-
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.
Brad Krause on the Radio
- Thread starter Pointman
- Start date
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
I hope he isn't going away!
Suing the piss out of West Allis would further our cause also!
I hope he isn't going away!
Suing the piss out of West Allis would further our cause also!
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
I think it is great that he is on the air, but having Brad on a hunting/fishing show is preaching to the choir. He needs to be on Public radio, they are the liberal anti-gun folks we need to make aware that O-C is legal.
I think it is great that he is on the air, but having Brad on a hunting/fishing show is preaching to the choir. He needs to be on Public radio, they are the liberal anti-gun folks we need to make aware that O-C is legal.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Any positivepublicity we can get concerning open carry is valuable. Lets not criticize the program for what it isn't lets accept it for what it is.
I just finished listening to the broadcast. I can't think of enough adjectives to describe my disgust with the West Allis police department.During the broadcast Brad Krause said that a few days after the judge's ruling a plain clothed policeman appeared on his porch with Brad's firearm in a brown paper bag and wanted Brad to take posession of it. To Brad's credit he refused. Instead he asked the officer to remove the gun, check to see it was empty and then hand it to Brad.Brad was outside his house and the moment he would have taken posession of the paper bag containing his firearm he more than likely would have been arrested for posession of a concealed weapon. By insisting the officer hand him the gun Brad could not be arrested for posession of a visable firearm. There iscase lawfor that in the case of State v Kieth. Ms. Kieth was sitting in a chair on her porch with a handgun in her purse. The purse was sitting on the porch next to her chair. The SSC ruled that she was guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, even though she did not have physical contact with the purse. See the similarity? Was this a setup by the West Allis police department? In my opinion, YOU BETCHA. They are embarassed by Krause's victory and know full well that he would not have any financial resources left to fight a CC charge and West Allis would finally get it's blood money. Thank goodness Brad had the smarts to not fall for the ruse. West Allis acted in a way that would have made the gestapo proud.
What furthur galled me was that the West Allis cops and prosecutor threatened Brad that if he was ever found with a firearm in his posession in West Allis he would again be arrested. Arrested after the city had just been found guilty of infringing on his contitutional rights by charging him with disorderly conduct for lawfully carrying his firearm. I don't know if Brad has a voice recording of those threats. If he doesn't it's a shame because if ever there was a violation of civil rights those threats rank right up in front of the line. The threats are also a declaration that west Allis would violate "color of law" which could bring the FBI into play.The FBI has an agency who's specific task is to invetigate color of law suspicions.Unfortunately if there isn't a recording of the threats and no other civilian witnesses it becomes a case of "He said, she said".
My opinions. IANL
Any positivepublicity we can get concerning open carry is valuable. Lets not criticize the program for what it isn't lets accept it for what it is.
I just finished listening to the broadcast. I can't think of enough adjectives to describe my disgust with the West Allis police department.During the broadcast Brad Krause said that a few days after the judge's ruling a plain clothed policeman appeared on his porch with Brad's firearm in a brown paper bag and wanted Brad to take posession of it. To Brad's credit he refused. Instead he asked the officer to remove the gun, check to see it was empty and then hand it to Brad.Brad was outside his house and the moment he would have taken posession of the paper bag containing his firearm he more than likely would have been arrested for posession of a concealed weapon. By insisting the officer hand him the gun Brad could not be arrested for posession of a visable firearm. There iscase lawfor that in the case of State v Kieth. Ms. Kieth was sitting in a chair on her porch with a handgun in her purse. The purse was sitting on the porch next to her chair. The SSC ruled that she was guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, even though she did not have physical contact with the purse. See the similarity? Was this a setup by the West Allis police department? In my opinion, YOU BETCHA. They are embarassed by Krause's victory and know full well that he would not have any financial resources left to fight a CC charge and West Allis would finally get it's blood money. Thank goodness Brad had the smarts to not fall for the ruse. West Allis acted in a way that would have made the gestapo proud.
What furthur galled me was that the West Allis cops and prosecutor threatened Brad that if he was ever found with a firearm in his posession in West Allis he would again be arrested. Arrested after the city had just been found guilty of infringing on his contitutional rights by charging him with disorderly conduct for lawfully carrying his firearm. I don't know if Brad has a voice recording of those threats. If he doesn't it's a shame because if ever there was a violation of civil rights those threats rank right up in front of the line. The threats are also a declaration that west Allis would violate "color of law" which could bring the FBI into play.The FBI has an agency who's specific task is to invetigate color of law suspicions.Unfortunately if there isn't a recording of the threats and no other civilian witnesses it becomes a case of "He said, she said".
My opinions. IANL
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Well I wouldn't put anything past the West Allis Police Department, but I think that might be a little stretch to consider the return of Brad's gun to be a setup for a CCW charge. First, after the Hamdan decision, to have a concealed weapons in one's home or place of business is legal. Not that the West Allis PD would know that, since they clearly didn't know that OC is legal too. The Keith decision was made prior (1993) to both Article 1, Sec 25 (1998) and the Hamdan decision(2003). The Keith decision is valid insofar as it lays out the elements of a concealed weapon, but it wouldn't apply any longer to someone with a concealed weapon in those places where concealed weapons are now allowed i.e., "in settings in which the person bearing the concealed weapon is an owner of the property on which he or she goes
armed" and "one's home or privately owned business."
If the PD charged Brad with CCW on his own property, they would be setting themselves up for further embarassment. The greatest embarassment ought to lie with the city attorney's office for their ill-considered prosecution of Brad. The police are not required to understand the law as well as an attorney ought to understand the law.
The city was not "found guilty of infringing on [Brad's] constitutional rights." The judge merely found that Brad's activity did not amount to disorderly conduct. Having sat through the hearing and the decision and listened closely to the judge, I believe he made it clear that he thought Brad was constitutionally protected, but the judge's ruling was not on the constitutional aspect of the case. He clearly stated that, as a municipal judge, he wished to avoid ruling on constitutional issues and he did exactly that.
I do completely agree with you, Lammie, about the report that there was a threat or warning to Brad about having a gun in the future. I would suspect that it is an idle threat, but who wants to call the bluff when it is the police doing the bluffing? I would consider such a threat to be unconstituional and illegal. I would seek a restraining order against them, and file a lawsuit. As Hugh Jarmis suggests, "suing the piss" out of them has a lot going for it. Instead of warnings and threats, the only appropriate thing the police ought to have offered Brad is a sincere apology.
Well I wouldn't put anything past the West Allis Police Department, but I think that might be a little stretch to consider the return of Brad's gun to be a setup for a CCW charge. First, after the Hamdan decision, to have a concealed weapons in one's home or place of business is legal. Not that the West Allis PD would know that, since they clearly didn't know that OC is legal too. The Keith decision was made prior (1993) to both Article 1, Sec 25 (1998) and the Hamdan decision(2003). The Keith decision is valid insofar as it lays out the elements of a concealed weapon, but it wouldn't apply any longer to someone with a concealed weapon in those places where concealed weapons are now allowed i.e., "in settings in which the person bearing the concealed weapon is an owner of the property on which he or she goes
armed" and "one's home or privately owned business."
If the PD charged Brad with CCW on his own property, they would be setting themselves up for further embarassment. The greatest embarassment ought to lie with the city attorney's office for their ill-considered prosecution of Brad. The police are not required to understand the law as well as an attorney ought to understand the law.
The city was not "found guilty of infringing on [Brad's] constitutional rights." The judge merely found that Brad's activity did not amount to disorderly conduct. Having sat through the hearing and the decision and listened closely to the judge, I believe he made it clear that he thought Brad was constitutionally protected, but the judge's ruling was not on the constitutional aspect of the case. He clearly stated that, as a municipal judge, he wished to avoid ruling on constitutional issues and he did exactly that.
