Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Minocqua Police Chief quote

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Vilas County, WI
    Posts
    71

    Minocqua Police Chief quote

    Was reading the Lakeland Times (local newspaper) article on Minocqua banning firearms in various buildings when I saw this quote by Police Chief Andy Gee:

    "This concealed law takes away open carry, so you have to have a permit to carry concealed," Gee said.
    I'm not sure what to make of that statement, but it sure sounds like he says open carry is no longer an option. Obviously the police chief isn't the bastion of legal determination, but considering he is a spokesperson for local law enforcement I wonder how many are going to be harassed because of his error.

    DOJ Official FAQ
    Does the certification process restrict or limit the right to open carry?
    No. Wis. Stat. § 175.49(7).

  2. #2
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Someone should send him the statute... or someone in the area should stop in with a copy and discuss the issue face to face with the intent of showing him that open carriers are good people.

    Speaking of Minocqua.... I wonder what ever happen to Calico-Jack...????

    I think that was his "home turff".....

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by technician View Post
    I wonder how many are going to be harassed because of his error.
    Does the certification process restrict or limit the right to open carry? No. Wis. Stat. § 175.49(7).
    Wisc. Stats. § 175.60(2)(c) "Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed."

    § 175.49 refers to "Former law enforcement officers seeking to carry concealed weapons."

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest
    it appears the police ignorance, and in-ability to follow the laws will push the carriers toward a confrontation with the police. i suggest they read, and learn the segment in my signature regarding excessive force against a carrier/permit holder. it appears the police are desiring a confrontation on this matter, to test the law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Wisc. Stats. § 175.60(2)(c) "Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed."

    § 175.49 refers to "Former law enforcement officers seeking to carry concealed weapons."
    Good catch....

    McX wrote...

    it appears the police ignorance, and in-ability to follow the laws will push the carriers toward a confrontation with the police. i suggest they read, and learn the segment in my signature regarding excessive force against a carrier/permit holder. it appears the police are desiring a confrontation on this matter, to test the law.
    As in the point of the OP.... I am thinking that "police ignorance" of the new law(s) will make open carry even more confrontational than in the past...

    Here we go again.....

    Outdoorsman1
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 10-11-2011 at 10:32 AM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Will this Law enforcement official in Wisc northwoods be the reason a few of his officers spend 30 days in jail & have to pay a $ 500.00 fine, for unjustly hassling Permit holders ?
    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 ???

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Unfortunately, probably not. The only thing wrong with the harassment law (as I call it) as I don't think any DA is going to enforce it, and if they do, it'll just be a portion of the fine at most.
    Even in a Madison 5 type situation, I don't think it'll happen unless A) the LEO are very arrogant in the confrontation, and B) the media picks it up in a way that supports the gun owner, and C) the whole thing is recorded, preferably on video. These conditions are probably the only way the DA would be embarrassed enough to press charges.

  8. #8
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    Unfortunately, probably not. The only thing wrong with the harassment law (as I call it) as I don't think any DA is going to enforce it, and if they do, it'll just be a portion of the fine at most.
    Even in a Madison 5 type situation, I don't think it'll happen unless A) the LEO are very arrogant in the confrontation, and B) the media picks it up in a way that supports the gun owner, and C) the whole thing is recorded, preferably on video. These conditions are probably the only way the DA would be embarrassed enough to press charges.
    you have not made your calculations based on the presence of WisconsinCarry in the equation. please recalculate.

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by technician View Post
    Was reading the Lakeland Times (local newspaper) article on Minocqua banning firearms in various buildings when I saw this quote by Police Chief Andy Gee:



    I'm not sure what to make of that statement, but it sure sounds like he says open carry is no longer an option. Obviously the police chief isn't the bastion of legal determination, but considering he is a spokesperson for local law enforcement I wonder how many are going to be harassed because of his error.

    DOJ Official FAQ
    Does the certification process restrict or limit the right to open carry?
    No. Wis. Stat. § 175.49(7).
    Before crucifying the police chief, somebody could contact him and ask for clarification. Keep in mind that the media is not always perfect when it comes to quoting someone. Let's hope that's what happened here. If he was quoted accurately, then it's an opportunity to use this as a educational opportunity. If the paper quoted incorrectly then it might want to publish a correction.

    The changes in the law are many and it's difficult for everyone to keep it all straight overnight. I'm sure the educational process will be lengthy for everyone, so we might as well settle in for the long haul.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tosa
    Posts
    118
    Someone who lives in the community should send a letter to the editor noting that the article made it sound as though open carry wouldn't be lawful, and it will be. It's as important for fellow citizens to know the law as it is for LEOs (i.e., witness the recent FDL Walmart fracas).

    The Lakeland Times has run some great editorials, BTW. They get things right that much larger papers here foul up.
    Last edited by LaBomba; 10-11-2011 at 07:10 PM.

  11. #11
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    The Lakeland Times has been consistently anti-control and Richard Moore is a good reporter. Enjoy his e-mail address RichardMoore.gov@...

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Police Chief Andy Gee
    "This concealed law takes away open carry, so you have to have a permit to carry concealed"
    Well, he's partially right... in most situations citizens will have to have a permission slip if they want to conceal lawfully.
    But as most of you have already pointed out, he obviously hasn't read the new law, which quite clearly & specifically says it does not affect OC, other than giving more places where it's legal (with a permit).

    Here's the website for the paper: http://www.lakelandtimes.com/

    This appears to be the article under discussion: http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.as...rticleID=13954
    The author's email is given as: lcarlson@lakelandtimes.com
    Apparently has gotten married or divorced since starting work there...
    And for letters to the editor: editor@lakelandtimes.com

    And some choice quotes:
    "We have to adopt a policy by Nov. 1 for town buildings," town chairman Mark Hartzheim said
    No, you don't. You don't have to adopt any policy, either way. Just let the law go into effect.

    Supervisor John Thompson also wanted to ensure the town didn't reach too far, citing the intent of the Act 35 was to legalize concealed carry.
    "It isn't right, because the law states that you can [conceal] carry," Thompson said.
    ...
    Thompson voiced concern about what people were supposed to do with their weapons when they arrived at a building where they are prohibited.
    Despite his seeming support of citizens' rights, he voted for the restrictions.

    supervisor Bryan Jennings didn't feel it should be the town's responsibility to monitor everyone who comes in and out of municipal buildings.
    "I don't think it's the town's responsibility to monitor whether someone's carrying a gun,"
    Amen!

    Quote Originally Posted by police chief Gee
    My recommendation: do what I do if I'm on-duty or off-duty and I decide to go to a place where I'm not going to carry a gun... I'll just take my whole holster and sidearm off and secure it in my trunk or a locked glove box
    Idiot. Now criminals know where to look in his car.

    Quote Originally Posted by town chairman Mark Hartzheim
    it's now legal to conceal carry in a lot of places... but as someone who wants to carry, you have to be prepared for that... That's your problem when you run across a place that doesn't allow them.
    He doesn't seem to understand the difference between a private business, which citizens may avoid by spending money elsewhere,
    and the government, which has a monopoly on certain things, so citizen cannot go elsewhere.
    And one of the primary purposes of gov't is to protect the rights of citizens.

    Made a couple of posts; we'll see if the censors... er, editors... allow them.
    Might be too informative.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Question If Chief Gee Does This Is He Breaking The Law....

    "Quote Originally Posted by police chief Gee
    My recommendation: do what I do if I'm on-duty or off-duty and I decide to go to a place where I'm not going to carry a gun... I'll just take my whole holster and sidearm off and secure it in my trunk or a locked glove box."

    Since the handgun is not secured in accordance with 167.31 he is violating the transport statute (until 1NOV2011). Is he also violating 941.23 until 1NOV2011? And why would he do any of this when he is on duty?
    “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

  14. #14
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    you have not made your calculations based on the presence of WisconsinCarry in the equation. please recalculate.
    ahahaha! True!

  15. #15
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57
    Since the handgun is not secured in accordance with 167.31 he is violating the transport statute (until 1NOV2011). Is he also violating 941.23 until 1NOV2011? And why would he do any of this when he is on duty?
    As for the last, I'm just as puzzled.
    But the other 2, at least on duty, he has different rules.
    Off duty, he's still allowed to cc thanks to LEOSA,
    BUT
    that doesn't exempt him from the "GF"SZ... so it has to be unloaded & in a locked gun case (to comply w/ federal law; current WI law only says unloaded & in a gun case... after 01NOV it'll have to be locked, too).
    Last edited by MKEgal; 10-13-2011 at 10:56 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    you have not made your calculations based on the presence of WisconsinCarry in the equation. please recalculate.
    Actually, I have.

    Think about this. What DA is going to prosecute a LEO over a minor matter like $500? Let alone send them to jail for 30 days? Talk about loss off cooperation between DA and LE? Unless you get a DA who is very pro-gun, maybe.

    If WCI got involved, the legal fees would be more than $500, and it's still unlikely the LEO would go to jail. Multiply this times however many jurisdications that this happens, it'll get time consuming and expensive fast.
    About all WCI could do is hound the DA to prosecute. They COULD file civil rights suits, and that might prompt the DA to have the LEA in question to pay the fine, which is taxpayer money anyway, in order to drop the suit.

    Bottom line, it may not be worth the trouble from either perspective. The conditions outlined in my other post would probably be about the best situation for such a prosecution.

  17. #17
    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 rcav8r View Post
    Actually, I have.

    Think about this. What DA is going to prosecute a LEO over a minor matter like $500? Let alone send them to jail for 30 days? Talk about loss off cooperation between DA and LE? Unless you get a DA who is very pro-gun, maybe.

    If WCI got involved, the legal fees would be more than $500, and it's still unlikely the LEO would go to jail. Multiply this times however many jurisdications that this happens, it'll get time consuming and expensive fast.
    About all WCI could do is hound the DA to prosecute. They COULD file civil rights suits, and that might prompt the DA to have the LEA in question to pay the fine, which is taxpayer money anyway, in order to drop the suit.

    Bottom line, it may not be worth the trouble from either perspective. The conditions outlined in my other post would probably be about the best situation for such a prosecution.
    The $500 fine is nothing really and all other things aside as to actual prosecution; what the new law does do is make it almost impossible for the officer to claim qualified immunity. The DC statue as pertaining to firearms is now far less ambiguous than it was. The courts won't have nearly as much leeway to "interpret" things as far as the subject of QA. See the Jesus Gonzalez federal suit for an example of such previous interpretation.

    With the resultant civil suits, DA's might just really start prosecuting officers to deter them from costing the city/county/state large sums of money. Remember, most of the other cases have been settlements that may have been accepted because of the ambiguity of the DC statute before Act 35. QA was a question for both the plaintiff and the defendants and some uncertainty as to how the suit would play out was apparent on both sides; hence, settlement. IMHO
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 10-12-2011 at 03:41 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •