Brookfield Police Department Open Carry Memo (good read)

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.

Click to expand...

red emphasis mine

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).

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.

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.

johnny amish said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

How will the § 167.31 violation be detected to issue the citation?

Doug Huffman said:

How will the § 167.31 violation be detected to issue the citation?

Click to expand...

It will be detected by an illegal stop and illegal search.

Aren't these the same clowns who arrested MKEGal?

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.

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.))

[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.

it does show; cracks are forming in the walls, soon they will crumble!

Wisconsin Carry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

Butch00 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I will look into this further as soon as I can.

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.