Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Brookfield Police Department Open Carry Memo (good read)

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

    Brookfield Police Department Open Carry Memo (good read)

    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
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Arrests should NOT be made for Illegal Transport

    Arrests should not be made for Illegal Transport of a Weapon under Wis. Stat. 167.31 since there is no statutory authority to arrest for any State forfeiture.
    red emphasis mine

  3. #3
    Regular Member AdamXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    71
    I'm downloading this to my phone. I would advise others to either memorize this or carry a copy in their car.

    Proof that cops have no right to arrest for Illegal Transportation (given that that is the only "crime" committed).
    J.A.Salinas
    "Natural Selection is another way of God telling you you're an idiot"

  4. #4
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    WOW!!! This is awesome info. We may be one step closer to getting some of our rights back. It drives me crazy to have to disarm in my car, I don't want it to be a GFZ. Well done.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    How will 167.31 be enforced?

    So how will 167.31 be enforced, pending its rescission? Is anyone happy with the way traffic violation forfeitures are handled, how about seatbelt 'violations"? Be careful for what you wish because you may get it, good and hard.

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny amish View Post
    WOW!!! This is awesome info. We may be one step closer to getting some of our rights back. It drives me crazy to have to disarm in my car, I don't want it to be a GFZ. Well done.
    Don't read too much into that quote. How I read that section is that you can't "arrest" for vehicle carry violation, rather you are suppose to just issue the ticket on the spot.

    Just like a speeding ticket. Police don't have statutory authority to arrest for a speeding ticket... just issue the ticket.
    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.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    They also send you on your way with your vehicle after being cited for speeding and illegal transport, your personal protection tool may not be so lucky to leave with you.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    That's the way I read it as well.

    "Ma'am, you know that's supposed to be in a case, so here is your ticket. Please unload it, case it, and have a nice day."

    Then you can fight the ticket if you choose...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    How will the 167.31 violation be detected to issue the citation?

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    How will the 167.31 violation be detected to issue the citation?
    It will be detected by an illegal stop and illegal search.
    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
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Aren't these the same clowns who arrested MKEGal?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Finally some realization and recognition that a violation of the vehicle carry statute is not a criminal offense subject to arrest and processing. I don't advise not conforming to statute 167.31. Non-comformance is a violation to state statute but it is a violation in the form of forfieture. It is not a violation that requires (in fact state law has no provision) arrest for the infraction barring other circumstances. In this forum it is often discussed as if it is a criminal offense. It is often used in concert with the carry of concealed weapons, which is a criminal offense subject to arrest and incarceration and as such takes on a similar image. It more than likely is done so because the common subject is firearms. I feel it shoud be discussed in accord to the Rules of The Road laws under Chapter 346. In fact it is my opinion that if vehicle carry of firearms is to be considered by the courts and law enforcement as a public safety issue it's restrictions should be contained in chapter 346. It is not. The restrictions are contained in the sections of statutes that pertain to the protection of the State's wildlife. As such statute 167.31 should only be enforceable if it is observed during the illegal taking of wildlife and not when a firearm is carried in a vehicle as personal protection under cover of Article I section 25 of the state constitution.

    The Brookfield Chief of police and city attorney apparently see the distinction between the significance of a criminal offense and a forfieture and as they apply to 167.31. The CoP's memorandum indicates such. What is not understandable is that the memorandum was issued 15 months ago, yet just a few weeks ago MKEgal was arrested for violation of 167.31 in disregard to the chief's memorandum. Apparently the Chief's words fall on deaf ears at the Brookfield police department. There is no question in my mind that recently MKEgal's civil rights, guaranteed under the Fourth amendment et. al were violated by the Brookfield police. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that her situation will be elevated to that level. The Brookfield Chief's memo and the DA public admission to wrong doing would be powerful damning evidence and this case could go a long way to invalidating the vehicle transport restictions. I don't fault MKEgal if she does not proceed with her case. I am all too familiar with the trials, tribulations, and cost of the litigation process, only the lawyers win, but her situation strikes me as an opportunity lost.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    The stop will be pretextual. Its legality, only arguable.

    The driver will hear, "License, registration and proof of insurance, Sir. Are there any alcohol, illegal drugs or dangerous weapons that I need to know about?"

    It will be up to the citizen to maintain his rights.

    ((Ho ho! Very nice, very clever change to the editing script.))
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-31-2010 at 10:51 AM.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    [QUOTE=paul@paul-fisher.com;1320247]Aren't these the same clowns who arrested MKEGal?[/QUOTE]

    YEP, one in the same. So, they knew this over a year ago and it still hasn't sunk in. Time for the CHIEF to re-educate, re-train.

  15. #15
    McX
    Guest
    it does show; cracks are forming in the walls, soon they will crumble!

  16. #16
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    Don't read too much into that quote. How I read that section is that you can't "arrest" for vehicle carry violation, rather you are suppose to just issue the ticket on the spot.

    Just like a speeding ticket. Police don't have statutory authority to arrest for a speeding ticket... just issue the ticket.
    I am not implying that we should violate the law in any way. To me it shows a lack of confidence in the laws. It seems like a good thing when LEO has to start questioning where they stand.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    MKEGal Hopefully Will Pursue Her Case In Court

    I hope she does go forward with her case. If not, we all lose one of the best opportunity's to fight for our rights. The police violated her rights and then basically admitted (D.A.) publicly that they had done so. What more do we need to take this to court? I would donate until my wallet screamed to finance this case in court!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    If you would learn and educate yourself about what is going on there is an alternative to going to court.
    Go to 27 C.F.R. 72.11 All crimes in the United States are Commercial.
    A ticket is a Uniform Commercial Code Presentment.
    Do a little research on....Refusal for Cause.
    Also research.....Notice and Demand.
    I have used the, Refusal for Cause and tickets disappear, But you have to do the steps.
    I am working on the Notice and Demand now, Next spring I will be filing these papers on a few so called
    public officials.
    The courts you go into are Admiralty, that equates to Contract. They are not courts of Law.
    Don't take my word for it do a little research.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    If you would learn and educate yourself about what is going on there is an alternative to going to court.
    Go to 27 C.F.R. 72.11 All crimes in the United States are Commercial.
    A ticket is a Uniform Commercial Code Presentment.
    Do a little research on....Refusal for Cause.
    Also research.....Notice and Demand.
    I have used the, Refusal for Cause and tickets disappear, But you have to do the steps.
    I am working on the Notice and Demand now, Next spring I will be filing these papers on a few so called
    public officials.
    The courts you go into are Admiralty, that equates to Contract. They are not courts of Law.
    Don't take my word for it do a little research.
    Very interesting. I will look into this further as soon as I can.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Admiralty Law

    Hmmm. I am frequently advised that Admiralty Law will solve a number of controversies where I live, on an Island. Common Law and State Statutes are quite complicated, convoluted even, that Admiralty Law is another specialty beyond the layperson.

  21. #21
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194
    I wouldn't get too excited here since this was written in April of 2009.

Posting Permissions

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