• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Police Stop Man For Carrying Gun Out In Open

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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?
 

FunkTrooper

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, USA
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)
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.

 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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 Flynn 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.

 
Another home run for HankT. That is exactly what the problem is.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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?

 

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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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...
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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...
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
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....
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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 pissing match, take it to PM.
 
Top