Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Exchange with Waukesha City PD

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Here is an exchange with the Waukesha City Chief of Police over email. I avoid talking to LEOs but figured this could have value to OC in the city here.

    Chief Sharrock,

    I am writing you on the issue of open carry of firearms. Under the Wisconsin constitution Article 1 Section 25, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose." Also you are likely aware that concealed carry of a firearm is prohibited except for peace officers. Therefore, the only means to exercise one's right to bear arms is to carry a firearm openly. For instance, hunters use this right in order to hunt with firearms.

    It is also likely that you are aware of the state firearm preemption law (chapter 66.0409) which prohibits municipalities from regulating the keeping, bearing, transportation, etc, of firearms in a manner which is more stringent than state law. This makes any local ordinances about bearing (carrying) firearms null and void. Therefore, state regulations against bearing arms in places such as government buildings, schools, and taverns apply statewide.

    I wish to understand how your department deals with a lawfully armed citizen who is openly carrying for his or her own personal security. This is classified as a person who is legally carrying a handgun in a holster which is in plain view. It is important to note that criminals do not carry firearms in this manner. I can appreciate that "man with a gun" calls to police may be an unintended consequence of citizens bearing arms openly. I can also appreciate that any responding officers would approach the situation with caution. However, citizens have no other legal option in which to exercise their rights.

    In the absence of illegal activity being perpetrated by the armed person who is open carrying a firearm in a non-prohibited area, how are officers trained to handle this situation? Obviously, this question is not a trap or a blank check for having every Waukesha citizen openly carrying for no good reason. I simply wish to understand...

    Kindest Regards,



    ________________________________


    Regarding open carry:

    I am in my 43rd year of law enforcement and in my 30th year as a Chief of Police and have worked as a police officer in 3 different states, Calif., MN and WI. My position now is the same as it has always been. If it is permissible by law to carry a firearm openly or concealed then my job is to honor and enforce the laws of my community and state.

    As to carrying a firearm openly I am always concerned as to any public and/or reaction by the public or members of my police department. As you can well understand, safety for our citizens and police officers is first and foremost. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand one's reaction to someone carrying a firearm in the open and in public as it will certainly generate and cause a stir should someone walk into a bank, store, tavern or, just be walking down a public street while carrying such a weapon in the open.

    A response by the police to a call generated by a member of the public or, by an individual observation by a police officer of someone carrying a firearm openly would naturally, be one of caution and of a safety concern of a potential threat. Should that happen, and a person is determined to be within the parameters of the law then there would be no reason for any enforcement action unless there is other accompanying circumstances to dictate otherwise.

    [/b]It has been a RARE situation where, in my nearly 43 years of law enforcement that a situation such as someone carrying a handgun in a holster carried openly on a person's hip for example, and merely walking around in a public area has occurred. The few times I recall it happening has resulted in both, no enforcement being taken and, enforcement being taken. It depended on the total circumstances that presented itself.

    Thank you for your inquiry.

    Les Sharrock
    Chief of Police
    Waukesha Police Department



  2. #2
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    As you can well understand, safety for our citizens and police officers is first and foremost.

    Les Sharrock
    Chief of Police
    Waukesha Police Department
    um ... except in the case of a citizen who is taking responsibility for his or her own safety...

    Thanks for sharing smithman!
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    A typical non-answer.

    If you want to help him out, you might clarify for him what his officers' options are not.

    Thereal concern isn't whether he'll respect your 2A rights secured by pre-emption; but whether his officers will respect your 4A rights if they see you or get a 911 call from a nervous-nellie. They can talk respectfully of your 2A rights all day long while lecturing you against OC during an illegal detention. We have seen it happen, more than once.

    Send him this link to an article by an attorney for the Police Chief Magazine:

    http://policechiefmagazine.org/magaz...ssue_id=122005

    Then send him this link to Florida vs JL:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0266_ZO.html

    Include this quote from Florida vs JL:

    A second major argument advanced by Florida and the United States as amicus is, in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception." Under such an exception, a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. We decline to adopt this position. (emphasis added)

    In short, you want to get it across that you know enough about the 4A that any sloppy policing regarding deep, hairline precise respect for your 4A rights against unlawful Terry Stops and unlawful ID demands won'tescape notice. That is to say, you know enough about Terry Stops and surrounding case law that LEOs had better not be thinking or attempting any monkey business.


