Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 102

Thread: Whats next

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    So we can OC (school zone and vehicles as the exception)

    I think we are all confident the school zone restriction is patently unconstitutional. I've had legaladvice from an exceptionally qualified civil rights attorney who relayed to me that "our" best option to over turn that law is a civil court challenge.

    I think our next course of action should be to seek an attorney who can file this challenge. I don't know what the best way to go about that is, but here are some ideas:

    -gun rights groups... We lobby the NRA, GOA, or others for support in the form of sponsoring the lawsuit.

    -we raise money ourselves and hire an attorney. To accomplish that, I think we need more people here (radio ads in the madison market next?) and of course a way to set up a fund for that legal representation. I think an attorney could set that up for us. But I think that to raise money for the lawsuit, perhaps there may be 'events' we could do (cookouts, etc) to raise money. (pointman has suggested bake sales I believe) but seriously, I could see some public events to raise a lot of money. I mentioned in another thread, I don't see the need for people to use OC picnics etc as a security blanket to carry in. They should just get out and carry. But perhaps some public OC events would raise money for a civil court challenge.



  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    Yea, I could see both as very good options. The car restriction is a major pain but the school zone restriction really must to go. Would love to see them both go mind you but the school zone issue should probably be our major focus.

    I'm not really sure how to go about it but hitting up any pro-gun organizations and maybe even some civil rights groups would be worth our time.

    Great ideas there Nik. Hit me up if you need a hand with any of this.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    I agree that a civil lawsuit is significantly better that a criminal one as there is always a certain segment of the population that assumes, "if you were arrested, you must be guilty of something."

    I'm wondering if we couldn't use something like the argument in the Heller case. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

    In Heller, they guy applied for a permit, was denied, and then filed suit.
    District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
    to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
    handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
    handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
    and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
    unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
    Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
    handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
    filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
    city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
    insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
    the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
    use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
    the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
    that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
    firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
    self-defense, violated that right.
    In Wisconsin, that statute reads that we can get a permit, however, EVERY city/town/village I've talked to has said "there is no such permit."

    The state already argued in State v. Phillip Cole "It is the state's position that it is lawful to walk down State Street or Wisconsin Avenue carrying openly," and State v. Adam S. Gonzales that, "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." There was never a qualifier in either case that added any restriction. So it appears that it is the states position that one has the right to "open carry," and at the same time they give no way to exercise the right.

    Now if I misunderstood Heller, then I'm blowing smoke, and I'll take my ten lashes with a wet noodle, but if the law says we can get a permit, but there is not now, and never has been, a way to get said permit, and if the law restricts carry "insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms" then maybe that is the proverbial straw.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I submit that you are confusing the law and de facto practice.

    The law is, to us, clear; I s. 25 extends the 2A right and statute prohibits CC, making OC de jure legal. It is the practice of LEAs to harass with extra-legal DC charges facilitated by the weapon hysteria.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    i found bnhcomputing's much clearer. it make sense to me.. I, for one, cannot carry my gun for self defense off of my property. making it almost the same thing as the heller case.


    ...firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
    just replace home with school zone and thats my point.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sheboygan, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I sent the NRA a email this morning about the two letters I got from the city of Sheboygan on this. I will just wait to see if they want to help out.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    You hit the nail on the head Nik. We have stood our ground the way we know how, and thats by doing what each and every one of us can, open carry. We have effictively changed alott with many thanks to Jesus and Brad and ourselves. We must now play ball in the courts that make and prosecute the laws. That is the ONLY way we will be able to re-atain our rights guarunteed to us.

    We are not legal scholars yet we seem to know more than many localities when it comes to state law. We need help in our fight for our civil rights. As Glenn Beck said the "civilist of wars" is going on right now where not even a shot will be fired. It is sad that we are FORCED to bend over backwards and put our asses on the line to excersise our fundamental rights. Yet thats what we have to do we are Americans..... Just like Martin Luther King and his supporters did.

    We need legal help to challenge the Pre-empted local laws, and school zone issue. Guess it's time to start writing!



    Ben

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I think overturning the school zone restrictions based on the Heller model would work and both Shotgun and I have had threads on this matter. I even contacted CATO about it asking their opinion.

    My thread:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/26309.html

    Shotguns thread:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/15502.html


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    We are going to have one friggn huge hurdle here! You will need to try to understand the Anti's inner brain workings first. We are saying. "We want the legal abilitytoallow guns in school zones"
    I can pretty much tell you what their response is going to be if you do not already know. And they are going to raise a huge stink against it using their "we need to Protect the children" cries all over again.

    We need to know what the intention of that law was for: Was it to stop drive-by shootings atschools? Was itsupposed to be used as an enhancer for other crimes?
    Isn't there some enhancer for posessing drugs near a school? I think the legislators had good intentions, but they didn't think it out very well.

    I do not think the straight forward"It restricts our rights" argument is going to work for this one.

