Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
And their 'horn' can be touched only by a virgin. Thus they are safe from all cops.
And their 'horn' can be touched only by a virgin. Thus they are safe from all cops.
-
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.
Madison Police Department Capt. Victor Wahl issues hunting license for all gun owners
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
I totally agree with this. Just look at the Jim Zumbo affair a few years back.
Also, I'm glad that the AG didn't use a defferentiation, only a couple of examples.
For MxC, VH wrote "The state constitutional right to bear arms extends to openly carrying a handgun for lawful purposes,"
Doug Huffman wrote:
I totally agree with this. Just look at the Jim Zumbo affair a few years back.
Also, I'm glad that the AG didn't use a defferentiation, only a couple of examples.
For MxC, VH wrote "The state constitutional right to bear arms extends to openly carrying a handgun for lawful purposes,"
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Wouldn't they be an unikocer?
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Snip from State v. Douglas D. [/align]
[align=left]¶27 Douglas is correct insofar as he indicates that not[/align]
[align=left]all conduct which causes personal discomfort in others[/align]
[align=left]necessarily falls within the ambit of disorderly conduct. This[/align]
[align=left]court has held as much:[/align]
[align=left][Section 947.01] does not imply that all conduct which[/align]
[align=left]tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only[/align]
[align=left]such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of[/align]
[align=left]decency or propriety of the community is included.[/align]
[align=left]The statute does not punish a person for conduct which[/align]
[align=left]might possibly offend some hypercritical individual.[/align]
[align=left]The design of the disorderly conduct statute is to[/align]
[align=left]proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the[/align]
[align=left]normal sensibilities of average persons or which[/align]
[align=left]constitute significantly abusive or disturbing[/align]
demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Snip from State v. Douglas D. [/align]
[align=left]¶27 Douglas is correct insofar as he indicates that not[/align]
[align=left]all conduct which causes personal discomfort in others[/align]
[align=left]necessarily falls within the ambit of disorderly conduct. This[/align]
[align=left]court has held as much:[/align]
[align=left][Section 947.01] does not imply that all conduct which[/align]
[align=left]tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only[/align]
[align=left]such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of[/align]
[align=left]decency or propriety of the community is included.[/align]
[align=left]The statute does not punish a person for conduct which[/align]
[align=left]might possibly offend some hypercritical individual.[/align]
[align=left]The design of the disorderly conduct statute is to[/align]
[align=left]proscribe substantial intrusions which offend the[/align]
[align=left]normal sensibilities of average persons or which[/align]
[align=left]constitute significantly abusive or disturbing[/align]
demeanor in the eyes of reasonable persons.
imported post
I bet if the Madison police were not allowed to carry concealed off duty, open carry would be a sacrament.
Wahl- the stereotypical definition of a "suit" also has a problem with service dogs. Another example of policing inconsistencies in Madison.
http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/454727
This creep, who seems to delight in writing memos, just might want to become an assistant city attorney and leave police work to the real police, the street cops.
I bet if the Madison police were not allowed to carry concealed off duty, open carry would be a sacrament.
Wahl- the stereotypical definition of a "suit" also has a problem with service dogs. Another example of policing inconsistencies in Madison.
http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/454727
This creep, who seems to delight in writing memos, just might want to become an assistant city attorney and leave police work to the real police, the street cops.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Unknown...unik ocer...OCer ....unikocer I added the i to make the pronunciation more in line with unicorn. But you are free to modify this nonsense wordany way wish.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
request the FBI perform a Color of Law investigation! Nothing like the feds breathing down their neck to make straighten up and fly right!
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm
request the FBI perform a Color of Law investigation! Nothing like the feds breathing down their neck to make straighten up and fly right!
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
And who polices the feds?
Appealing to ever higher levels of authority is tempting, but has its price in the end.
autosurgeon wrote:
And who polices the feds?
Appealing to ever higher levels of authority is tempting, but has its price in the end.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Especially if they are ordered by their boss to go after you at worst, ignore your complaints at best, just because you are a law-abiding gun owner.
Tomahawk wrote:
Especially if they are ordered by their boss to go after you at worst, ignore your complaints at best, just because you are a law-abiding gun owner.
Superlite27
Regular Member
imported post
Venator wrote:
So............
.......this would make a known..kn OC'er...ocker a "KNOCKER" right?
Venator wrote:
So............
.......this would make a known..kn OC'er...ocker a "KNOCKER" right?