I do completely agree with you, Lammie, about the report that there was a threat or warning to Brad about having a gun in the future. I would suspect that it is an idle threat, but who wants to call the bluff when it is the police doing the bluffing? I would consider such a threat to be unconstituional and illegal. I would seek a restraining order against them, and file a lawsuit. As Hugh Jarmis suggests, "suing the piss" out of them has a lot going for it. Instead of warnings and threats, the only appropriate thing the police ought to have offered Brad is a sincere apology.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Shotgun:
I believe and know that what you say is true, however, I don't give the West Allis police any credit for knowing anything about the SSC decisions concerning concealed carry. I would bet a cup of expensive Starbuck's coffee that it never heard of Hamdan before Brad's case. I would be suprised if they ever heard of Fry, Cole, Vegas, Fischer, and Nollie. You give them much more credit than I do.
I agree completely that Article I section 25 and the Hamdan decision could alter the decision in Kieth if it were judged today, but would it? Kieth was not on her own property when arrested. She was at her friends house. Whether or not any of that played a role in West Allis's conduct depends on how they would define property as contained in Hamdan. There are still a lot of questions concerning that issue. For example: Did the SSC mean to include land property? did it mean to include rentalor leased property if you are a tenant? what about a Class A motor home which has a distinct definition over other type campers? or what about a double wide manufactured home such as mine which is not necesssarily a permanent structure?what about my trailer on the lake for which I pay for an annual road tax license? Or did the SSC mean that propertymeant only within ones primary place of residence or business? I can find no place in Hamdan where the WSSC declared that property also includes real estate. There is a mention in Para 63 where the Court analyed the Oregon case of State v Stevens but other than that all indications are that property applies to carry within one's home or business. paras 68, 72 and 73 imply that the carry must be within the property. I don't present those words in order to start a debate on the SSC's intent. I say them only to call attention to the confusion. I certainly don't know how big a net the SSC cast with it's use of the word. I only know it will be a conundrum for a long time. I have no idea how the West Allis boy's in blue define the term . In my opinion it is likely that West Allis figured if they could get Brad to take posession of the bag outside his home that "they had him". Of course neither one of us will ever know the truth of that matter.
My statement about the West Allis police being found guilty of violating Krause's constitutional rights was the use of a little poetic license on my part. The specific charge was disorderly conduct, but being arrested and charged for that in order to punish Krause for open carry of a firearm did in fact act as an infringement.
Shotgun:
I believe and know that what you say is true, however, I don't give the West Allis police any credit for knowing anything about the SSC decisions concerning concealed carry. I would bet a cup of expensive Starbuck's coffee that it never heard of Hamdan before Brad's case. I would be suprised if they ever heard of Fry, Cole, Vegas, Fischer, and Nollie. You give them much more credit than I do.
I agree completely that Article I section 25 and the Hamdan decision could alter the decision in Kieth if it were judged today, but would it? Kieth was not on her own property when arrested. She was at her friends house. Whether or not any of that played a role in West Allis's conduct depends on how they would define property as contained in Hamdan. There are still a lot of questions concerning that issue. For example: Did the SSC mean to include land property? did it mean to include rentalor leased property if you are a tenant? what about a Class A motor home which has a distinct definition over other type campers? or what about a double wide manufactured home such as mine which is not necesssarily a permanent structure?what about my trailer on the lake for which I pay for an annual road tax license? Or did the SSC mean that propertymeant only within ones primary place of residence or business? I can find no place in Hamdan where the WSSC declared that property also includes real estate. There is a mention in Para 63 where the Court analyed the Oregon case of State v Stevens but other than that all indications are that property applies to carry within one's home or business. paras 68, 72 and 73 imply that the carry must be within the property. I don't present those words in order to start a debate on the SSC's intent. I say them only to call attention to the confusion. I certainly don't know how big a net the SSC cast with it's use of the word. I only know it will be a conundrum for a long time. I have no idea how the West Allis boy's in blue define the term . In my opinion it is likely that West Allis figured if they could get Brad to take posession of the bag outside his home that "they had him". Of course neither one of us will ever know the truth of that matter.
My statement about the West Allis police being found guilty of violating Krause's constitutional rights was the use of a little poetic license on my part. The specific charge was disorderly conduct, but being arrested and charged for that in order to punish Krause for open carry of a firearm did in fact act as an infringement.
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
IMO, it is clear why the officer was plainclothes. This way the Police dept can disavow any knowledge by saying that he was acting on his own when he was probably acting under the direction of the PD. I do believe that the WAPD hates Brad. Hate is a strong word but I think that after all the quotes I've heard from them it is clear.
IMO, it is clear why the officer was plainclothes. This way the Police dept can disavow any knowledge by saying that he was acting on his own when he was probably acting under the direction of the PD. I do believe that the WAPD hates Brad. Hate is a strong word but I think that after all the quotes I've heard from them it is clear.
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
It is also my opinion that the WAPD will continue to enforce a defacto prohibition on OC in their town. They told Brad he would be arrested again if he was in possession of a weapon. This means the WAPD does not respect his right to keep and bear arms and has gone on the record saying his right does not exist. Under "equal protection of the law" it is reasonable to assume that any other person in WA would endure arrest as well though the gestapo (WAPD) probably doesn't understand that concept either. Arrest for lawful activity = infringement. Therefore it follows that CC must be a lawful alternative in WA due to police policy, actions, history, and statements from ranking officials. CC is the only way in WA to not be arrested when going about one's activity.
As was notice by the dissenting Justice Abrahamson in State v. Hamdan, the state must yield.....Paragraph 122: As the majority opinion explains, an otherwise reasonable exercise of police power cannot be invoked in a way that "eviscerates," "destroys,""frustrates," or "nullifies" the constitutional right to bear arms. Courts have determined that enforcing a ban on concealed weapons is a reasonable exercise of police power. People in WA do not have the right to keep and bear arms openly based on the reasons stated above, so let them walk about while CCing since that is the only reasonable means to avoid arrest while going about peaceful business.
IANAL...for discussion purposes only.
It is also my opinion that the WAPD will continue to enforce a defacto prohibition on OC in their town. They told Brad he would be arrested again if he was in possession of a weapon. This means the WAPD does not respect his right to keep and bear arms and has gone on the record saying his right does not exist. Under "equal protection of the law" it is reasonable to assume that any other person in WA would endure arrest as well though the gestapo (WAPD) probably doesn't understand that concept either. Arrest for lawful activity = infringement. Therefore it follows that CC must be a lawful alternative in WA due to police policy, actions, history, and statements from ranking officials. CC is the only way in WA to not be arrested when going about one's activity.
As was notice by the dissenting Justice Abrahamson in State v. Hamdan, the state must yield.....Paragraph 122: As the majority opinion explains, an otherwise reasonable exercise of police power cannot be invoked in a way that "eviscerates," "destroys,""frustrates," or "nullifies" the constitutional right to bear arms. Courts have determined that enforcing a ban on concealed weapons is a reasonable exercise of police power. People in WA do not have the right to keep and bear arms openly based on the reasons stated above, so let them walk about while CCing since that is the only reasonable means to avoid arrest while going about peaceful business.
IANAL...for discussion purposes only.
Notso
Campaign Veteran
imported post
In case you want to hear the interview.
http://www.sportsradio1250.com/CUTTING-EDGE-OUTDOORS/1115758
It's in the first hour.
In case you want to hear the interview.
http://www.sportsradio1250.com/CUTTING-EDGE-OUTDOORS/1115758
It's in the first hour.
Notso
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Interesting that the cop that called in just couldn't understand the idea of state pre-emption or that it's not ok to charge someone with DC just because they're doing something that is not ordinary.
Interesting that the cop that called in just couldn't understand the idea of state pre-emption or that it's not ok to charge someone with DC just because they're doing something that is not ordinary.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Just finished listening to Brad's interview. My respect for him is even greater, he's articulate and knows what he's talking about. That caller certainly was clueless however, and that is very indicative of the problem we face.
Just finished listening to Brad's interview. My respect for him is even greater, he's articulate and knows what he's talking about. That caller certainly was clueless however, and that is very indicative of the problem we face.
Max
Regular Member
imported post
The city of West Allis has the audio of of the judge's ruling in Brads case. FYI
The city of West Allis has the audio of of the judge's ruling in Brads case. FYI
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Pointman wrote:
Well first, I wasn't aware Brad's firearm had been returned. That would have been the first thing I would have said he should sue for.
Second I would sue for attorney's fees, and lastly as per Brad's claim that his business interests were affected by his arrest I would sue for the loss of income.
As far as Thank-you's go... I have struggled with the way this case has been handled from the start. The hush-hush silence. Locked threads. Last minute emails before the first hearing. Then the requests for money all from a guy who hasn't even shown a presence on the forum.
And as far as thank-you's go. If someone had written me a check for $500 and handed itto me, I would have had the courtesy to write them a thank-you note.But it all just fits with what I've really struggled with about this case for a long time. It seemed so tentative. In the end, the victory was proper, but I think the real opportunity with this case was missed. I thinkthe interested public (like myself and others on the forum) were kept in the dark until the last minute when money was needed.Yeah, we got a little news coverage at the second hearing, but it was a flash in the pan.
I think Brad is a very knowledgable articulate person. He did fantastic on television and radio interviews that I've heard him on and represented the "law-abiding gun-owner" very well. He comes off as a very well spoken "normal" guy, not anything close to what the anti-gun idiots would wish to portray a gun-owning right-exercising non-freedom-compromising guy as. Time will tell, but this case... I don't think it got us much closer to our goal.
Pointman wrote:
Well first, I wasn't aware Brad's firearm had been returned. That would have been the first thing I would have said he should sue for.
Second I would sue for attorney's fees, and lastly as per Brad's claim that his business interests were affected by his arrest I would sue for the loss of income.
As far as Thank-you's go... I have struggled with the way this case has been handled from the start. The hush-hush silence. Locked threads. Last minute emails before the first hearing. Then the requests for money all from a guy who hasn't even shown a presence on the forum.
And as far as thank-you's go. If someone had written me a check for $500 and handed itto me, I would have had the courtesy to write them a thank-you note.But it all just fits with what I've really struggled with about this case for a long time. It seemed so tentative. In the end, the victory was proper, but I think the real opportunity with this case was missed. I thinkthe interested public (like myself and others on the forum) were kept in the dark until the last minute when money was needed.Yeah, we got a little news coverage at the second hearing, but it was a flash in the pan.
I think Brad is a very knowledgable articulate person. He did fantastic on television and radio interviews that I've heard him on and represented the "law-abiding gun-owner" very well. He comes off as a very well spoken "normal" guy, not anything close to what the anti-gun idiots would wish to portray a gun-owning right-exercising non-freedom-compromising guy as. Time will tell, but this case... I don't think it got us much closer to our goal.
Oh absolutely. I've learned the WORST thing you can do to the police is prove them wrong. Remember, by and large a good portion of cops think they are god. They aren't there to protect and serve they are there to control and rule. Again, not all police, but I think the "profession" attracts way to many people who have power issues, and way to many people who don't have power issues get into police work and LEARN them. The remainder of cops (and there are some good ones out there, I know a few) are definitely the minority.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Does anyone have J.B. Van Hollen's email address? It seems to have been convieniently removed from the DOJ website.
Does anyone have J.B. Van Hollen's email address? It seems to have been convieniently removed from the DOJ website.
smithman
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
Before the February hearing we talked on the website here alot about where we thought the case was going, and much to my surprise it seems the city actually accepted the defeat. Likely it is a result of political pressure on both sides but one side just won out for some reason. That made me wonder what else happened since then, what media reports came out, and who was still active in supporting open carry.
Obviously, we know this has been a boost to OpenCarry members, given the plans for open carry tree planting and picnics. I think we need to put more pressure on our representatives, and keep putting pressure on them until Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen realizes the election is at risk. The Wisconsin Patriots posted several of the news reports (http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/bkrause.html) on their website, and are still working to defray some of the legal costs (http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/ydonate.html) involved. Brad can still use money from us as I would bet that he hasn't fully paid his attorney for the recent defense, and any future civil rights cases that he may choose to file.
The hosts of Cutting Edge Outdoors (http://www.sportsradio1250.com/CUTTING-EDGE-OUTDOORS/1115758) spent a large chunk of air time covering the incident, and hunting is different than personal security, so a different audience was reached in some respect. At a minimum, more people now know what the government is doing to law-abiding citizens.
You all should know that wikipedia has been updated: Wikipedia reported the case under Open Carry Encounters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry#Open_Carry_encounters).
So how to get Brad in the media more? We need to get the media to care about it first. We need to make it about a rights issue than a gun issue. Gene and Brad have tried to focus on the rights issues when talking to the media, however the media appears to not care about people's rights unless it is the first amendment. So I ask, who knows people in the print and TV media? I think given all the stuff that Brad has done with current media engagements, ALL HE NEEDS IS AN INVITATION to appear with the media. People need to hear his story since it is far more reaching than gun issues.
Nutczak wrote:
Nutczak, you are correct that those who listen to a hunting and fishing show are more likely to be sympathetic to pro-gun issues. However let's not forget that not every gun owner in the state still knows that OC in urban areas is even legal. We all know that gun owners and sportsman have alot of other sportsman friends who meet up and share common interests. So what I am saying is that the word still needs to be spread among urban gun owners about OC. And the more people hear things the more it stands the chance to stick in their minds better.
Before the February hearing we talked on the website here alot about where we thought the case was going, and much to my surprise it seems the city actually accepted the defeat. Likely it is a result of political pressure on both sides but one side just won out for some reason. That made me wonder what else happened since then, what media reports came out, and who was still active in supporting open carry.
Obviously, we know this has been a boost to OpenCarry members, given the plans for open carry tree planting and picnics. I think we need to put more pressure on our representatives, and keep putting pressure on them until Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen realizes the election is at risk. The Wisconsin Patriots posted several of the news reports (http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/bkrause.html) on their website, and are still working to defray some of the legal costs (http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/ydonate.html) involved. Brad can still use money from us as I would bet that he hasn't fully paid his attorney for the recent defense, and any future civil rights cases that he may choose to file.
The hosts of Cutting Edge Outdoors (http://www.sportsradio1250.com/CUTTING-EDGE-OUTDOORS/1115758) spent a large chunk of air time covering the incident, and hunting is different than personal security, so a different audience was reached in some respect. At a minimum, more people now know what the government is doing to law-abiding citizens.
You all should know that wikipedia has been updated: Wikipedia reported the case under Open Carry Encounters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry#Open_Carry_encounters).
So how to get Brad in the media more? We need to get the media to care about it first. We need to make it about a rights issue than a gun issue. Gene and Brad have tried to focus on the rights issues when talking to the media, however the media appears to not care about people's rights unless it is the first amendment. So I ask, who knows people in the print and TV media? I think given all the stuff that Brad has done with current media engagements, ALL HE NEEDS IS AN INVITATION to appear with the media. People need to hear his story since it is far more reaching than gun issues.
borrowed time
Regular Member
imported post
Just listened to the replay, and as Hugh stated Brad was very good at stating his case, and well spoken. He had more patience with the retired cop "marty" than most people could have mustered up. With the persistence that Marty showed, you can see the problem that we can possibly run into with many law enforcement personel.
With the NRA bowing out, not very graciously I might add, they lost the opportunity to gain politically and financially. Rather than offer Brad a ten percent discount on a one year membership, some publicity could have been useful. If there was any I did not see it. I guess they thought this case was not going to help their agenda.
It will be interesting to see Brad's next move, seeing the stand that the city has taken.
Just listened to the replay, and as Hugh stated Brad was very good at stating his case, and well spoken. He had more patience with the retired cop "marty" than most people could have mustered up. With the persistence that Marty showed, you can see the problem that we can possibly run into with many law enforcement personel.
With the NRA bowing out, not very graciously I might add, they lost the opportunity to gain politically and financially. Rather than offer Brad a ten percent discount on a one year membership, some publicity could have been useful. If there was any I did not see it. I guess they thought this case was not going to help their agenda.
It will be interesting to see Brad's next move, seeing the stand that the city has taken.