Madison Open Carry Arrest. Paging Travis Yates

imported post

AaronS wrote:

The nice thought is that as it stands, with 66.0409, what ever law changes happen will be state wide. No real room for a local change (sounds like what Madison would be asking for)...

Click to expand...

How so, "state wide"? There is no enforcement mechanism or officer authorized to ensure 66.0409. Y'all need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

imported post

bigus wrote:

The State's intent thus far has been to limit the right to open carry to as few situations as possible while claiming their infringements aren't violating the State and Federal Constitutions.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

imported post

Infringement is not prohibited by the State Constitution and is admitted by the annotations.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Infringement is not prohibited by the State Constitution and is admitted by the annotations.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately...........but it's still stronger than some states, like Illinois:banghead:

I'm still hoping for incorporation.

imported post

In State v. Phillip Cole; Appeal Number 2001AP000350 – CR. During oral arguments, assistant attorney general Kassel stated: "It is the state's position that it is lawful to walk down State Street or Wisconsin Avenue carrying openly." (35 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments.)

And in State v. Adam S. Gonzales; Appeal Number 2001AP000224 – CR, Kassel again stated (56 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments) "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." The court further questioned Kassel, (59:40) "Is it the State's position that anybody can, other than a felon, but any of us can walk down State Street carrying with a holster with a pistol in it?" and Kassel answered, "Absolutely." The court again questioned Kassel (1:03:31) “But you can carry a loaded shotgun down-- leave this building-- down State Street. Is that correct?" and Kassel again answered, "Yes."


So here we have the AG arguing multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court stating you can carry on State Street. If the state changes their position, then what?

imported post

I am sure that we are all waiting for incorporation, but even then it will take time and effort to speed the changes in Wisconsin Statutes, jurisprudence and agency practices.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

I am sure that we are all waiting for incorporation, but even then it will take time and effort to speed the changes in Wisconsin Statutes, jurisprudence and agency practices.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I also believe there is noreason to take our collectivefoot off their throats now, or even after that happens. The harder we push, themore time they spend on their heals, and the harder it is for them to pass new restrictions.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

In State v. Phillip Cole; Appeal Number 2001AP000350 – CR. During oral arguments, assistant attorney general Kassel stated: "It is the state's position that it is lawful to walk down State Street or Wisconsin Avenue carrying openly." (35 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments.)

And in State v. Adam S. Gonzales; Appeal Number 2001AP000224 – CR, Kassel again stated (56 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments) "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." The court further questioned Kassel, (59:40) "Is it the State's position that anybody can, other than a felon, but any of us can walk down State Street carrying with a holster with a pistol in it?" and Kassel answered, "Absolutely." The court again questioned Kassel (1:03:31) “But you can carry a loaded shotgun down-- leave this building-- down State Street. Is that correct?" and Kassel again answered, "Yes."


So here we have the AG arguing multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court stating you can carry on State Street. If the state changes their position, then what?

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this recording or transcript?

imported post

You can go here: http://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/soralarguments.htm

and listen to oral arguments. Then put in the case numbers and play back.

This should beState v. Phillip Cole http://tinyurl.com/ngrf5t

This should be State v. Adam S. Gonzales http://tinyurl.com/kw6cpk

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

You can go here: http://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/soralarguments.htm

and listen to oral arguments. Then put in the case numbers and play back.

This should beState v. Phillip Cole http://tinyurl.com/ngrf5t

This should be State v. Adam S. Gonzales http://tinyurl.com/kw6cpk

Click to expand...

good work - will make excellent press release material as the Yates matter moves forward.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

In State v. Phillip Cole; Appeal Number 2001AP000350 – CR. During oral arguments, assistant attorney general Kassel stated: "It is the state's position that it is lawful to walk down State Street or Wisconsin Avenue carrying openly." (35 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments.)

And in State v. Adam S. Gonzales; Appeal Number 2001AP000224 – CR, Kassel again stated (56 min, 10 seconds into the oral arguments) "It is the state's position that it is legal to walk down State Street in Madison with a pistol in your holster." The court further questioned Kassel, (59:40) "Is it the State's position that anybody can, other than a felon, but any of us can walk down State Street carrying with a holster with a pistol in it?" and Kassel answered, "Absolutely." The court again questioned Kassel (1:03:31) “But you can carry a loaded shotgun down-- leave this building-- down State Street. Is that correct?" and Kassel again answered, "Yes."


So here we have the AG arguing multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court stating you can carry on State Street. If the state changes their position, then what?

Click to expand...

Was Kassel the AG before Van Halen or dose he just work for the AG. I am not sure if that changes anything but just want it clarified. I did a quick search and all I found was that he is an AG assistant.

imported post

Hillmann wrote:

Was Kassel the AG before Van Halen or dose he just work for the AG. I am not sure if that changes anything but just want it clarified. I did a quick search and all I found was that he is an AG assistant.

Click to expand...

Right, Kassel was/is an assistant AG but any assistant arguing in the State Supreme Court would be arguing the AG's/state's opinion. This is VERY important when you realize these cases were argued in front of the court when..........

That's right, JIM DOYLE was AG! So Doyle's position as AG, and the evidence shows HIS office argued it, was that you could "walk down state street" with a holstered pistol, which is ........

EXACTLY what this Mr. Yates apparently did!

So why isn't Doyle, going on TV,following Obama's lead and stating......

The Madison police "acted stupidly."

imported post

My attorney sent a letter to the city attorney asking them to not prosecute. He also sent a letter to the county clerk's office entering a "mute" plea, which means they will enter a "not guilty" plea. This means it goes to trial. At this point, according to my attorney, I don't need to go to court on 9-9, so you guys don't need to show up. Now I'm waiting for a trial to be scheduled, which will be after 9-9. We play the waiting game for now.

