Attorny issues warning about testing opinion on open carry of firearms

imported post

Waukesha — A municipal attorney is cautioning areas communities about gun owners "testing" local response to an attorney general's opinion on open carrying of firearms.

Attorney Eric Larson, whose firm represents more than 30 local governments, wrote in a memo that individuals or groups might try to test how police respond to guns out in public.

Larson also wrote that communities could face new litigation from gun owners who feel that their rights have been violated.

"I do not believe that we have heard the end of this issue," he wrote in a memo that has been circulated to several clients in recent weeks.

It is the latest fallout from Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's advisory opinion April 20 that he believes people should not be charged with disorderly conduct strictly for carrying a gun in public.

Larson urged clients to remember that gun owners still can be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon, for carrying a gun near a school, for transporting firearms in a vehicle, and other offenses.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/50732252.html





LMAO, they act like were just "testing". No buddy it's called self defense! Jeez get the new MEMO we can and will defend ourselves.



Ben

imported post

Somebody need to contact this attorney, AND the paper. They are once again spreading FALSE information.

Larson urged clients to remember that gun owners still can be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon, for carrying a gun near a school, for transporting firearms in a vehicle, and other offenses.

Click to expand...

Since when is transporting in a vehicle illegal???

We need to interpret what they say literally, and they take them to task.


edit: for spelling

imported post

I think my biggest concern was the use of the term "opinion" when referring to the AG's memo on open carry. Here I was under the impression we had a right. Gee, I'm glad the newspaper taught me the truth.

Excuse me for a moment....

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Somebody need to contact this attorney, AND the paper. They are once again spreading FALSE information.

Larson urged clients to remember that gun owners still can be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon, for carrying a gun near a school, for transporting firearms in a vehicle, and other offenses.

Click to expand...

Since when is transporting in a vehicle illegal???

We need to interpret what they say literally, and they take them to task.


edit: for spelling

Click to expand...

Notice they did not give the name of the firm? It is obvious this guy is inexperienced.
Hubert I bet your Detainer fee is higher than his Retainer fee. :lol:

imported post

I don't carry a gun because I want to test the system. I carry because a cop is just too damn heavy to carry around on my shoulders.

imported post

smithman wrote:

I don't carry a gun because I want to test the system.  I carry because a cop is just too damn heavy to carry around on my shoulders.

Click to expand...

Even if ya could they have no duty to protect you anyway. There job is to attempt to figure out what happened and go from there.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Since when is transporting in a vehicle illegal???

Click to expand...

Any time a firearm in a vehicle,and not unloaded and in a case, or, even if it is in a case and unloaded, even a locked case or glove box, within arms reach.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Any time a firearm in a vehicle,and not unloaded and in a case, or, even if it is in a case and unloaded, even a locked case or glove box, within arms reach.

Click to expand...

May I paraphrase for clarity?

Any time a firearm is in a vehicle and is loaded and is not encased including a glove box and is within arm's reach.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Mike wrote:

Any time a firearm in a vehicle,and not unloaded and in a case, or, even if it is in a case and unloaded, even a locked case or glove box, within arms reach.

Click to expand...

May I paraphrase for clarity?

Any time a firearm is in a vehicle and is loaded and is not encased including a glove box and is within arm's reach.

Click to expand...

Your paraphrase is wrong, though much less awkward than mine.

An unloaded gun in a locked case is a violation of the WI concealed cary statute if it is within arms reach.

Incorporating the other WI case (open carry is conceal carry if in vehicle), the easiest way to state the full vehicle rule would be:

"Any firearm within arms reach inside a vehicle is unlawfully concealed even if it is unloaded and in a locked case or glovebox."

imported post

Letter sent to Attorney Eric Larson:

Attorney Eric Larson
Arenz, Molter, Macy & Riffle S.C.
720 N East Avenue
Waukesha, WI 53186
(262) 548-1340

Mr. Larson,

I am writing in response to a July 14, 2009 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Attorney issues warning about testing opinion on open carry firearms”, in which you are stated as, “cautioning areas communities about gun owners "testing" local response to an attorney general's opinion on open carrying of firearms”.

I am very familiar with the issue of properly carrying a firearm in Wisconsin in light of the April 20[sup]th[/sup] Attorney General’s memo, and have contacted several local communities about their municipal codes related to firearms. I have found that, in general, local community officials have little or no knowledge concerning Wisconsin state statutes relating to firearms. For example, the cities of South Milwaukee and Greenfield recently attempted to enact ordinances relating to firearms that would be more stringent than state statutes, in violation of state statute 66.0409. In fact, Greenfield’s municipal code 10.01 prohibits carrying any firearm, which is clearly in violation of 66.0409. In South Milwaukee and Greenfield, these attempts have failed after private citizens spoke out about them and educated common council members about state law.

Relating to the Journal Sentinel article, I do not see how individuals exercising their constitutionally protected right to properly carrying a firearm in accordance with Wisconsin statutes would be “testing” communities. Issues occur in communities where the local law enforcement officers and city attorneys are ignorant of Wisconsin statutes relating to carrying a firearm, or have their own agendas relating to firearms. While the AG’s memo was relatively specific relating to carrying firearms, I have found that many law enforcement officers have not been educated about the memo or state statutes. Just as ignorance of the law is not a legitimate defense for citizens, it is also not a defense for municipalities who violate the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. When law enforcement officers in any community violate an individual’s constitutional rights, whether it is related to speech, assembly, searches, or firearms, they may face legal ramifications. The vast majority of individuals who open carry know their rights very well, and know where and when they can exercise this right, and where state statutes declare open carry is not allowed. What is needed is for officials in local municipalities to be educated as well.

Also stated in the aforementioned newspaper article, “Larson urged clients to remember that gun owners still can be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon, for carrying a gun near a school, for transporting firearms in a vehicle, and other offenses.” I am hoping that you were misquoted in stating that, “transporting firearms in a vehicle” is an offense for which someone can be prosecuted. Perhaps you meant to say illegally or improperly transporting a firearm in a vehicle.

As your firm represents more than 30 local governments, and as you have an association with the Municipal Attorneys Institute, I would hope that legal guidance could be provided to Wisconsin communities relating to how they can comply with state statutes, specifically referring to Wisconsin Statute § 947.01, and more generally Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Perhaps better explaining the Attorney General’s April 20th memo (http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf) would be helpful. Also, each community should review their municipal codes to ensure that they comply with state statutes, adjusting them as necessary. New Berlin, for example, recently adjusted their municipal codes relating to firearms to reflect state statutes, and to not be more stringent. All local communities should also follow suit to ensure that when local police encounter a law abiding individual exercising their right to carry a firearm, they pass the test.

Regards,

Name
New Berlin, WI

imported post

WI Patriot:

Well done sir.

imported post

Mike wrote:

bnhcomputing wrote:

Since when is transporting in a vehicle illegal???

Click to expand...

Any time a firearm in a vehicle,and not unloaded and in a case, or, even if it is in a case and unloaded, even a locked case or glove box, within arms reach.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify, as the article is written, taken word for word, it states that "Transporting firearms in a vehicle" can be prosecuted.

Now WE all understand what they mean, but my point was a lay person would read that and think they can't put it in the car at all regardless if it is unloaded/cased.

So it is more FALSE information

imported post

I have Received a response from the lawyer thanking me for my letter:

"You are absolutely right that it is only the illegal or improper transportation of weapons in a vehicle that is prohibited. On that point our letter only cited to Section 167.31 Wisconsin Statutes, among a list of statutes that continue to apply, and we further indicated that the statutes must be read in the entirety.

As the municipal lawyers our concern is that the law is understood and is followed. If that is also your concern then we have a common interest."

My response to him:

Mr. Larson,

Thank you for your response and clarification about transporting weapons in a vehicle. We have a mutual concern that the law is understood and is followed by citizens as well as municipalities. I appreciate people like yourself who provide the needed guidance to community officials.

Regards,

imported post

maybe somebody should put this town leadership on ntice that they should not be testing the validity of the school zone and vehicle carry bans as Hamdan's legal purpose exception would appear to make these statutes invalid as applied to law abiding ctizens.

imported post

When are you finishing your JD Mike? We might need a few good lawyers in WI if people are going to push the GFSZ statute from the wrong side of the court room.