pvtschultz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I wrote to Mukwonago at the same time as Waukesha and have yet to hear back from them.
I wrote to Mukwonago at the same time as Waukesha and have yet to hear back from them.
-
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.
Fantastic WalMart experience
- Thread starter nevinsb
- Start date
pvtschultz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
You'll have to go in and pick up the form.
You'll have to go in and pick up the form.
imported post
I'm almost done writing the complaint letter, but I have a question. I see WI has the following, but it only applies to public, not private property. Is there one similar for private property?
968.24Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
I'm almost done writing the complaint letter, but I have a question. I see WI has the following, but it only applies to public, not private property. Is there one similar for private property?
968.24Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
pvtschultz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
IMO, you were in a "public" location since due to implied consent of Walmart. The key here is that the officer needs RAS to demand the information. If you have not committed a crime, were not committing a crime, or were not about to committ a crime, he had no cause to stop you per Terry v. Ohio. You'd have to fight that one in a civil rights suit claiming a violation of your 4th amendment rights though.
Were you pulled over for any traffic violation or just because he thought that you were transporting a firearm illegally? AFAIK, you cannot be stopped by an LEO while driving unless you have broken a traffic law but I am on unfamiliar ground. If he saw you committ a crime before getting into your car, he could stop you, but he obviously did not see you committ a crime because he was with you during the time before you left. I know that most of this is a stretch, but is important to remember.
Have you talked to a lawyer yet? That would get the attention of the Muk. PD
IMO, you were in a "public" location since due to implied consent of Walmart. The key here is that the officer needs RAS to demand the information. If you have not committed a crime, were not committing a crime, or were not about to committ a crime, he had no cause to stop you per Terry v. Ohio. You'd have to fight that one in a civil rights suit claiming a violation of your 4th amendment rights though.
Were you pulled over for any traffic violation or just because he thought that you were transporting a firearm illegally? AFAIK, you cannot be stopped by an LEO while driving unless you have broken a traffic law but I am on unfamiliar ground. If he saw you committ a crime before getting into your car, he could stop you, but he obviously did not see you committ a crime because he was with you during the time before you left. I know that most of this is a stretch, but is important to remember.
Have you talked to a lawyer yet? That would get the attention of the Muk. PD
M.P.Eckert
New member
imported post
So let me get this correct... to OC legally in WI, if the magazine is loaded, it cannot be in the pistol, correct?
But an empty magazine can be in the pistol?
So let me get this correct... to OC legally in WI, if the magazine is loaded, it cannot be in the pistol, correct?
But an empty magazine can be in the pistol?
imported post
M.P.Eckert wrote:
M.P.Eckert wrote:
You can OC with a magazine in the firearm and a round in the camber. We cannot transport it that way though. We have to unload the firearm and put it in a case. Then we can load the magazine once we get to our next destination. Rinse and repeat. :banghead:
M.P.Eckert
New member
imported post
protias wrote:
Gotta prevent those drive-by's :shock:
protias wrote:
So you can OC with a mag loaded and a round chambered? Sorry I keep asking, I haven't found it talked about else where on this forum.
Gotta prevent those drive-by's :shock:
imported post
So you were questioned by a Mukwonago officer that just happened to be outside the store at 1:30 AM. He apparently called for backup with the WCSD who then waited outside the parking lot in ambush. After checking you out, why didn't the Mukwonago officer tell the "open carry task force" that you were not wanted and they were not needed.
There are other things they can be doing, like arresting gang pukes in the city of Waukesha.
So you were questioned by a Mukwonago officer that just happened to be outside the store at 1:30 AM. He apparently called for backup with the WCSD who then waited outside the parking lot in ambush. After checking you out, why didn't the Mukwonago officer tell the "open carry task force" that you were not wanted and they were not needed.
There are other things they can be doing, like arresting gang pukes in the city of Waukesha.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
M.P.Eckert wrote:
Yes,
They must be unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case only when in a vehicle, in a school zone or within 1,000 ft of school property (unless on private property). You also can't carry into establishments that sell alcohol for consumption on said establisments grounds, or into "public buildings".
Please review this post for cite's as I've only paraphrased.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html
M.P.Eckert wrote:
Yes,
They must be unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case only when in a vehicle, in a school zone or within 1,000 ft of school property (unless on private property). You also can't carry into establishments that sell alcohol for consumption on said establisments grounds, or into "public buildings".
