Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Jefferson County

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the boonies
    Posts
    58

    Jefferson County

    Anyone know of any future plans/or needs help with future plans of an oc event in the Jefferson County area. Whitewater, Fort Atkinson, Palmyra, Watertown?????

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Fort Atkinson would be an interesting place. Two years ago the Chief of Police wrote to an OCDO member:

    "Our stance on the disorderly conduct statute has not changed, and I will again attempt to outline our understanding of the law.

    After receiving your second letter, I discussed it with Jefferson County District Attorney David Wambach. District Attorney Wambach echoed my interpretation of the disorderly conduct statute and even shared with me the fact the statute does not require an actual complaint, only that the conduct tends to cause a disturbance.

    947.01 ANNOT

    Disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. This section encompasses conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that is personal or private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that the disturbance or disruption will spill over and disrupt the peace, order, or safety of the surrounding community as well.

    With the above in mind, I again remind you that an arrest for disorderly conduct would be likely if a person were to go armed with a firearm."


    I then exchanged a couple of letters with the Jefferson County District Attorney and he completely concurred with the chief's stance. There's a new DA there now, but Chief Brus is still in Ft. Atkinson. It would be very interesting to see whether his opinion on open carry has changed over the course of the past two years.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    State Disorderly Conduct and weapons enhancement of penalty.

    It is interesting and perhaps significant that he did not refer to the local ordinance that seems quite specific when compared to the Statute. Remember, too, that there is a state weapons enhancer available. After review, I've highlighted in red what I think is the arguable point in an extra-legal charge of DC w/ weapon. Notice the implicit definition of a felony.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ft. Atkinson Ord.
    Sec. 58-73. Disorderly conduct.
    No person shall within the limits of the city commit any of the following offenses:
    (1) Engage in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct in a public or private place under the circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance or tends to reasonably disturb or annoy any other person.
    (2) Make a telephone call, whether or not the telephone conversation ensues, with intent to annoy another.
    (3) Operate a motor vehicle so as to cause the tires thereof to squeal, the horn to blow excessively, the motor to race excessively, or by emitting unnecessary and loud muffler noises.
    (4) Engage in any fight, brawl or altercation on any street, alley or other public or private ground.
    (5) Prowl about the premises of another in the nighttime, or peek in windows on another's premises, or do any other act intended, or naturally tending, to frighten or alarm other persons.
    (6) Give or send or cause to be given or sent in any manner an alarm of fire that he/she knows to be false.
    (7) Without reasonable excuse or justification, resist or in any way interfere with any officer of the city while such officer is doing any act in his/her official capacity with lawful authority.
    (8) Intentionally aid any prisoner or person to escape from the lawful custody of a police officer or peace officer of the city.
    (9) Impersonate a police officer or peace officer within the city.
    (10) Be in any public place within the city in such a state of intoxication as to disturb others or the safety of others.
    (Code 1969, 17.01(A)--(C), (E)--(K))
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisc. Stats.
    947.01 Disorderly conduct.
    Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 131.

    The defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct when he appeared on a stage wearing a minimum of clothing intending to and succeeding in causing a loud reaction in the audience. State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).

    An attorney was properly convicted under this section for refusing to leave a ward in a mental hospital until he had seen a client after having made statements in the presence of patients that caused some to become agitated. State v. Elson, 60 Wis. 2d 54, 208 N.W.2d 363 (1973).

    It was not disorderly conduct for 4 people to enter an office with other members of the public for the purpose of protesting the draft and to refuse to leave on orders of the police when their conduct was not otherwise disturbing. State v. Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d 668, 211 N.W.2d 437 (1973).

    This statute does not require a victim, but when the disorderly conduct is directed at a person, that person is the victim for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrator for intimidating a victim under s. 940.44. State v. Vinje, 201 Wis. 2d 98, 548 N.W.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1996), 95−1484.

    A “true threat” is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99−1924.

    Purely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected “abusive” conduct. “Abusive” conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. “True threats” clearly fall
    within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99−1767.

    Application of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S. 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99−2317.

    Disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. This section encompasses conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that is personal or private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that the disturbance or disruption will spill over and disrupt the peace, order, or safety of the surrounding community as well. Sending repeated, unwelcome, and anonymous mailings was otherwise disorderly conduct.” State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666, 99−3204.

    Defiance of a police officer’s order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful. Bruan v. Baldwin, 346 F.3d 761 (2003).
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisc. Stats.
    939.63 Penalties; use of a dangerous weapon.
    (1) If a person commits a crime while possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for that crime may be increased as follows:
    (a) The maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor may be increased by not more than 6 months.
    [ ... ]
    (2) The increased penalty provided in this section does not apply if possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon is an essential element of the crime charged.

