Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Greenfield Police Dept. Open-Carry Memo (more data from the MPD open-records request)

  1. #1
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Greenfield Police Dept. Open-Carry Memo (more data from the MPD open-records request)

    Interesting piece of data here.

    Greenfield Police Department Memo:

    Read full attachment, a few excerpts:

    "Officers who observe an individual in a public place whose only potential offense is the open-carry of a firearm have no standing to conduct a "terry" stop or other stop that rises to the level of a non-consensual encounter"
    Funny, though its perfectly legal they still refer to open-carry as a "potential offense"

    Should have been worded "Officers who observe an individual in a public place who are lawfully open-carrying"

    It is important to note that drawing your firearm, placing your hand on your firearm, telling subject to stand in a certain way or place, or telling the person not to move, would probably eliminate the consensual nature of the encounter and rise to the level of a temporary detention.
    Well stated and good information to give to their officers.

    In accordance with the Attorney General's memorandum and recent court decisions, the mere open carry of a firearm does not cosntitute disorderly conduct. However, the open carry of a firearm may be evaluated in the context of time, place, and other circumstances when making a determination as to whether a disorderly conduct arrest is appropriate. As an example, simply walking down the street with an openly displayed firearm would probably NOT be considered disorderly. However, walking to McDonald's in the middle of the day which causes patrons to be in fear probably would. Note tha tthis scenario would require a complainant(s) and the officer will have to evaluate the circumstances and make a judgement call. When in doubt, it is probably best to refer the subject to the City Attorney rather than make a custodial arrest.
    Attachment 3417
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ScreenHunter_02 Jul. 29 11.16.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	93.2 KB 
ID:	3418   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ScreenHunter_01 Jul. 29 11.16.jpg 
Views:	80 
Size:	97.0 KB 
ID:	3419  
    Last edited by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman; 07-29-2010 at 12:28 PM.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    Open-Carry Memo

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    Interesting piece of data here.

    Greenfield Police Department Memo:

    Read full attachment, a few excerpts:



    Funny, though its perfectly legal they still refer to open-carry as a "potential offense"

    Should have been worded "Officers who observe an individual in a public place who are lawfully open-carrying"



    Well stated and good information to give to their officers.


    Attachment 3417
    Potential Offense, Now there's a new way of putting it!! Have you run across any Memo's for Cudahy, St. Franices, or Oak Creek ? I now keep a File Box in the truck of my car, an I will be placeing a copy of this Memo in it..

    I really get a kick out of the McDonald's bit. I just find it hard to beleive that this Leo is going to go around asking patrons if they have a problem with me open carrying.. But then I still concener my self new to this. I do a lot of reading, But it's the actual experience you Learn more from..

  3. #3
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Having been in LE, I understand what they mean by "potential offense". They simply had a poor choice of words. What they probably mean is "a person who you may think is breaking the law but in reality isnt".

    A better way to phrase it would be "Officers who observe an individual in a public place whose only perceived offense is the open-carry of a firearm....."
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    If walking to McDonalds in the middle of the day is enough to get charged for disturbing the peace how about at 5pm or 7am or a fast food place that has a late night walk in?
    If open carry is legal it should be legal irregardless of time of day or public place.

  5. #5
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383
    I believe that one has to wonder how deeply this conspiracy to deprive us of our civil rights extends! Do we need a professionally written FOIA request that gets sent to every law enforcement agency in the state to get to the bottom of it? I frankly find this unconscionable that police agencies are colluding to interdict our rights and actively looking for methods, however flimsy, to stop us from exercising them. My whole life I have supported "law enforcement" ( I liked it better when they were "peace officers") but I am starting to doubt myself in view of these revelations. I seriously doubt this ends with the few agencies discovered so far.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by comp45acp View Post
    I believe that one has to wonder how deeply this conspiracy to deprive us of our civil rights extends! Do we need a professionally written FOIA request that gets sent to every law enforcement agency in the state to get to the bottom of it? I frankly find this unconscionable that police agencies are colluding to interdict our rights and actively looking for methods, however flimsy, to stop us from exercising them. My whole life I have supported "law enforcement" ( I liked it better when they were "peace officers") but I am starting to doubt myself in view of these revelations. I seriously doubt this ends with the few agencies discovered so far.
    I'm fighting the same crap here in Tennessee. It isn't just local, it is State and Federal too.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest
    well, kwick at least here we got WisconsinCarry. the deceptive games and such come, then comes WisconsinCarry.

  8. #8
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Very interesting wording.
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I particularly like

    It is important to note that drawing your firearm, placing your hand on your firearm, telling subject to stand in a certain way or place, or telling the person not to move, would probably eliminate the consensual nature of the encounter and rise to the level of a temporary detention.
    Just something to keep in mind on how we carry ourselves as well. I try not to rest my arm on my weapon but sometimes it just happens. Depends if I'm standing or sitting.

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    I believe that one has to wonder how deeply this conspiracy to deprive us of our civil rights extends! Do we need a professionally written FOIA request that gets sent to every law enforcement agency in the state to get to the bottom of it?
    I assume you saw this thread also J?

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ne-information

    It is disappointing to put it mildly. The "struggle" (to use the police's own words) to find a way to prevent the law-abiding from carrying.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    I assume you saw this thread also J?

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ne-information

    It is disappointing to put it mildly. The "struggle" (to use the police's own words) to find a way to prevent the law-abiding from carrying.
    http://www.examiner.com/x-33857-Fort-Smith-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d22-Federal-law-prevents-Arkansas-State-Police-from-influencing-gun-rights-legislation

    The author contends that one of the side effects of the McDonald case is that it is now VIOLATION of FEDERAL LAW for police or their unions/orgs to oppose carry laws.


  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    The Greenfield Chief still doesn't completely understand the GFSZ law...
    "the carry of a firearm on school property... prohibited under any circumstances"

    Except that the statute does allow for it, and NOT just for LEOs:

    948.605 (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:
    3. That is not loaded and is:
    a. Encased

    This would probably be something to discuss with the DA or the judge, 'cause the feet on the street are only going to know the most basic overview ("you can't be near a school").

Posting Permissions

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