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
Don't forget the criminal counterparts to the civil violation. The FBI investigates those as well.
18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights (FELONY)
18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law (Misdemeanor)
autosurgeon wrote:
Don't forget the criminal counterparts to the civil violation. The FBI investigates those as well.
18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights (FELONY)
18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law (Misdemeanor)
VA Lawyer
Regular Member
imported post
Really?! In Wisconsin?! All of the folks that I know from WI (about a dozen) are very pro-RKBA. It surprises me that this sort of thing would happen there.
Really?! In Wisconsin?! All of the folks that I know from WI (about a dozen) are very pro-RKBA. It surprises me that this sort of thing would happen there.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
VA Lawyer wrote:
I really hope you are kidding around with that statement. This state is controlled by 2 of it's 3 major population centers. I am fairly sure that all the people in the rest of the state do not equal the amount people living in Milwaukee county alone.
Illinois has a similar issue happening, Chicago makes policy for the rest of the entire state and it is a very small part of the state in mass, but all the people that leech off the govt and expect the govt to take care of them live there.
VA Lawyer wrote:
I really hope you are kidding around with that statement. This state is controlled by 2 of it's 3 major population centers. I am fairly sure that all the people in the rest of the state do not equal the amount people living in Milwaukee county alone.
Illinois has a similar issue happening, Chicago makes policy for the rest of the entire state and it is a very small part of the state in mass, but all the people that leech off the govt and expect the govt to take care of them live there.
hopnpop
Regular Member
imported post
So - back to the woman who called it in. Granted, I think a 1st offense of this wouldn't even equate to a slap on the wrist...BUT I think that calling 911 to report a man (or woman) walking around with a gun on their hip, which is NOT a crime, is a misuse of the 911 system. Within this past year, I imagine most of you have heard about the woman at a McD's whocalled 911 three times because she ordered and paid for mcnuggets but they were out; and it's against policy to refund, and she didn't want anything else off the menu. Officers showed up after the 3rd 911 call and arrested or at least cited HER for misuse of the 911 system. With that in mind, if a woman calls 911 to report someone walking down the street, not breaking any laws, isn't that a misuse of 911? She ought to be cited.
Wahl said the person with a gun should be detained, with officers ensuring both the public's safety as well as their own, and police should then investigate the situation to see if any laws were violated.
Under this premise, police would be able to pull over any random vehicle, detain the driver, investigate whether the driver has a license or has broken any other unforseen laws? Just because you're driving doesn't give them the right to stop and detain you to "investigate" any legal infractions?! Not, of course, unless they WITNESS an infraction. The call should have only warranted a drive-by to make sure he wasn't brandishing it or using it in a threatening manner. If he was carrying in a legal manner and they didn't witness him breaking any laws, their stop and detainment was 100% unjustified.
So - back to the woman who called it in. Granted, I think a 1st offense of this wouldn't even equate to a slap on the wrist...BUT I think that calling 911 to report a man (or woman) walking around with a gun on their hip, which is NOT a crime, is a misuse of the 911 system. Within this past year, I imagine most of you have heard about the woman at a McD's whocalled 911 three times because she ordered and paid for mcnuggets but they were out; and it's against policy to refund, and she didn't want anything else off the menu. Officers showed up after the 3rd 911 call and arrested or at least cited HER for misuse of the 911 system. With that in mind, if a woman calls 911 to report someone walking down the street, not breaking any laws, isn't that a misuse of 911? She ought to be cited.
Wahl said the person with a gun should be detained, with officers ensuring both the public's safety as well as their own, and police should then investigate the situation to see if any laws were violated.
Under this premise, police would be able to pull over any random vehicle, detain the driver, investigate whether the driver has a license or has broken any other unforseen laws? Just because you're driving doesn't give them the right to stop and detain you to "investigate" any legal infractions?! Not, of course, unless they WITNESS an infraction. The call should have only warranted a drive-by to make sure he wasn't brandishing it or using it in a threatening manner. If he was carrying in a legal manner and they didn't witness him breaking any laws, their stop and detainment was 100% unjustified.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
hopnpop wrote:
Basically if you are not beaten and permanently disabled from a fully video-taped attack by the police, the attorneys do not want to touch the case.
The almighty dollar dictates who has what rights, and remedies against your rights being violated.
I would really hope the the NRA could step up and cover the fee's for representaion for Travis. Dealing with both the D-C charge, and going after the rights violation instead of some college student needing to foot the bill on his own.
He was quoted $3,500.00 for his defense alone, and thatis for what I see as a case that is cut & dry. He was wrongfully charged, and many of his rights were violated.
hopnpop wrote:
I am in full agreement with you, the U.S. S-C and the WI S-C both have relevant case law stating "an anonymous tip is no good unless it is corroborated by the police". Butmost police agencies realize full well they have immunity from prosecution. All we have right now is the mostly anti-2A (their national stance) ACLU. and high-dollar private attorneys.
Basically if you are not beaten and permanently disabled from a fully video-taped attack by the police, the attorneys do not want to touch the case.
The almighty dollar dictates who has what rights, and remedies against your rights being violated.
I would really hope the the NRA could step up and cover the fee's for representaion for Travis. Dealing with both the D-C charge, and going after the rights violation instead of some college student needing to foot the bill on his own.
He was quoted $3,500.00 for his defense alone, and thatis for what I see as a case that is cut & dry. He was wrongfully charged, and many of his rights were violated.
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
I think the woman will likely (or at least should) be called in as a witness...
As for charging the woman with anything, at best you might be able to get 'filing a false report' but I really don't think that would stick, and quite frankly, I think pursuing that avenue would be mostly detrimental as it would discourage anyone from calling 911 for any reason!
SO... Get the woman on the stand (and any other witnesses to the event that you can) and have them give testimony as to if Travis was "Barking" at people or "Brandishing" his side arm, or if he was simply walking down the street.
If he was doing this as a 'Political Statement' as he states, he very well may have been speaking loudly (barking?) about his (and everyone's) 'Right' to carry openly at which point you have to fight 1A along with 2A against the point that the public may very well have been 'disturbed'...
Furthermore, the video of the stop needs to be reviewed to see how he handled the stop itself, if he was in any way belligerent to the officers, he may be lucky that they didn't actually arrest him.
The fact that they took him home to 'put it away' tells me that he must have been at least fairly professional about the ordeal, however if he truly wasn't doing anything, and was completely professional about it, why did they make him 'put it away' and why would he agree to do so?
While I agree that this is a fight that needs to be fought, before I support this specific individual, I need more FACTS!!!
As for long guns vs side arms: Here in Texas, the only way we can 'OC' is to carry a long gun!!! (or be a cop...)
I think the woman will likely (or at least should) be called in as a witness...
As for charging the woman with anything, at best you might be able to get 'filing a false report' but I really don't think that would stick, and quite frankly, I think pursuing that avenue would be mostly detrimental as it would discourage anyone from calling 911 for any reason!
SO... Get the woman on the stand (and any other witnesses to the event that you can) and have them give testimony as to if Travis was "Barking" at people or "Brandishing" his side arm, or if he was simply walking down the street.
If he was doing this as a 'Political Statement' as he states, he very well may have been speaking loudly (barking?) about his (and everyone's) 'Right' to carry openly at which point you have to fight 1A along with 2A against the point that the public may very well have been 'disturbed'...
Furthermore, the video of the stop needs to be reviewed to see how he handled the stop itself, if he was in any way belligerent to the officers, he may be lucky that they didn't actually arrest him.
The fact that they took him home to 'put it away' tells me that he must have been at least fairly professional about the ordeal, however if he truly wasn't doing anything, and was completely professional about it, why did they make him 'put it away' and why would he agree to do so?
While I agree that this is a fight that needs to be fought, before I support this specific individual, I need more FACTS!!!
As for long guns vs side arms: Here in Texas, the only way we can 'OC' is to carry a long gun!!! (or be a cop...)
imported post
Hit 'em with RICO and Federal Terrorism statutes:
************************
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 96, § 1961:
Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) “racketeering activity” means
(A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
************************
If these detentions are unlawful, then it seems they would qualify as kidnapping, regardless of whether you were released in a short amount of time unharmed...that act still occurred.
**************************
Title 18, part 1, chapter 113B, section 2331 (5), (B), (i):
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
**************************
In light of the the AG's recent memo it seems there would be no other cause for these detentions.
Just a thought.
Hit 'em with RICO and Federal Terrorism statutes:
************************
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 96, § 1961:
Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) “racketeering activity” means
(A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
************************
If these detentions are unlawful, then it seems they would qualify as kidnapping, regardless of whether you were released in a short amount of time unharmed...that act still occurred.
**************************
Title 18, part 1, chapter 113B, section 2331 (5), (B), (i):
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
**************************
In light of the the AG's recent memo it seems there would be no other cause for these detentions.
Just a thought.