Polk County Sherifs response

imported post

My email to Polk County Sherif Tim moore


Mr.Moore


I am writing in regards to the issue of open carry in the city of Amery and Polk county. I am a disabled veteran and a member of the second ammendment foundation, and open carry.org. I have done a;ot of research on open carry in Wisconsin and know that it is legal to open carry. That was settled by the state supreme court since concealed carry is illegal than Wisconsin has to allow us to open carry as the only other means of excercising our second ammendment rights. I also know that no city, town or village can make or enforce a law that is more stringent than the state law. I have found out through my research that across the state some over zealous Law enforcement officers have stopped those that are legally open carrying and giving them citations for things such as disorderly conduct and or disturbing the peace. Now we all know that this is just harassment for those who choose to excercise therir rights. I am not a felon and I am a law abiding citizen but being in a wheelchair puts me at a distinct disadvantage of being an easy target for a robbery or mugging etc. I would like to excercise my second ammendment rights by legallt open carrying for my safety and self defense. My question is what can I expect from the Local Law Enforcement Officers if I choose to peacefully and legally open carry? Will I be allowed to or will I be harrassed as some others have? I would most certainly appreciate a response in this matter. Sincerely

Jimmy

and his response
Jimmy

First let me say the following, I am also a proponent of the 2[suP]nd[/suP] amendment, and a card carrying member of the NRA. I don’t oppose concealed carry and wish Wisconsin could write a law that law enforcement can live with. The last one had issues that found all Sheriff’s democrats and republicans alike, strongly opposed too.

Amery may have an ordinance that prohibits open carry, I would check with the Police Chief Tom Marson and ask him. I think we take a different view on open carry and law enforcements role. We are obligated and sworn to up hold the laws and investigate them. I am positive that should you open carry someone in Amery is going to call in a “man with a gun” call. That requires law enforcement to respond and I don’t know about Amery but most if not all of my officers have been shot at one time or another. They are going to response as if the gun is loaded for their safety and the publics. You may take the view that is “over zealous” but I take it as being diligent in doing our job. One of my friends is a Deputy in this County that was shot in 1991 in the face by a man with gun on the street in a city in Burnett County. He is a paraplegic and has been confined to that wheel chair for the last 18 years. I don’t blame a gun for that incident but I do blame the man who shot him. We take a ‘man with a gun call” serious because of the potential that exists.

I don’t believe we further our cause with the 2[suP]nd[/suP] amendment by open carry, I believe we just give the gun haters out their more ammunition (no pun intended) to try and pass more stringent gun laws that we all hate to see.

I think it best to work on a concealed carry law that will pass in this state that gives law abiding citizens the right to carry.



Tim



Sheriff Tim Moore

Polk County Sheriff’s Office

I have made a copy of the petition to the countys and I will be getting signatures and then present it to the county clerk. If we cant get this done state wide we can do it county by county. Jimmy

imported post

Welcome to OCDO, Jimmy, and thank you for your efforts. Thank you for noting your location.

LEO card carrying statist member of the NRA and anti-OC. Surprise surprise surprise.

As to the resolution petition, there is no requirement or benefit to one copy with many signatures and collecting the signatures may unnecessarily complicate and delay it (as Mr. German of Minnesota has done). Sign and submit your copy and duplicate and distribute copies to like minded patriots.

The statutory requirement for the Boards to attend to the petition is the same whether it has one signature or a million signatures - and they must be validated against the voter rolls.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMfreekinA$$ Follow the money

imported post

Welcome jimmy, nice put together letter too! As far as I have seen this seems to be the general response of many police agencies in wisconsin, the one I got from the Milwaukee county sheriff's department was somewhat like yours. Hope you still decide to open carry in Amery provided you have the resources for what may happen (LEGAL FEES, gun taken:uhoh. Sadly we don't get the response from LEO's that we'd like to that may somewhat go like this " You are right open carry is legal, excersice your right my police may have to investigate it but if it is found that you are just open carrying then we will take the time to educate the caller, would prefer not to bother you but we have to to cover our butts" IF ONLY! Good luck if you decide to open carry there I hope you are not harassed, and if ya get the chance educate some people too!

