Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Congrats to Dane County Sheriff's Office

  1. #1
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974

    Congrats to Dane County Sheriff's Office

    This is a Sheriff's Office Memo regarding Open Carrying. It seems they are trying to make policy clear.

    TO: Field Services Staff

    FROM: Capt. Jeff Hook

    REF: Open Carry

    With the increased publicity of the “Open Carry” Law and a high probability for persons to exercise this right, it is necessary to outline the Dane County Sheriff’s Office response to these incidents.

    It is the responsibility of the Dane County Sheriff’s Office to:

    Preserve and protect public safety.
    Investigate and determine whether a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.
    Protect the constitutional rights of those involved.

    It is difficult to balance all three of these responsibilities when it comes to resolving incidents involving the “Open Carry” Law.

    When determining whether to charge or cite someone who is openly carrying a firearm, there must be additional facts and circumstances present to substantiate a charge. Most statutes regarding firearms clearly define the combination of conduct and circumstances that limit the right to possess firearms. They are as follows:

    Endangering Safety by Use of a Firearm (Wis. Stat.  941.20)
    Carrying a Concealed Weapon (Wis. Stat.  941.23)
    Carrying Firearms in a Public Building (Wis. Stat.  941.235)
    Carrying a Firearm Where Alcoholic Beverages are Sold or Consumed (Wis. Stat.  941.237)
    Possession of a Firearm by a Juvenile (Wis. Stat.  948.60)
    Possession of a Firearm in a School Zone (Wis. Stat.  948.605)
    Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Wis. Stat.  941.29)
    Safe Use and Transportation of a Firearm (Wis. Stat.  167.31)

    However, when applying Disorderly Conduct (947.01) to an “Open Carry” incident there is no clearly defined rule or standard. Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen stated in a memorandum to Wisconsin District Attorneys regarding the “Open Carry” Law, Article I,  25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, “The Wisconsin Department of Justice believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge.” It is impossible to specify every circumstance or conduct that would be considered disorderly. In cases of persons openly carrying a firearm, they must also engage in “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar conduct” and the conduct “occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance”.

    While conducting an investigation, a deputy may stop and identify a person openly carrying a firearm in public for investigative purposes. Without “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity based on articulable facts, the contact must be voluntary and consensual. Therefore, the subject can refuse to answer questions or identify themselves. However, if during contact with a person openly carrying “reasonable suspicion” is developed, the deputy may detain and demand answers to questions and identification (Terry stop). Reasonable suspicion is based upon the totality of the circumstances, including any information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the persons conduct at the time of the stop, that criminal activity has just taken place or is about to take place.

    It is also important to note, businesses or owners of privately owned property can determine open carrying of a firearm is not permitted on their premises. The notification can be done by posting signs or verbally informing individuals of the policy.

    Therefore, it is not the position of the Dane County Sheriff’s Office to automatically cite or arrest someone when legally exercising their constitutional right to openly carry a firearm. There must be additional facts, conduct, and circumstances to justify enforcement action. In addition, contact must be voluntary with persons openly carrying a firearm unless there is “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity.

    To read the Attorney General’s memorandum go to http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/file...nCarryMemo.pdf or read the discussions at http://www.wilenet.org/
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Awesome! Maybe the Culvers we were at can secede from Madison?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I don't mean to throw cold water on this memo. Wouldn't be wonderful if 71 more sheriffs issued such a memo? However there is one error in the memo. The reference to statute 941.237 in the memo reads; --sold or consumed-- The words in the statue read --sold and consumed--. A minor detail but one that could lead to confusion. For example: if a person were to be stopped by sheriff deputies while open carrying in a liquor store.

  4. #4
    Regular Member JerryD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    central Wisconsin
    Posts
    120
    one down and 71 more to go!
    I had to change my signature because you know who got upset about it.

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I The words in the statue read --sold and consumed--
    Oh hell, let 'em learn the hard way.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    It's a start.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest
    has Madison' started' yet?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Krusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    281
    Obviously the Dane County sheriff wants to distance himself from the MPD crowd. I never go to Madison but I'm glad to see they have a sheriff that is on the ball.
    IF YOU WANT TO BURN OUR AMERICAN FLAG, PLEASE WRAP YOURSELF UP IN IT FIRST...

  9. #9
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    What if we used this as a catalyst to get each of our local county sheriffs to issue a similar memo?
    Do we have members in each county yet?

    Write a nice letter asking that Sheriff X reaffirm her/his support for the laws of the state & country, as well as update the deputies on staff about issues which have recently caused problems for other departments.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    However there is one error in the memo. The reference to statute 941.237 in the memo reads; --sold or consumed--
    Well there is more than one error, the "Open Carry" Law. Well maybe I'm a little slow but I don't believe that Law exists. But I'm not complaining about the slight error.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    It's certainly a large step in the right direction!

    I'd ask for clarification on: "In addition, contact must be voluntary with persons openly carrying a firearm..."

    Does that mean "voluntary on the part of the person openly carrying a firearm" or "voluntary on the part of the law enforcement officer?"

    Furthermore, what happens then? If I were to say "Hello," or "Good evening" to a law enforcement officer in Wisconsin, would that somehow give them the right to stop/detain me for further questioning along the long lines of the many reasons the sheriff cited for further detention and arrest?

    I don't think any state's open carriers will be out of the woods until that state has a law on the books which specifically prohibits law enforcement from making contact or conducting a stop, detention, or arrest based solely on open carry status. Furthermore, another hurdle that is in a few states, and should be in all states, is that any charge be "specifically articulable," that is, "I saw the individual crossing the middle of the road i.e. jaywalking when a crosswalk was within 60 feet distance."

    Even then, the charge would be jaywalking, not open carry! (which is a legal action in most states, after all). Commensurate with that, however, I was both surprised and pleased that the sheriff specifically mentioned the activities which, when conducted while possessing a firearm, are only then considered illegal. He was clear distinguish these from the simple act of open carry, which is, by itself, a law-abiding activity.

    As I said - it's a big step in the right direction, and that sheriff deserves recognition for his leadership in this area.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Good idea MKEgal. Already done on my part. I sent a copy of the memo and asked if the sheriff of my county concurred and planned to release a similar memo. Sure wish Dane county had done this sooner. There are a number of sheriffs running for re-election.

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

    Another A Dios. "I think I've done my best for a while, so I'll let things rest "

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    May someone else take up the fight commensurate with Federal and CRS law, six ways to Sunday, never hold back, EVER.

    EVER.

    Period, bare none. You're defending our law and Constitutional rights, so ride on!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Hasta lumbago, Diego. Don't let the door hit ya' where the Good Lord made you in His Image.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    It's certainly a large step in the right direction!

    I'd ask for clarification on: "In addition, contact must be voluntary with persons openly carrying a firearm..."

    Does that mean "voluntary on the part of the person openly carrying a firearm" or "voluntary on the part of the law enforcement officer?"

    Furthermore, what happens then? If I were to say "Hello," or "Good evening" to a law enforcement officer in Wisconsin, would that somehow give them the right to stop/detain me for further questioning along the long lines of the many reasons the sheriff cited for further detention and arrest?

    I don't think any state's open carriers will be out of the woods until that state has a law on the books which specifically prohibits law enforcement from making contact or conducting a stop, detention, or arrest based solely on open carry status. Furthermore, another hurdle that is in a few states, and should be in all states, is that any charge be "specifically articulable," that is, "I saw the individual crossing the middle of the road i.e. jaywalking when a crosswalk was within 60 feet distance."

    Even then, the charge would be jaywalking, not open carry! (which is a legal action in most states, after all). Commensurate with that, however, I was both surprised and pleased that the sheriff specifically mentioned the activities which, when conducted while possessing a firearm, are only then considered illegal. He was clear distinguish these from the simple act of open carry, which is, by itself, a law-abiding activity.

