Don't Look for anything from the AG

WIG19 · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

BLUF: The AG's office will not address, reinforce, reiterate, or provide any guidance regarding the charging by other jurisdictions for Disorderly Conduct or other bogus catch-all charges related to someone who "openly carried a holstered firearm for lawful purposes."

The letter response which I'll attempt to post here is pursuant to my former State Rep's* request on my behalf for a response from the AG's office on this topic. Failing that,at least a memorandum be sent to agencies statewide laying out a proposed course of action for LE so that taxpayers' dollars aren't wasted on illegal prosecutions, and citizens don't have their lives ruined by being victimized for simply being citizens.

This is a response that, sadly, I expected from AG Van Hollen's office, which has seemingly entered ostrich mode since taking office and dashing any hopes for anything approaching a moderate approach in the AG's office. All while he courts & genuflects to the appointed/elected collectivist Sheriffs & Chiefs around the state.

* While I wish Terry Musser all the best in his well-deserved retirement, he will be sorely missed in the 92nd District, especially since we failed to elect Dan Hellman in his place, electing Mark Radcliffe instead... :X

Terry Musser was always a good advocate for us, didn't need long convincing diatribes about a position but, rather, "got it" quickly and simply went to work for his constituents.

Agent1187 · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

They don't want to give out an opinion on matters that are currently in litigation, and the litigation is occurring because there is no formal opinion to stop them... Sounds like a classic Catch - 22 to me!

Doug Huffman · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Thank you for a great try!

I was especially impressed by the third paragraph, declining requests from authorized officers based on the source of the question.

WIG19 · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Thank you for a great try!

I was especially impressed by the third paragraph, declining requests from authorized officers based on the source of the question.

Yeah Doug, that didn't go without notice here either. I sent a note to Scott Gunderson & staff following a discussion we had earlier this year on my front porch about this. I hope they find someone else, same party, to simply run against Van Hollen and replace this total disappointment.

Doug Huffman · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Thank you for keeping the faith in traditional politics.

I've tried to remove myself from pay to play politics, judging that this last election is sufficient evidence of its failure.

Shotgun · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Nothing in the letter surprises me or even disappoints me. They're saying it ought to be settled in the courts, and I don't disagree. What would be disappointing would be if the AG's office argued against someone appealing a conviction. That would be a reversal of their position stated in oral arguments before the state supreme court.

We already have a record of the Justice Department's position when Asst. AG Kassel spoke before the court in an official capacity.

WIG19 · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

We already have a record of the Justice Department's position when Asst. AG Kassel spoke before the court in an official capacity.

Good point, and I'm glad we have you around to remind us of that from time to time. Politicians also have short memories, which is a bi-partisan affliction.

Rick Finsta · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Now can we start the open carry marches? What a POS little weasel; he doesn't even have the balls to take precious time out of his day (doing absolutely @#$%ing nothing) to write it himself?

Perhaps we could start talking about who we'll get to run against him in the primary? I know LE are not happy with him statewide; I doubt he could be unseated with anything less than a landslide in a primary with a good challenger.

EDIT: Thanks for posting this; it's been, uhhh, illuminating, to say the least.

bnhcomputing · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

There was also some kind of issue with the USFWS over here on Wisconsin's west coast. Lautenschlager was going to try and argue the USFWS had stepped on "states rights," but once Van Hollen got in, he dropped the ball, and abandon the people.

He doesn't have very many friends/supporters on this side the state, and if we don't find a good strong republican candidate, there are many over here who will vote for a Democrat just to get him out.

Doug Huffman · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

He doesn't have very many friends/supporters on this side the state, and if we don't find a good strong republican candidate, there are many over here who will vote for a Democrat just to get him out.

Please read, understand and practice (a la Norm Abrams)

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/RealNature.shtml[align=center] [/align][align=center]

The Real Nature of Politics and Politicians or America’s System Works,

But Not the Way You Think!

Michael I. Rothfeld

President SABER Communications, Inc.

