Milwaukee Journal Sentinal: Lawsuit challenges open carry arrests

imported post

If I understand the appeals procedure, the appeals court may address only errors in law by the court of original jurisdiction.

We are not generally lawyers but we could illuminate the failure in legal logic of this District Court, if indeed there is such a failure.

imported post

Justified06 wrote:

So now is probably not a good time to be starting to open carry? Unless I want to end up in handcuffs and lose the one pistol that I own.....

Click to expand...

Only if your worried about the FBI. From a state perspective the AG memo still stands.

Carry On, without fear!

imported post

Doug, I think you may be taking this a little too lightly but in any case, now that I'm a little calmer I thought more about how this judge should have found IMO.Anon-activist judge may have done something likeI write below. Don't jump on me guys for not entirely finding it our way.

1. This is not disorderly conduct; for any number of reasons, but I pick: Because it is constitutionally protected conduct (the AG's memo even makes this pretty clear). The officers did violate Jesus' rights.

2. The officers are granted qualified imunity for their violations. I can see how they'd get this, even though I don't like it. After all, there weren't many (if any?) civil rightschallengessimilar to this.

3. The officers violated the privacy act and are not granted qualified imunity for this.



You know, Jesus carrying a firearm could surely be looked at as him exercising his first amendment rights. There is plenty of evidence to back up the fact that he is an activist. In that case, I thinkit would easily fall under the protected speech exemptionof the DC statute.

I believe something along those lines was said in Nordyke V. King before it was en blanc-ed to death.

imported post

I don't think it ought to have any practical effect on any of us. It won't change anything I do, I doubt it will change anything the police do either. If police feel somehow emboldened by this decision I doubt it will last long. It pretty much addressed the issue of what happened between the plaintiff and the defendants, it doesn't really impact anyone else, except emotionally.

This was a civil lawsuit, not an appeal of a criminal conviction.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Justified06 wrote:

So now is probably not a good time to be starting to open carry? Unless I want to end up in handcuffs and lose the one pistol that I own.....

Click to expand...

Only if your worried about the FBI. From a state perspective the AG memo still stands.

Carry On, without fear!

Click to expand...

In the short term, I am looking at this the same way. But this needs to be fought, or all is lost. We have no rights at all if we let this decision stand. We must see that this is "fixed" ASAP. We might have THIS AG on "our side", but I don't think that is a good way of looking at it. He will not hold office forever, and this is a matter of a right taken away by the Feds. It needs to be overturned.

imported post

If the court here was not persuaded by the Van Hollen memo, then why in a hypothetical next DC case?

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

If the court here was not persuaded by the Van Hollen memo, then why in a hypothetical next DC case?

Click to expand...

I have a bad memory for dates..... was the memo before or after Jesus got arrested?

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

If the court here was not persuaded by the Van Hollen memo, then why in a hypothetical next DC case?

Click to expand...

I have a bad memory for dates..... was the memo before or after Jesus got arrested?

Click to expand...

The memo came after. His arrest at Menards in W. Milwaukee was in May 2008, his Wal-mart arrest in Chilton was April 10, 2009. The AG memo is dated April 20, 2009.

imported post

The AG memo came out before. But I don't think the judge ever looked into the State of Wisconsin AG, at all... She did what we see time after time. A government worker, not doing the job we pay them for. The judge never read A.1 S.25, and I would say has no respect for the 2A. at all. I am thinking that this Judge is first on the list as to the reason why we made the 2A. in the first place!

I guess I need to cool down...

I think "my" America, just got smaller... It hurts...

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Brass Magnet wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

If the court here was not persuaded by the Van Hollen memo, then why in a hypothetical next DC case?

Click to expand...

I have a bad memory for dates..... was the memo before or after Jesus got arrested?

Click to expand...

The memo came after. His arrest at Menards in W. Milwaukee was in May 2008, his Wal-mart arrest in Chilton was April 10, 2009. The AG memo is dated April 20, 2009.

Click to expand...

Thanks Shotgun!

Then, there's your answer Doug. The Memo would have had no standing in the court then, at least as far as Qualified Imunity is concerned.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

If the court here was not persuaded by the Van Hollen memo, then why in a hypothetical next DC case?

Click to expand...

Because the memo was sent to district attorneys, not judges. It was meant to persuade DA's not judges.

A federal judge doesn't need to consider the state AG's advisory memo. District Attorneys probably give it quite a bit of consideration. There's been a lot of OCing going on, I don't see any prosecutions. It looks like the memo worked for it's intended purpose.

imported post

The judge wrote:

"No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance. This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both. Further, it is almost certain that someone will call the police. And when police respond to a “man with a gun” call, they have no idea what the armed individual’s intentions are. The volatility inherent in such a situation could easily lead to someone being seriously injured or killed."

To me this is the central error in the judge's reasoning because it is completely contrary to reality and history. As we know, openly carrying a firearm, in the manner that we do it, IS NOT "highly disruptive." Nor is it "virtually certain to create a disturbance." Nor is it "almost certain that someone will call the police." These things, if they happen at all, are exceedingly rare. Not only do the great majority of people not panic, they rarely take any notice of the open carrier at all. It is not certain at all that police will be called--- it appears to seldom happen compared to the number of instances where we have OC'd. The judge seems to have fallen for the type of myth perpetuated by anti-gun/anti-freedom people who spread lies about OC causing fear and disruption. It simply does not.

imported post

I wonder whose pocket the judge's hand is in.

imported post

I can only wonder if we should give a big "WAVE" (http://www.waveedfund.org/) to the judge?

imported post

Now we must wait for the SCOTUS decision on the Mc Donald case. Hopefully that will turn the tides in our favor.

imported post

justice is indeed blind. yep, we wait for a bigger court to say no-no. gun toting? i would prefer to be called a firearm supportive object.

imported post

This is why you don't give permission to search your vehicle, it becomes consensual, and you loose your protected right.

As the decision stated:

[align=left]"Second, Krafcheck’s act was lawful because Adan, who had apparent authority over the truck, consented to it. A person with authority may consent to a search or seizure. United States v. Mosby, 541 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2008)"[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Don[/align]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

I don't think it ought to have any practical effect on any of us. It won't change anything I do, I doubt it will change anything the police do either. If police feel somehow emboldened by this decision I doubt it will last long. It pretty much addressed the issue of what happened between the plaintiff and the defendants, it doesn't really impact anyone else, except emotionally.

This was a civil lawsuit, not an appeal of a criminal conviction.

Click to expand...

I agree, the case is specific to the circumstances of what occurred in this case. There were some judgment errors in this case by the defendant i.e. arguing with employees, allowing the police to search the vehicle, not giving his name after being arrested (which is his right) all of which could lead to a DC charge. Know your rights and avoid arguing with employees and you should be fine.



What the case means in my opinion is that if you’re in a store and asked to leave, don’t argue, leave immediately. Arguing with an employee can get you a DC charge and or a charge for trespassing.



I won’t be changing anything I do; we have been carrying up until now in stores without any issues, and we should continue to do so. I will carry on, and in the stores I have already carried in.



Understand, that this decision is different then a decision from a criminal case for DC. I still don’t believe that a DA would prosecute a DC charge even after this decision, unless someone would provoke a DC charge by arguing with an employee thus causing a disturbance.



This case should be appealed, as the decision is contrary to our constitutional rights, and I don’t believe it will stand up to a higher court.



Don

imported post

I just googled Lynn Adelman, looks like shes buddy buddy with fiengold and kohl. most likely doyle.

imported post

Russf wrote:

I just googled Lynn Adelman, looks like shes buddy buddy with fiengold and kohl. most likely doyle.

Click to expand...

Lynn Adelman is a guy! Not a she!