-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AG Van Hollen speaks on open carry (Wisconsin Radio Network)
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Stoney-Point
Regular Member
imported post
Can you summarize for those of us who can't get that site to open at work?
Can you summarize for those of us who can't get that site to open at work?
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
fantastic interview (and short too) ANYONE who is worried about open carrying should listen to that interview.
There is no ambiguity, the police may stop you, but if you aren't doing anything wrong you can't be arreted you have a very clear constitutional right to carry a firearm.
My favorite quotes from JBVH:
people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms andthe only way to do that is to have them exposed"people who are anti-firearm can't have it both ways and that is CLEARLY what our law says"
When asked about "law enforcements" reaction:
"we could turn milwaukee into a police state andvirtually eliminate crime, but that isn't what wisconsin or the united states is all about."
"people having the ability to keep and carry firearms in every other state in the union has not jeopardized law enforcement"
fantastic interview (and short too) ANYONE who is worried about open carrying should listen to that interview.
There is no ambiguity, the police may stop you, but if you aren't doing anything wrong you can't be arreted you have a very clear constitutional right to carry a firearm.
My favorite quotes from JBVH:
people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms andthe only way to do that is to have them exposed"people who are anti-firearm can't have it both ways and that is CLEARLY what our law says"
When asked about "law enforcements" reaction:
"we could turn milwaukee into a police state andvirtually eliminate crime, but that isn't what wisconsin or the united states is all about."
"people having the ability to keep and carry firearms in every other state in the union has not jeopardized law enforcement"
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Stoney-Point wrote:
he makes a few basic points. First that this is not just a law but a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to the wisconsin state constitution that assures us of this right. So thats not easy to change and shouldn't be easy to change (i guess Leon Young's "fast track" legislation isn't going very far... I digress)
He goes on to say that since concealled carry is illegal open carry is THE ONLY WAY people can exercise this GUARANTEED right.
He talks about some law enforcement not liking the decision, but (see above quotes) this isn't a police state and people have civil rights.
He re-iterates that carrying a gun is NOT a crime.
He finishes up by saying that every other state in the nation (i guess he forgot illinois) affords citizens the right to carry firearms and it is NOT a hazard to law enforcement.
Stoney-Point wrote:
Can you summarize for those of us who can't get that site to open at work?
he makes a few basic points. First that this is not just a law but a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to the wisconsin state constitution that assures us of this right. So thats not easy to change and shouldn't be easy to change (i guess Leon Young's "fast track" legislation isn't going very far... I digress)
He goes on to say that since concealled carry is illegal open carry is THE ONLY WAY people can exercise this GUARANTEED right.
He talks about some law enforcement not liking the decision, but (see above quotes) this isn't a police state and people have civil rights.
He re-iterates that carrying a gun is NOT a crime.
He finishes up by saying that every other state in the nation (i guess he forgot illinois) affords citizens the right to carry firearms and it is NOT a hazard to law enforcement.
OC4me
Regular Member
imported post
Said that that theWisconsin Constitution protected the right of Citizens to bear arms and that open carry was the only available method to do so. He said that those who are anti-gun can't have it both ways by prohibit both concealed and open carry.
That was it in a nutshell.
Said that that theWisconsin Constitution protected the right of Citizens to bear arms and that open carry was the only available method to do so. He said that those who are anti-gun can't have it both ways by prohibit both concealed and open carry.
That was it in a nutshell.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
Great find!!
Is anyone aware of how to get a printred transcript of that conversation? The A-G cleared up several points that I thought were lacking in his informal memo that sent ChiefFlynn into his "Were going to put people on the ground and disarm them" tirade.
Great find!!
Is anyone aware of how to get a printred transcript of that conversation? The A-G cleared up several points that I thought were lacking in his informal memo that sent ChiefFlynn into his "Were going to put people on the ground and disarm them" tirade.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Interviewer: Talk about a little bit about open carry its been a few weeks or month or so since you issued your legal opinion and thats caused quite a stir.... ah... some confusion as well.
Where do you see the case going now as far as interpretation at the local level or even the legislature being involved?
Attorney General: Well I know that some members of the legislature have talked about becoming involved but they must keep in mind that what we are interpreting was the constitution of the state of wisconsin its not something that the legislature can very easily change.. ah um... nor should the legilsture be able to very easily change the constitution. The peole of wisconsin by our legal interpretation amended the constitution years ago specifically to protect their rights to keep and bear arms. If they can't carry concealled weapons the only way they can actually bear arms is to have them exposed. People who are anti-firearm can't have it both ways that is CLEARLY what our law says and thats all we did was interpret that for the sake of law enforcement.
Interviewer: For the sake of law enforcement we've seen milwaukee's police chief kinda taking a harder line saying that they still wanna be very aggresive in seeing anybody who has open carry or is carry a concealled or a excuse me a firearm and thats actually upset a few gun rights advocates, whats your take on that?
AG: Well you know obviously I'm very pro law-enforcement very pro public safety and the job of law enforcement is very difficult especially in the city of milwaukee were crime the rates are so high they are legitimately concerned about people walking the streets carrying guns, however our system of government is set up to protect peoples civil rights as well. And we could certainly turn milwaukee into a police state and we could almost eliminate crime but thats not what wisconsin or the united states is all about. We've gotta balance public safety with our civil rights and our constitutional rights and so its a balancing act that we do in the department of justice as well. I certainly am concerned for the safetly of law enforcement officers ah by the same token people by having the ability to legally carry firearms in every other state in the union has not jeopardized law enforcement. We don't hear any analogous details about that happening. So I don't think its really a concern but I do think that law enforcement of course is always a little bit worried about their safety and they should be.
Interviewer: Some legal clarification who's shoulders does it fall on to interpret the legal opinion of yours regarding open carry the prosecutors, circuit judges, whom?
AG: All of the above, in our system of governmentdiscretion is a very veryimportant element. Law enforcement officers on the street are the first line of discretion. they have to determine whether there is a crime committed by the person who is carrying a gun. we've made it quite clear that carrying the gun alone is not a crime if it is exposed. They have to determine if there is more involved to make it some form of a crime. Then its up to the prosecutor to determine whether they agree with law enforcement whether to charge, its up to the judge or jury next ah to determine whether they agree with the prosecutor, then there's an appellate process. So there are a lot of steps to protect the rights of citizens and quite frankly a lot of steps to protect law enforcement in their decisions
Interviewer: Talk about a little bit about open carry its been a few weeks or month or so since you issued your legal opinion and thats caused quite a stir.... ah... some confusion as well.
Where do you see the case going now as far as interpretation at the local level or even the legislature being involved?
Attorney General: Well I know that some members of the legislature have talked about becoming involved but they must keep in mind that what we are interpreting was the constitution of the state of wisconsin its not something that the legislature can very easily change.. ah um... nor should the legilsture be able to very easily change the constitution. The peole of wisconsin by our legal interpretation amended the constitution years ago specifically to protect their rights to keep and bear arms. If they can't carry concealled weapons the only way they can actually bear arms is to have them exposed. People who are anti-firearm can't have it both ways that is CLEARLY what our law says and thats all we did was interpret that for the sake of law enforcement.
Interviewer: For the sake of law enforcement we've seen milwaukee's police chief kinda taking a harder line saying that they still wanna be very aggresive in seeing anybody who has open carry or is carry a concealled or a excuse me a firearm and thats actually upset a few gun rights advocates, whats your take on that?
AG: Well you know obviously I'm very pro law-enforcement very pro public safety and the job of law enforcement is very difficult especially in the city of milwaukee were crime the rates are so high they are legitimately concerned about people walking the streets carrying guns, however our system of government is set up to protect peoples civil rights as well. And we could certainly turn milwaukee into a police state and we could almost eliminate crime but thats not what wisconsin or the united states is all about. We've gotta balance public safety with our civil rights and our constitutional rights and so its a balancing act that we do in the department of justice as well. I certainly am concerned for the safetly of law enforcement officers ah by the same token people by having the ability to legally carry firearms in every other state in the union has not jeopardized law enforcement. We don't hear any analogous details about that happening. So I don't think its really a concern but I do think that law enforcement of course is always a little bit worried about their safety and they should be.
Interviewer: Some legal clarification who's shoulders does it fall on to interpret the legal opinion of yours regarding open carry the prosecutors, circuit judges, whom?
AG: All of the above, in our system of governmentdiscretion is a very veryimportant element. Law enforcement officers on the street are the first line of discretion. they have to determine whether there is a crime committed by the person who is carrying a gun. we've made it quite clear that carrying the gun alone is not a crime if it is exposed. They have to determine if there is more involved to make it some form of a crime. Then its up to the prosecutor to determine whether they agree with law enforcement whether to charge, its up to the judge or jury next ah to determine whether they agree with the prosecutor, then there's an appellate process. So there are a lot of steps to protect the rights of citizens and quite frankly a lot of steps to protect law enforcement in their decisions
LittleOtter
Regular Member
imported post
This was a great find, It did clear things up a little. Thank you for the transcript as well. It is really beneficial to hear this strait from Van Hollen. Hopefully this his statements will trickle down to the different levels of enforcement so that they/we all end up on the same page.
This was a great find, It did clear things up a little. Thank you for the transcript as well. It is really beneficial to hear this strait from Van Hollen. Hopefully this his statements will trickle down to the different levels of enforcement so that they/we all end up on the same page.