Ben

imported post

Interesting response from the Sheriff. I'm convinced that the vast majority of cops who really do support the ROTP do so only if CC is involved. The cops I've talked to about the issue--all pro-2A in principle, are 100% in favor of shall issue--even a Federal CCW that covers all states (something I would love to see), but neutral to opposed to OC in town limits except under certain conditions: gas stations and convenience stores NOT liked for OC: quick in and out at fast foods, ok. When I told them that BGs don't OC, they agreed and said that wasn't the point. Panic among the sheep was--and needless MWAG calls for them to respond to from the sheep. I can see their point, from that perspective. I don't agree with it, but if given the choice of only being able to CC or OC, I'd choose CC without a second thought. And I'd rather have the doughnut eaters support CC only rather than think we all should be sheep and depend on our "local police for law and order (gag ." Too many of them are a-holes who feel that way, so the above is a reasonable compromise.

imported post

If an officer says to not carry concealed because it's illegal, and to not carry openly because they will arrest you, how is that supportive? That's no-carry.

Sheriff Moore basically said to push for a right that you don't have, and don't use the one you do. Let me sum up the letter:

The majority of Wisconsin voters want concealed carry, but the Governor won't let it happen. The police know this. Saying they support future concealed carry but not current open carry is a bait-and-switch: instead of you exercising the right you do have, chase after the one you don't.

Ever hear the saying, "Spit in one hand and wish in the other." Open carry is what Wisconsin has by lack of law prohibiting it, no matter how much people dream of concealed carry. If you can't exercise a right you already have, that's what needs to be addressed first.

Denying a disabled person the right to their own protection is a slap in the face. Denying a veteran is dishonorable. Denying a disabled veteran is...un-American.

imported post

My standard response to anyone who tries to discourage OC is to ask them if there are any other constitutional rights that they wish to discourage people from exercising. It puts them on the hot seat by framing it this way because it clearly points out the implications of their position. I believe they fail to fully comprehend the implications of what they are saying until they are forced to do so.

(You may wish to ask them how they would be able to respond to a headline or letter to the editor that reads, "Sheriff [or mayor, police chief, district attorney... fill in the blank] discourages people from exercising constitutional right." Wouldn't make them look very good, would it? As we know, appearance is almost of paramount concern to people who hold public positions.)

imported post

I'm going to write to the sheriff and ask the questions I posed above. Give him something to think about.

imported post

I think that after one separates the chaff from the wheat in Sheriff Moore's response to open carry it becomes apparent that he isn't opposed to law abiding private citizens carrying firearms for personal protection. His main objective appears to be the visibility of the firearm, a manner of carry that would subject his deputies to time wasting responses of a "man with a gun". An inconvienience that he would address with harassing and "power play" police tactics in order to discourage wide spread occurrences. He apparently prefers an out-of-sight out-of-mind method of carry. The dichotomy of that approach is that it is out-of-sight out-of-mind (concealed) carry of firearms that is the preferred manner of carry of criminals. It is the concealed carry of firearms by crimminals that puts his officers at risk. It isn't the visible carry of firearms by law abiding citizens that is a threat to his deputies.

It should be obvious to law enforcement that if a peaceful acting person has the guts to walk around with a visible firearm on his person it is reasonable to suspect that the person has peaceful intentions. It is the illegal hidden carry of firearms by criminals that puts the officer's safety in peril. No criminal with a felony record is stupid enough to walk around with a visible firearm and subject himself to a weapons charge. Sheriff Moore joins the cadre of many other LEO's that can't seem to understand that simple fact. His reponse is but another example of the mind numbing phobia law enforcement in general has toward the personal protection use of firearms by private citizens.

imported post

If you're going to use 'cadre' then at least work in 'hegemony'. Or might we be establishing our seniority (as contrasted with 'dating ourselves' eeew)?

Well said. Thank you.

imported post

Yes.

imported post

Ok.... here's the email I sent to Sheriff Moore:

Dear Sheriff Moore:

A contributor to the website www.OpenCarry.org has recently posted the text an exchange of emails between he and you regarding the issue of openly carrying firearms within Polk County and the City of Amery. In your reply you stated that you support the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and support the concept of concealed weapons for citizens in Wisconsin. However, in your response you discouraged the practice of open carry by implying that area law enforcement personnel would likely respond to a call of a "man with a gun" in an aggressive and unfriendly manner. You also stated that you believe the practice of open carry would be detrimental to the furtherance of securing legislation that would allow concealed carry. Finally, you stated that you believed that it was likely that the City of Amery has an ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms.

Sheriff, to address the last issue first, I hope that you (and the Amery Chief of Police) are aware that state statutes invalidated any such local ordinances years ago. Under Chapter 66.0409 of the statutues municipalities may only regulated the discharge of firearms within their jurisdiction and may not have any ordinance regarding the possession or carrying of firearms that is stricter than state law. Therefore, any local ordinance that prohibits the open carrying of firearms in Amery (or any other municipality in Wisconsin for that matter) is invalid and unenforceable under state law.

Secondly, since you are clearly trying to discourage people from openly carrying firearms, I have to ask you if there are any other constitutional rights that you wish to discourage citizens from excercising?

I believe it is wrong for you to encourage citizens to refrain from the exercise of a right that they already have, and to simply put their efforts towards securing a right (or a privilege) that they do not have.

I can appreciate the fact that you have colleagues that have been shot at or even shot in the line of duty. However that does not give them license to act in an unprofessional manner or to disrespect the constitutional rights of the very people whose rights they are sworn to protect.

In the absence of an illegal activity, it is certainly inappropriate and dangerous for law enforcement personnel to presume that they would be justified in drawing weapons on or otherwise interfering with a person who is merely carrying a firearm in a safe and legal manner. In communications from the Madison Police Department I have been told that (in the absence of a clear cut violation of the law or unsafe practice) the police ought to unobtrusively observe an armed individual to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred. That seems to me to be a much safer and reasonable response to a report that a person is merely legally possessing a firearm. I assure you that no one would be amused if they were simply walking down the street, shopping or eating a hamburger while wearing a holstered firearm and suddenly found themself being held at gunpoint, handcuffed and booked. Typically when that has occurred around the country a lawsuit has followed and the municipality has had to pay money.

You stated to your original correspondent that you do not oppose concealed carry, but you do not like open carry. Unfortunately, if one chooses to go armed, those are the only two options. The option to conceal is currently illegal and the other option, you suggest, could have bad consequences. That's quite a dilemma, is it not? Well, as Sheriff, you don't want to condone an illegal activity. But you could do much to reduce the chances that there would be bad consequences if someone chooses to open carry by providing education to your deputies that open carry is perfectly legal and a constitutional right that must be respected.

To return to my original question, are you really going to discourage citizens from the exercise of a constitutional right?

I'm particularly interested in your reply to that question.

Thanks,

<my name>
Madison, WI

imported post

Sorry, I didn't work the word "hegemony" into my email. I must have hit "send" too quickly! What was I thinking?!? :banghead:

imported post

OK. I'm getting on the soap box. Sheriff Moore's attitude that he would accept a manner of carry that is illegal but opposes a constitutional right has me irritated.

When you look at the statute of Justice you will see that she is wearing a blindfold and the scales are balanced. What a misrepresentation. Justice is not blind. Justice is prejudiced. The scales aren't balanced. The scales are always tilted to the benefit of law enforcement and the establishment. Those bodies and unfortunately a large portion of the public, believe that federal and state constitutional rights and state statutes are all in a massive cauldron. A cauldron from which you pick the rights and laws you wish to enforce or adhere to. In reality the rights and laws in that cauldron are all or none subject to judicial interpretation. In some ways those rights and laws are similar to the bible. If you believe in the bible you must believe in the whole bible, not just those passages that support your personal life style and beliefs.

How did we get into this condition of unequal justice? It's our fault. We let it happen, not only at the State level, but also at the Federal level. We have not held the elected officials accountable. We continue to allow the wolves to herd us sheep into whichever pen they wish in order to keep us under control. Remember these words in November. If there is a county sheriff or other elected politician up for re-election that opposes our constitutional right to open carry get the word out. Fire him/her.

imported post

Thank you all for the encouragement and pats on the back. I will not cease in my endeavors on getting open carry accepted here.

Shotgun I cant wait to see what response you get from Sherif Moore and I really appreciate your doing so. Jimmy

imported post

Lammie wrote (and this comment isn't directed at him):

.... His main objective appears to be the visibility of the firearm, a manner of carry that would subject his deputies to time wasting responses of a "man with a gun"....

Click to expand...

A person lawfully carrying a gun is not wasting department time, rather it is the department's response that may waste time and taxes. If the dispatcher asks the person calling the department with a complaint what the armed person is doing, and determines they're doing nothing wrong and informs the caller of that, the time is not wasted.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

No criminal with a felony record is stupid enough to walk around with a visible firearm and subject himself to a weapons charge. Sheriff Moore joins the cadre of many other LEO's that can't seem to understand that simple fact. His reponse is but another example of the mind numbing phobia law enforcement in general has toward the personal protection use of firearms by private citizens.

Click to expand...

Well said. In addition, these criminals use a gun to commit felonies. They could give two shits about breaking some bogus misdemeanor concealed weapon charge when they have a sheet full of felonies. Also they can surprise you by pulling out a gun when you don't know they have it. Concealing will ALWAYS be the desire of the criminal.

This sheriff needs to be worried about the hidden guns, not the open ones.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

The statutory requirement for the Boards to attend to the petition is the same whether it has one signature or a million signatures - and they must be validated against the voter rolls.

Click to expand...

Could you please clarify the "statutory" requirements referred to?

imported post

Sure, there is no requirement for a Board to pay attention to a petition of one signature or a million that I know.

imported post

Dam good letter shotgun! What are you a college english professor or something lol. Well hope to see that response soon, good workin everyone!

Ben

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Ok.... here's the email I sent to Sheriff Moore:

Dear Sheriff Moore:

A contributor to the website http://www.OpenCarry.org has recently posted the text an exchange of emails between he ['him' but still awkward] and you regarding the issue of openly carrying firearms within Polk County and the City of Amery. In your reply you stated that you support the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and support the concept of concealed weapons for citizens in Wisconsin. However, in your response you discouraged the practice of open carry by implying that area law enforcement personnel would likely respond to a call of a "man with a gun" in an aggressive and unfriendly manner. You also stated that you believe the practice of open carry would be detrimental to the furtherance of securing legislation that would allow concealed carry. Finally, you stated that you believed that it was likely that the City of Amery has an ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms.

Sheriff, to address the last issue first, I hope that you (and the Amery Chief of Police) are aware that state statutes invalidated any such local ordinances years ago. Under Chapter 66.0409 of the statutues [statutes] municipalities may only regulated the discharge of firearms within their jurisdiction and may not have any ordinance regarding the possession or carrying of firearms that is stricter than state law. Therefore, any local ordinance that prohibits the open carrying of firearms in Amery (or any other municipality in Wisconsin for that matter) is invalid and unenforceable under state law.

Secondly, since you are clearly trying to discourage people from openly carrying firearms, I have to ask you if there are any other constitutional rights that you wish to discourage citizens from excercising?

I believe it is wrong for you to encourage citizens to refrain from the exercise of a right that they already have, and to simply put their efforts towards securing a right (or a privilege) that they do not have.

I can appreciate the fact that you have colleagues that have been shot at or even shot in the line of duty. However that does not give them license to act in an unprofessional manner or to disrespect the constitutional rights of the very people whose rights they are sworn to protect.

In the absence of an illegal activity, it is certainly inappropriate and dangerous for law enforcement personnel to presume that they would be justified in drawing weapons on or otherwise interfering with a person who is merely carrying a firearm in a safe and legal manner. In communications from the Madison Police Department I have been told that (in the absence of a clear cut violation of the law or unsafe practice) the police ought to unobtrusively observe an armed individual to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred. That seems to me to be a much safer and reasonable response to a report that a person is merely legally possessing a firearm. I assure you that no one would be amused if they were simply walking down the street, shopping or eating a hamburger while wearing a holstered firearm and suddenly found themself [no such word, number error in sentence] being held at gunpoint, handcuffed and booked. Typically when that has occurred around the country a lawsuit has followed and the municipality has had to pay money.

You stated to your original correspondent that you do not oppose concealed carry, but you do not like open carry. Unfortunately, if one chooses to go armed, those are the only two options. The option to conceal is currently illegal and the other option, you suggest, could have bad consequences. That's quite a dilemma, is it not? Well, as Sheriff, you don't want to condone an illegal activity. But you could do much to reduce the chances that there would be bad consequences if someone chooses to open carry by providing education to your deputies that open carry is perfectly legal and a constitutional right that must be respected.

To return to my original question, are you really going to discourage citizens from the exercise of a constitutional right?

I'm particularly interested in your reply to that question.

Thanks,

<my name>
Madison, WI

Click to expand...