• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Police Forum Thread on the Culver's 5

X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
I suppose it is profiling in a manner of speaking, but it isn't being done by the government ;)

Our forums are a private business owned an operated by an individual and operated by volunteers. There simply are not enough of us to not employ some measures to reduce spammers.

You are always welcome to rejoin using a different username or email, and I will facilitate your approval as a real person.

thanks but im not really interested in changing my name or email for that matter to bettter suit you.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Can anyone explain to me the history of why Wisconsin would be a no concealed carry State?
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
PM sent, you are free to post it if you wish.

maclean said:
explanation
Just so you are absolutely clear on the nature of events on the other board, I banned you absent input from any other super moderator. Nobody had to "get me to do it."

You got a warning from countybear, and I posted several warnings regarding following our TOS in the thread.

I cannot be honest and do anything less than enforcing the TOS of our board, and you broke it. Other folks are still managing to carry on the conversation.

I regret having to do it, but did not make the decision for you to refuse to do what was directed by a member of our staff - and to publicly say as much.

Regards,

Mac

Mac,
If you hold Countrybear's illogical, aggressive post against me to be of any value and hold it in higher regard than the reasonable discourse I had on your forum with your overly aggressive and under-informed users, then I am glad I am no longer wasting my time.

Just for the record, I was never notified of any violation of TOS or anything else before this.

Just because countrybear is a 'moderator' on your forum should not give him the right to make aggressive and false accusations against any other poster. I would not tolerate that anywhere that I moderate, and I know it would not be tolerated here.

You are certainly right that it is your choice on how to moderate, good luck. The record speaks for itself there.
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
It appears that the prior offending comment was an anomaly, and I'll press on.

I do applaud how well and how quickly that was handled.

Maclean... I am so glad you are staying. There are "bad apples" amongst any group and to assume that OC'ers are monolithic in their personal opinions are attitudes is just as wrong as the assumption that LE personnel are all the same.

I'm out in California and have followed this topic however with great interest. I also went over and read the thread at the LE board and am very appreciative to read the viewpoints of police officers on the subject. There's a lot of distrust going on and I gather that much of the problem is a creation of our politicians and not the citizens or the brave men and women in the trenches like yourself or fellow officers. There's an old saying that there are people who supposedly don't like police, but when they need them they're your best friends.

Out in California, or the People's Republic of Kalifornia, as many gun rights advocates like to say, we have very restrictive laws and in most counties obtaining a CCW permit is next to impossible unless you're very well connected or you have a good cause statement that can be backed up with lots of supporting documentation like police reports of death threats-- that sort of thing. Most OCers in California, I believe, would gladly choose to CC if it were available to them. Speaking for myself, and avoiding the tactical discussion, I'd much rather not call attention to myself or alarm someone who has a fear of handguns (be it rational or not). Unfortunately, even though I theoretically have the possibility of obtaining a CCW permit, unlike Wisconsin, the reality is much different than the theory. It is this situation that has given rise to the OC movement out here.... which is Unloaded OC I might add. A gun grab probably won't be fatal unless a BG can grab your magazine (which must be carried openly on a belt holder for example). But if we revisit the tactical scenario, if a BG picks me out as the first guy to eliminate by virtue of my holstered EMPTY sidearm, I not only have to find cover and draw, I have to pop in a magazine and rack a round into the chamber, all the while hoping that BG is truly an amateur and by then I'm not already on my way to go meet Jesus face to face. :)

I agree that people should be well trained and they take on an enormous responsibility when they make the decision to carry. And I agree that people should be doing this for self-defense reasons and not for political statements. However, in a state like California where CCWs are near impossible for average folks to come by, and the only option for people who can't get into this elite club is to UOC, it's the laws of the state government that have pushed many people into treating UOC as a political statement. Again, many of us would welcome it if there was just a a change to a consistent "shall issue" policy-- if only to shut up the OC movement. Instead, we got AB1934 which set out to outlaw OC altogether.

I may have digressed here... but thanks again for your presence here and I hope you take back to the other forum that most gun rights advocates and OC'ers respect, appreciate and admire you and your fellow LEOs for the work that you do and the tough job you have. My thanks.
 

RR_Broccoli

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
170
Location
WI
Can anyone explain to me the history of why Wisconsin would be a no concealed carry State?

Where's Hubert when you need him. :D

According to Wikipedia, it's basically the "dangerous weapon" clause:

Carrying a concealed weapon is a class A misdemeanor, state statute 941.23. This is any "weapon", not just firearms. Knives are legally defined as "dangerous weapons

There hasn't been a successful push to get CC for a variety reasons, the most predominant of which right now is Governor Jim Doyle, who has vetoed a "sail through legislature" bill on the subject twice.

A state referendum a few years back, had something like 70% of people wanting it.

The open carry comes from banning fire-arms concealed as de-facto ban on Article 1 Section 25 (stop to check what my t-shirt says) :D

Article I, Section 25

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

So. Open carry sorta "squeezed out the side" as preventing it is a violation of the A1 S25.

There is some case law and other info here:
http://www.opencarry.org/wi.html
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Article I, Section 25

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Our own Article 1, Section 24 is much less ambiguous.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
 

March Hare

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
351
Location
Arridzona - Flatlander
Our own Article 1, Section 24 is much less ambiguous.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Ours was a little further down the document, but identical:

Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

-MH
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Can anyone explain to me the history of why Wisconsin would be a no concealed carry State?
In recent years it is because of one man's anti-gun agenda. That man is our governor. He freely and openly expressed his agenda some years back... On his wish list was to roll back our State Preemption Statute which prohibits political subdivisions from enforcing ordinances more stringent that those of the State. He wishes to ban all private transfers and to ban firearm possession by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor involving a gun. This would include some very minor infractions which have nothing to do with violence and violent acts or other harm to persons.
Doyle Vetoed 2 bills which would have allowed concealed carry with a permit. Anti-gun politicians have a strong hold in Madison and Milwaukee and influence others across the state.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Out in California, or the People's Republic of Kalifornia

It is reprehensible that only a certain class of people or people who are "connected" can obtain a concealed pistol license in California, and I understand how that would impact a decision to openly carry.

Now onto the subject of training....

I agree that people "should" be trained, but I am already on record on our forum saying that requiring training for the exercise of a civil right troubles me.

I've been professionally trained since the age of eight, having been fortunate to grow up around some nationally known professional instructors. I competed for a while without a great deal of success, then polished skills in the military and law enforcement profession as an instructor. I probably barely qualify as "trained" to some and can be a court recognized expert to others.

Such a requirement would not impact me, but what about a single mother with a stalker who plans to kill her?
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
In recent years it is because of one man's anti-gun agenda. That man is our governor. He freely and openly expressed his agenda some years back... On his wish list was to roll back our State Preemption Statute which prohibits political subdivisions from enforcing ordinances more stringent that those of the State. He wishes to ban all private transfers and to ban firearm possession by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor involving a gun. This would include some very minor infractions which have nothing to do with violence and violent acts or other harm to persons.
Doyle Vetoed 2 bills which would have allowed concealed carry with a permit. Anti-gun politicians have a strong hold in Madison and Milwaukee and influence others across the state.

Sounds like time for a new Governor.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
The Wisconsin Police Chiefs Association climbed in bed with the state premier anti-gun lobby (WAVE) with funding provided by Chicago's Joyce Foundation to lobby hard against the CC bills.

In Washington, usually the only anti-gun police you can find are politically appointed.

Our own Sheriff here in King County just told everyone to "arm themselves because we aren't coming" when discussing a budget cut measure.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Can anyone explain to me the history of why Wisconsin would be a no concealed carry State?

941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except
a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding s.
939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not
include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission
warden.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
The burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she is a peace officer and within
the exception. State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973).
A defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with
a gun locked in a glove compartment. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565
(1986).
To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of
s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).
A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation
by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from
view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this
section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).
There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed
weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999),
97−1423.
Under the facts of the case, the privilege of of self−defense was inapplicable to a
charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538,
638 N.W.2d 280, 00−0744.
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are
possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit
in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s need
to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid
restriction on that right be unconstitutional, as applied. The right to keep and bear
arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and
sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately
operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State
v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. See also State
v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed
weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise
the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s interest in
concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms
substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute?
and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the
only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear
arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.
This section is constitutional as applied in this case. The defendant’s interest in
exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed
weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state’s interest in
prohibiting him from carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle. State v. Fisher,
2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.
Judges are not peace officers authorized to carry concealed weapons. 69 Atty. Gen.
66.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Mac, you do a great job of speaking reasonably both here and on your forum. But I gotta say, the respect I was developing took a sharp nosedive over the way you handled rbur. From an outsider's perspective, it shows a definite double standard.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Mac, you do a great job of speaking reasonably both here and on your forum. But I gotta say, the respect I was developing took a sharp nosedive over the way you handled rbur. From an outsider's perspective, it shows a definite double standard.

Every forum has a "terms of service" and ours varies from that which is exercised here.

I would fully expect that if I told site staff here to stuff it when asked to do (or not do) something, that I would be making a short appearance.

Other than that, Rich can always communicate with me directly - or with any other staff member he chooses if I am not to his liking.

Thank you for the kind words about my discussion here and there.
 
Top