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.

Click to expand...

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).

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

technician said:

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).

Click to expand...

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."

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.

Herr Heckler Koch said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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..... :banghead:

Outdoorsman1

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 ?

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.

rcav8r said:

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.

Click to expand...

you have not made your calculations based on the presence of WisconsinCarry in the equation. please recalculate.

technician said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Police Chief Andy Gee said:

"This concealed law takes away open carry, so you have to have a permit to carry concealed"

Click to expand...

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.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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,"

Click to expand...

Amen!

police chief Gee said:

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

Click to expand...

Idiot. Now criminals know where to look in his car.

town chairman Mark Hartzheim said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

McX said:

you have not made your calculations based on the presence of WisconsinCarry in the equation. please recalculate.

Click to expand...

ahahaha! True!

rcawdor57 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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).

McX said:

you have not made your calculations based on the presence of WisconsinCarry in the equation. please recalculate.

Click to expand...

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.

rcav8r said:

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.

Click to expand...

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