    Edited to Add: Oh, and you might obliquely hint that you have lots of buddies and maybe a lawyer or two who know plenty of4A case law. Mike got the point across to a police supervisor a while back by inviting him to read thisforum by way of a link included in an e-mail or letter.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    smithman quoted the Chief's response:
    SNIP A response by the police to a call generated by a member of the public or, by an individual observation by a police officer of someone carrying a firearm openly would naturally, be one of caution and of a safety concern of a potential threat.Should that happen, and a person is determined to be within the parameters of the law then there would be no reason for any enforcement action unless there is other accompanying circumstances to dictate otherwise.
    [/b]
    (emphasis changed)

    The bold-face quote is of particular concern. One can easily wonder how exactly the police might go about determining whether the person is acting in accordance with the law. A Terry Stop? A little fishing expedition? With a little harrassment thrown in?

    Actually, I believe the correct legal theory is just exactly the opposite: no non-consensual action may occur unlessthere is reasonable articulable suspicion the citizen is not within the law.(This changes if your state has a law requiring you to submit to a firearm inspection.)

    In short, its not that you have to let them determine you are within the law. Its that they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are outside the law beforethey can pester younon-consensually, or worse.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    I agree completely with you, Citizen!

    A person who is by all appearances in the lawful and peaceful possession of a firearm should be of no more concern to the police than a person who is spotted in the lawful and peaceful possession of an automobile or a baseball bat. Sure, a gun, car or bat can all theoretically and potentially be used in a dangerous and illegal manner, but one is no more justified in making the assumption that something is afoul when a gun is spotted than one is when spotting a person with a vehicle or sporting goods. People need to be un-programmed so they do not continue to allow a bias against firearms to dictate their actions.

    As many of us here undoubtedly have, I too have had people accuse me of being fearful or paranoid because I believe it is to my benefit to have a firearm for security. My response to that accusation is to point out that I distrust only the relatively small number of people who are violent criminals, whereas those who do not trust their fellow citizens with firearms are fearful of everyone. Who more closely fits the definition of "paranoid?"

    Web dictionary: "Paranoia is an exaggerated distrust of others that is not based on fact."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Frankly, given all the previous debate by a few in other threads about Waukesha, I think that's about as good as you'd get on the record from a WI Chief.He's not denying that an officer will respond if called, he overtly admits that he accepts his job to honor legal conduct, and acknowledges that totality of circumstances dictates what an officer does from there.

    (I happen to have OC'd in Waukesha with no issues before as a test of that other bonehead that was posting in here for awhile.)

    You're not going to get a Chief to tell you that he'll make it his personal mission in life to run a local PR campaign to tell people to "chill out & take it easy" "don't worry about any guns" or anything like that. I take his response for what it is and think that, in print anyway, he was about as candid as he can be.

    If you want to minimize the calls, then educate the public orsomeone else will.That's not the Chief's job. Put a copy of his email in your pocket if you want and drive on, conducting yourself IAW the law. (Coming from MN though, the Chief may want to know that taverns are a no-no.)



  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    smithman wrote:
    As you can well understand, safety for our citizens and police officers is first and foremost.

    Les Sharrock
    Chief of Police
    Waukesha Police Department
    um ... except in the case of a citizen who is taking responsibility for his or her own safety...

    Thanks for sharing smithman!
    "We must take away the guns to make the streets safe for the SS."

    A. Hitler
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote

    In short, its not that you have to let them determine you are within the law. Its that they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are outside the law beforethey can pester younon-consensually, or worse.
    Citizen, I agree with everything you have said. Unfortunately Police may THINK you are outside the law by open carrying. From anecdotal stories from my friends not all LEOs even know that it's legal. Also, depending on the LEO they might think the fact that someone called and said "theres a man with a gun" gives them the DC as articulable suspicion.

    It is the burden of the LEO to prove that a person is acting outside the law in order to arrest. It is the burden of the DA to prove that a person is acting outside the law in order to charge and prosecute.