    (3) This section applies only to crimes specified under chs.939 to 951 and 961.
    History: 1979 c. 114; 1981 c. 212; 1987 a. 332 s. 64; 1995 a. 448; 2001 a. 109.

    The fact that the maximum term for a misdemeanor may exceed one year under sub. (1) (a) 1. does not upgrade the crime to felony status. State v. Denter, 121 Wis.2d 118, 357 N.W.2d 555 (1984).

    Possession encompasses both actual and constructive possession. To prove a violation of this section, the state must prove that the defendant possessed the weapon to facilitate the predicate offense. State v. Peete, 185 Wis. 2d 255, 517 N.W.2d 149 (1994). See also State v. Howard, 211 Wis. 2d 269, 564 N.W.2d 753 (1997), 95−0770.

    An automobile may constitute a dangerous weapon under s. 939.22 (10). State v.Bidwell, 200 Wis. 2d 200, 546 N.W.2d 507 (Ct. App. 1996).

    Under Peete, there is sufficient evidence of possession if the evidence allows a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon in order to use it or threaten to use it, even if the defendant did not use or threaten to use it in the commission of the crime. State v. Page, 2000 WI App 267,
    240 Wis. 2d 276, 622 N.W.2d 285, 99−2015.

    When two penalty enhancers are applicable to the same crime, the length of the second penalty enhancer is based on the maximum term for the base crime as extended by the first penalty enhancer. State v. Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52, 251 Wis. 2d 245, 641 N.W.2d 715, 01−1549.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 09-01-2010 at 08:22 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    "Facilitate the predicate offense."

    The predicate offense being disorderly conduct, the State must prove that the weapon was taken up to make the commission of the conduct found disorderly easier.

    Seems a weak link I-ANAL, a coward, a "rectum", a troll or a sockpuppet (to cataqlog the various vulgarly used disparaging epithets).

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorin21 View Post
    Anyone know of any future plans/or needs help with future plans of an oc event in the Jefferson County area. Whitewater, Fort Atkinson, Palmyra, Watertown?????

    Any thoughts?
    I agree with shotgun, I think Fort Atkinson would be great.

    If you can find a Culvers or Starbucks, please PM me contact info for them. October 24 might work, let us know your thoughts Shorin21.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    There was a guy at the meet-up Sunday in Delavan who was from Palmyra and was nervous about ocing there... something to do with threats from the local PD; I forget exactly, so yes it would be a good area to get into.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the boonies
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    There was a guy at the meet-up Sunday in Delavan who was from Palmyra and was nervous about ocing there... something to do with threats from the local PD; I forget exactly, so yes it would be a good area to get into.
    That was me.there wasnt any threats from the PD. From what they told me that you couldnt oc is what made me nervous, and the fact that i didnt want to be harrassed..

  8. #8
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorin21 View Post
    That was me.there wasnt any threats from the PD. From what they told me that you couldnt oc is what made me nervous, and the fact that i didnt want to be harrassed..
    Palmyra does have a preempted ordinance on the books:

    9.02 DISCHARGING AND CARRYING FIREARMS AND GUNS PROHIBITED.

    (1) No person, except a sheriff, constable, police officer or their deputies, shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun within the Village or have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.

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

    Well said. Preempted but locally enforceable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Palmyra does have a preempted ordinance on the books:

    9.02 DISCHARGING AND CARRYING FIREARMS AND GUNS PROHIBITED.

    (1) No person, except a sheriff, constable, police officer or their deputies, shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun within the Village or have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.
    Well said. Preempted but locally enforceable.

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    That was me.there wasnt any threats from the PD. From what they told me that you couldnt oc is what made me nervous, and the fact that i didnt want to be harrassed..
    Just to be clear, the ordinance Auric posted is pre-empted by state law. Meaning Palmyra cannot enforce it.

    As you can imagine, we have people all over the state that would like an event in their town.

    What we encourage is that people who desire to have an event in their area organize/plan that event or get-together and let us know about it and we can make membership aware of it.

    Palmyra would be acting outside of the law if they arrested you or cited you for violation of their ordinance. They would be facing legal repercussions.

    As we discussed on Sunday I am going to write a letter and fire it off to Palmyra, putting them on notice that their ordinance is pre-empted and enforcing it is illegal. its just been a very busy week and I haven't had time yet.

    Having said that, even after I send that letter, NO ONE can promise you that every officer in the state will act within the law. Officers acting outside of their authority are pretty rare, but it does happen.

    There will always come a point where have to make a personal choice to either be a free person and exercise the right you know you are legally entitled to, or live in fear.

    I would never ask someone to do that which I was unwilling to do myself, and I can assure you if I was in, or find myself near Palmyra, I'll holster up and walk down main street open-carrying without concern for the police. (assuming main street isn't in a school zone)
    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
    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
    Well said. Preempted but locally enforceable.
    Doug, this is a prime example of what I believe is a disservice to members on this forum.

    You mislead people.

    Palmyra would be breaking the law by enforcing a pre-empted ordinance.
    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.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    Doug, this is a prime example of what I believe is a disservice to members on this forum.

    You mislead people.

    Palmyra would be breaking the law by enforcing a pre-empted ordinance.
    Well, the police can technically enforce the ordinance, most probably wouldn't. However that doesn't mean you may not run into some over zealous new cop that thinks he has a big bust going on.
    More than likely he will write you an ordinance violation and expect that you will just pay the fine. But anyone who knows anything about OC will fight that citation in court and more than likely win. Should it go to a higher court, the defendant will win big! Unless they turn the other cheek.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    The local ordinance is just as clear as is the preemption statute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    Doug, this is a prime example of what I believe is a disservice to members on this forum. You mislead people. Palmyra would be breaking the law by enforcing a pre-empted ordinance.
    The law is clear to me. Palmyra's ordinance is clear. The preemption statute is just as clear, that only grandfathered ordinances more stringent than statutes are without "legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995."

    We don't want the naive to presume wrongly. You presume wrongly some acquaintance, that I am addressed so familiarly.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 09-01-2010 at 11:56 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post

    We don't want the naive to presume wrongly. You presume wrongly some acquaintance, that I am addressed so familiarly.
    Keerist get the stick out of your a$$ will you? Whats the matter with you?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Keerist get the stick out of your a$$ will you? Whats the matter with you?
    I find you and chairman to be very unpleasant. Why, what did think, that I like impertinent, crude and rude characters?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    I find you and chairman to be very unpleasant. Why, what did think, that I like impertinent, crude and rude characters?
    No you like impertinent, crude and rude sockpuppets as we all know.

    You are a hypocrite Doug and you need to get over yourself.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Deleted
    Last edited by J.Gleason; 09-01-2010 at 01:18 PM. Reason: Deleted to avoid feeding the troll!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Look in the mirror.
    You want to elucidate on that SB? What hypocrisy do you refer to?

  19. #19
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I'm in for Culvers. There is no Starbucks anywhere near Fort Atkinson. 10/24 sounds good to me!

    shorin21 let us know if that fits with you and you'll have some company.

  20. #20
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    A quick look at a map of Palmyra indicates that there is a high school and a middle school near one another. Palmyra is small, so much of the western half of the village is within a school zone. Not sure if there are any private schools.

    Whatever your opinion of the local ordinance, for the time being the GFSZ is enforceable so proceed with caution.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I'm in for Culvers. There is no Starbucks anywhere near Fort Atkinson. 10/24 sounds good to me!

    shorin21 let us know if that fits with you and you'll have some company.
    I'm in for ice-cream Paul ! I'll put it in the calendar when the date an location is finalized. Shorin21 it was great to meet you in Delavan (I was Carrying the never fired M&P), hope to see you again soon.


    All of these meetings popping up reminds me of this video by our Missouri brothers:



  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I'm in for Culvers. There is no Starbucks anywhere near Fort Atkinson. 10/24 sounds good to me!

    shorin21 let us know if that fits with you and you'll have some company.
    For what it's worth, perhaps nothing, the Culvers in Fort Atkinson appears to be directly across the street from the senior high school. Whether that would be manipulated negatively in the press should be considered. Plus, given the Chief's past ignorant comments, one can only hope that he has a clear understanding of the GFSZ statute and "private property."

  23. #23
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason in WI View Post
    I'm in for ice-cream
    If I have had just one criticism of OCDO it is that there's been too little Metallica on here. Thanks for correcting that Jason.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    For what it's worth, perhaps nothing, the Culvers in Fort Atkinson appears to be directly across the street from the senior high school. Whether that would be manipulated negatively in the press should be considered. Plus, given the Chief's past ignorant comments, one can only hope that he has a clear understanding of the GFSZ statute and "private property."
    I carry in GFSZ's on private property ALL the time. Even the Racine DA has admitted it doesn't matter whose "private" property, only that it is private.

    If you guys are came for 10/24, I'll be the guy ordering the Bacon Butter Burger Deluxe basket with a Root beer Malt (Yum, Yum).

    Damn the GFSZ's, full steam ahead. He want's to violate my civil rights, and those of my children, then it will cost him $$$$$$$$$

    Carry On!

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    I should have offered more explanation--- that it is surrounded by a GFSZ requires us to consider whether Culver's parking lot would be adequate to handle everyone. We do want a LARGE turnout, correct? It's a logistical matter. If off-site parking is required by anyone they ought to make sure they keep 'em unloaded and encased as they proceed to Culver's property.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •