Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Open Carry report

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    I've been seeing more and more people in southeastern Wisconsin exercising their right to openly carry a firearm in public. :celebrate

    Last weekend I saw a man OCing at the Aldis on 108th Street. My wife said she sees people in there open carrying all the time.

    On Wednesday I saw a man & woman couple open carry in the Gander Mountain in Kenosha off of Highway 50.

    Yesterday afternoon, about 3:30, I saw a man on a Harley with a pistol on his hip riding down I-894 near the Hale interchange. (That's actually not legal. perhaps he was ignorant of that fact).

    Friday I saw 2 people openly carrying in Glendale on Green Bay Avenue.

    I usually carry concealed but I've been OCing more and more as an act of solidarity with the people who the state won't let choose their manner of carry. On Thursday I OC'd in the Walmart while I looked at bicycles. I had an employee walk up to me and stare at my holster like a deer in headlights and say "are you armed". I had to fight off the temptation to say "Duh!". I just replied "um...Yeah!". He says "You're the third guy today to come in here with one of those things" and he walked away.

    "One of those things"

  2. #2
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    I would bet that the guy on the Harley was a cop, and thinks he is void of any laws.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    I would bet that the guy on the Harley was a cop, and thinks he is void of any laws.
    I have no way of knowing for sure, but he did not look like a police officer. Not one that was in the patrol sector, anyway. He had very long hair and a big scruffy beard.

    Also, if you read state statute 167.31, you'll see that the vehicle transport law only exempts peace officers while they are on duty. Technically an off duty cop openly carrying in/on a vehicle is violating state law. Federal law HR218 doesn't trump this because it only concerns itself with concealed carry, not open carry.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    I would bet that the guy on the Harley was a cop, and thinks he is void of any laws.
    If is is a Cop, he is void, HR218 also known as the "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act."

    The only way I can see this applying to him as he is "open carrying" is:
    1.) He has no place on the bike to store the firearm.
    2.) The wind has blown his shirt up.

    To be honest the only way some of these aws are ever going to change is if they are challenged in court and for some that means fighting charges in court.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    AaronS wrote:
    I would bet that the guy on the Harley was a cop, and thinks he is void of any laws.
    If is is a Cop, he is void, HR218 also known as the "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act."
    HR218 only covers CCW, not open carry.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Your right I hit send before I got to finish, sorry

    ETA: I am glad to hear that more and more people are exercising their rights


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    HR218 only covers CCW, not open carry.
    Which could make things tricky for someone like me when it comes to school zones.

    Wisconsin law specifically indicates that it is a felony to have a firearm within 1000 feet of a school zone. It only exempts law enforcement officers who are on duty. It is one of the few laws that specifically mentions while in the course of official duties. Many other laws merely say "peace officer" and do not specify on or off duty.

    However, HR218 trumps this (in the zone, not on or in the property itself) and an off duty cop is legal to carry concealed in a school zone.

    I spoke with Assistant Attorney General Dave Perlman some time back and his thought was an off duty cop openly carrying in a school zone was technically guilty of a felony.


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I would agree as HR218 does only apply to CCW.

    I have loads of info on HR218 as I had done a research on it that lasted over 6 months.

    The law also applies to corrections officers in this state according to the definition and requirements of the federal law.

    Many LEO and politicians say that it doesn't apply to CO's, but I have a copy of the actual text of the hearings and it is clear within the text and testimonies that CO's are in fact included in the law.

    In fact Congress's definition of a LEO is:

    "A law enforcement officer includes corrections, probation, parole,
    and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriff, and other law enforcement
    officers who have had or who have statutory power over
    arrest and who were or are engaged through employment by a governmental
    entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision,
    prosecution, or incarceration of law violators."

    I also have two previoous AG opinions which opin that CO's have the same statutory powers as a Peace Officer.

    Both long before Van Hollens time.

    The interesting thing is I have spoken with a couple of people who claim to have spoken with Van Hollen on this issue. Their statement is that Van Hollen doesn't agree.

    Seems kind of odd to me since he has been so out spoken on the OC issue and he has issued ccw permits to some retired officers.

    If it is true it would mean he is double talking. It would be interesting to get him on the carpet on this issue.

    Personally I think he would side with the CO's being included. There has never been an AG that has opined in contrast to other AG's as this could have a huge effect on the state since many laws, ordinances, statutes, regulations, etc. have been written based on AG opinions. Imagine having to reverse them all.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:

    The law also applies to corrections officers in this state according to the definition and requirements of the federal law.




    The interesting thing is I have spoken with a couple of people who claim to have spoken with Van Hollen on this issue. Their statement is that Van Hollen doesn't agree.



    Sorry, but I don't agree either. The final text of the law says:

    (c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--
    `(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
    `(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;




    Most corrections officers do not have powers of arrest. Most of them are considered "civilian" employees as they are not sworn officers. Also, most corrections officers are not authorized to carry firearms. While there are a few CO's that do have arrest powers and/or carry firearms, a huge majority do not.


    But this entire argument is ridiculous if you ask me. Creating a special group of people by statute is just plain wrong. Every state in the union should have constitutional carry for all free citizens!!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:

    The law also applies to corrections officers in this state according to the definition and requirements of the federal law.




    The interesting thing is I have spoken with a couple of people who claim to have spoken with Van Hollen on this issue. Their statement is that Van Hollen doesn't agree.



    Sorry, but I don't agree either. The final text of the law says:

    (c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--
    `(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
    `(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;




    Most corrections officers do not have powers of arrest. Most of them are considered "civilian" employees as they are not sworn officers. Also, most corrections officers are not authorized to carry firearms. While there are a few CO's that do have arrest powers and/or carry firearms, a huge majority do not.


    But this entire argument is ridiculous if you ask me. Creating a special group of people by statute is just plain wrong. Every state in the union should have constitutional carry for all free citizens!!
    I have 2 Wisconsin AG opinions that say otherwise.

    OAG_46_280_1957 Requested by WILBUR J. SCHMIDT, Director,
    State Department of Public Welfare.

    "You are therefore advised that the department has the power to enact reasonable police regulations for the government of institutions and adjacent open areas operated by It.
    Institutional officers and employees, and local law enforcefment officers have jurisdiction to enforce the law and make arrests for its violation within Such areas. The primary duty of active, preventive surveillance and maintenance of peace and order rests with the department and its institutional officers and employes. Local law enforcement officers have a duty to render aid for law enforcement purposes within
    their jurisdiction, when called upon by the institutional officers and employes.

    As previously pointed out responsibility for the custody and discipline of inmates and the care of institutional property rests with the department and its institutional officers and employes. From this duty flows a duty to maintain order with respect to persons not inmates who are upon the premises of the institution. For this purpose the warden or superintendent of the institution, and such employes to whom they delegate such power, have the powers of a constable to enforce the laws and regulations governing the institution and to arrest idle or vagrant persons who are
    upon the p~emises and refuse to leave. Sec. 46.05 (2), Stats.
    This means that the department and its institutional officers and employes have the duty of active surveillance in preserving order within state institutions and adjacent open areas."

    OAG_68_352_1979 requested by ELMER O. CADY, Administrator
    DiVision of Corrections
    Department ofHealth and Social Services

    " 939.22(22) "Peace officer" means any person vested by law
    with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for
    crime, whether that duty extends to all crimes or is limited to
    specific crimes.

    It is not unreasonable nor absurd to construe the warden as a peace
    officer for the purpose of maintaining order, enforcing obedience,
    suppressing riots, preventing escape and capturing escaped inmates.
    The analogy between these duties and the duties imposed upon a
    peace officer, by sec. 939.22(22), Stats., is striking.
    Further reenforcement is found in the comparison of the duty
    imposed upon citizens to respond to the command of the warden
    under sec. 53.07, Stats., of the sheriff, undersheriff and deputies
    under sec. 59.24( I), Stats., and of peace officers under sec. 946.40,
    Stats. Section 46.05(2), Stats., specifically delegates police powers
    to the warden and grants arrest powers, and further provides th~t
    employes named by the warden "shall possess the powers of
    constables. "

    46 Op. Att'y Gen. 280 (1957) discussed police powers of CorrectIOnal
    staff members, stating tbat the department has the power to
    enact reasonable police regulations for the government of the institutions
    and adjacent open areas operated by it, and that institutional
    officers and employes have jurisdiction to enforce the law and make
    arrests for its violation within such areas.

    It is my opinion that correctional staff, acting under direction of
    the warden, are peace officers within the institution and on institutional
    grounds by virtue of both secs. 53.07 and 46.05(2), Stats.
    When correctional staff are commanded by the warden or his representative
    to enforce his duty to prevent escape and recapture escapees,
    they have peace officer status while pursuing such escapees. Correctional
    staff also enjoy the immunities and rights of a deputy under
    the doctrine of posse comitatus, or sees. 53.07 and 968.07(2), Stats.,
    so long as the warden retains his current statutory status as a peace
    officer.

    The warden and correctional staff are state employes and their
    jurisdiction is statewide when carrying out their mandate to capture
    escaped inmates. They may pursue inmates throughout the state and
    may arrest, after hot pursuit and otherwise, in any county of the state.
    This does not in any way affect or limit local peace officers' responsibility
    to pursue and arrest escaped inmates.

    The answers to your specific questions are premised on the conclusion
    that the warden is a peace officer for the purposes described
    above and those acting at his command enjoy the immunities and
    rights of a deputized peace officer. Your detailed questions and my
    answers follow:
    1. What is the authority of non-deputized staff members to pursue
    escapees off-grounds of correctional institutions?
    Section 53.07, Stats. The warden or superintendent may adopt
    proper means to capture escaped inmates. Based upon the above discussion,
    it is immaterial whether the warden or superintendent has
    been deputized by the sheriff or are acting with the inherent powers
    of their position.
    2. [M] ay [such staff] carry concealed weapons or unconcealed
    weapons?
    Since they carry the same status as deputized peace officers, they
    may act in the same manner as a peace officer. They may carry
    unconcealed weapons and are not prohibited by law from carrying
    concealed weapons. For example, sec. 941.23(1), Stats., prohibits
    any person, except a peace officer, from going armed with a con-'
    cealed weapon."

    As far as corrections Officers being authorized to carry a firearm. We are.

    In fact qualifying with a fire arm is a requirement of our employment. So if CO's are not authorized to carry a firearm then the 12,000 plus CO's in this state have one hell of a class action lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin for unfair labor standards.

    Of course we are authorized to carry firearms. We are also authorized to use deadly force if necessary. Anyone who says we are not does not know what they are talking about.

    Wisconsin Corrections Officers meet all requirements of the federal law. Without exception.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    pkbites wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:

    The law also applies to corrections officers in this state according to the definition and requirements of the federal law.




    The interesting thing is I have spoken with a couple of people who claim to have spoken with Van Hollen on this issue. Their statement is that Van Hollen doesn't agree.



    Sorry, but I don't agree either. The final text of the law says:

    (c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--
    `(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
    `(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;




    Most corrections officers do not have powers of arrest. Most of them are considered "civilian" employees as they are not sworn officers. Also, most corrections officers are not authorized to carry firearms. While there are a few CO's that do have arrest powers and/or carry firearms, a huge majority do not.


    But this entire argument is ridiculous if you ask me. Creating a special group of people by statute is just plain wrong. Every state in the union should have constitutional carry for all free citizens!!
    I have 2 Wisconsin AG opinions that say otherwise.
    Can you post them. I have a close friend who is a CO who would like to be able to CCW. He was specifically told by his higher ups he could not.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    They are posted above, sorry for what ever reason it came on late


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post


    As far as corrections Officers being authorized to carry a firearm. We are.

    In fact qualifying with a fire arm is a requirement of our employment. So if CO's are not authorized to carry a firearm then the 12,000 plus CO's in this state have one hell of a class action lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin for unfair labor standards.

    Of course we are authorized to carry firearms. We are also authorized to use deadly force if necessary. Anyone who says we are not does not know what they are talking about.


    Wisconsin Corrections Officers meet all requirements of the federal law. Without exception.



    I know a couple of CO's and none of them carry nor are trained in firearms. The facilities they work at do have specific officers who are armed, but there are only a handful of them.

    I don't trust an AG opinion that goes back to 1957. It may no longer have relevance. I sent off an email to Assistant AG Perlman. It will probably take a few days for him to reply. Lets see what he says.

    I'll tell you this, the litmus test for the department I work for is to ask a person if they are authorized to make arrests. If the answer is no, then they cannot CCW. This has never come up regarding a CO, however, as far as I know.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote: Even though the Department may tell him he can not carry off duty, he is still protected by the federal law to do so.

    Scope of privilege conferred by the law If a person is covered by the LEOSA, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof," he or she may carry a concealed firearm in any state or political subdivision
    thereof. See Title 18, USC, Section 921, which defines "state" to also include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S. Possessions. Thus, the LEOSA-qualified person does not generally require a state-issued permit for carrying concealed firearms.
    However, there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.
    The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.
    Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the definitions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.
    From the FAQ page:
    My agency has a policy that does not allow me to carry my firearm while I am
    off-duty. Does this mean that this legislation will not benefit me?


    If you are a qualified active law enforcement officer, you are legally able to carry a firearm under the provisions of H.R. 218. There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations, or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers which choose to carry while off-duty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry under the provisions of the bill.


  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Scope of privilege conferred by the law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act#Scope_of_privi lege_conferred_by_the_law

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:

    As far as corrections Officers being authorized to carry a firearm. We are.

    In fact qualifying with a fire arm is a requirement of our employment. So if CO's are not authorized to carry a firearm then the 12,000 plus CO's in this state have one hell of a class action lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin for unfair labor standards.

    Of course we are authorized to carry firearms. We are also authorized to use deadly force if necessary. Anyone who says we are not does not know what they are talking about.


    Wisconsin Corrections Officers meet all requirements of the federal law. Without exception.



    I know a couple of CO's and none of them carry nor are trained in firearms. The facilities they work at do have specific officers who are armed, but there are only a handful of them.

    I don't trust an AG opinion that goes back to 1957. It may no longer have relevance. I sent off an email to Assistant AG Perlman. It will probably take a few days for him to reply. Lets see what he says.

    I'll tell you this, the litmus test for the department I work for is to ask a person if they are authorized to make arrests. If the answer is no, then they cannot CCW. This has never come up regarding a CO, however, as far as I know.
    AG opinions are binding to the state.

    ETA: As I stated earlier it is a requirement for employment to qualify with firearms in the DOC.
    The federal law only states that a qualified officer must meet their agency standards with a firearm. It does not specify handgun, rifle or shotgun. Some agencys may have no standard. therfore the officers would still be qualified.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I would also like to add that even if the AG or AAG would state that his Opinion is negative that still would not change the other two opinions. All that would do is show that they are talking double speak and their so called support of CCW is nothing more than a campaign gimick.

    There have been laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations written based on AG opinions. It would be unwise for any AG to reverse or oppose an opinion as it could cause caos within the state legislature and within the court system.

    For example, lets say that because of these opinions corrections officers arrested an individual for loitering on Institution grounds and refusing to leave.

    If the AAG or the AG were to oppose the previous opinions then the arrest would be found to be unlawful and the state could be held liable to a suit in equity.

    AG opinions historically have never disputed earlier opinions and more than likely never will. AG Opinions are as I said binding to the state.

    Another thing I would like to bring to your attention is that Van Hollen never issued an Opinion on OC. He only issued a memo. A memo is not as valid as an opinion.
    Why did he not issue an Opinion?

    Therefore, if he had issued an opinion, statute, ordinance and regulation could have been drafted based on that opinion. Since he only issued a memo, it leaves officers open to arrest an individual for OC.

    I guess my point is, if Van Hollen is such a strong supporter of OC/CCW then why didn't he issue a memo?

    Maybe he is just telling us what he thinks we want to hear.

    As far as CO's and LEOSA, I have good legal advice on that, you are free to do whatever you choose.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    I'll bring this stuff up when I hear back from Perlman. I'm going to have to talk to one of my friends who works for DOC. I don't recall him saying anything about having to qualify with a firearm. Doesn't mean he doesn't have to, I just don't recall it coming up.

    My good buddy who wants to carry is a CO for Milwaukee County down at the house. I know for a fact he is not trained with a firearm, does not carry one at work (ever) and does not have arrest powers. I'm willing to bet he's not covered.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    The MCHOC is not state so I can not speak for those officers. All state Corrections Officers must qualify with a firearm as a requirement of employment. And must meet agency standards.

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    I usually carry concealed
    Can I assume you are a LEO?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    I'll tell you this, the litmus test for the department I work for is to ask a person if they are authorized to make arrests.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    The interesting thing about the whole, "Are you authorized to make arrests?" thing is this, Why does not having the authorization to make an arrest disqualify you from being able to defend yourself from an ex convict that may be lurking around waiting to catch you off guard?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
    pkbites wrote:
    I usually carry concealed
    Can I assume you are a LEO?
    Assume nothing!

    But yes.


    J.Gleason wrote:
    The interesting thing about the whole, "Are you authorized to make arrests?" thing is this, Why does not having the authorization to make an arrest disqualify you from being able to defend yourself from an ex convict that may be lurking around waiting to catch you off guard?
    True. But I'm talking straight law if they're exempt from the CCW statute.

    What a crock of crap all these laws are with the twists and turns, who can carry, how, when, and where. Haven't any of our leaders heard of the 2nd Amendment?

    Last time I was in Philly down by Independence Hall over by where Dr. Franklin is buried, I couldn't figure out what the "whirling" sound I kept hearing was. I finally figured out it was Ben spinning in his grave!

    ETA: Correct spelling error.

  24. #24
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
    pkbites wrote:
    I usually carry concealed
    Can I assume you are a LEO?
    *

    Assume nothing!

    But yes.
    Well, if not, I was going to mention CC ain't legal unless you're a LEO.

    Never mind then.

  25. #25
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    It's good to hear that membership to the cool club is growing.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •