Hurting Open Carry one idiot at a time

imported post

I'm sorry if any of you might be offended by this post, I think most of you are much more reasonable than this. But this guys an idiot. Just found this at another forum, haven't seen it here or anywhere. He (illegally?) recorded telephone conversations with the Mauson police chief on open carry. It was something about carrying in a public library. I watched all of 1, half of two and the beginning of 3. Just couldn't stand the guys stupidity to watch any more no matter what might have happened.

1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aDEV...eature=related

2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f0RZ...eature=related

3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsLUQ...eature=related

imported post

Wisconsin Stat. § 941.235 (Carrying of firearm in a “public building”.)

imported post

How on earth did you even make it through the first video??? this is beyond ridiculous. he's thought process and conversation is about as coherent and intelligent as a drunk who's just heard about this topic for the first time.


part of me almost thinks that officer should be called and apologize to him for that persons behavior and explain to him that he is not affiliated with us.

but then again i don't know the whole story, and who this person is or if he is on any gun forum. for all i know he just heard about open carry yesterday and wants to get involved, but decided to act before educating himself.

either way.........that was just messed up.

imported post

Cobbersmom wrote:

He (illegally?) recorded telephone conversations with the Mauson police chief on open carry.

Click to expand...

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/wisconsin.html

Wisconsin
If the person who records the wire, electronic, or oral communication is a party to the conversation or has obtained prior consent from one party, he may lawfully record and divulge the contents of the communication, unless he does so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wis. Stat. § 968.31.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Wis. Stat. § 968.27.
Wisconsin law expressly authorizes civil damages for violations and allows recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, litigation costs, and attorney fees. Wis. Stat. § 968.31.
Recording a communication without consent is criminally punishable by up to six years in prison and/ or a $10,000 fine. Wis. Stat.§ 939.50.

imported post

lol, what an idiot.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

lol, what an idiot.

Click to expand...

I concur, altho that cop was none too smart either.:banghead:

imported post

Telephone recording laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] United States
In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.

Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states (i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan[9][/suP], Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation. Many businesses and other organizations record their telephone calls so that they can prove what was said, train their staff, or monitor performance. This activity may not be considered telephone tapping in some, but not all, jurisdictions because it is done with the knowledge of at least one of the parties to the telephone conversation. The Telephone recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states require both parties to be aware. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.

There is a federal law and two main types of state laws that govern telephone recording:

Federal law says that at least one party taking part in the call MUST be notified of the recording. (18 U.S.C. 119, Sec. 2511(2)(d)) This means recording a call you are not involved in is illegal throughout the U.S. UNLESS you are a business and the call is occurring on a phone line or extension you are paying for AND the employee has consented to be recorded, i.e. it is illegal to record the phone calls of people who come into your place of business and ask to use the phone unless they are notified.

[edit] Two party notification states
Twelve states currently require that BOTH or ALL parties to be notified of the recording. These states are:

• California
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Illinois
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Pennsylvania
• Washington

[edit] One party notification states
All other states, and the District of Columbia, besides those listed above require one party consent just as federal law. There are certain exceptions to these rules. See full rules here. According to California court case Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (July 13, 2006) if you call from a one party notification state into California, then the two party notification law outweighs the one party notification law.

imported post

Cobbersmom wrote:

He (illegally?) recorded telephone conversations with the Mauson[SIC] police chief on open carry.

Click to expand...

As Doug posted, in Wisconsin, only one party need be aware of the conversation being recorded, so an implication that this was illegal is incorrect.

imported post

Gently, I think that it was a questioning suggestion rather than an implication.

imported post

It is my past experience that any person directly involved in the conversation may legally record the conversation without the permission of the other participants in the conversation.

With that said, it is illegal to record a conversation as a third party. Meaning a conversation that you over hear. If you are not a participant in the conversation you can not legally record the conversation.

I must say, this guy was very unorganized and has serious issues when it comes to talking with and addressing public figures. If he knew the law he would have never gotten into this position. The Library is a government owned building. If he knew the law he would have already known he was not allowed to carry into the library.

I for one am tempted to send The Mauston Police chief an email letting him know that this man was in no way affiliated with OpenCarry.org or WisconsinCarry.org.

I also feel this was done purposely to give the general public a ridiculous opinion of anyone who open carries. Nothing like promoting profiling.

And by the way, I have never heard of PyraBang.

Here is a copy of the email I will more than likely send out.

Chief Messer,

My name is James Gleason and I am a member of OpenCarry.org, WisconsinCarry.org and Oath keepers. I am writing to inform you that the gentleman in which you had an incident with at the Public Library ( Christian Edward ) is not affiliated with OpenCarry.org, WisconsinCarry.org or Oath Keepers in any way. As you are aware Mr. Edwards has posted video of this incident on Youtube.com. He does not speak for or represent our members in any form.

It is unfortunate that incidents such as this will undoubtedly happen. It is our belief that Mr. Edward is attempting to shine a bad light on people who enjoy exercising their rights in a peaceful and law abiding manner.

The fact that Mr. Edward called the Library to question staff instead of calling your department for clarification is an indicator that his behavior is staged. If Mr. Edward was knowledgeable of the law he would have known that firearms are not allowed in government owned buildings. Obviously the Library is a government owned building.

Regretfully, no one can change Mr. Edwards actions but himself.

It is our hope that this incident will not affect the relationship between your department and individuals that lawfully open carry a firearm such as members of OpenCarry.org, WisconsinCarry.org or oath Keepers. We recognize that there are many residents of Wisconsin who enjoy their right to exercise their Second Amendment Rights that are not members of the a fore mentioned groups. With that said, we support them in their rights to do so.

We thank you for your time, consideration and patience when dealing with individuals who's behavior may shine an unfavorable outlook toward the rest of us who do open carry. we would also request that you share this sentiment with the rest of your officers in an effort to preserve a positive relationship between your department and those of us law abiding citizens who lawfully and respectfully open carry.

With sincere thanks and appreciation,


James A. Gleason

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

And by the way, I have never heard of PyraBang.

Click to expand...

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=44240

love the term "intellectual patriots"

imported post

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]PyraBang.Com • It's the New Media! [/font]

• [font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]"PyraBang[/b] is a way for alternative media to dump commercial low profit advertising from their sites and get much greater residual returns with our PyraBang[/b] ..."
  www.pyrabang.com/[/font]

imported post

maybe i'm being dense because of lack of coffee, but would someone please tell me what this christian edward did that makes him an idiot?

imported post

He was unable to have a mature adult conversation neither overthe phone nor in person. He refused to be courteous enough to discuss statutes with the Officer at the beginning of the phone conversation, etc......

"We're patriots... dude....".....:?

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

maybe i'm being dense because of lack of coffee, but would someone please tell me what this christian edward did that makes him an idiot?

Click to expand...

If you can't distinguish that from listening to the conversation, then there is nothing we can tell you that will help you to understand.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

maybe i'm being dense because of lack of coffee, but would someone please tell me what this christian edward did that makes him an idiot?

Click to expand...

If you can't distinguish that from listening to the conversation, then there is nothing we can tell you that will help you to understand.

Click to expand...

well if you were that much of a fricking genius, you could explain it better then.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

well if you were that much of a fricking genius, you could explain it better then.

Click to expand...

Put another way, it should be very obvious that his manner of conversation is inappropriate and immature which makes him a poor representative of the Open Carry movement.

imported post

I could only stand listening to this IDIOT for about 5 minutes.....What a dork.

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

He was unable to have a mature adult conversation neither overthe phone nor in person. He refused to be courteous enough to discuss statutes with the Officer at the beginning of the phone conversation, etc......

"We're patriots... dude....".....:?

Click to expand...

yup, this +1