    So here is what we have. In WI, those who OC should be prepared to be contacted by police. We all know they don't have the reasonable suspicion to Terry stop you, but they will anyways. I don't know if a person can sue for "unlawful detention". A person can however sue for unlawful search/siezure. Only after repeated education of LEOs across the state will detentions stop, this will just be a repeat of the steps which took place in other states like Ohio, Michigan, etc...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    WIG19 wrote:
    Frankly, given all the previous debate by a few in other threads about Waukesha, I think that's about as good as you'd get on the record from a WI Chief.He's not denying that an officer will respond if called, he overtly admits that he accepts his job to honor legal conduct, and acknowledges that totality of circumstances dictates what an officer does from there.

    (I happen to have OC'd in Waukesha with no issues before as a test of that other bonehead that was posting in here for awhile.)

    You're not going to get a Chief to tell you that he'll make it his personal mission in life to run a local PR campaign to tell people to "chill out & take it easy" "don't worry about any guns" or anything like that. I take his response for what it is and think that, in print anyway, he was about as candid as he can be.

    If you want to minimize the calls, then educate the public orsomeone else will.That's not the Chief's job. Put a copy of his email in your pocket if you want and drive on, conducting yourself IAW the law. (Coming from MN though, the Chief may want to know that taverns are a no-no.)

    WIG, I have also OCed in Waukesha, without incident. Usually sporadic and relatively brief except for walks around my neighborhood with my wife. I did notice that he mentioned taverns, though I even reminded him in my email that it was not within the law to carry a handgun there.

    I will print out his response, though a responding officer probably won't look at it in much detail. I also carry some cash should a bail-out be required after unlawful arrest. And of course a voice recorder. Cash and a recorder are the TWO best things one can have while carrying.

    The other nice thing is he copied his deputy chief and his patrol captain on his email response as well, so they have been reminded.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    Citizen wrote
    In short, its not that you have to let them determine you are within the law. Its that they have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are outside the law beforethey can pester younon-consensually, or worse.
    SNIPI don't know if a person can sue for "unlawful detention". A person can however sue for unlawful search/siezure.

    A detention is a seizure. See Terry vs Ohio:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZO.html

    ...In this case, there can be no question, then, that Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing...

    These words are often used interchangeably: seizure, detention, non-consensual encounter, stop. (Mind that last one, I've seen police using the word "stop" in a way that seemed to include both consensual and non-consensual encounters.)

    It hinges on whether its voluntary or compulsory. There is a sort of test the courts use for determining which:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0544_ZO.html

    We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. [n6] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.

    Edited to add: If you are going to OC, read the paragraph just above and digestit one phrase at a time.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    SNIP Citizen, I agree with everything you have said. Unfortunately...

    I understand.

    But that's the opponent in front of you. Its easy for me to talk big. In my county, others who went before me "pacified" the police, mostly.

    A thorough education campaign that hits all the angles will help alot I should think. But, even if you educate every single cop on every single angle, there are still going to be some hard-heads that want to harass OCers.

    Maybe the thing to do is plan well an education campaign. Have it include plenty of case law aka court opinions and statutory law. This would effect two things. One, the police would be educated and refreshed.Two, it would convey an idea that was spread through police departments in our area, as reported through the grapevine: "Don't mess with the OCers. They know the law better than you do." That is to say, it tells the police you know where their boundaries really are.

    After an education campaign, all you can really do is OC or not OC. I'd be really surprised if some of you didn't encounter at least mild harassment and a few illegal detentions. This is where formal complaints to Internal Affairs and lawsuits come into the picture. It may take only one or two complaints, it may take a federal lawsuit. Only one way to find out.



    Edited to add: Check with the guys over in the Washington state forum. I recall that they made up a training bulletin for the police to disseminate to the ranks. They may have an outline you can tweak to suit your state.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately Police may THINK you are outside the law by open carrying. From anecdotal stories from my friends not all LEOs even know that it's legal. Also, depending on the LEO they might think the fact that someone called and said "theres a man with a gun" gives them the DC as articulable suspicion.
    My family members in the Milwaukee Police Department were explicitly trained that OC is DC. I can only assume that, being the two were in different academy classes, all MPD officers are taught to treat OC as an illegal act. It is almost difficult for me to be upset with the indoctrinated for going along to get along. Almost.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Rick Finsta wrote:
    Unfortunately Police may THINK you are outside the law by open carrying. From anecdotal stories from my friends not all LEOs even know that it's legal. Also, depending on the LEO they might think the fact that someone called and said "theres a man with a gun" gives them the DC as articulable suspicion.
    My family members in the Milwaukee Police Department were explicitly trained that OC is DC. I can only assume that, being the two were in different academy classes, all MPD officers are taught to treat OC as an illegal act. It is almost difficult for me to be upset with the indoctrinated for going along to get along. Almost.
    1. I'd dig for the casesbut have to get to a meeting. There is no RAS for an openly-carried firearm legally carried under the law for anything, any more than wearing a tie that's in really bad taste is DC.

    2. As to the MPD being explicitly trained counter to the law, I'll just say this: Until WI efforts get organized and get some legal eagles on-board who will take this stuff on, safeguarding of rights will continue to be by individuals, with disparate results. MPD training policy seems - to me and IANAL - to constitute a "willful failure to train" which engenders civil rights violations and should (my opinion) lead to a chargeable offense and/or a S1983 Federal suit. Unfortunately, everyone's resources and what they need to safeguard are different. Got it, no malice, just the way it is.

    And gettingan attorney on-board such an organization still requires at least a little funding - and organizations who are more concerned with advancing only their approach (the old OC v. CC crowd) will never get the structure established to generate the revenue to support a retainer. Use VA as a positive model - it's about rights, notmethod of carry.

    :X





  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    WIG19 wrote:
    1. I'd dig for the casesbut have to get to a meeting. There is no RAS for an openly-carried firearm legally carried under the law for anything, any more than wearing a tie that's in really bad taste is DC.

    2. As to the MPD being explicitly trained counter to the law, I'll just say this: Until WI efforts get organized and get some legal eagles on-board who will take this stuff on, safeguarding of rights will continue to be by individuals, with disparate results. MPD training policy seems - to me and IANAL - to constitute a "willful failure to train" which engenders civil rights violations and should (my opinion) lead to a chargeable offense and/or a S1983 Federal suit. Unfortunately, everyone's resources and what they need to safeguard are different. Got it, no malice, just the way it is.

    And gettingan attorney on-board such an organization still requires at least a little funding - and organizations who are more concerned with advancing only their approach (the old OC v. CC crowd) will never get the structure established to generate the revenue to support a retainer. Use VA as a positive model - it's about rights, notmethod of carry.
    I am standing by to be a dedicated and active follower. I am and will be skeptical of any proclaiming leadership and that cannot/will not publish and follow their principles. The ends cannot justify the means.

    VCDL is a good model and so is GRGRSC, I say, at the other end of the financial spectrum.

    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 *******

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    I have a few acquaintances who are on the MPD and it is the same story about O.C. and it seems that it doesn’t matter when you went through the academy. Bare minimum is a disorderly conduct ticket, confiscation of your gun and ammo and a long wait while they do it.



    I have to agree with Citizen about educating people. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!!! As I have stated before I, along with many others, thought this was a dead issue waiting for a new governor or the end of time. Obviously it is not and we can let people know that.



    Is any one willing to ,or already working on, setting up some sort of educational thread/statement that could be printed off for the newbie’s, or anyone for that matter, stating court law and statutes ect? I know a few of you can spit this out much faster than others. It would be a great and inexpensive tool to hand out to friends, put up at gun shops, gun shows, gun clubs, or anywhere gun owners congregate. Put the web site at the bottom and we will get some new faces and voices to help us along.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NE Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    WIG19 wrote:
    1. I'd dig for the casesbut have to get to a meeting. There is no RAS for an openly-carried firearm legally carried under the law for anything, any more than wearing a tie that's in really bad taste is DC.

