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?

Law abider said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

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.

Click to expand...

It seems Krug has his head where the sun doesn't shine. He is not in touch with reality.

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 jackass 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.

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

bmwguy11 said:

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 jackass 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.

Click to expand...

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!!

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.

Click to expand...

Rep.Krug@legis.wisconsin.gov

in case anyone else wants to contact

Wow. During the hearing and voting process he was one of our strongest proponents.

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.

Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.

BROKENSPROKET said:

Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.

Click to expand...

Unless you are "detained" or "in custody"...

BROKENSPROKET said:

Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.

Click to expand...

In and of itself, you're right. But, as we have mentioned, there are scenarios where an officer could claim this was resisting.

rcawdor57 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

protias said:

Unless you are "detained" or "in custody"...

Click to expand...

No it's not.

BROKENSPROKET said:

No it's not.

Click to expand...

Please explain how it is not. I am not getting how this change makes it better.

BROKENSPROKET said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sounds like a feeble attempt at damage control to me... freeking Liberal Rino's !

Bump To Top...

Bump...

protias said:

Please explain how it is not. I am not getting how this change makes it better.

Click to expand...

Because he said so and has no other basis for his argument.:lol:

protias said:

BROKENSPROKET said:

protias said:

BROKENSPROKET said:

Refusing to ID yourself is not resisting arrest.

Click to expand...

Unless you are "detained" or "in custody"...

Click to expand...

No it's not.

Click to expand...

Please explain how it is not. I am not getting how this change makes it better.

Click to expand...

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/showthread.php?94770-AB-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.