• 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.

AB-246 introduced

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
It Isn't Good. IT IS ALL BAD!

Looks like the anti's are trying to sneak this one in. Read it very carefully....it looks to me that anyone can be arrested simply for being armed and charged with a class I felony....all a cop has to do is say an armed person resisted "CUSTODY", not resisted arrest.


Snip: "Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody while armed with or threatening to use a weapon." It use to be and and and and and...now it is just ONE element for a class I felony.

946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.

I am pretty sure I copied and posted it correctly in it's new form. Only one element is required for a class I felony now instead of all three. With this LAW the cops will abuse open and concealed carriers at will and charge us with a felony.

THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHANGED!
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Here is the bill text since I have no idea how to do attachments.

LRB−2458/1
CMH:med&wlj:lmp
2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
2011 ASSEMBLY BILL 246
September 7, 2011 − Introduced by Representatives KRUG, JACQUE, BERNARD
SCHABER, BROOKS, ENDSLEY, KERKMAN, RIPP, SPANBAUER and ZEPNICK. Referred
to Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections.
AN ACT to repeal 946.415 (2) (a); to consolidate, renumber and amend
946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c); and to amend 946.415 (title) of the statutes;
relating to: resisting officer while armed with or threatening to use a
dangerous weapon.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, an individual is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through
action or threat, resists arrest while armed with or threatening to use a weapon and
while retreating or remaining in a building or place. Under this bill, an individual
is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through action or threat, resists arrest while
armed with or threatening to use a weapon. A person who is convicted of a Class I
felony may be fined not more than $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
up to three years and six months, or both.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 946.415 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
946.415 (title) Failure to comply with Preventing officer’s attempt to
take person into custody while armed with or threatening to use a weapon.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2011 − 2012 Legislature − 2 − LRB−2458/1
CMH:med&wlj:lmp
ASSEMBLY BILL 246 SECTION 2
SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class
I felony: (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat,
attempts to prevent the an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody. (c)
While acting under pars. (a) and (b), if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.
SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.
(END)
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
That Isn't What The Bill States....

Here is the bill text since I have no idea how to do attachments.

LRB−2458/1
CMH:med&wlj:lmp
2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
2011 ASSEMBLY BILL 246
September 7, 2011 − Introduced by Representatives KRUG, JACQUE, BERNARD
SCHABER, BROOKS, ENDSLEY, KERKMAN, RIPP, SPANBAUER and ZEPNICK. Referred
to Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections.
AN ACT to repeal 946.415 (2) (a); to consolidate, renumber and amend
946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c); and to amend 946.415 (title) of the statutes;
relating to: resisting officer while armed with or threatening to use a
dangerous weapon.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, an individual is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through
action or threat, resists arrest while armed with or threatening to use a weapon and
while retreating or remaining in a building or place. Under this bill, an individual
is guilty of a Class I felony if he or she, through action or threat, resists arrest while
armed with or threatening to use a weapon. A person who is convicted of a Class I
felony may be fined not more than $10,000, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
up to three years and six months, or both.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 946.415 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
946.415 (title) Failure to comply with Preventing officer’s attempt to
take person into custody while armed with or threatening to use a weapon.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2011 − 2012 Legislature − 2 − LRB−2458/1
CMH:med&wlj:lmp
ASSEMBLY BILL 246 SECTION 2
SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class
I felony: (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat,
attempts to prevent the an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody. (c)
While acting under pars. (a) and (b), if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.
SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.
(END)

The bill you posted is as the law is at this moment. Your post does not show the CHANGES to the text. The proposed bill changes the felony from "946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does ALL of the following is guilty of a Class
I felony:" to:

SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally through action or threat,
attempts to prevent an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.

SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.

It looks to me that ANY of the elements is now a CLASS I FELONY.

LINK TO PDF: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-246.pdf
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
The bill you posted is as the law is at this moment. Your post does not show the CHANGES to the text. The proposed bill changes the felony from "946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally does ALL of the following is guilty of a Class
I felony:" to:

SECTION 2. 946.415 (2) (intro.), (b) and (c) of the statutes are consolidated,
renumbered 946.415 (2) and amended to read:
946.415 (2) Whoever intentionally through action or threat,
attempts to prevent an officer from lawfully taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a
dangerous weapon, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether
he or she has a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a Class I felony.

SECTION 3. 946.415 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.

It looks to me that ANY of the elements is now a CLASS I FELONY.

LINK TO PDF: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-246.pdf

The strike-throughs didn't show up... Thanks for the pdf link. That was the one sent to me by my rep.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I sent this to my Representative:

I saw that AB 246 was introduced recently. What it will do is allow police to charge otherwise lawful firearm carriers with a Class-I felony if they offer any resistance, even verbal. So.... if for example, I was let's say, at a Culver's in Madison and was legally open carrying and an officer did not have reasonable articulatable suspicion and demanded my ID and I refused, I could be charged under AB 246.

Please do NOT support this bill.


Thanks!


--

Paul L Fisher
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
The strike-throughs didn't show up... Thanks for the pdf link. That was the one sent to me by my rep.

any streike0throughs, underlines , bold or italics don't C&P over, so you have to reformat the whole thing. I usually drop it in WORD and mess with it there before I post it here.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
This Bill Is VERY Dangerous! We KNOW Why The Anti's Did This!

I sent this to my Representative:

Thanks for posting this on the forum! It should have had a different title though! Not many people seem to be taking this bill seriously!

This bill will effectively NEGATE concealed carry and open carry completely. It doesn't state "Arrest" any longer it simply states "CUSTODY". So "custody" could mean anything a police officer wants it to and Voila'! we get charged with a felony. What a bunch of hooey!
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Really guys? I don’t see how this amendment can be used against an LAC carrying openly or concealed any more than the than the statute is now. I don’t see it. What you guys fear is all conjecture.

This is how the statute is now:

946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
(b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
(c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

There really is no difference other than the amended version is cleaner.

I think the Joint Finance Committee raping SB93 has some of you still running paranoid.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Then Why Change It?

Really guys? I don’t see how this amendment can be used against an LAC carrying openly or concealed any more than the than the statute is now. I don’t see it. What you guys fear is all conjecture.

This is how the statute is now:

946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
(b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
(c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

There really is no difference other than the amended version is cleaner.

I think the Joint Finance Committee raping SB93 has some of you still running paranoid.

If there is no difference except "it's cleaner" then why change it? I don't see any silver linings in the clouds these days. There is always a reason to change things from bad to worse. Nothing good can come from "changing" this law as it is now. Simply put it makes it much easier to charge People with a felony than it did before. Do you agree with increased police powers?
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
If there is no difference except "it's cleaner" then why change it? I don't see any silver linings in the clouds these days. There is always a reason to change things from bad to worse. Nothing good can come from "changing" this law as it is now. Simply put it makes it much easier to charge People with a felony than it did before. Do you agree with increased police powers?

No I don't agree with increased police powers. But you say it makes it easier to charge people than it did before, please explain how, because I don't see it.

The original and the ammended version have the same meaning. The ammended version does not create something that is not in the original statute.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Not that I recommend it but what if the person armed is being illegally arrested and resists the officer? They are well within their right to use whatever force necessary to resist unlawful arrest.
 
M

McX

Guest
They should call this the Borg bill; resistance (even to an unlawful detention or arrest) is futile, prepare to be assimilated.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Someone off list pointed out:

Status quo, the state must prove; non-compliance, lawfulness, custodial
intent, retreat/remain, action/threat, intent to prevent, dangerous
weapon, and threat.

Amended, at least retreat/remain is removed.

As Rak said, why change it if it truly is just making it cleaner?
 
Last edited:

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Freeking Commie National Socialist Libs in this state...these guys must has been reincarnated Adviser from Hitlers political staff in the 1930's, when the German population was disarmed....if things keep going the way they are....
 
Last edited:

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
Really guys? I don’t see how this amendment can be used against an LAC carrying openly or concealed any more than the than the statute is now. I don’t see it. What you guys fear is all conjecture.

This is how the statute is now:

946.415 Failure to comply with officer’s attempt to take person into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) Refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody.
(b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody.
(c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon.

This is how the statute would read as amended by AB246:

946.415 Preventing officer’s attempt to take into custody.
(1) In this section, “officer” has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).
(2) Whoever intentionally, through action or threat, attempts to prevent an officer from taking him or her into custody, if he or she remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class I felony.

There really is no difference other than the amended version is cleaner.

I think the Joint Finance Committee raping SB93 has some of you still running paranoid.

You really don't understand the difference?


Here is the situation. The madison 5 are at culver's and are refusing to provide ID, and the officers decide that they are going to arrest them. They question their reason for being arrested, and ask what crime they have committed, and the police view that "action" as "resisting".

Under current law, that is not a felony. Under the new law, it is.

What do you not understand about that? The new "cleaner" law makes it VERY easy for a pissed off or crooked cop to charge a lawfully carrying citizen with a felony. "Yea, he resisted my arrest while armed, so I'm charging him with a felony"
 
Last edited:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Thanks! Maybe We Will All "Get It" Now??? This Bill Is Very DANGEROUS!

You really don't understand the difference?


Here is the situation. The madison 5 are at culver's and are refusing to provide ID, and the officers decide that they are going to arrest them. They question their reason for being arrested, and ask what crime they have committed, and the police view that "action" as "resisting".

Under current law, that is not a felony. Under the new law, it is.

What do you not understand about that? The new "cleaner" law makes it VERY easy for a pissed off or crooked cop to charge a lawfully carrying citizen with a felony. "Yea, he resisted my arrest while armed, so I'm charging him with a felony"


And to add to BMWGUY11's statement: This bill changes or "lowers the bar" as Doug would say by making it only ONE element to be guilty of a class I felony AND it changes from "arrest" to "CUSTODY". My point about custody is this: We are out at Starbucks and a police officer stops by to question us. We decide not to comply and leave. He charges us under the new law with a felony because he can state we were in his or her "CUSTODY". Get it? There is nothing good about this bill at all. It is an attempt to give police even more power over citizens especially those who are armed.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Not that I recommend it but what if the person armed is being illegally arrested and resists the officer? They are well within their right to use whatever force necessary to resist unlawful arrest.

You risk not only being shot, but loosing the case in court due to the ever present he said/she said syndrome. Courts admit to giving the police much more credibility than the accused. As it is illegal to film interaction with the police (because they don't want them breaking the law being recorded. Shhhh, they don't think we know that) you will most likely have no proof that the 7 pounds of cocaine found on you was planted.
 
Top