    2. As to the MPD being explicitly trained counter to the law, I'll just say this: Until WI efforts get organized and get some legal eagles on-board who will take this stuff on, safeguarding of rights will continue to be by individuals, with disparate results. MPD training policy seems - to me and IANAL - to constitute a "willful failure to train" which engenders civil rights violations and should (my opinion) lead to a chargeable offense and/or a S1983 Federal suit. Unfortunately, everyone's resources and what they need to safeguard are different. Got it, no malice, just the way it is.

    And gettingan attorney on-board such an organization still requires at least a little funding - and organizations who are more concerned with advancing only their approach (the old OC v. CC crowd) will never get the structure established to generate the revenue to support a retainer. Use VA as a positive model - it's about rights, notmethod of carry.
    I am standing by to be a dedicated and active follower. I am and will be skeptical of any proclaiming leadership and that cannot/will not publish and follow their principles. The ends cannot justify the means.

    VCDL is a good model and so is GRGRSC, I say, at the other end of the financial spectrum.

    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 *******
    WIG19 hit the nail on the head when he states that funding could be used for this cause, whether it be for legal fees, education, or a lobbyist at the capital to educate some of the legislative people about rights, and the obvious violations of those rights. I am willing to put resources to this end, and Doug, maybe you could be a dedicated and active leader, not a follower. You seem to care greatly about this cause and have more than enough knowledge and emotion. Start a fund and tell us where to send the money.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    FLR72 wrote:
    Is any one willing to ,or already working on, setting up some sort of educational thread/statement that could be printed off for the newbie’s, or anyone for that matter, stating court law and statutes ect? I know a few of you can spit this out much faster than others. It would be a great and inexpensive tool to hand out to friends, put up at gun shops, gun shows, gun clubs, or anywhere gun owners congregate. Put the web site at the bottom and we will get some new faces and voices to help us along.

    I made a pamphlet. It could still use some work, but I think it covers the basics.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    borrowed time wrote:
    WIG19 hit the nail on the head when he states that funding could be used for this cause, whether it be for legal fees, education, or a lobbyist at the capital to educate some of the legislative people about rights, and the obvious violations of those rights. I am willing to put resources to this end, and Doug, maybe you could be a dedicated and active leader, not a follower. You seem to care greatly about this cause and have more than enough knowledge and emotion. Start a fund and tell us where to send the money.
    I'll tell you who needs money - The guy who was arrested for OC while planting trees on his own property.

    Gene German (ccwtrainer) is taking up a collection to help defray the person's legal expenses to fight the bogus arrest. This is the best civil rights court case that our OC cause has at the moment. Please send your check to Gene German, P O Box 202, Excelsior, MN 55331. He will make sure it gets to the right guy.

    Send a few weeks of bar money and buy your 6 pack at pick-n-save instead.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Thank you Parabellum.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    I am new to this forum, as will be evidenced by my one post, but I wanted to thank you guys for your insight and professional manner. I agree with the movement here on the boards and am rather excited to see how this can make a difference in our state.

    I just emailed the Kenosha Police Chief, Chief Morrisey with a similar email. Thanks for all of the citations, case law examples, and volumes of common sense from this, and many of the other threads that I have read.

    ~delta

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Welcome a-board

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    You guys have posted some really good information in this forum. I have been reading intermittently for the past few months, and would like to thank you all (especially the poor guy in West Allis) for what you're doing.

    I would like to help, but unfortunately I can't offer any financial backing at this time. Do you guys have any organized meetings, or is it all online?



    Thanks,

    Geoff



  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Geoff wrote:
    You guys have posted some really good information in this forum. I have been reading intermittently for the past few months, and would like to thank you all (especially the poor guy in West Allis) for what you're doing.

    I would like to help, but unfortunately I can't offer any financial backing at this time. Do you guys have any organized meetings, or is it all online?

    Thanks, Geoff
    The Wisconsin 'Patriots' have tried meetings. This forum is a means of communication only and not of social networking.

    Wisconsonite? Where? Edit your profile to show please.

    Welcome. Merry Christmas GOD JUL

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    Here is an exchange with the Waukesha City Chief of Police over email. I avoid talking to LEOs but figured this could have value to OC in the city here.

