.

Respectfully Submitted,

-------------------- , Deputy Inspector
Adjutant, Office of the Sheriff
Office: 414.278.4647
"Expect The Best"

imported post

Yes but does the conduct involved in "State v. Schwebke" include conduct specifically protected in the state constitution?

In the wisconsin appelate case of state v. antonicci, antonicci was charged with disorderly conduct because he kept following someone in his car and claimed he had a constitutional right to travel and the dc violated that right, the court commented as follows,

¶19. We reject Antonicci's argument that because the disorderly conduct statute lacks specific time, place, and manner restrictions it sweeps in constitutionally protected conduct. In any overbreadth challenge to the constitutionality of a statute defining and prohibiting disorderly conduct, as to words spoken or conduct engaged in, the right to maintain the public peace must be considered along with the imperative to protect constitutionally assured personal freedoms. Here, the statute strikes the proper balance between the two. The language of the disorderly conduct statute is not so broad that its sanctions may apply to conduct protected by the constitutional right to travel. The mere "passive following" of another vehicle will not qualify for conviction. The statute does not proscribe activities intertwined with protected freedoms unless carried out in a manner which is violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous or unreasonably loud, or conduct similar thereto, and under circumstances in which such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.

Here is the phrase that gets my attention,

"the right to maintain the public peace must be considered along with the imperative to protect constitutionally assured personal freedoms"

imported post

BJA wrote:

Ben:
As you correctly note, carrying a weapon without concealment is only illegal if that carry results in conduct that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Of course charging decisions are the purview of the District Attorney's Office, so only they can definitively state what conduct may result in a criminal charge being issued.
I do note (of dubious interest) that under State v. Schwebke, disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. The statute does encompass conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that may be private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that a subsequent disturbance or disruption would spill over and disrupt the peace, order or safety of the surrounding community as well.

Respectfully Submitted,

-------------------- , Deputy Inspector
Adjutant, Office of the Sheriff
Office: 414.278.4647
"Expect The Best"

Click to expand...

That "only" is incorrect. If a felon open carries its still illegal even if it didnt cause a disturbance. Criminals have a possesion statute, only the law abiding get stuck with Disorderly Conduct for open carry. That "only" needs to be changed to never in the state of Wisconsin. Inform the city attorney of South Milwaukeeof AAG Kassels arguments to the supreme court explaining theerror and possible unconstitutional applicationsof WI statutes to prosecute lawful open carry, and have him get back to the Sheriff. Make sure that you do not lose any correspondence you may be sent by anyone (ie. Sheriff, Police Dept, DA Office, City Attorney, etc), it may be useful in future.

imported post

Yupppp i knew he was wrong it's funny how they will blantently say something that is wrong while they are in the position of upholding the law. I will take it as he was confused. lol





Ben

imported post

I would not say he was wrong, it just wasn't the last word. What I posted might not be the last word either.

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

BJA wrote:

Click to expand...

Ben:
As you correctly note, carrying a weapon without concealment is only illegal if that carry results in conduct that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
Respectfully Submitted,

-------------------- , Deputy Inspector
Adjutant, Office of the Sheriff
Office: 414.278.4647
"Expect The Best"

Click to expand...

That "only" is incorrect. If a felon open carries its still illegal even if it didnt cause a disturbance. Criminals have a possesion statute, only the law abiding get stuck with Disorderly Conduct for open carry. That "only" needs to be changed to never in the state of Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

Para, you makes no sense. They are going to charge the felon with the GREATER charge of Felon in possession, not any wimpy DC charge, Geez.




What you and a lot of folks don't relize is that FIREARMSARE REGULATED. They can REGULATE where, how you can carry. In the City and County of Milwaukee for example, you can carry on your property but go armed on a public street.....

Milwaukee County Ordinance 105-34REGULATES where and how you can carry.

imported post

Can somebody add a "broken record" emoticon?:cussleasseeee???

imported post

Bunker wrote:

Para, you makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Ah, the kettle attempts to make an observation regarding the pot. LOL

imported post

Bunker wrote:

Parabellum wrote:

BJA wrote:

Click to expand...

Ben:
As you correctly note, carrying a weapon without concealment is only illegal if that carry results in conduct that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
Respectfully Submitted,

-------------------- , Deputy Inspector
Adjutant, Office of the Sheriff
Office: 414.278.4647
"Expect The Best"

Click to expand...

That "only" is incorrect. If a felon open carries its still illegal even if it didnt cause a disturbance. Criminals have a possesion statute, only the law abiding get stuck with Disorderly Conduct for open carry. That "only" needs to be changed to never in the state of Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

Para, you makes no sense. They are going to charge the felon with the GREATER charge of Felon in possession, not any wimpy DC charge, Geez.




What you and a lot of folks don't relize is that FIREARMSARE REGULATED. They can REGULATE where, how you can carry. In the City and County of Milwaukee for example, you can carry on your property but go armed on a public street.....

Milwaukee County Ordinance 105-34REGULATES where and how you can carry.

Click to expand...

Wow, haven't these folks beaten you up enough yet, Bunk? I respect masochism, but really, this is just pathetic and a little sick now. Please, get some professional counseling...

imported post

:quirky You know, maybe a, um, "friend" of Bunker got charged for OC under some city ordinance, and tried to represent himself at his trial? With an encyclopedic knowledge of law and keen reasoning abilities very similar to Bunker's, he managed to get himself convicted for violation of an invalid ordinance. Therein is the source of his claim to knowing how the courts work and that local gun carry ordinance are valid.

imported post

"Ben:
As you correctly note, carrying a weapon without concealment is only illegal if that carry results in conduct that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
Respectfully Submitted,

-------------------- , Deputy Inspector
Adjutant, Office of the Sheriff
Office: 414.278.4647
"Expect The Best""

Wisconsin Supreme court said,
" “If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.”

It is astounding to me how some police can know so little about law and how courts view things. The police can say and do anything they wish but always remember that the courts are the final arbitrator.


[size=][/size]

imported post

Max-Can you give me the details of this decision, case etc?

Thanks,

Jim

imported post

I would have to search for it. I think it was in the decision of either state v. hamdan or state v. cole.

imported post

The quote appears in state v. hamdan, paragraph 41.

imported post

Bunker wrote:

Para, you makes no sense. They are going to charge the felon with the GREATER charge of Felon in possession, not any wimpy DC charge, Geez.

What you and a lot of folks don't relize is that FIREARMSARE REGULATED. They can REGULATE where, how you can carry. In the City and County of Milwaukee for example, you can carry on your property but go armed on a public street.....

Milwaukee County Ordinance 105-34REGULATES where and how you can carry.

Click to expand...

First, Buker has yet to address information from an actual attorney, the Eau Claire city attorney that absolutely clarified such local ordinances are unenforceable.

Second, Bunker also failed to address his/her own admission that no one is charged with a violation of these ordinances, but rather disorderly conduct.

By your own admission there Bunker, these ordinances are not enforced.