    We are going to need to suggest another law, or that the current one be modified so that still prohibits a criminal from bring a gun into a school zone, But somehow allows the legal citizen the ability. Could we propose that the law be used as an enhancer instead to add on to other criminal activity such as drug possession law does?



    Do you guys get where I am going with this?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    i hear that... and i agree..
    as an enhancer it would make sense.. bigger penalty for committing a crime in a school zone... armed or not.. if you are not a criminal you have nothing to worry about..

    are traffic fines higher in school zones? or just construction zones?



  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Do you guys get where I am going with this?
    Yes, BUT.

    In a civil challenge only the courts have anything to do with it. Nobody cares what the anti's have to say, only the judges. This almosttotally bypasses your concern, that's the beauty of a court challenge.

    Your concern is only acute after the courts tell the legislator to change the laws. Yes, at that point we need to have a good idea of what it should read. I think there will be plenty of time to get that worked up.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    I think overturning the school zone restrictions based on the Heller model would work and both Shotgun and I have had threads on this matter. I even contacted CATO about it asking their opinion.
    And if they say "you're right" we still need to 'find someone who can file a lawsuit'

    Playing keyboard attorney is fun (and we all do it all the time) but I don't think (and I may be wrong) we can just walk into court and file a civil lawsuit. (if we can, lets do it) but I think we need legal representation. At which point I'll let them decide what the best way to challenge this is.

    I think we need to identify "who" is going to represent us, and perhaps "how much" its going to cost.

    I agree that a civil lawsuit is significantly better that a criminal one as there is always a certain segment of the population that assumes, "if you were arrested, you must be guilty of something."
    I think more-so, in a criminal case, there is so much pressure/opportunity to "settle". If someone gets charged with a felony, facing jail and a permanent record, inability to posess in the future etc, a plea-bargain to a misdemeanor would be mighty tempting. There were a couple other reasonings why civil court was a better option, but I don't have a copy of the email I received from the attorney I spoke with.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    We need to know what the intention of that law was for: Was it to stop drive-by shootings atschools? Was itsupposed to be used as an enhancer for other crimes?
    Isn't there some enhancer for posessing drugs near a school? I think the legislators had good intentions, but they didn't think it out very well.

    We are going to need to suggest another law, or that the current one be modified so that still prohibits a criminal from bring a gun into a school zone, But somehow allows the legal citizen the ability. Could we propose that the law be used as an enhancer instead to add on to other criminal activity such as drug possession law does?
    This is exactly the right idea. When I spoke to the chief in Chilton about walking on the River walk trail which is technically within 1000ft of the catholic school as the crow flies. He stated, "I don't think that is how the statute was meant to be read."

    There is a river between the River walk and the school so it is not like you could just run into the school yard and start shooting. It is my belief that this was meant to be an enhancer, however it was not written to read as such.

    Another example is, what if you are walking down the street during the hours that the school is closed? Maybe the law should read no fire arms in the school zone during normal school business hours!

    This is definitely a common sense approach and just might get us some where. This could also be brought to some legislators that are supportive of our cause and could possibly be brought to the table and passed just like the national parks issue without all of the legal expense.

    Just my .02

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    It is the practice of LEAs to harass with extra-legal DC charges
    Well I don't have my decifer/decoder ring on today, but if I understand your post correctly, I don't think we ar talking about Disorderly Conduct charges here.

    I think we are talking about felony "posession in a school zone" laws.
    In a civil challenge only the courts have anything to do with it. Nobody cares what the anti's have to say, only the judges. This almosttotally bypasses your concern, that's the beauty of a court challenge.
    Precisely.

    And while its fun to exercise in legal-masterbation, we've done plenty of that, I'm really trying to find an action step here.

    First, how do we find a good qualified attorney,

    Second, if its not in that attorneys business interest to file a lawsuit like this for free,we need to prepare to fund it.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    I think overturning the school zone restrictions based on the Heller model would work and both Shotgun and I have had threads on this matter. I even contacted CATO about it asking their opinion.
    And if they say "you're right" we still need to 'find someone who can file a lawsuit'

    Playing keyboard attorney is fun (and we all do it all the time) but I don't think (and I may be wrong) we can just walk into court and file a civil lawsuit. (if we can, lets do it) but I think we need legal representation. At which point I'll let them decide what the best way to challenge this is.

    I think we need to identify "who" is going to represent us, and perhaps "how much" its going to cost.
    They said to find a Wisconsin Barred attorney to ask. For some reason the person I contacted at CATO was more interested in commenting on concealed carry....see other thread.

    Who? Someone from Milwaukee, living in a place that is ridiculously restricted by school zones. A person whom the courts would have no way to say his or her rights aren't unreasonably restricted.

    I say we get a list of good attorneys and call them.A lot of them would at least give their opinion on this for free. Does the NRA or GOA have a list of qualified attorneys somewhere?
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    Playing keyboard attorney is fun (and we all do it all the time) but I don't think (and I may be wrong) we can just walk into court and file a civil lawsuit.
    Yes you can.

