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

Thread: AB246 Rep Krug's reply to me

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    AB246 Rep Krug's reply to me

    I kinds got direct with Rep Krug. Here is my e mail to him:How astounding I should have checked the blue books first. Rep Krug. How could you act like the other side? My apologies to the Democrats. Usually you pull these things off. But Rep Krug a Republican? That's why I am not yet a card carrying republican. Only when we have an Original intent minded Republican majority will, maybe, I'll carry the card.
    Rep Krug. Whose side are you on?? Don't allow this bill to pass. It will make class C felony a blink of an eye.

    Then he sent me two e mails: It is in NO way meant to limit your 2nd Amendment rights, simply meant to ensure that those who are to be arrested for breaking the law have more reason to comply with lawful orders from a law enforcement officer.

    I've heard the arguments already that you wouldn't be able to open carry anymore along the lines of the Culvers story. Simply untrue. This bill is to punish criminals and not law abiding citizens.

    Rep. Krug

    Here is his second E mail:
    fought harder than anyone in the Senate and the Assembly for the constitutional carry. This bill is so far off from what you are interpreting it to be. With our new privileges come responsibility. You are making the same argument that the other side made when it came to a permitless system and CCW overall. The argument you make is that legal, law abiding gun owners are somehow going to argue and fight their way into an arrest and become subject to the penalities of this proposal simply because of a law enforcement contact even if the contact is unreasonable by chance.

    The odds of your scenario are small. Legal Arrest AND further Resistance from that point is the trigger point of this bill. Not simply openly carrying a weapon, which is defensable as it is LEGAL. Feel free to contact me directly in the future instead of cc'ing the entire legislature.

    Rep. Krug

    What do you all make of it?

  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I kinds got direct with Rep Krug. Here is my e mail to him:How astounding I should have checked the blue books first. Rep Krug. How could you act like the other side? My apologies to the Democrats. Usually you pull these things off. But Rep Krug a Republican? That's why I am not yet a card carrying republican. Only when we have an Original intent minded Republican majority will, maybe, I'll carry the card.
    Rep Krug. Whose side are you on?? Don't allow this bill to pass. It will make class C felony a blink of an eye.

    Then he sent me two e mails: It is in NO way meant to limit your 2nd Amendment rights, simply meant to ensure that those who are to be arrested for breaking the law have more reason to comply with lawful orders from a law enforcement officer.

    I've heard the arguments already that you wouldn't be able to open carry anymore along the lines of the Culvers story. Simply untrue. This bill is to punish criminals and not law abiding citizens.

    Rep. Krug

    Here is his second E mail:
    fought harder than anyone in the Senate and the Assembly for the constitutional carry. This bill is so far off from what you are interpreting it to be. With our new privileges come responsibility. You are making the same argument that the other side made when it came to a permitless system and CCW overall. The argument you make is that legal, law abiding gun owners are somehow going to argue and fight their way into an arrest and become subject to the penalities of this proposal simply because of a law enforcement contact even if the contact is unreasonable by chance.

    The odds of your scenario are small. Legal Arrest AND further Resistance from that point is the trigger point of this bill. Not simply openly carrying a weapon, which is defensable as it is LEGAL. Feel free to contact me directly in the future instead of cc'ing the entire legislature.

    Rep. Krug

    What do you all make of it?
    Ask him what his intent is with the change? The bug problem I have is now it says 'custody'. So, my reading of this is "Am I free to go", "No" (I am in custody according to the Terry ruling). "Show me your ID", "No". I resisted.

    Before, I would have to try to leave to be charged, now it seems like I can just be disagreeable and be charged.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    ALL Laws created are only to further make it easier to restrict our rights . We have laws on the books now but what the hell are they good for when plea bargain to lesser crimes are dealt along with minimum sentencing.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Angry Before It Was "Arrest", Now It Is Custody With Only One Element To Satisfy!!

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Ask him what his intent is with the change? The bug problem I have is now it says 'custody'. So, my reading of this is "Am I free to go", "No" (I am in custody according to the Terry ruling). "Show me your ID", "No". I resisted.

    Before, I would have to try to leave to be charged, now it seems like I can just be disagreeable and be charged.

    It seems Krug has his head where the sun doesn't shine. He is not in touch with reality.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Anyone have Krug's email address? I'd like to draft an email to him about this. I don't think he understands what the bill gives the police the ability to do. We all would love to believe all the cops are good souls, but this is the real world, and instead there are cops out there like that ******* in Ohio. So, all it takes is a copy saying that someone somehow "resisted" in any way, shape, or form while armed with CCW or OC, and bam felony.

    Making it so that the simple act of "resisting" while carrying is automatically a felony is foolish. There are plenty of cops and situations out there where citizens were not "resisting" in a manner that was the intent of this new law, yet under the new law they would be charged with a felony and no longer be able to ever carry to protect themselves.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Keep In Mind That The Law Is For A "Dangerous Weapon"

    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    Anyone have Krug's email address? I'd like to draft an email to him about this. I don't think he understands what the bill gives the police the ability to do. We all would love to believe all the cops are good souls, but this is the real world, and instead there are cops out there like that ******* in Ohio. So, all it takes is a copy saying that someone somehow "resisted" in any way, shape, or form while armed with CCW or OC, and bam felony.

    Making it so that the simple act of "resisting" while carrying is automatically a felony is foolish. There are plenty of cops and situations out there where citizens were not "resisting" in a manner that was the intent of this new law, yet under the new law they would be charged with a felony and no longer be able to ever carry to protect themselves.
    It isn't just about guns, it's about anything that could be a dangerous weapon even an imaginary weapon. The scumbags that thought this one up have to go!!
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    emailed to krug:



    Hello representative Krug,

    I would like to voice some serious concerns over this new bill you have proposed in the legislature. I understand what the intent of the bill is, however, the mechanics of it go well beyond the intent. The simple fact is, if you are arrested by an officer (or even just under temporary custody as in a “terry stop”), and anything you do is seen as “resisting”, you are now charged with a felony. And let’s face it, we have all seen some pretty ridiculous “resisting” claims charged against people who were not doing anything of the sort. While we would all like to believe that all cops are good, the fact of the matter is there are “bad” cops out there, and there are cops out there who would do anything they could to charge anyone with a felony simply because they OC/CCW and the officer doesn’t believe citizens should be able to exercise that right. Which would in effect, remove their 2nd amendment right. In a court of law, an officer’s word against a citizen’s word, the court will side with the officer 9 times out of 10, and these “bad” cops know that.

    This new bill gives those officers a weapon to do exactly that. While the intent of your bill is good, it does not execute it in a manner such as to protect citizens from such officers who would abuse it. There are plenty of situations where a law-abiding citizen who is exercising their 2nd amendment right could be stripped of this right because of “resistance” while under a terry stop or being arrested. The simple fact that one is legally armed should not be a punishment in and of itself while another unrelated action is occurring. I’m sorry, but I simply do not support this bill, and I will be contacting my republican representatives to vote against it as well.

    The current law is just fine, as it has multiple requirements to be charged with a felony. Such as you have to not only resist, but then also attempt to leave or escape, etc. There is NO reason to implement your new bill. If someone is going to resist an officer while armed in a manner that is dangerous to the officer, your bill isn’t going to stop them or provide any more “incentive”. Someone intent on breaking the law is going to do it. Law abiding citizens who carry will already lawfully comply with an officer as required. But that won’t stop a crooked cop from saying otherwise just so they can strip that citizen of their right using your new bill as the tool.

    Rep.Krug@legis.wisconsin.gov

    in case anyone else wants to contact
    Last edited by bmwguy11; 09-09-2011 at 01:17 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Wow. During the hearing and voting process he was one of our strongest proponents.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Let us all e mail Krug

    I have sent Rep Krug another E mail:
    Dear Rep Krug:
    My main concern is the language in the bill that will make it easier for a police officer to interpret 'resisting' an officer. Your bill will cause an abuse in its use. For example if i refuse to ID myself I could be taken in custody because the officer will interpret that I am resisting him when I am following state statute. Do we really need another bill on top of all state statutes we already have to make sure criminals/ felons do not possess firearms?
    Please, you have other more pressing issues to take care off than crafting a bill in good intention that will take my right to bear arms in a blink of an eye.

    I would encourage you to craft a bill to do away with our state income tax. Now that would be radical. Work with Governor Walker to remove burdensome regulations, fees, and other costs that hinder economic progress in this state, not criminalize us. Because there are cops like the one in Ohio who would love to see us stripped of our rights to bear arms.
    Please be free to reply.

  10. #10
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.
    Unless you are "detained" or "in custody"...
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.
    In and of itself, you're right. But, as we have mentioned, there are scenarios where an officer could claim this was resisting.

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    Before It Was "Arrest", Now It Is Custody With Only One Element To Satisfy!!
    All the elements of 946.415 were combined into one, except "Retreats or remains in a building or place"

    946.415(2)(a) was repealed that was non-consequential as the language is superfluous.


    It was not ARREST before. In the current statute, it is "custody" and in AB246 it is "custody". That did not change.

  14. #14
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Unless you are "detained" or "in custody"...
    No it's not.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    No it's not.
    Please explain how it is not. I am not getting how this change makes it better.
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    All the elements of 946.415 were combined into one, except "Retreats or remains in a building or place"

    946.415(2)(a) was repealed that was non-consequential as the language is superfluous.


    It was not ARREST before. In the current statute, it is "custody" and in AB246 it is "custody". That did not change.
    You write off the language about "retreats" as if it's not a big deal.

    There is a HUGE difference between "perceived resistance" VS perceived resistance PLUS actually retreating or remaining in a building or place. That language that was removed is a BIG deal.
    Last edited by bmwguy11; 09-09-2011 at 03:51 PM.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Sounds like a feeble attempt at damage control to me... freeking Liberal Rino's !
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Bump To Top...

    Bump...
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  19. #19
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Please explain how it is not. I am not getting how this change makes it better.
    Because he said so and has no other basis for his argument.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.
    Unless you are "detained" or "in custody"...
    No it's not.
    Please explain how it is not. I am not getting how this change makes it better.
    The way that 946.415 is written now, gang-bangers with a misdemeanor record who resist arrest while armed cannot be charged with felony resisting arrest if they don’t also “retreat or remain in a building or place.” So, if they loosen it so it can be better applied to criminals that resist arrest while armed, you and a few others think that they will use it on a LAC who is Openly Carrying.

    When the Culver's 5 were detained and two of them refused to provide ID, what were they charged with?

    946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer. (1) Except as provided in subs. (2m) and (2r), whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

    And that charge did not stand for more that 24 hours and MPD changed the charge to Disorderly Conduct. And those charges were dropped just before SB93 with language that protects Open Carriers from being charged with DC, was introduced.

    If you cannot be charged with Obstructing an Officer for refusing ID, I really do see how anyone can logically and rationally imagine that they could be charged with Resisting Arrest. That is an awfully, awfully big leap.

    Madison PD already tried to use Misdemeanor 941.41 'Resisting or obstructing officer they almost immediatley back pedaled from that. Why do you think the would go for felony resisting. I highly doubt it will happen, but the first officer that does try it is going to get thier ass kicked all over the media and civil court

    To everyone: Instead of fighting this bill and helping gang-bangers, take Rep. Krug up on his openness to strenghten the language so that is absolutely cannot be used on an OC-LAC.

    I worked on a version below that would put the words 'lawful attempt' back in, but leaving out 'retreats or remains in a building or place'. How else could that language be changed to make sure OC-LAC's are not abused by it. Give Rep. Krug some constuctive input and quick flaming him for trying to help put bad guys away.

    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 refuses to comply with an officer’s lawful attempt to take him or her into custody through action or threat, while 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.

    Maybe Rep. Krug would be open to ammmending following statute to better protect use from an officer that would abuse 946.415. Especially the words in red.

    175.61(17)(ar) Any law enforcement officer who uses excessive force or unlawfully arrests, based solely on an individual’s status as a licensee may be fined not more than $500 or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both. The application of the criminal penalty under this paragraph does not preclude the application of any other civil or criminal remedy.

    This whole conversation in this thread and that thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...246-introduced is about protecting LAC's, not protecting criminals. If you were able to defeat 946.415, you will be making it easier for gang-banging criminals.

  21. #21
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    The bill is bad and always will be. Lipstick on the pig and all that jazz.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  22. #22
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    If you cannot be charged with Obstructing an Officer for refusing ID, I really do see how anyone can logically and rationally imagine that they could be charged with Resisting Arrest. That is an awfully, awfully big leap.
    They can and do charge us with whatever they want and let the PA figure it out later. Wiretap laws twisted to be used as weapons against innocent citizens comes to mind.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  23. #23
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Try enforcing the laws on the books instead of passing new ones for every whining constituency group.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  24. #24
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Try enforcing the laws on the books instead of passing new ones for every whining constituency group.
    What he said.

    Greg, can you please explain, with some examples, what is the shortcoming of the law as written?

    Thanks!

  25. #25
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    What he said.

    Greg, can you please explain, with some examples, what is the shortcoming of the law as written?

    Thanks!
    Paul, I will answer that question for you, but it will be late tonight.

    Thank you for your patience.

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
  •