Common Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 16, 2008

imported post

They can codify locally to their heart's content.

66.0409 is the arbiter as to whether it was worth their time or not.

imported post

It depends on if an extra-legal prosecution is, for you, worth fighting. You can be cited and prosecuted under a local and pre-empted ordinance and you won't be allowed IANAL to argue it.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

It depends on if an extra-legal prosecution is, for you, worth fighting. You can be cited and prosecuted under a local and pre-empted ordinance and you won't be allowed IANAL to argue it.

Click to expand...

Not sure I quite follow your syntax... Surely you're not saying that I couldn't contest that in municipal court; that's not the case.

imported post

I am not a lawyer but I think that you will be allowed to only argue the present facts and evidence. The law and its application belongs to the judge and jury.

imported post

If you could argue State preemption, could you argue the State Constitution, could you argue the Second Amendment. What is the rule that would allow arguing law beyond the jurisdiction of the particular court?

"Argue" meaning 'defend with'.

imported post

OK, I get the IANAL acronym, just didn't understand the position of its insertion. Thanks.

I would have no problem making what I'll call the 66.0409 argument in court with the local municipal judge. If it went beyond there, so be it. I'm not rich and, yes, it would suck. Then again, seems it's a bit different country over on this side of the state sometimes from places like Racine, West Allis and other protectorates of the Milwaukee machine. But a bald-faced DC charge based on legal conduct absent any other criminality. Sorry; roll over aren't the words that come to mind.

imported post

I called the City Attorney's Office today and Liz told me that this was still in committee. She was puzzled about it showing that it was approved and is suppose to call me next week. (She's off Monday)

I also asked her to forward the usual information, preemption, Constitution, liability,etc., to the City Attorney. I would think he would know this so the city doesn't find out how much it will cost them, the hard way.

imported post

S.E.WI wrote:

I called the City Attorney's Office today and Liz told me that this was still in committee. She was puzzled about it showing that it was approved and is suppose to call me next week. (She's off Monday)

I also asked her to forward the usual information, preemption, Constitution, liability,etc., to the City Attorney. I would think he would know this so the city doesn't find out how much it will cost them, the hard way.

Click to expand...

It won't cost them anything unless they attempt to prosecute somebody, and unless that "somebody" fights back. Meanwhile, they have the advantage that it just may dissuade somebody from exercising a constitutional right to which the municipal body does not acquiesce.

Do not forget that there already exists a very large number of municipalities in Wisconsin that continue to maintain preempted ordinances on their books. I don't see it having cost any of them a penny. It's worth it for them to bluff-- up until the time somebody calls the bluff.

I do think as an unintended consequence-- of which they're probably unaware-- they are providing the basis for a legal defense for somebody charged with carrying concealed. (I.e., there must be "a practical way" to "exercise the right" and they are making OC very impractical.)

imported post

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2008m10d24-Feigning-ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse

October 24, 7:47 AM by David Codrea, Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner

Here's where I promised to introduce a solution to this week's discussion. You'll recall we were exploring how those who openly carry holstered handguns--a perfectly legal practice in Ohio, and recognized by the courts--have been subjected to harassment and arrest. We even showed the state attorney general is aware this if going on,and the office has acknowledged the legality of the practice in its official publications.Yet Ohioans are still in danger, all for peaceably exercising their right tobear arms--and we've seen they are indeed peaceable. We've seen how some among us, who do not trust their fellow citizens and want tocoerce the practice away, are not above endangering gun owners, and exploiting the system to do it. And we've also seen how those initiating the confrontations and arrests are not necessarily the "'Only Ones" we can trust to carry guns.

It's an absurd and intolerable situation. Those tasked with upholding the law are arresting--and endangering-- those abiding by it. In some cases they're claiming ignorance--in others, they're apparently claiming the power to defy state law and enact and enforce their own. We need to stop it, now, before anyone else's life is disrupted, or God forbid, someone gets hurt or worse.
We need to take away the excuse--once and for all--that the state's point of contact with armed citizens, the on-scene officer, "didn't know" citizens had the right to peaceably openly carry guns.
We need to document that all Ohio's "law enforcement" personnel (whatever happened to "peace officers"?) and other appropriate officials have been apprised of the law, and that there are legal consequences thatwill affect them personallyif they disregardit. And I intend to start this process by putting the state's top law enforcer,Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, in the hot seat.
The details of my plan can be found over at The War on Guns. Later this afternoon, I am going to send her a certified return receipt letter, putting her on notice that Ohio law is being violated by those we rely on to enforce it, that it is public knowledge she knows of this, and that it is her duty to use the powers of her office to ensure all public officials are in compliance with Ohio laws. Basically I'll be asking her toformally notify every police official in the state that open carry is legal,that liabilities exist for continued interference with it, willful and otherwise, and to put the ball in their court to ensure their officers are trained--or else.
What if she doesn't? I have a backup plan for that, too, but let's just take this step first and get things rolling. I'll keep you informed as things develop and will probably have an update some time next week.
__________

imported post

Doug:

You mention the Ohio AG. Is that the same one that doesn't give a damn wich way Mickey Mouse votes, just as long as he gets to vote?


Added::

Interesting concept, do you think we could try the same thing here is Wisconsin?

imported post

Yes.

But like the petition, public officials have no particular duty to attend or act on a mere citizen's request. Only when we can damage them politically will we have respect from fear of recall/election defeat.

'Mere citizens' are not those that claim access and pay to play. Scroom

imported post

From police reports racine journal times. Nov. 3

STURTEVANT

Rifle found during traffic stop

Andrew W. Weir, 29, 9314 Florence Drive, Sturtevant, was cited for being in possession of a dangerous weapon after village police stopped a 1997 Dodge Stratus for not having an operable head lamp just before 1 a.m. Oct. 31 in the 1700 block of 90th Street.

Police reports indicate that Weir was a passenger in the vehicle. He allegedly told police that he was in the process of moving and had forgotten that his rifle was still in the vehicle.


Sure would like to know if it was in agun case or not along with location of rifle.

imported post

I imagine adding that information would remove the fear of the unknown and not be as scary of a situation for the meek among us. Besides, it would allow us as gun owners to know just how dangerous we all are. Read- Sarcasm...

imported post

springfield 1911 wrote:

From police reports racine journal times. Nov. 3

STURTEVANT

Rifle found during traffic stop

Andrew W. Weir, 29, 9314 Florence Drive, Sturtevant, was cited for being in possession of a dangerous weapon after village police stopped a 1997 Dodge Stratus for not having an operable head lamp just before 1 a.m. Oct. 31 in the 1700 block of 90th Street.

Police reports indicate that Weir was a passenger in the vehicle. He allegedly told police that he was in the process of moving and had forgotten that his rifle was still in the vehicle.


Sure would like to know if it was in agun case or not along with location of rifle.

Click to expand...

Since there is no state law regarding possessing a dangerous weapon, per se, it might be safe to assume the charge is a local ordinance violation. Sturtevant's local ordinance reads:

(a) Concealed Dangerous Weapons. No person, except a bona fide Peace Officer,
may go armed with a Dangerous Weapon or carry a Concealed Dangerous
Weapon.
State Law Reference: Sec. 941.23, Wis. Stats.
(b) Carrying Of Dangerous Weapons. No person, except a bona fide Peace
Officer, shall be found at or upon any public place in the Village carrying or
having within his reach any Dangerous Weapon or Firearm, whether
Concealed or in plain view. Plain view, within the meaning of this section,
does not include weapons carried in a case which do not permit immediate
access to such weapon. Private security guards approved by the Director of
Public Safety and while on duty are exempt from the prohibition against
carrying weapons in plain view.

Obviously the ordinance is at least partially preempted. If his gun was not encased the local ordinance provides for a fine up to $500 for the first offense. State law I believe says "no more than $100 fine" so any fine in excess of $100 ought to be preempted.

imported post



[url]http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/civilrts.htm[/url]



U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to
bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under "color of law" willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. "Color of law" simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.



[line]





When are we going to file complaints? We had better get moving on this by 2009. We all lose if only a few step up and do this but maybe a few million voices will be heard. Good luck hunting, it may be your last year to do it.

*****FORGET THIS POST!!! I CALLED THE MILWAUKEE OFFICE AND I WAS TOLD THAT THEY DON'T DO THIS. THE ONLY SUGGESTION WAS TO WRITE THE U.S. AG.

DOES ANYONE ELSE READ THE AD AND TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT THEY DON'T HANDLE THIS??*****