101 Washington Street

Falmouth, VA 22405

(540) 371-7077 mir@saberinc.net

[/align]

Lammie · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Isn't it interesting how fate can have so many twists and turns. When Kassel, as Asst. AG, argued the Hamdan case Doyle was the State Attorney general and part of the prosecution team. In the prosecutions verbal argument and the transcript of the Supreme Court opinion it's obvious the AG office had a strong positive opinion of the lawfulness of open carry. By it's own admission the DOJ's objection was the concealement of Hamdan's weapon. It is strange that a position recognizing open carry was taken by a DOJ office that was supposedly headed by an AG that was strongly anti-gun. Or, is he really only anti- concealment? We'll probably never know for sure. This is by no way an endorsement of Doyle but now we have a supposed pro-gun AG who turns turncoat and abandons the people that put him in office. So goes the spin of politics.

pkbites · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Isn't it interesting how fate can have so many twists and turns. When Kassel, as Asst. AG, argued the Hamdan case Doyle was the State Attorney general and part of the prosecution team.

That can't be correct. The Hamdan case was in 2003. Doyle was elected Governor in 2002, and sworn in in January of '03.

Brigdh · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

pkbites wrote:

Lammie wrote:

Isn't it interesting how fate can have so many twists and turns. When Kassel, as Asst. AG, argued the Hamdan case Doyle was the State Attorney general and part of the prosecution team.

Click to expand...

That can't be correct. The Hamdan case was in 2003. Doyle was elected Governor in 2002, and sworn in in January of '03.

3/4th of the way down, post by bnhcomputing has most of the details, otherwise Shotgun knows alot about Kassel's testomony too.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=11470&forum_id=57&highlight=kassel

Lammie · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

pkbites

The following is information contained on the cover sheet of the State Supreme Court opinion on State v Munir A. Hamdan:

Case # 01-0056-CR
Opinion filed July 15, 2003
Oral Argument November 14, 2002

This is a direct quote from the cover page:
" For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Jeffery J. Kassel, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James, E. Doyle, attorney general."

Doyle was elected governor in November of 2002 as the 44th Governor. He did not take office until January 2003, after the oral arguments of the Hamdan case were heard by the supreme court.

bnhcomputing · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Also the Oral Argument quotes we refer to Kassel making, while under Doyle, were 2001 appeals.

pkbites · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Case # 01-0056-CR
Opinion filed July 15, 2003
Oral Argument November 14, 2002

Doyle was elected governor in November of 2002 as the 44th Governor. He did not take office until January 2003, after the oral arguments of the Hamdan case were heard by the supreme court.

Ah. I stand corrected.

bnhcomputing · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

More anti gun from our worthless AG

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081113/GPG0101/81113097/1207&located=RSS

Wisconsin's demoted fire marshal wants her gun back and more responsibilities......

Justice Department spokesman Kevin St. John called the complaint groundless.
"Best we can tell, Ms. Kelly now appears to be angry about not getting a gun. We're reasonable, not foolish. She's not getting a gun," he said in a statement.

WIG19 · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Some of the comments following the article summed it up better than I could.

That said, someone with that kind of position at that salary level making even the joking references (which she conceded) even on an internal system isn't what I'd call the most professional conduct in the world.

However, I understand her concern over reputation as the situation could adversely affect her future. Maybe they should just both go amicably into that good night.

(fast-forward)

Then again, the Deputy AG is the guy that signed the letter at the opening of this thread. I doubt the current disappointment is going anywhere.

Malum Prohibitum · Dec 30, 2008

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

Now can we start the open carry marches?

Nah!

Wait another couple of decades.

Don't Look for anything from the AG

WIG19

Regular Member

Agent1187

Regular Member

Doug Huffman

Banned

WIG19

Regular Member

Doug Huffman

Banned

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

WIG19

Regular Member

Rick Finsta

Regular Member

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member

Doug Huffman

Banned

Lammie

Campaign Veteran

pkbites

Regular Member

Brigdh

Regular Member

Lammie

Campaign Veteran

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member

pkbites

Regular Member

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member

WIG19

Regular Member

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member