Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Milwaukee Mayor Furious at AG opinion on open carry

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.wisn.com/politics/19235901/detail.html- with VIDEO

    What Do You Think About Open Carry Of Guns?
    Milwaukee Mayor Furious; Gun Rights Groups Claim Victory
    POSTED: 11:03 pm CDT April 20, 2009
    UPDATED: 11:02 am CDT April 21, 2009

    [*]
    MILWAUKEE -- [/b]Gun rights groups are claiming victory after Wisconsin's attorney general said people can openly carry firearms.


    Click To Comment

    While the activists are praising the decision, others -- including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett -- are not happy.

    Opencarry.org member Nik Clark, of New Berlin, said he wouldn't wear his gun in public in some communities for fear of being arrested, but that is no longer the case after Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen ruled that openly carrying a firearm is legal in Wisconsin.

    "It doesn't mean you can un-holster it, it doesn't mean you can waive it around, but it does mean you can openly carry a firearm," Clark said.

    In a memo to all of Wisconsin’s district attorneys, Van Hollen said the right to openly carry a gun is protected by the state constitution.

    "I don't see people suddenly starting to openly carry weapons because of this opinion,” Van Hollen said. “I think most people who would be so inclined are already aware of the fact that the law permitted them to do so.”

    He said he was asked by a number of district attorneys to offer his opinion after a West Allis, Wis., man was charged with disorderly conduct last summer for wearing his gun while doing yard work. The man was eventually acquitted.

    "If some people misunderstood or were misled about what their rights are, it's good we could clarify those things," Clark said.

    Barrett said he is furious with the decision.

    "It almost seems like the A.G. is encouraging people to carry guns in Milwaukee, and I cant think of a worse idea," Barrett said.

    Felons still are not allowed to posses firearms, and they can't be brought into government buildings or near schools, according to Van Hollen.

    But as long as the owner is following the law, they can carry a gun.

    "Does that mean if they are walking down the street with an Uzi that that doesn't cause a disturbance?" Barrett said. "It’s insane. It's insane to be carrying guns on the streets of Milwaukee."

    Van Hollen said police officers can still stop and briefly detain a person wearing a gun for investigative purposes.

  2. #2
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Hmm, Police can stop and briefly detain citizens for investigative reasons?

    Sounds like a harrassment lawsuit in the making.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    actually Wisconsin is a stop and identify state, so the police are covered

  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    "It almost seems like the A.G. is encouraging people to carry guns in Milwaukee, and I cant think of a worse idea," Barrett said.


    Mr. Barrett is obtuse, unable to imagine worse circumstances existing, than the right of armed self-defense being exercised in a lawful and honest way.

    I can think of things much worse than this- I can imagine 30 or 40 unarmed victims being executed one by one in a shopping mall or school or a restaurant by a homicidal gunman uses a gun-free zone as their personal shooting gallery. I can imagine a serial rapist stopping women under the pretense of being law enforcement or a 'good Samaritan' so he can feed his need of sexual control and murder. I can imagine understaffed police forces unable to provide patrol services in communities being criticized for priority call response times exceeding 15 or 20 minutes or more.

    Those things are certainly much worse. Mr Barrett needs to lighten up.

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Its funny that when I walk around open carrying barely anyone notices. They assume that a gun is the same as a bomb threat and that's just silly.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    actually Wisconsin is a stop and identify state, so the police are covered
    Doesn't "stop and identify" still require reasonable suspicion for the stop to begin with?

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    actually Wisconsin is a stop and identify state, so the police are covered
    Really? Got a cite to that statute?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    centsi wrote:
    Doesn't "stop and identify" still require reasonable suspicion for the stop to begin with?
    Yes. One case is Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court. It references Brown vs Texas.

    Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html


    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.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure that would fully apply, Citizen.

    "The petitioner was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during a stop allowed by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)."

    Other rulings have stated that being lawfully armed is not sufficient RAS for a Terry stop. In Hiibel, they had RAS as they were investigating a reported crime.

    Even if someone is required to identify themselves, it doesn't give the officer RAS or Terry stop authority to search/seize the firearm or require the person to answer any questions since RAS has not been satisfied (indicating a crime in progress).

    Edit to add further in Hiibel:

    "The Court has recognized similar constitutional limitations on the scope and operation of stop and identify statutes. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity."


  10. #10
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    A Terrystop requires reasonable articulatable suspicion that a crime is occurring or has occurred. If open carry is constitutionally legal in WI (which the AG says it is), then you can not assume that a crime is occurring without further articulatable facts.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Brigdh wrote:
    actually Wisconsin is a stop and identify state, so the police are covered
    Really? Got a cite to that statute?
    I was really hoping i could be lazy and have someone else form WI post it, but since I've got nothing to do at work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify

    Provides a direct link to the WI statute about a third of the way down the page.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Brigdh wrote:
    actually Wisconsin is a stop and identify state, so the police are covered
    Really? Got a cite to that statute?
    I was really hoping i could be lazy and have someone else form WI post it, but since I've got nothing to do at work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify

    Provides a direct link to the WI statute about a third of the way down the page.

    Wikipedia is wrong. http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gat...&jd=946.41. Wisconsin law gives officers the right to demand identification, but it's not criminal to decline to provide it on a Terry stop. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995). Local ordinances could require ID, however, and those would be constitutional under Hiibel.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    OK, so, in a terry stop WI law is satisfied by the person stating their name and address - sounds easy enough, and no need to cary an ID token:
    968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.
    After

    having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,

    a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for

    a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects

    that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed

    a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person

    and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention

    and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity

    where the person was stopped.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    OK, so, in a terry stop WI law is satisfied by the person stating their name and address - sounds easy enough, and no need to cary an ID token...
    Wouldn't WI's law be overridden by Hiibel, which concluded that a person merely had to provide their name?

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    OK, so, in a terry stop WI law is satisfied by the person stating their name and address - sounds easy enough, and no need to cary an ID token...
    Wouldn't WI's law be overridden by Hiibel, which concluded that a person merely had to provide their name?
    Possibly, but i think the Nevada statute was vague - merely a command to identify one's self - the WI statute is specific - name and & address.

    In the end the whole Hiibel rationale upholding the Nevada statut is shaky - how does a person know what is in the mid of the police officer justifying the reasonable suspicion for the stop?? SAnd further, the bad guy exception in Hiibel under Fifth Amendment makes the whole thing seem weird. That exception would appear to give a prohibited person teh right to refuse to ID one's self while open carrying as the testimoney would implicate him in a crime.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    OK, so, in a terry stop WI law is satisfied by the person stating their name and address - sounds easy enough, and no need to cary an ID token...
    Wouldn't WI's law be overridden by Hiibel, which concluded that a person merely had to provide their name?
    Possibly, but i think the Nevada statute was vague - merely a command to identify one's self - the WI statute is specific - name and & address.

    In the end the whole Hiibel rationale upholding the Nevada statut is shaky - how does a person know what is in the mid of the police officer justifying the reasonable suspicion for the stop??..
    (my emphasis above)

    Exactly. Yes, but the whole "how does a person know" puts the person in what I feel is an unwinnable situation - since the officer can lie without repercussions about his reasons for the stop, IF he chooses to offer any explanation at all, one is putting oneself at risk by not IDing oneself, right?

    What the $#@& good are rights if you can't exercise them?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    As for identication during stops, I'm in a bad position because I have a very common name, which definitely does produce multiple LEADS/NCIC/OBCII hits unless I supply yet more personal information to distinguish myself from the rogues gallery that comes up from just a name search. Even supplying my birthday matches me with a known felon from Columbus (he's black and I'm white, so the confusion is resolvable, but it has come up before). Ohio has some requirement for ID during stops (name and address or name and birthday or something) but for practical purposes, I'm required to supply my full name, address, SS#, and drivers license number to avoid being run in for fingerprinting.

    -ljp

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brookfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    thank god that Barrett lost his 2002 race for governor in the primaries ...only by 4% though
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Barrett_(politician)

    then again.. we're not too happy with Doyle either

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    As for identication during stops, I'm in a bad position because I have a very common name, which definitely does produce multiple LEADS/NCIC/OBCII hits unless I supply yet more personal information to distinguish myself from the rogues gallery that comes up from just a name search. Even supplying my birthday matches me with a known felon from Columbus (he's black and I'm white, so the confusion is resolvable, but it has come up before). Ohio has some requirement for ID during stops (name and address or name and birthday or something) but for practical purposes, I'm required to supply my full name, address, SS#, and drivers license number to avoid being run in for fingerprinting.

    -ljp
    The SSN demand is a violation of Section 7 of the Fed. Priv. Act - whay are you complying when damages can be obtained if arrested on that basis?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    The code Mike quoted still requires RS. Openly carrying a firearm, absent any other criminally-suspicious behavior, would not constitute RS, and therefore I cannot see howthe averageOC'er could be legally forced to provide ID.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    "It’s insane. It's insane to be carrying guns on the streets of Milwaukee."
    Someone let me know when he announces the complete disarmament of Milwaukee P.D.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    As for identication during stops, I'm in a bad position because I have a very common name, which definitely does produce multiple LEADS/NCIC/OBCII hits unless I supply yet more personal information to distinguish myself from the rogues gallery that comes up from just a name search. Even supplying my birthday matches me with a known felon from Columbus (he's black and I'm white, so the confusion is resolvable, but it has come up before). Ohio has some requirement for ID during stops (name and address or name and birthday or something) but for practical purposes, I'm required to supply my full name, address, SS#, and drivers license number to avoid being run in for fingerprinting.

    -ljp
    The SSN demand is a violation of Section 7 of the Fed. Priv. Act - whay are you complying when damages can be obtained if arrested on that basis?

    That was unclear as I wrote it, sorry. They don't demand my SS# as such - although they do routinely ask for it - I just meant that if I want an expeditious resolution to a stop, it is a practical requirement.I prefer to remain at liberty than to be taken into custody and sue later. That doesn't make me a coward - I've been run to jail before and The Man does not scare me - it's simply a matter of minimizing dramatic bull@#$% in my life. Also, I've only ever really been stopped while driving, which does require showing your license and opening this (mis-)identification can of worms.

    -ljp

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wanker County, ,
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post

    The people of Milwaukeewere stupid enough to vote for a liberal, anti-gun idiot like Tom Barret. Barret is spewing how people are going to start showing up a baseball game, etc carrying Uzi's and AK-47's.

  24. #24
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    JSK333 wrote:
    The code Mike quoted still requires RS. Openly carrying a firearm, absent any other criminally-suspicious behavior, would not constitute RS, and therefore I cannot see howthe averageOC'er could be legally forced to provide ID.
    I'm sure if 2 or 3 LEOs congregate around you when you are OCing, it would only take a couple minutes for them to decide you are acting nervous and suspicious. That they cause you to feel that way would not be pertinent to the results. They simply manufacture the evidence they need to do a Terry.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

Posting Permissions

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