    However, the judge may very well instruct that legal representation may be in your best interest.

    Although you won't be arguing against another attorney in a criminal or personal civil case. The state may assign (and I am sure they will) an attorney to argue the case for Diamond Jim.

    The truth of the matter is you can argue your own case and in some instances a well informed and knowledgeable individual can be an opposing attorneys worst nightmare.

    I once argued against an attorney in a child adoption hearing and won.

    Boy was he pissed.

    If you know the facts (and that is all the judge will consider) and you have a strong argument you have a very good chance of succeeding.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Here is a copy of an email I just sent my state senator in regards to changing the statutes.

    Dear Senator Lasee,

    I spoke with you some weeks back about the open carry issue here in wisconsin and you stated you were a very strong advocate for gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

    You also stated that at your ripe YOUNG age of 71,it will not be long before you will be retiring from state service. With that in mind I was wondering if you would be interested in one more run to the legislative table in support for the petition online at opencarry.org in support of the removal of the transportation restrictions and school zone ban on fire arms.

    I believe that the school zone ban was initially meant as an enhancer statute to increase penalties for crimes committed in school zones. This statute could be changed to read that firearms are banned from school property during the normal hours of school operation. Therefore, the statute would still have the same effect as an enhancer.

    The transportation restrictions for fire arms is unconstitutional and infringes on our right to carry a fire arm. By keeping the fire arm unloaded and out of reach in the vehicle, this also violates our right to self defense in the event of a crime such as a car jacking or robbery. When a police officer performs a traffic stop he should approach every vehicle with the mind set that there could be a weapon inside anyways so the argument that law enforcement uses to cover the safety of their officers is really invalid at this point as only non-law abiding citizens would be interested in harming a police officer anyway.

    That you for your state service and I sincerely hope you will consider my request.

    Your support will be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks again.

    James A. Gleason
    15 Lehner St.
    Chilton, WI. 53014


    I do agree with Nik that it is time we step forward and make things happen whether it is in court or at the legislation table.

    Nik, in case I haven't said this before, thanks for keeping us on the straight and narrow. I appreciate what you, Mike and John have done in this movement. Sometimes we lose our way and if we don't stand on these issues things could go wrong. We need to keep moving forward on this.

    Carry on!

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    I wouldquestion, who do we file suit against?

    If the local municipality is the one NOT giving out the permit, i.e. DC, not the federal government,so we would need to file a local suit, and then get it appealed to the SSC.

    J.Gleason wrote:
    The state may assign (and I am sure they will) an attorney to argue the case for Diamond Jim.
    Only once/if it got to the SSC, and then we ALL know who would get the job of DEFENDING THE STATE......



    That's right, the AG's office would have to take the "you don't have that right" position, interesting.



  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    I wouldquestion, who do we file suit against?

    If the local municipality is the one NOT giving out the permit, i.e. DC, not the federal government,so we would need to file a local suit, and then get it appealed to the SSC.

    J.Gleason wrote:
    The state may assign (and I am sure they will) an attorney to argue the case for Diamond Jim.
    Only once/if it got to the SSC, and then we ALL know who would get the job of DEFENDING THE STATE......



    That's right, the AG's office would have to take the "you don't have that right" position, interesting.

    That is exactly the point I was trying to make. We just need to get there. I think it would be something like The People -v- The state of Wisconsin even at the lower level court.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    I think it would be something like The People -v- The state of Wisconsin even at the lower level court.
    Usually "The People" in lawsuits IS the state.

    I think thiswould need to be "John Doe -v- City of Milwaukee" or something like that and it will take years to get it to the SSC.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Ok, how about WE THE PEOPLE -v- The State of Wisconsin....haha

    You are right it will take a while to get to the SSC. However, the lower level courts may not want it to get that far either. Therefore just like the DA's not pressing charges in certain fire arms cases (IE..Racine)because they do not want it to go to the SSC, the lower courts may decide in our favor and let the SSC court battle be brought forward by the AG's office at a later time.

    It's something to think about.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I've been scouring the internet for lawyers and so far I found this firm http://www.quarles.com/home.aspxlisted under practicing constitutional law.

    I didn't think it would be this hard to find a lawyer. I'll do some asking around my circleand see if anybody knows somebody around here.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    You could always try the WI Bar Association:

    http://www.wisbar.org/


    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  24. #24
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Had another conversation via email with an attorney very versed in this kind of thing this morning. He's going to ponder our options and get back to me in a week or so (going on vaca)

    I'll post up as soon as I hear something.

    Also, he mentioned that the 7th Ciruit court found today that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states.



  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    Had another conversation via email with an attorney very versed in this kind of thing this morning. He's going to ponder our options and get back to me in a week or so (going on vaca)

    I'll post up as soon as I hear something.

    Also, he mentioned that the 7th Ciruit court found today that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states.

    Wow, I read the opinion and all that I can say is wow. WTF are they thinking? Read page seven for a laugh...

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FG34O.pdf
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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