    Chief Sharrock,

    I am writing you on the issue of open carry of firearms. Under the Wisconsin constitution Article 1 Section 25, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose." Also you are likely aware that concealed carry of a firearm is prohibited except for peace officers. Therefore, the only means to exercise one's right to bear arms is to carry a firearm openly. For instance, hunters use this right in order to hunt with firearms.

    It is also likely that you are aware of the state firearm preemption law (chapter 66.0409) which prohibits municipalities from regulating the keeping, bearing, transportation, etc, of firearms in a manner which is more stringent than state law. This makes any local ordinances about bearing (carrying) firearms null and void. Therefore, state regulations against bearing arms in places such as government buildings, schools, and taverns apply statewide.

    I wish to understand how your department deals with a lawfully armed citizen who is openly carrying for his or her own personal security. This is classified as a person who is legally carrying a handgun in a holster which is in plain view. It is important to note that criminals do not carry firearms in this manner. I can appreciate that "man with a gun" calls to police may be an unintended consequence of citizens bearing arms openly. I can also appreciate that any responding officers would approach the situation with caution. However, citizens have no other legal option in which to exercise their rights.

    In the absence of illegal activity being perpetrated by the armed person who is open carrying a firearm in a non-prohibited area, how are officers trained to handle this situation? Obviously, this question is not a trap or a blank check for having every Waukesha citizen openly carrying for no good reason. I simply wish to understand...

    Kindest Regards,



    ________________________________


    Regarding open carry:

    I am in my 43rd year of law enforcement and in my 30th year as a Chief of Police and have worked as a police officer in 3 different states, Calif., MN and WI. My position now is the same as it has always been. If it is permissible by law to carry a firearm openly or concealed then my job is to honor and enforce the laws of my community and state.

    As to carrying a firearm openly I am always concerned as to any public and/or reaction by the public or members of my police department. As you can well understand, safety for our citizens and police officers is first and foremost. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand one's reaction to someone carrying a firearm in the open and in public as it will certainly generate and cause a stir should someone walk into a bank, store, tavern or, just be walking down a public street while carrying such a weapon in the open.

    A response by the police to a call generated by a member of the public or, by an individual observation by a police officer of someone carrying a firearm openly would naturally, be one of caution and of a safety concern of a potential threat. Should that happen, and a person is determined to be within the parameters of the law then there would be no reason for any enforcement action unless there is other accompanying circumstances to dictate otherwise.

    [/b]It has been a RARE situation where, in my nearly 43 years of law enforcement that a situation such as someone carrying a handgun in a holster carried openly on a person's hip for example, and merely walking around in a public area has occurred. The few times I recall it happening has resulted in both, no enforcement being taken and, enforcement being taken. It depended on the total circumstances that presented itself.

    Thank you for your inquiry.

    Les Sharrock
    Chief of Police
    Waukesha Police Department

    Why don't you just invite him to lunch and carry openlyto discuss it politely like civilized men?

    This is not rocket science.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    here's the response i finally got back from Chief Morrissey:

    [size=
    The questions you pose in your email have been asked before and I have attached the response that has been provided to these questions from the City Attorney. However, I will reiterate a comment offered by the City Attorney, that you need have little fear of arrest if you are not breaking/have not broken the law.
    Chief Morrissey

    Thank you for you letter addressed to Chief John W. Morrissey. Chief Morrissey has forwarded your letter to my attention for reply.
    At this point, I cannot, and will not, respond to hypothetical questions that do not provide an adequate factual premise for a response. I am, however, prepared to assure you that the laws of the State of Wisconsin and the City of Kenosha will be rigorously enforced by the Kenosha Police. I will, further, offer that you need have little fear of arrest if you are not breaking/have not broken the law.
    As you must know, the Constitutional right to keep and bare arms is not unrestricted. Your legal analysis notwithstanding, I believe it is well established and accepted that governmental entities may restrict the conditions under which one may own, carry and / or use a firearm. As a gun owner, it is your responsibility to know, understand, and comply with the law. If you meet this responsibility, your letter to Chief Morrissey is unnecessary. If you do not, you may, again, expect any and all laws regarding the possession and use of weapons to be strictly enforced.
    I hope this information is helpful to you.

    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. Sheehan
    City Attorney
    ][/size]


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •