Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: la crosse gfsz charge

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758

    la crosse gfsz charge

    I just read on ap news that the 15 year old that brought a gun to school WAS charged with a gfsz violation. Couldn't get a link. (Posting from my mobile.)

  2. #2
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    Thank you. :-)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Hmmm.... I wonder if his attorney is going to challenge the GFSZ violatioin. I also wonder which GFSZ he will ultimately be charged with; federal or state.

    Although this isn't a great test case, if it's under the federal GFSZ, It could be challenged on 2A/14A grounds or that it's beyond the federal power to regulate via the commerce clause. Also, if federal, it's the prosecutions burden to prove that the weapon moved in or substantially affected interstate commerce; probably not hard to do in this case.

    If it's state GFSZ it can be challenged under Article 1 Section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution and 2A/14A but this challenge would be weak at best.

    Once again, it's a bad test case and the kid broke a few laws just to show off to his friends but if you're his attorney your going to try your best to get him off the felony charge for sure.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    145
    Of course the responsible parents aren't accountable for anything.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?

  7. #7
    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 Beretta-m9 View Post
    he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?
    Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.
    I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta-m9 View Post
    I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.
    There is a difference between good laws and bad laws. Good laws protect the innocent. Bad laws make otherwise innocent people guilty of a crime for no good reason.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  10. #10
    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 Beretta-m9 View Post
    I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.
    Respectfully, I disagree. Who get's to judge who "clearly" broke the law? There's a reason that the system is the way it is. It's so that everyone get's a fair shake.

    How many times has a police officer or other official twisted the facts (or outright lied) to get a conviction? Why do OCer's have to go around with voice recorders? If you think about all the problems we have now with inocent people getting nailed on trumped up charges think about how it would be if the government had even more power or we had less rights.

    Too many people are in love with the rouge cop shows on TV where they get to beat confessions out of people. That's not how it works and if someone get's off on a percieved technicallity it's the fault of the police/DA and an ineffective prosecution rather than a problem with the system.

    Some believe it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than 1 guilty person go free.

    I on the other hand believe that it's better to have 100 guilty people go free than have one innocent person go to prison.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my pick up truck
    Posts
    73
    I agree with Brass magnet, there are many cases out there where the DA has tried to charge someone with charges that make the case seem much more serious than what the facts actually prove. That is why many of those cases get dismissed or the person is found not guilty. But then ther are some that get slammed with serious jail time for doing something that normally would not bring such a sentence.

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest
    considering wiscarry had filed suit chalenging the school zone bit, any real action may be held off until that suit shows how it's going to go in the courts. I suspect the same thing with the Madison 5 issue(s).

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Respectfully, I disagree. Who get's to judge who "clearly" broke the law? There's a reason that the system is the way it is. It's so that everyone get's a fair shake.

    How many times has a police officer or other official twisted the facts (or outright lied) to get a conviction? Why do OCer's have to go around with voice recorders? If you think about all the problems we have now with inocent people getting nailed on trumped up charges think about how it would be if the government had even more power or we had less rights.

    Too many people are in love with the rouge cop shows on TV where they get to beat confessions out of people. That's not how it works and if someone get's off on a percieved technicallity it's the fault of the police/DA and an ineffective prosecution rather than a problem with the system.

    Some believe it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than 1 guilty person go free.

    I on the other hand believe that it's better to have 100 guilty people go free than have one innocent person go to prison.
    the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law ?? I have been on the twisted side of the law more times then i care to count and likely dealt with cops far more then anyone else on this forum. I agree with alot of what you say but saying that everyone gets a "fair shake" is about as ridiculous as it gets, when and where does this occur ?

    This kid did "clearly" break the law, he is 15 the law DOES say gfsz, is it constitional imo NO is it the law YES. Is he allowed to have a gun at 15 NO, should he have a gun at school or anywhere else NO.

  14. #14
    Regular Member IcrewUH60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Verona, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.
    not to debate guilt or innocence with what he's charged with, but at 15 years old do constitutional rights apply? Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but can a 15 year old use a 2A defense?
    "In a court trial half the lawyers are wrong." - Captain Nemo

    "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizens." - Albert Einstein

    gunowners.org ~ lp.org ~ downsizedc.org ~ oathkeepers.org ~ campaignforliberty.com/usa/WI/ ~ goooh.com

  15. #15
    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 Beretta-m9 View Post
    the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law ?? I have been on the twisted side of the law more times then i care to count and likely dealt with cops far more then anyone else on this forum. I agree with alot of what you say but saying that everyone gets a "fair shake" is about as ridiculous as it gets, when and where does this occur ?