    As I said - it's a big step in the right direction, and that sheriff deserves recognition for his leadership in this area.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Good idea MKEgal. Already done on my part. I sent a copy of the memo and asked if the sheriff of my county concurred and planned to release a similar memo. Sure wish Dane county had done this sooner. There are a number of sheriffs running for re-election.
    I have asked for authentication from the Dane Co. SO. Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    There are a number of sheriffs running for re-election.
    Yep. In Door Co. the challenger is anti-freedom, pro-statist big government tyranny. I'll go with the incumbent, a devil I know is better IN THIS CASE than a devil unknown.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    This part is key, and the way Madison should have handled it:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    In cases of persons openly carrying a firearm, they must also engage in “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar conduct” and the conduct “occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance”.
    :
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    However, if during contact with a person openly carrying “reasonable suspicion” is developed, the deputy may detain and demand answers to questions and identification (Terry stop).
    Although this isn't wrong, this part is incomplete. He should remind his officers that even if they can demand the ID, they have no legal recourse if anyone refuses. Since detainment during a Terry stop must be for a reasonable amount of time they could only hold them that amount, trying to get ID out of them and let them go.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 10-25-2010 at 09:06 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  17. #17
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    I have asked for authentication from the Dane Co. SO.
    Don't worry Doug, it's authenticated!!! The origination is authentic, but there is always the issue of officer discretion, and there are no guarantees for that. I do know there are deputies that don't necessarily agree with it. Some have been schooled on it. I'm sure there are others that still need to be, as with any department.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    In cases of persons openly carrying a firearm, they must also engage in “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar conduct” and the conduct “occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance”.

    This is fine as it is, BUT with the addition of, "if they were NOT armed." to be placed right at the end of the above! So the activity engaged in absent the presence of a firearm would be enough by it self!

    I hope the above makes sense to others and not just to me!
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 10-25-2010 at 09:55 PM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    In cases of persons openly carrying a firearm, they must also engage in “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar conduct” and the conduct “occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance”.

    This is fine as it is, BUT with the addition of, "if they were NOT armed." to be placed right at the end of the above! So the activity engaged in absent the presence of a firearm would be enough by it self!

    I hope the above makes sense to others and not just to me!
    Sure.

    The charge of disorderly conduct is independent of the possession of a handgun. This is what the cops are becoming aware of.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    This is fine as it is, BUT with the addition of, "if they were NOT armed." to be placed right at the end of the above! So the activity engaged in absent the presence of a firearm would be enough by it self!

    I hope the above makes sense to others and not just to me!
    I don't see a problem the way they have it worded. You can not COMPLETELY ignore the handgun. For instance, a man walking down the street with a gun in his holster, waving his hands around is fine. If he's got a gun in his hand and is waving it around, it's not.

    Not that I like the disorderly conduct statute.........
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Well there is more than one error, the "Open Carry" Law. Well maybe I'm a little slow but I don't believe that Law exists. But I'm not complaining about the slight error.
    Here's one more slight error. After the list of Statutes, he did not indidcate that they may/shall face a Consitutional challenge.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Here's one more slight error. After the list of Statutes, he did not indidcate that they may/shall face a Consitutional challenge.
    Hey I thought you were mad with me and left the forum forever?

    COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Hey I thought you were mad with me and left the forum forever?

    Eat too many brownies and forget you were mad?
    Another fine example of how you have to keep stirring the 5hit!

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Another fine example of how you have to keep stirring the 5hit!
    Says the guy that just got a thread locked down for stirring it up. lol

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Says the guy that just got a thread locked down for stirring it up. lol
    Oh really! and which thread would that be?

    You are the cause of all of the disarray here in this forum. Do not try to push the blame off on anyone else.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •