• 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.

la crosse gfsz charge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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:

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.
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
Beretta-m9 said:
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.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
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.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law??

He's not being charged with improper transport, so it must have been unloaded & in a case, right? Or maybe he walked or rode his bicycle to school.

So if he didn't take it out of the case (even when the cop said "show me what you have there", which is telling the kid to commit a crime) it was legal at least in re the state "GFSZ", which says that if it's unloaded & encased it's legal. Fed law says the case must be locked.

He could be charged with the misdemeanor posession of a weapon by a minor,
or the misdemeanor having a weapon in a gov't-owned building.
And there are times I wish there were actually a statute for stupidity.
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
15 Year Old Male + 9mm + Ammunition In School

First, let me say that I am a Second Amendment purist, but I am also a reasonable adult. There is a reason for laws prohibiting possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor (without proper adult supervision).

Citing the La Crosse Media story:

15 Year old goes to school with a 9mm handgun and ammunition in his backpack. Another kid sees the ammo and alerts a teacher. Cops come, charge the kid with the handgun with FELONY possession of a firearm in a GFSZ (sounds like the Federal thing to me) and possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. School authorities state they believe the kid did not intend to use the handgun or harm anyone (Columbine?). He just wanted to show it off to his friends. He is being charged as a juvenile, so if convicted, his record will be sealed. (I am surprised that a concealed weapon charge was not tacked on.)

The questions this case raises boggle the mind!

How is it that a 15 year old has possession of a 9mm handgun? Did the parents of this 15 year old not lock down the handgun, or did the kid somehow defeat the security used by the parents? If the former, this is inadequate parenting, if the latter, this is evidence that the kid knew what he was doing was wrong. (And, the media is full of stories of "zero tolerance" for drugs and weapons at schools. I cannot believe this kid did not know this.)

OK, let's say the kid does show off the 9mm to one of his friends. He may even demonstrate how to load it. Kid #2 asks to hold it and puts finger past trigger guard. BOOM ! ! !

I could go on and on, but I am sure you all get the drift. The theoretical scenarios are endless.

We can debate ad nausium whether or not the 2A covers this kid. It will be interesting to see how this story plays out (although if the charges remain in juvenile court, we will not learn). We must all realize that in the eyes of the anti-gun fanatics and perhaps in the minds of avid shooting enthusiasts, this episode is a black eye on all of us who believe in responsible firearm ownership. By way of example:

I have a 12 year old rifle student and a 9 year old pistol and rifle student. Their father (my friend) is an avid hunter and competitive shooter, but not an accredited instructor. These kids are well trained. They would not dream of touching their respective firearms until the range master / instructor gives the command. When the cease fire and show clear command is given, they immediately respond and step away from the firearms. They fully comprehend the destructive power of firearms with respect to everything from a BB gun through a high powered hunting rifle.

If I understand this forum, it is all about the right of responsible law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and to bear them in the manner of our choosing. This incident shows lack of both the ability or willingness to abide by the law and also shows a profound lack of judgment and responsible behavior.

If anyone is taking the position that this 15 year old male may have had the right to do what he did, I implore you to reconsider and think of the message that sends to the newbies to this forum.

Thank you for tolerating this rant.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Cops come, charge the kid with the handgun with FELONY possession of a firearm in a GFSZ (sounds like the Federal thing to me) and possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor.

I thought only Federal prosecutors can charge a Federal law and it has to be in Federal court? Isn't the WI GFSZ a felony?
 
Last edited:

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
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 much older than many of you, so you don't remember the days when I was a kid. I had the use of a gun by the time I was nine. I was driving by myself by the time I was twelve. I was taught how to handle a gun and all the safety measures in carrying it. I went out target shooting with it alone. I could buy ammo in any store that sold it at that time. Lots of kids I knew had their own guns. Most of them were either rifles or shotguns. I'm from the ranch country in Central Texas. "He's 15, he should not have a gun at all." Horse pucky. What we lack today is discipline. Look it up. It doesn't mean punishment.

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he shall not depart from it.
 
Last edited:

Crassus

Banned
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
57
Location
why?
I'm much older than many of you, so you don't remember the days when I was a kid. I had the use of a gun by the time I was nine. I was driving by myself by the time I was twelve. I was taught how to handle a gun and all the safety measures in carrying it. I went out target shooting with it alone. I could buy ammo in any store that sold it at that time. Lots of kids I knew had their own guns. Most of them were either rifles or shotguns. I'm from the ranch country in Central Texas. "He's 15, he should not have a gun at all." Horse pucky. What we lack today is discipline. Look it up. It doesn't mean punishment.

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he shall not depart from it.

I don't think I could of said this any better. Very well said!
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
I'm sorry, can you point to the spot in the US Constitution that exempts the rights to those under 18? I must have overlooked it.
I can sure point out wi state law which is what matters weather you like it or not.
Wi state law
Requirements: For Firearms Possession and Carry in the state of Wisconsin
Age
Registration
License
Permit

Handguns
18 years of age
None required
None required
None Required, Conceal Carry Prohibited

Rifles
18 years of age
None required
None required
None required

Shotguns
18 years of age
None required
None required
None required
Would you like me to dig up citation numbers for you ?
Why dont you point to the spot in the us constitution that says I cannot carry concealed, in my car, in school zones so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I can sure point out wi state law which is what matters weather you like it or not.

Then I will ask the question. Where in the US or WI Constitution does it say age as a restriction? Which is the higher law, Constitution or law?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Is there a better System?

A previous poster alleged (and I agree with him) that our system is not perfect. I will say it again--- Our current system of prosecution of the accused (innocent or proven guilty) is not perfect.

My issue is that I absolutely refuse to throw out THIS particular system with its faults UNTIL A BETTER SYSTEM IS SET UP!

I haven't seen a better system so we must work with the system we have. Many of us attempt to do this and remind those with supposed power over us be they elected, appointed, or hired that we are the masters and they are the servants.

Government by its very nature will ALWAYS make an effort to expand! It is the responsibility and duty of the Citizens to do ALL that is necessary to cause Government at all levels to heel, sit, and stay ON COMMAND of the Citizens. (DO not the last sentence to suggest I am saying that armed rebellion is a good thing. It is not! And I am not suggesting it!)
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
Then I will ask the question. Where in the US or WI Constitution does it say age as a restriction? Which is the higher law, Constitution or law?

do you live in the same world as me ? which is "suppose" to be and which is should be the question, I don't make this crap up I just live it like everyone else.
Which is higher law when your getting the ticket or getting convicted? if you really believe which is higher law then why don't you already cc ? why don't you carry in gfsz ? I know just aswell as everyone else which is "suppose" to be higher law so please don't call me out on bs. I live in the real world won't you join me.

your right every 5 year old should be able to and actualy carry a pistol in thier backpack.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
do you live in the same world as me ? which is "suppose" to be and which is should be the question, I don't make this crap up I just live it like everyone else.
Which is higher law when your getting the ticket or getting convicted? if you really believe which is higher law then why don't you already cc ? why don't you carry in gfsz ? I know just aswell as everyone else which is "suppose" to be higher law so please don't call me out on bs. I live in the real world won't you join me.

your right every 5 year old should be able to and actualy carry a pistol in thier backpack.

While I disagree with the infringing laws, I still obey them. Why? Because I don't have an unlimited amount of money to file lawsuits against them. I have written my representatives already on repealing those laws that conflict with the state and federal Constitutions.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Then I will ask the question. Where in the US or WI Constitution does it say age as a restriction? Which is the higher law, Constitution or law?

If we are arguing technicalities, lets make sure we are being accurate. There is the Constitution, there is Law, then there are Statutes. Most that we are prosecuted for is Statutes, which isn't necessarily Law. You ever read the title of the book of Statutes? it says State Statutes, not State Law. Yes there is a difference. They are clearly defined in Blacks Law Dictionary etc.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
If we are arguing technicalities, lets make sure we are being accurate. There is the Constitution, there is Law, then there are Statutes. Most that we are prosecuted for is Statutes, which isn't necessarily Law. You ever read the title of the book of Statutes? it says State Statutes, not State Law. Yes there is a difference. They are clearly defined in Blacks Law Dictionary etc.
Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten to put in Statutes. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top