UW-Whitewater student arrested on gun charges

imported post

This might be interesting in light of my exchange in August with the Jefferson County DA who is supportive of charging disorderly conduct for open carry. I asked him how he would successfully prosecute people for concealed carry if open carry is not left as the [per Wis. Supreme Court] required practical manner of exercising their right to bear arms. The case could be interesting additionally insofar as the police state they believe the individual carried his firearm for the purpose of security--- hmmm... that sound like a word that appears in our state constitution.



WHITEWATER – University Police arrested Stephen D. Schuerr, 39, of Burlington on Tuesday morning on charges of carrying a concealed weapon and possessing a firearm in a state building.
The arrest took place on the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus without incident just after 8 a.m.
Schuerr is a student at UW-Whitewater and came to the attention of University Police after they received information that Schuerr had been carrying a weapon in a backpack that he also brought to campus. The University Police followed up on the information and were able to detain Schuerr before he went to class on Tuesday morning.
UW-Whitewater Police Chief Matt Kiederlen said Schuerr was carrying a loaded 45-caliber pistol. Schuerr made no threats to anyone or any institution, Kiederlen said. It is not believed that Schuerr intended to harm anyone and was carrying the weapon for his own personal protection.
“Thanks to the initial information provided by the community and the city of Whitewater Police Department contact, our officers, specifically Officer Mike Sacco and Officer Nicolas Thompson, were able to conduct a detailed investigation which led to the arrest of an individual possessing a firearm on campus,” Kiederlen said. “While we have no evidence to believe his intentions were anything other than personal protection, we are glad to remove a weapon which was inappropriately being carried on our campus. This incident is an example of how community involvement and interdepartmental cooperation can protect our citizens. My thanks go out to those who were willing to become involved.”
Kiederlen said his office is in contact with the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office concerning filing charges against Schuerr.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

This might be interesting in light of my exchange in August with the Jefferson County DA who is supportive of charging disorderly conduct for open carry. I asked him how he would successfully prosecute people for concealed carry if open carry is not left as the [per Wis. Supreme Court] required practical manner of exercising their right to bear arms. The case could be interesting additionally insofar as the police state they believe the individual carried his firearm for the purpose of security--- hmmm... that sound like a word that appears in our state constitution.

Click to expand...

While my personal opinion is it should not be illegal to do what the student did, the facts are it is. And no previous State Supreme Court ruling (i.e. Hamdan) makes it legal. If you read that ruling you'll find the Justices were speaking of carry on ones own property or business, not in the general public.

While I wish it weren't so, under the current laws and court rulings, the charges are correct.

*I am not a lawyer. The preceding was not legal advice.

imported post

I hate the law that provides victim rich zones, but the fact is that it IS the law and he broke it. As much as it goes against the grain to have to say so, the police had no real choice on this one.

imported post

I agree completely that he broke the letter of the law, but I think if he and his lawyer are inclined, they could mount a constitutional challenge the the law. Don't forget, Hamdan broke the letter of the law also, until---

I see the Jefferson Co. DA did not run so a new DA will be taking office. I wonder if she shares her predecessor's viewpoint on open carry. I'll be trying to find out.

imported post

There would likely have been several fewer fatalities at VA Tech if AF Cadet Matt LaPorte had been carrying a weapon, rather than being relegated to explosively trying to attack Cho and get his hands around his throat. Not asserting fact, but a large part of the battle is being armed AND having the resolve.

Except when using OC because I must, my policy is that of a nuclear sub and, other than to a close few who know me, "I will neither confirm nor deny the presence of..." Be careful who knows you're armed.

Too bad.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

I agree completely that he broke the letter of the law, but I think if he and his lawyer are inclined, they could mount a constitutional challenge the the law. Don't forget, Hamdan broke the letter of the law also, until---

Click to expand...

Yes. But that isn't the tone of your OP. So you'll understand our responses to it.

imported post

“While we have no evidence to believe his intentions were anything other than personal protection, we are glad to remove a weapon which was inappropriately being carried on our campus. This incident is an example of how community involvement and interdepartmental cooperation can protect our citizens.

Click to expand...

What I find SO ironic is that in so many other states and places in this country. (safe to say in MOST other places in other states in this country) this behavior is perfectly legal, but yet in Wisconsin, its a crime.

I can never get over that irony. That if you live in one state, you can do something and its perfectly legal. A couple hundred miles away you are a criminal breaking the law if you do the exact same thing in the exact same situation.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

“While we have no evidence to believe his intentions were anything other than personal protection, we are glad to remove a weapon which was inappropriately being carried on our campus. This incident is an example of how community involvement and interdepartmental cooperation can protect our citizens.

Click to expand...

What I find SO ironic is that in so many other states and places in this country. (safe to say in MOST other places in other states in this country) this behavior is perfectly legal, but yet in Wisconsin, its a crime.

I can never get over that irony. That if you live in one state, you can do something and its perfectly legal. A couple hundred miles away you are a criminal breaking the law if you do the exact same thing in the exact same situation.

Click to expand...

Yes, just imagine the feeling you get driving across a bridge from Vermont into New York. (Or, in the opposite direction!)

imported post

pkbites wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

I agree completely that he broke the letter of the law, but I think if he and his lawyer are inclined, they could mount a constitutional challenge the the law. Don't forget, Hamdan broke the letter of the law also, until---

Click to expand...

Yes. But that isn't the tone of your OP. So you'll understand our responses to it.

Click to expand...

Not really. I think the only tone was of the potential for a constitutional challenge to the charges.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

What I find SO ironic is that in so many other states and places in this country. (safe to say in MOST other places in other states in this country) this behavior is perfectly legal, but yet in Wisconsin, its a crime.

I can never get over that irony. That if you live in one state, you can do something and its perfectly legal. A couple hundred miles away you are a criminal breaking the law if you do the exact same thing in the exact same situation.

Click to expand...

Hugh you're point is well taken. However, if the rules were all the same between states then we would likely be under federal rule (anti-constitution), and our founding fathers can tell you how bad that would be. :what:

Our states should each instead take lessons from our founding fathers and on their own reach the same conclusions about rights and freedoms. So then the states on their own would have similar laws on firearms, for instance. As Shotgun mentioned, the liberal states (supposedly the ones with people in power who are pro-rights) are the MOST rights suppressed states. In many cases the state in those places will let you do near whatever you want, but they make you ask permission to do it....turning your right into a privilege. A permit to assemble is NOT a RIGHT under the first amendment. And liberals supposedly defend the 1st amendment with their last breath. Hogwash.

imported post

Some extremely good comments in this thread and I agree completely with the comment about it being ironic the differences between states. As pointed out one thing to be very careful about wanting things the same is who will get to say what is the same for all states. We just had an election that many in this forum are extremely disappointed with the outcome. So for those wanting a national carry agreement be very careful that the agreement does not limit it everywhere. Be thankful for states rights and those states that do permit carry etc. If the majority of Americans believe as the new president does then a national carry permit will not make most gun owners very happy.

imported post

In many cases the state in those places will let you do near whatever you want, but they make you ask permission to do it....turning your right into a privilege.

Click to expand...

Perhaps... I've had this discussion before with people I know.

I do think there is a distinction between "may issue" and "shall issue"

I support no restrictions on the carry of a firearm. And to be honest, doesn't someone who committed a felony 20 years ago deserve the right to protect and defend themselves also?

So I don't really see that any of these restrictions are necessary as the old adage goes "criminals don't obey laws" so I say prosecute crimes and acts. Carrying a gun isn't a crime. Using one could be.. I digress.

If the state MUST issue me a permit if I pass their 'reasonable' (rolling my eyes) requirements, then that is not asking permission per se.

If the state "may" issue like some states... well that isn't a right. That means if the king decides you can carry, you can carry. Its willy-nilly... Thats not a right.

But I'm not of the belief that a permit (though pointless and not needed) constitutes something as a 'privilege' in and of itself if its a "must" issue permit. If I apply for a permit and the government HAS to give me one (assuming I'm not a felon and have my little training requirement or whatever) to me, thats not a privilege. They MUST issue it to me. So I have the right to it.

And again... If it were me, i don't support or advocate for ANY permit or restriction on the mere act of carrying a weapon for anyone.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

But I'm not of the belief that a permit (though pointless and not needed) constitutes something as a 'privilege' in and of itself if its a "must" issue permit. If I apply for a permit and the government HAS to give me one (assuming I'm not a felon and have my little training requirement or whatever) to me, thats not a privilege. They MUST issue it to me. So I have the right to it.

Click to expand...

In shall issue, the government must give you one but only once you complete their requirements, same as a drivers license. Voting is a right since you don't need to do anything to vote such as pay money or take a class on where the candidates stand. All you have to do is register to vote, which costs nothing but your time. In the case of shall issue, however, the class costs money, has a minimum curriculum content approved by the state, and has a background check once you apply. That is very different from voting.

I certainly don't support any restrictions on firearms carry since criminals also do not. But for my purist views there is no chance of that happening. When it comes to firearms carry why can't other people just get it?? :banghead:

imported post

In shall issue, the government must give you one but only once you complete their requirements, same as a drivers license. Voting is a right since you don't need to do anything to vote such as pay money or take a class on where the candidates stand. All you have to do is register to vote, which costs nothing but your time. In the case of shall issue, however, the class costs money, has a minimum curriculum content approved by the state, and has a background check once you apply. That is very different from voting.

Click to expand...

Well it is a matter of symantics I suppose. If having to pay a fee makes it a privilege (and I'm not going to try to argue it doesn't) then presumably our right to private property has been turned into only a privilege to it? As we have to register every vehicle we buy? In addition, since I cannot own land unless I pay taxes on it, land ownership had been turned into a privilege as well.

I guess there aren't many things that haven't been turned into a privilege. (and I'm not being facetious) except freedom of speech perhaps???

Seems f'd up considering the bill of rights was not intended to enumerate all rights or disparage any not listed. It doesn't seem we have any rights anymore only privileges by your definition. (and i'm ok with that so long as people apply that definition to everything else and realize very few of our rights are recognized anymore)

imported post

As we have to register every vehicle we buy?

Click to expand...

While I agree with you about very few rights vs preivledges we really don' t have to registerevery vehicle we buy. We only have to register if it we drive it on the roads. Slight technicality but true. As for owning land we have to register the deed at the court house and pay a fee to have it registered if we want to claim it. Even free speech may not be free as you may be required to get a paradepermit to hold a rally about free speech.

So if we apply the permit/cost factor to rights vs. privledges then there aren't very many actual rights.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

This might be interesting in light of my exchange in August with the Jefferson County DA who is supportive of charging disorderly conduct for open carry. I asked him how he would successfully prosecute people for concealed carry if open carry is not left as the [per Wis. Supreme Court] required practical manner of exercising their right to bear arms. The case could be interesting additionally insofar as the police state they believe the individual carried his firearm for the purpose of security--- hmmm... that sound like a word that appears in our state constitution.



WHITEWATER – University Police arrested Stephen D. Schuerr, 39, of Burlington on Tuesday morning on charges of carrying a concealed weapon and possessing a firearm in a state building.
The arrest took place on the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus without incident just after 8 a.m.
Schuerr is a student at UW-Whitewater and came to the attention of University Police after they received information that Schuerr had been carrying a weapon in a backpack that he also brought to campus. The University Police followed up on the information and were able to detain Schuerr before he went to class on Tuesday morning.
UW-Whitewater Police Chief Matt Kiederlen said Schuerr was carrying a loaded 45-caliber pistol. Schuerr made no threats to anyone or any institution, Kiederlen said. It is not believed that Schuerr intended to harm anyone and was carrying the weapon for his own personal protection.
“Thanks to the initial information provided by the community and the city of Whitewater Police Department contact, our officers, specifically Officer Mike Sacco and Officer Nicolas Thompson, were able to conduct a detailed investigation which led to the arrest of an individual possessing a firearm on campus,” Kiederlen said. “While we have no evidence to believe his intentions were anything other than personal protection, we are glad to remove a weapon which was inappropriately being carried on our campus. This incident is an example of how community involvement and interdepartmental cooperation can protect our citizens. My thanks go out to those who were willing to become involved.”
Kiederlen said his office is in contact with the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office concerning filing charges against Schuerr.

Click to expand...

he should have been open carrying - that is not unlawful on college campuses in Wisconsin.

imported post

No right to vote in the COTUS but only conditions that may not be used to disenfranchise. 'Right' to vote laws are entirely up to the states and only a few have an explicit right to vote and that only for the tyrant's favorites. A right that can be denied anyone is hardly a right.

imported post

Mike wrote

he should have been open carrying - that is not unlawful on college campuses in Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

True, but he'd still wouldn't be able to enter any of the campus (state owned) buildings while OC.

By the way, thanks for acknowledging that OC on campus is legal--- has that map been changed yet?

imported post

smithman wrote:

Shotgun mentioned, the liberal states (supposedly the ones with people in power who are pro-rights) are the MOST rights suppressed states.

Click to expand...

Well I only made a comparison of how you feel entering NY from Vermont, or vice versa. I consider them to be both pretty liberal states. Upstate NY isn't nearly as paranoid (nor liberal) as the NYC area, but it is dominated politically by NYC (similar to how Illinois as a state is dominated by Chicago politics.)

Vermont is a liberal state but, so far, has been more in line with Classical Liberalism, than the socialist dominated liberalism that is festering elsewhere. Unfortunately it sounds like the meddlesome brand of liberalism is gradually making inroads in Vermont too.

Either way, both are liberal states, but one is the least-suppressed in terms of gun rights and the other is among the most suppressed.

I personally know a number of die-hard liberals that are supportive of gun rights. Public examples in Wisconsin are Sen. Feingold, and Madison-area radio personality Jon "Sly" Sylvester. And perhaps state senator Decker?

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Mike wrote

he should have been open carrying - that is not unlawful on college campuses in Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

True, but he'd still wouldn't be able to enter any of the campus (state owned) buildings while OC.

By the way, thanks for acknowledging that OC on campus is legal--- has that map been changed yet?

Click to expand...

Oops, now I think I might have miss-spoke - I thought for sure we had WI coded for OC allowed on campus - maybe it is the buiolding ban that caused us to code WI red.

Is OC in all state buildings banned in WI?