Has anyone been planning a picnic or demonstration in Madison? I don't want to participate since my case is still pending. But I would like to know what people are planning.

You need to do a few things:

1) You need a map showing all the schools and the 1000' zone around.
2) I would like to know what buildings are deemed government buildings.

A definite list, reviewed by a lawyer, would be useful.

imported post

WI_Patriot wrote:

A definite list, reviewed by a lawyer, would be useful.

Click to expand...

I am not interested in hiring an attorney to do something I can do for myself.

That is just increasing the costs of open carry. I will hire an attorney for representation and nothing more.

To be honest, if any of us hire an attorney to represent us in one of these fire arms cases, we will more than likely be doing most of the work for the attorney anyways.

Unless you have an attorney who is well versed in the fire arms laws, he/she could be as clueless as many of the police officers, legislators, and local government officials when it comes to arguing these issues in court.

The Statute 948.605 reads:

(a) “Encased” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet−firing
gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any
starter pistol.
(am) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.
8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the
school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the
school forest under s. 120.13 (38).


If you walk around with a map in your pocket and some how you get turned around and wind up within a school zone it is pretty hard to argue that you did not know you were in that school zone.

We have to be careful not to set ourselves up for failure.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Unless you have an attorney who is well versed in the fire arms laws, he/she could be as clueless as many of the police officers, legislators, and local government officials when it comes to arguing these issues in court.

Click to expand...

In Michigan, we've identified a few attorneys who are very competent with the firearms laws. When someone asks about counsel in our forum, we have a small list we can throw to them. I suggest you guys in Wisconsin do the same. Get to talking amongst yourselves, get organized a bit,"interview"attorneys by phone or in personorrecommend some you've dealt with, and try to form an attorney list.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.


If you walk around with a map in your pocket and some how you get turned around and wind up within a school zone it is pretty hard to argue that you did not know you were in that school zone.

We have to be careful not to set ourselves up for failure.

Click to expand...

Note that the "knowingly" you highlight pertains to the possession of the firearm; in other words, if someone puts a gun in your bag and you carry it into a school zone without knowing it's there you aren't in violation of the statute. The phrase "knows, or has reasonable cause to believe" is the level of knowledge that pertains to the school zone. I haven't reviewed any case law on the point, but it's a good bet that a prosecutor would argue an open carrier had "reasonable cause to believe" in any number of situations, like a school building being visible, school zone traffic signs, kids with backpacks in the area, etc, etc. Probably in situations that any of us would consider extremely unreasonable. Careful planning is probably a better strategy than hoping for plausible deniability, although I'm inexperienced in these matters and it's hard to say how any of this might play in an actual, specific situation.

imported post

bigus wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.


If you walk around with a map in your pocket and some how you get turned around and wind up within a school zone it is pretty hard to argue that you did not know you were in that school zone.

We have to be careful not to set ourselves up for failure.

Click to expand...

Note that the "knowingly" you highlight pertains to the possession of the firearm; in other words, if someone puts a gun in your bag and you carry it into a school zone without knowing it's there you aren't in violation of the statute. The phrase "knows, or has reasonable cause to believe" is the level of knowledge that pertains to the school zone. I haven't reviewed any case law on the point, but it's a good bet that a prosecutor would argue an open carrier had "reasonable cause to believe" in any number of situations, like a school building being visible, school zone traffic signs, kids with backpacks in the area, etc, etc. Probably in situations that any of us would consider extremely unreasonable. Careful planning is probably a better strategy than hoping for plausible deniability, although I'm inexperienced in these matters and it's hard to say how any of this might play in an actual, specific situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah I high lighted the wrong word it should have been:

(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.


If you walk around with a map in your pocket and some how you get turned around and wind up within a school zone it is pretty hard to argue that you did not know you were in that school zone.

Sorry, been working to much.

imported post

comp45acp wrote:

The Wisconsin Patriots will be supporting Travis in any way we can.

Click to expand...

Aug. 16th

imported post

Brad_Krause wrote:

The Wisconsin Patriots do not deserve the unwarranted criticism; no group has recently accomplished more in defending and promoting pre-existing rights.(1)

It is disingenuous to minimize the efforts of any individual or group that helped change Wisconsin's legal landscape because of petty differences. Many people stepped forward, from the first person not to be intimidated to those who continue to attend city council meetings. Every individual with a positive contribution is important, and an organized group of individuals is no different.(2)

It is further unproductive to attack a successful form of education to promote a personal preference. Some people may benefit more from personal research, others from taking a class, reading a book, or from a combination of approaches. If someone suggests one approach it should not prompt another person to promote their preference and belligerently exclude all others.(3)

I faced potential felony and later municipal charges for lawfully carrying a holstered firearm while planting a tree on private property I owned. Mr. Yates faces significantly lessened conditions for walking down State Street, while most other cities respect Attorney General Van Hollen's memorandum. This is a notable accomplishment resulting from the continuing efforts of many people.

Individual rights, our rights, should not be taken lightly. People have fought and died to protect our rights and continue to do so. If your intent is to make a positive contribution, please do so. If that is not your intent, perhaps you should consider moving to a country that does not afford the freedoms our Constitution guarantees.

Brad Krause



(1) "Nothing will change until we have a new governor" was expressed by other groups and echoed on this website until the first "open carry" case was won.

(2) The first "open carry" case was won because of unified support for inherent rights; subtracting any of the support may have resulted in a loss. It is not my intention to elevate the importance of any individual or group over another.

(3) This is seen in many topics on this website.

Click to expand...

Aug. 16th.

Just documenting these responses before people come in and edit them.

imported post

So basically, neither Brad or Travis have followed through with a lawsuit and more than likely will not.

What causes these people to turn the other cheek so easily?