Please review this post for cite's as I've only paraphrased.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html
M.P.Eckert
New member
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
Brass Magnet wrote:
I wasn't sure if 167.31 only applied to vehicles or not. That clears it up for me, thanks.
imported post
A Walmart manager called the Mukwonago PD
Mukwonago requested WSD to handle call due to their ofc being unavailable for a male walking around the store w/ holstered 9mm
WSD attempted to contact the Walmart Manager on duty and could not, so there was a question about whether there was a policy against firearms when I was stopped.
Officer Metzen (WSD) stopped me as I was leaving because he "noticed I was carrying a firearm." He did not mention that there was a question about store policy that could have constituted trespassing (Eventhough I was never asked to leave).
As far as I can tell, No Mukwonago officer was ever on the scene, but I still have not received a report from Mukonago PD. Only 3 units were listed as being present for the call report.
I don't have a scanner (I don't even have a printer), so I can't upload the call detail report.
I was pulled over because "His partner did not see that happen" referring to me putting the firearm in the case.
A Walmart manager called the Mukwonago PD
Mukwonago requested WSD to handle call due to their ofc being unavailable for a male walking around the store w/ holstered 9mm
WSD attempted to contact the Walmart Manager on duty and could not, so there was a question about whether there was a policy against firearms when I was stopped.
Officer Metzen (WSD) stopped me as I was leaving because he "noticed I was carrying a firearm." He did not mention that there was a question about store policy that could have constituted trespassing (Eventhough I was never asked to leave).
As far as I can tell, No Mukwonago officer was ever on the scene, but I still have not received a report from Mukonago PD. Only 3 units were listed as being present for the call report.
I don't have a scanner (I don't even have a printer), so I can't upload the call detail report.
I was pulled over because "His partner did not see that happen" referring to me putting the firearm in the case.
pvtschultz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
nevinsb wrote:
Yeah, like:
1. I did not see that man put his child in an approved car/booster seat.
2. I did not see that man put on his seat belt.
3. I saw that man drink a beer.
4. I didn't see that man put his wallet in his pocket with ID.
There are numerous laws that you could be breaking during the course of operating a motorized vehicle. Just because an LEO didn't see you comply with the law, doesn't mean that you aren't breaking any laws. :banghead:
nevinsb wrote:
Yeah, like:
1. I did not see that man put his child in an approved car/booster seat.
2. I did not see that man put on his seat belt.
3. I saw that man drink a beer.
4. I didn't see that man put his wallet in his pocket with ID.
There are numerous laws that you could be breaking during the course of operating a motorized vehicle. Just because an LEO didn't see you comply with the law, doesn't mean that you aren't breaking any laws. :banghead:
GlockMeisterG21
Campaign Veteran
imported post
nevinsb wrote:
nevinsb wrote:
Unfortunately, that is enough for them to pull you over. It's BS but it gave them reasonable suspicion. Just one more reason we need to get that law repealed.
GlockMeisterG21
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Pointman wrote:
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.
So if the officer is watching an OCer and sees him get into his vehicle without first unholstering, unloading, and encasing his firearm it is reasonable for him to assume that as the OCer is driving away that said firearm is still in his holster. He now has Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has been committed and may now pull the OCer over to ascertain the status of said firearm.
I am NOT defending the officers involved in the harassment of the OP I am trying to clarify what happened so that it does not happen to him or anyone else. Proper procedure would be to unholster, unload, and encase your firearm before entering your vehicle. I go through this every time I enter or exit my car so that on the off-chance that a cop is watching me I don't give him any excuse to stop and harass me.
Disclaimer
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv.
Pointman wrote:
I can only assume that you do not know the definition of Reasonable Suspicion so here it is for you.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.
So if the officer is watching an OCer and sees him get into his vehicle without first unholstering, unloading, and encasing his firearm it is reasonable for him to assume that as the OCer is driving away that said firearm is still in his holster. He now has Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has been committed and may now pull the OCer over to ascertain the status of said firearm.
I am NOT defending the officers involved in the harassment of the OP I am trying to clarify what happened so that it does not happen to him or anyone else. Proper procedure would be to unholster, unload, and encase your firearm before entering your vehicle. I go through this every time I enter or exit my car so that on the off-chance that a cop is watching me I don't give him any excuse to stop and harass me.
Disclaimer
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
The 'occifer' has witnessed commission of a crime. Please leave legal conclusions for people licensed to practice law - attorneys.
GlockMeisterG21
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
I did not offer a "legal conclusion" as I am not a lawyer and stated as much. I offered an opinion based on facts given by the OP. I'm sorry if you could not tell the difference.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, ... in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased ...
no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, ... in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased ...