-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Carrying a BB gun is Disorderly Conduct
- Thread starter bnhcomputing
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Its a little dangerous to take the media at their word, but this is too stupid. If you carry it concealed without a permit, its a violation. If you carry it openly, its a violation. If you, uh, lift the shirt, its a violation.
Hey!! That's it! It was a Texas Reveal that got him the disorderly conduct charge!
Idiots. What have y'all been puttin' your cheese?
Its a little dangerous to take the media at their word, but this is too stupid. If you carry it concealed without a permit, its a violation. If you carry it openly, its a violation. If you, uh, lift the shirt, its a violation.
Hey!! That's it! It was a Texas Reveal that got him the disorderly conduct charge!
Idiots. What have y'all been puttin' your cheese?
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Excuse me? I guess I'd like to ask for some clarification to your comment. To my understanding, the "shirt" was on the BB gun as if it were a case.
I will post the arrest report just as soon as I can get a copy.
Citizen wrote:
Excuse me? I guess I'd like to ask for some clarification to your comment. To my understanding, the "shirt" was on the BB gun as if it were a case.
I will post the arrest report just as soon as I can get a copy.
imported post
Article, as published in paper:
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/12/23/news/z05rdbbgun23.txt
Article, as published in paper:
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/12/23/news/z05rdbbgun23.txt
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/12/23/news/z05rdbbgun23.txt
hoponpop wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:35 AM:
" That case specifically addresses a first amendment issue but the quote is State Supreme Court interpretation of ss947.01 and therefore apply to any case where the meaning of 947.01 is an issue. "
[line]hoponpop wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:33 AM:
" Case No. 99-1767
May 16, 2001
State of Wisconsin v Douglas D.
To prosecute a defendant for a violation of 947.01 the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Under both elements "It is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the statute to a particular situation."
Para 27:
Section 947.01 does not imply that all conduct that tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might offend some hypercritical individual. "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:19 AM:
" Lastly, in La Crosse County, the Sheriff and the District Attorney both informed me that open carry of a firearm would not result in any arrest or charges as long as the individual was not violating any other firearms statute.
I guess we'll see if the DA is true to his word! "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:18 AM:
" Teiresias:
Are you advocating one should commit suicide rather than exercise ones constitutional rights?
What other constitutional rights do you suggest we not exercise, but commit suicide instead? "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:13 AM:
" Teiresias:
This has much less to do with the US constitutions 2nd amendment, and MUCH MORE to do with Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin State Constitution. "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:12 AM:
" And Governor Doyle himself spoke out in FAVOR of open carry during his last campaign. "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:10 AM:
" And in State v. Adam S. Gonzales; Appeal Number 2001AP000224 – CR, Kassel again stated (56 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments) "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." The court further questioned Kassel, (59:40) "Is it the State's position that anybody can, other than a felon, but any of us can walk down State Street carrying with a holster with a pistol in it?" and Kassel answered, "Absolutely." The court again questioned Kassel (1:03:31) "But you can carry a LOADED SHOTGUN down-- leave this building-- down State Street. Is that correct?" and Kassel again answered, "Yes." "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:09 AM:
" and Teiresias:
In State v. Phillip Cole; Appeal Number 2001AP000350 – CR. During oral arguments, assistant attorney general Kassel stated: "It is the state's position that it is lawful to walk down State Street or Wisconsin Avenue carrying openly." (35 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments.) "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:06 AM:
" If anyone knows Mr. John Wiebke, please have him contact us at support.the.2nd@gmail.com BEFORE having any further contact with LEO or the DA, as we have it in writing from the DA that open carry is NOT an offense. "
[line]
Teiresias wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:49 AM:
" Seriously?
You think you have the "right" to roam downtown with a loaded shotgun?
OK. Given a broad interpretation of the second amendment, perhaps.
But to what purpose?
Better that you take the barrel into your mouth, I say. "
[line]
Krusty3 wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:23 AM:
" I would like to peacefully walk down 3rd street with a shotgun slung over my shoulder, I know I would get arrested, but what could they possibly charge me with? Actually the real reson I wouldn't is the fact I might just get shot by an over eager police officer. There's another right that has been stripped away from us "
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/12/23/news/z05rdbbgun23.txt
hoponpop wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:35 AM:
" That case specifically addresses a first amendment issue but the quote is State Supreme Court interpretation of ss947.01 and therefore apply to any case where the meaning of 947.01 is an issue. "
[line]hoponpop wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:33 AM:
" Case No. 99-1767
May 16, 2001
State of Wisconsin v Douglas D.
To prosecute a defendant for a violation of 947.01 the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Under both elements "It is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the statute to a particular situation."
Para 27:
Section 947.01 does not imply that all conduct that tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might offend some hypercritical individual. "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:19 AM:
" Lastly, in La Crosse County, the Sheriff and the District Attorney both informed me that open carry of a firearm would not result in any arrest or charges as long as the individual was not violating any other firearms statute.
I guess we'll see if the DA is true to his word! "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:18 AM:
" Teiresias:
Are you advocating one should commit suicide rather than exercise ones constitutional rights?
What other constitutional rights do you suggest we not exercise, but commit suicide instead? "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:13 AM:
" Teiresias:
This has much less to do with the US constitutions 2nd amendment, and MUCH MORE to do with Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin State Constitution. "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:12 AM:
" And Governor Doyle himself spoke out in FAVOR of open carry during his last campaign. "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:10 AM:
" And in State v. Adam S. Gonzales; Appeal Number 2001AP000224 – CR, Kassel again stated (56 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments) "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." The court further questioned Kassel, (59:40) "Is it the State's position that anybody can, other than a felon, but any of us can walk down State Street carrying with a holster with a pistol in it?" and Kassel answered, "Absolutely." The court again questioned Kassel (1:03:31) "But you can carry a LOADED SHOTGUN down-- leave this building-- down State Street. Is that correct?" and Kassel again answered, "Yes." "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:09 AM:
" and Teiresias:
In State v. Phillip Cole; Appeal Number 2001AP000350 – CR. During oral arguments, assistant attorney general Kassel stated: "It is the state's position that it is lawful to walk down State Street or Wisconsin Avenue carrying openly." (35 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments.) "
[line]
Support The 2nd wrote on Dec 23, 2008 1:06 AM:
" If anyone knows Mr. John Wiebke, please have him contact us at support.the.2nd@gmail.com BEFORE having any further contact with LEO or the DA, as we have it in writing from the DA that open carry is NOT an offense. "
[line]
Teiresias wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:49 AM:
" Seriously?
You think you have the "right" to roam downtown with a loaded shotgun?
OK. Given a broad interpretation of the second amendment, perhaps.
But to what purpose?
Better that you take the barrel into your mouth, I say. "
[line]
Krusty3 wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:23 AM:
" I would like to peacefully walk down 3rd street with a shotgun slung over my shoulder, I know I would get arrested, but what could they possibly charge me with? Actually the real reson I wouldn't is the fact I might just get shot by an over eager police officer. There's another right that has been stripped away from us "
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
Of course the officers took him in, he was violating the right to have only police officers carry firearms in the open.
And for all of the training, an officer will approach ANY situation at ready with hand of piece. To serve and protect their own.
A fricken BB gun? I understand now, they look JUST like a Barrett .50
Of course the officers took him in, he was violating the right to have only police officers carry firearms in the open.
And for all of the training, an officer will approach ANY situation at ready with hand of piece. To serve and protect their own.
A fricken BB gun? I understand now, they look JUST like a Barrett .50
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
I don't think a BB gun is considered a firearm under state law, as it does not expel a projectile with the force of explosives. Therefore, the statement from LaCrosse police is helpful in general but not "binding" in this case, IMHO. Although,I would think that aBB gun is considered a type of "arm" therefore it should still be protected under the WI RKBA. Again, the definitions of things can help or hurt a case.
I don't think a BB gun is considered a firearm under state law, as it does not expel a projectile with the force of explosives. Therefore, the statement from LaCrosse police is helpful in general but not "binding" in this case, IMHO. Although,I would think that aBB gun is considered a type of "arm" therefore it should still be protected under the WI RKBA. Again, the definitions of things can help or hurt a case.
ShaneTbolt
New member
imported post
"Disorderly conduct". What exactly does that mean?
From what I read, a man was walking down a street minding his own business. Where is the "disorderly conduct". I just don't get it. Could someone explain this generic default charge when no other rules or laws are being broken?
"Disorderly conduct". What exactly does that mean?
From what I read, a man was walking down a street minding his own business. Where is the "disorderly conduct". I just don't get it. Could someone explain this generic default charge when no other rules or laws are being broken?