Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Police Stop Man For Carrying Gun Out In Open

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    If i understand right the Attorney General put out a memo saying its legal to open carry and the the Milwaukee police Chief tells his Officers toIgnore the Gun Memo.

    WTF?

    watch the video on the right as well

    http://www.wisn.com/news/19235901/detail.html



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    If i understand right the Attorney General put out a memo saying its legal to open carry and the the Milwaukee police Chief tells his Officers toIgnore the Gun Memo.

    WTF?

    watch the video on the right as well

    http://www.wisn.com/news/19235901/detail.html

    An AG opinion is just that. the police are under no requirement to follow it and it is not citeable in court.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    If i understand right the Attorney General put out a memo saying its legal to open carry and the the Milwaukee police Chief tells his Officers toIgnore the Gun Memo.

    WTF?

    watch the video on the right as well

    http://www.wisn.com/news/19235901/detail.html

    An AG opinion is just that. the police are under no requirement to follow it and it is not citeable in court.
    I agree with the first part but I'm not certain I understand your meaning of 'citeable.' Are you saying an AG Opinion is not admissible in court?If so, a judge may use Case Laws, such as; Terry v Ohio, to determinethe outcome of a case. In a situation where there are no Case Laws in the particular state, the judge may decide to use Case Laws from another state or if applicable, an AG Opinion. IANAL, but this is my understanding of how a AG Opinion may come into play.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    If i understand right the Attorney General put out a memo saying its legal to open carry and the the Milwaukee police Chief tells his Officers toIgnore the Gun Memo.

    WTF?

    watch the video on the right as well

    http://www.wisn.com/news/19235901/detail.html

    An AG opinion is just that. the police are under no requirement to follow it and it is not citeable in court.
    I agree with the first part but I'm not certain I understand your meaning of 'citeable.' Are you saying an AG Opinion is not admissible in court?If so, a judge may use Case Laws, such as; Terry v Ohio, to determinethe outcome of a case. In a situation where there are no Case Laws in the particular state, the judge may decide to use Case Laws from another state or if applicable, an AG Opinion. IANAL, but this is my understanding of how a AG Opinion may come into play.
    An AG opinion is not admissible in court as any kind of legal precedent. An AG opinion is strictly the AG's opinion on how the state would prosecute and is to be used a guide by lawmakers to determine if a law is being interpreted as they intended it to be or to make changes to the laws because the interpretation is different than the intent.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    An AG opinion is just that. the police are under no requirement to follow it and it is not citeable in court.
    I understand the opinion part but if anyone can site the Law that says it is not illegal why should the Chief of police say we will treat all people carrying a gun legally like a criminal.

    It’s BS period. He knows its legal, the AG put out a memo saying its legal, and hes pretty much saying I dont care about the Law i will do what i want.

    Thats why i say WTF?



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    I still don't understand why cops hate citizens with guns. Is it because they want to be the only people with power? (I know not all cops but at least the ones in the media)

  7. #7
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I still don't understand why cops hate citizens with guns. Is it because they want to be the only people with power? (I know not all cops but at least the ones in the media)
    I don't know that it is cops in general who oppose citizens with guns.

    But certainly goofballs like Chief Ed Flynnon a power trip when he promises that his "officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it."

    He is doing that because, well, because he can.

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I still don't understand why cops hate citizens with guns. Is it because they want to be the only people with power? (I know not all cops but at least the ones in the media)
    I don't know that it is cops in general who oppose citizens with guns.

    But certainly goofballs like Chief Ed FlynnÂ*on a power trip when he promises that his "officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it."

    He is doing that because, well, because he can.

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Â*
    Another home run for HankT. That is exactly what the problem is.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    An AG opinion is just that. the police are under no requirement to follow it and it is not citeable in court.
    I understand the opinion part but if anyone can site the Law that says it is not illegal why should the Chief of police say we will treat all people carrying a gun legally like a criminal.

    It’s BS period. He knows its legal, the AG put out a memo saying its legal, and hes pretty much saying I dont care about the Law i will do what i want.

    Thats why i say WTF?

    Â*
    I agree with the WTF. The problem is that if there is an attorney with the city or county that tells a chief/sheriff that it is lawful to stop people for openly carrying then they have an opinion that differs from the AG. Neither carries weight of law but the local attorney's opinion would more than likely give the department and municipality immunity.

    This case is not much different than Nichols, Kerlikowski, and the Seattle attorney telling them that they can enforce a no trespass because of the presence of a firearm. Both instances are wrong and will take a lawsuit to sort it out. Seattle will more than likely not receive immunity because of pre emption but that will be left up to a court/jurors.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Strange I thought this was the WA forum not WI forum. It's all well and good to be outraged over stuff half a continent away, but there are forums for all 50 states here last I checked...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Strange I thought this was the WA forum not WI forum. It's all well and good to be outraged over stuff half a continent away, but there are forums for all 50 states here last I checked...
    It relates to Wa. because we have a knucklehead of our own trying similar stuff.

    Quit being a party pooper. :P
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Strange I thought this was the WA forum not WI forum. It's all well and good to be outraged over stuff half a continent away, but there are forums for all 50 states here last I checked...
    Sv don’t try that crap, I have seen a few of your post that havenothing to do with Washington or OC either, that’s why it says Not Washington but interesting, if you don’t want to participate then don’t.




  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Strange I thought this was the WA forum not WI forum. It's all well and good to be outraged over stuff half a continent away, but there are forums for all 50 states here last I checked...
    Sv don’t try that crap, I have seen a few of your post that havenothing to do with Washington or OC either, that’s why it says Not Washington but interesting, if you don’t want to participate then don’t.


    When I make an OT post it is nearly always a for sale (acceptable) or a new gun acquisition (also acceptable). Not out of state news that has no bearing on Washington state, nor any parallels, imagined ones to Seattle aside...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    I agree with the WTF. The problem is that if there is an attorney with the city or county that tells a chief/sheriff that it is lawful to stop people for openly carrying then they have an opinion that differs from the AG. Neither carries weight of law but the local attorney's opinion would more than likely give the department and municipality immunity.
    Constitution of Wisconsin:

    Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
    Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
    security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
    [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]


    Doesn't matter what the police chief is told by his lawyers, he is required to uphold the constitution of his state, and he is required to be fully cognizant of its contents. If a lawyer tells him he can arrest someone for walking down the street with a gun on his hip, particularly in a state that has made concealed carry illegal, the chief should tell the lawyer he is wrong and should then explicitly tell his officers not to do so unless they see an actual crime take place or clearly about to take place.

    It is legally impossible to outlaw concealed carry and also arrest people for disturbing the peace for openly carrying handguns in a state where the constitution clearly states that the people have the right to bear arms for security and defense. If you are going to arrest them every time they do so then in fact you are saying they don't have that right, and THAT is unconstitutional, and that is why any police chief in WI that allows his mean to stop or arrest individuals for simple OC should not have immunity.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    I agree with the WTF. The problem is that if there is an attorney with the city or county that tells a chief/sheriff that it is lawful to stop people for openly carrying then they have an opinion that differs from the AG. Neither carries weight of law but the local attorney's opinion would more than likely give the department and municipality immunity.
    Constitution of Wisconsin:

    Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
    Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
    security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
    [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]


    Doesn't matter what the police chief is told by his lawyers, he is required to uphold the constitution of his state, and he is required to be fully cognizant of its contents. If a lawyer tells him he can arrest someone for walking down the street with a gun on his hip, particularly in a state that has made concealed carry illegal, the chief should tell the lawyer he is wrong and should then explicitly tell his officers not to do so unless they see an actual crime take place or clearly about to take place.

    It is legally impossible to outlaw concealed carry and also arrest people for disturbing the peace for openly carrying handguns in a state where the constitution clearly states that the people have the right to bear arms for security and defense. If you are going to arrest them every time they do so then in fact you are saying they don't have that right, and THAT is unconstitutional, and that is why any police chief in WI that allows his mean to stop or arrest individuals for simple OC should not have immunity.
    According to the 2nd amendment all gun laws are unconstitutional but if you look at SCOTUS rulings they say otherwise. Same with the Wa. Constitution but we have case law that says otherwise.

    Besides that no one was talking about arresting a person for OC but rather stopping them and lighting them up like jack booted thugs until it is determined that they can lawfully possess a firearm, still wrong in my eyes and I am sure Wisconsin courts, and it will take a court to tell the chief otherwise.

    I personally believe that a lawsuit for this will cost the municipality a ton of money because of the opinion, yes it can be used in a civil case, and because SCOTUS has refused to adopt a firearm exception to the Terry Rule.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    When I make an OT post it is nearly always a for sale (acceptable) or a new gun acquisition (also acceptable). Not out of state news that has no bearing on Washington state, nor any parallels, imagined ones to Seattle aside...
    So whats the diffrence, its still OT, oh so its ok for you but no one else huh? Give me a break, this is anOC story yeah it isnt in washington but relates more to this Forum then your for sale posts. No one jumps on them and say " so what does this have to do with OC" leave it alone already let people discuss anything they find intresting about OC, if no one wants to comment they wont, if they do they will.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    When I make an OT post it is nearly always a for sale (acceptable) or a new gun acquisition (also acceptable). Not out of state news that has no bearing on Washington state, nor any parallels, imagined ones to Seattle aside...
    So whats the diffrence, its still OT, oh so its ok for you but no one else huh? Give me a break, this is anOC story yeah it isnt in washington but relates more to this Forum then your for sale posts.
    Once again you miss the point. Listing things for sale or new gun acquisitions are considered OT but acceptable for the forums. Discussing out of state events that do not have a Washington angle are not.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Once again you miss the point. Listing things for sale or new gun acquisitions are considered OT but acceptable for the forums. Discussing out of state events that do not have a Washington angle are not.
    So your Obama poster post was ok, oh and your OT pic, crashing in Seattle posts, what about the sword post, had nothing to do with guns period. Gee I could pull out allot more that have nothing to do with Washington or OC, I was going to say i think you don’t get it, but you do get yet for some reason you choose to be a hypocrite about it.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Swords were for sale, Obama pic was pushing it, but it did feature a gun, and in washington state too:P and the whole dog pic crashing thing was more or less OT to begin with, and went down the toilet real fast. You forgot the MOPP suit, AR mags, and USGI surplus I offered for sale too....

  20. #20
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Now it's all OT, so how about we stop pointing fingers and saying "nuh-uh, you are!" like 3rd graders, and try a little self moderation. A little OT isn't going to kill anyone, but major thread jacking should be kept to an absolute minimum. Sitting here on the thread arguing about it makes you all look ridiculous. If you want to start a ******* match, take it to PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Swords were for sale, Obama pic was pushing it, but it did feature a gun, and in washington state too:P and the whole dog pic crashing thing was more or less OT to begin with, and went down the toilet real fast. You forgot the MOPP suit, AR mags, and USGI surplus I offered for sale too....
    I understand the for sale ones, and honestly i dont have a problem with any of the posts, thats why i never said OT, and if it makes you feel better i got the link to the story from a Washington website.



    You got a MOPP suit?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    FunkTrooper wrote:
    I still don't understand why cops hate citizens with guns. Is it because they want to be the only people with power? (I know not all cops but at least the ones in the media)
    I don't know that it is cops in general who oppose citizens with guns.

    But certainly goofballs like Chief Ed Flynnon a power trip when he promises that his "officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it."

    He is doing that because, well, because he can.

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


    There seems to be alot more cases where the police are acting out of bounds and trying to force their opinions on people, case in point the ABC reporter who got arrested for trying to cover a rollover accident, it seems the rights of the people dont mean squat anymore.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    I agree with the WTF. The problem is that if there is an attorney with the city or county that tells a chief/sheriff that it is lawful to stop people for openly carrying then they have an opinion that differs from the AG. Neither carries weight of law but the local attorney's opinion would more than likely give the department and municipality immunity.

    This case is not much different than Nichols, Kerlikowski, and the Seattle attorney telling them that they can enforce a no trespass because of the presence of a firearm. Both instances are wrong and will take a lawsuit to sort it out. Seattle will more than likely not receive immunity because of pre emption but that will be left up to a court/jurors.
    I see your point, but it dosent take away my frustration with these issues, it used to be the Law Enforcemt agents tried to work with the people, i remember many times as a kid my old man talking with the local sherrif or the police chief / LT i cant remember but they would actually say things like your right i will tell my officers or i will take a look at it, now they wont even talk to you, and if you question what they are doing its **** or i'll arrest you.

    I miss America

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Now it's all OT, so how about we stop pointing fingers and saying "nuh-uh, you are!" like 3rd graders, and try a little self moderation. A little OT isn't going to kill anyone, but major thread jacking should be kept to an absolute minimum. Sitting here on the thread arguing about it makes you all look ridiculous. If you want to start a ******* match, take it to PM.
    Your right, sorry, back on Topic

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Swords were for sale, Obama pic was pushing it, but it did feature a gun, and in washington state too:P and the whole dog pic crashing thing was more or less OT to begin with, and went down the toilet real fast. You forgot the MOPP suit, AR mags, and USGI surplus I offered for sale too....
    I understand the for sale ones, and honestly i dont have a problem with any of the posts, thats why i never said OT, and if it makes you feel better i got the link to the story from a Washington website.



    You got a MOPP suit?
    Yes I have a MOPP suit. Woodland cammo, size medium with the activated charcoal liner. Nearly new shape. $30 Oly pickup.

Posting Permissions

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