    This kid did "clearly" break the law, he is 15 the law DOES say gfsz, is it constitional imo NO is it the law YES. Is he allowed to have a gun at 15 NO, should he have a gun at school or anywhere else NO.
    I'll clarify: The system is designed so that in theory everyone get's a fair shake. It may not always work out that way. In fixing the system, if we chose to do so, I will not advocate for more powers for the government but first say that DA's and LEO's need to do their job better. One of the real problems with the system on the justice side of things is when DA's abuse their discresion to either plea criminals down or trump charges on non criminals.

    Obviously playing the devils advocate but in doing so making an important point:
    Were you there? Did you see the kid breaking the law? Do you know where he got the gun from? Was it even his?

    The point is that in this case; and many others, it may seem clear but unless you saw it with your own eyes or have the evidence to back it up it didn't happen in the eyes of the system. The government has to prove it.

    How many times in a self defense case (where we think it's obviously self defense) does the defendant go to court anyway on charges of homicide or manslaughter?

    Innocent until proven guilty. It's the prosecutions burden not his our ours.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    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 IcrewUH60 View Post
    not to debate guilt or innocence with what he's charged with, but at 15 years old do constitutional rights apply? Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but can a 15 year old use a 2A defense?
    Yes, I would argue that they apply; however, only because I don't believe it's been tested in court since the recent decisions. Many rights are disabled until a person reaches the age of majority; usually 18 or 21 and I'd guess that you are right in that they courts would probably believe his right is not enabled. They may decide to use the test that the militia consisted of able bodied men aged 18-45 (I believe those are the ages) for instance.

    Also, most of having rights disabled until one meets the age of majority is because one is deemed not to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with that right until that age. It's not always the case that they can't handle the responsibility but in this case, if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.

    Emancipated minors are a good example of someone suing for a right that is normally denied them because of not reaching the age of 18.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    I'll clarify: The system is designed so that in theory everyone get's a fair shake. It may not always work out that way. In fixing the system, if we chose to do so, I will not advocate for more powers for the government but first say that DA's and LEO's need to do their job better. One of the real problems with the system on the justice side of things is when DA's abuse their discresion to either plea criminals down or trump charges on non criminals.

    Obviously playing the devils advocate but in doing so making an important point:
    Were you there? Did you see the kid breaking the law? Do you know where he got the gun from? Was it even his?

    The point is that in this case; and many others, it may seem clear but unless you saw it with your own eyes or have the evidence to back it up it didn't happen in the eyes of the system. The government has to prove it.

    How many times in a self defense case (where we think it's obviously self defense) does the defendant go to court anyway on charges of homicide or manslaughter?

    Innocent until proven guilty. It's the prosecutions burden not his our ours.
    lol, "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously you have never dealt with the law in anything but theory. Innocence is not presumed or there would not be bail. If I am innocent why am I givin a ticket and then made to "defend" myself in the court system, I have to pay a lawyer to "prove" my innocence and then if I am proven innocent I do not recieve any money in return for my cost to prove my innocence. Just because it says innocent until proven guilty does not make it any more true then the constitution saying I have the right to bear arms. think about it.
    The kid walked into a school with a gun, no I was not there I am simply going by what the article says, having said that if a 15 year old kid walks anywhere with a gun he/she IS guilty of breaking the law and I don't need you a judge or anyone else to tell me he is guilty, a judge is a human just like me and you not some all knowing super power that you apparently think he or she is, wake up and smell the coffe friend.

    BTW i love how you call them a "defendant" and at the same time say they are innocent until proven guilty, I'm dying for you to explain to me why he/she is bieng called "defendant" if they are considered innocent. What are they defending? innocence ? you don't defend innocence you prove guilt.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Yes, I would argue that they apply; however, only because I don't believe it's been tested in court since the recent decisions. Many rights are disabled until a person reaches the age of majority; usually 18 or 21 and I'd guess that you are right in that they courts would probably believe his right is not enabled. They may decide to use the test that the militia consisted of able bodied men aged 18-45 (I believe those are the ages) for instance.

    Also, most of having rights disabled until one meets the age of majority is because one is deemed not to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with that right until that age. It's not always the case that they can't handle the responsibility but in this case, if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.

    Emancipated minors are a good example of someone suing for a right that is normally denied them because of not reaching the age of 18.
    why is it obvious he couldn't handle it ? who decides who can and cannot "handle" it ? what it's not ok for me to see his obvious guilt but it's ok for you to see his obvious inability to handle the responsibility.

  19. #19
    Regular Member IcrewUH60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Verona, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny amish View Post
    when I was younger, high school was the best place to get drugs and guns. Are they changing all that now?
    "In a court trial half the lawyers are wrong." - Captain Nemo

    "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizens." - Albert Einstein

    gunowners.org ~ lp.org ~ downsizedc.org ~ oathkeepers.org ~ campaignforliberty.com/usa/WI/ ~ goooh.com

  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 Beretta-m9 View Post
    why is it obvious he couldn't handle it ? who decides who can and cannot "handle" it ? what it's not ok for me to see his obvious guilt but it's ok for you to see his obvious inability to handle the responsibility.
    Reread what I wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    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 Beretta-m9 View Post
    lol, "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously you have never dealt with the law in anything but theory. Innocence is not presumed or there would not be bail. If I am innocent why am I givin a ticket and then made to "defend" myself in the court system, I have to pay a lawyer to "prove" my innocence and then if I am proven innocent I do not recieve any money in return for my cost to prove my innocence. Just because it says innocent until proven guilty does not make it any more true then the constitution saying I have the right to bear arms. think about it.
    The kid walked into a school with a gun, no I was not there I am simply going by what the article says, having said that if a 15 year old kid walks anywhere with a gun he/she IS guilty of breaking the law and I don't need you a judge or anyone else to tell me he is guilty, a judge is a human just like me and you not some all knowing super power that you apparently think he or she is, wake up and smell the coffe friend.

    BTW i love how you call them a "defendant" and at the same time say they are innocent until proven guilty, I'm dying for you to explain to me why he/she is bieng called "defendant" if they are considered innocent. What are they defending? innocence ? you don't defend innocence you prove guilt.
    It's innocent until proven guilty because the prosecution must prove; beyond a reasonable doubt, that you commited the crime and had intent to commit it. They have burden of proof. If it was the other way around I'd agree with you.

    What is wrong with calling someone a defendant? Why can't you defend innocence? Because you say so?

    Now you are trying to get me on a technicality. LOL.

    Even if what you say was totally accurate you'd be digging yourself into a hole on your previous post where you said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta-m9 View Post
    I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.
    By all means, if you'd like to raillroad yourself or others any further be my guest. First you say the justice system isn't tough enough and now you say it's too tough.

    I'm done chasing your tail for you, you can continue by yourself.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta-m9
    he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?
    I'm torn on the whole kids with guns thing. Just yesterday afternoon, a boy was walking to school around 4:30ish to return some books to the library......he never returned. My best friends son attends this school and has been walking a few blocks to get their in the mornings(not any more). I am actually taking him shooting this weekend(he's 13).

    The threat of wild animal attacks prompted parents to arm their children when walking to school. That threat is not much of an issue any more, but adult predators are far more dangerous IMHO.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
    I'm torn on the whole kids with guns thing. Just yesterday afternoon, a boy was walking to school around 4:30ish to return some books to the library......he never returned. My best friends son attends this school and has been walking a few blocks to get their in the mornings(not any more). I am actually taking him shooting this weekend(he's 13).

    The threat of wild animal attacks prompted parents to arm their children when walking to school. That threat is not much of an issue any more, but adult predators are far more dangerous IMHO.
    im not arguing what kids should or should not be able to do, I infact agree a child has a right to defend themself, however the law clearly says he is not allowed to posses the weapon, this is not by my choice im simply saying what he did was clearly against the law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    agreed.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta-m9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    It's innocent until proven guilty because the prosecution must prove; beyond a reasonable doubt, that you commited the crime and had intent to commit it. They have burden of proof. If it was the other way around I'd agree with you.

    What is wrong with calling someone a defendant? Why can't you defend innocence? Because you say so?

    Now you are trying to get me on a technicality. LOL.

    Even if what you say was totally accurate you'd be digging yourself into a hole on your previous post where you said this:



    By all means, if you'd like to raillroad yourself or others any further be my guest. First you say the justice system isn't tough enough and now you say it's too tough.

    I'm done chasing your tail for you, you can continue by yourself.
    then don't comment on my posts if your not interested in what I have to say. you can keep your comments to yourself.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •