Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: What is wrong with you people

  1. #1
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    What is wrong with you people

    AB 237 & AB246 must be stopped, are there only a few of us who care anymore!

    Senator Wanggaard, This email is addressing AB 237, and AB246 which you are strongly supporting. The question I must ask, and demand an answer to is, why would the state grant police expanded powers of arrest along with stricter penalties under the law; and in doing so, remove any liability which may result from police’ ignorance of the law after the fact. To further empower the states police; who have no legal obligation under law to protect the people, causes the people to ask WHY? The people see no benefit in this state sanctioned power grab, only tools of legal harassment along with the peoples diminished civil rights of protection from what will be a police force that acts with immunity.

    The following cases support the claim that the police are not obligated to protect.
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).
    Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990
    Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990))
    (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
    (Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)).
    (Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).
    adphamm@yahoo.com Thank you, Constituent
    Last edited by wild boar; 11-18-2011 at 10:25 AM.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Attachment 7419
    Plant these...then grab the goose.
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest
    it is truly the case of the dragon chasing it's tail; the courts rule, and the states and citizens react: gun ownership and concealed states go up. i have to live with what is such as it is. at least thank God my state has finally given me the means NOT to have to count on the police. we get what we get, and live with it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    AB237 has been stopped.

    AB246 has been refered to the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Safety, and Urban Affairs. Watch the committee calendar for the next public hearing. Go testify.









    AB246, I don't believe it will be stopped, so efforts to 'kill the bill' will be a waste of energy. Some fear that this would be used against lawful carriers that do not provide ID. If that is your fear, contact legislators with your concern to have it ammended to protect such persons frombeing charged with this statute. But if you express that you want th bill to be killed, you will be disregarded. The intent of this bill is to allow DA's to charge violent criminals that physically resist arrest while armed or gain the LEO's firearm with felony. Right now, they cannot be charged without the BG retreating or remaining in a building or place. Right now, the charge would be the same as for a girl-friend with no record who lies about the whereabouts of her wanted boyfriend.

    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.

    The first LEO that arrests a lawful open carrier for not presenting ID under this statute is going ot get sued. Not the department, but the officer personally. It would be obvious that such a stretch would be a violation of civil rights that would make them personally liable.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 11-17-2011 at 02:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    AB246 can absolutely be stopped. It was voted on and passed in the assembly. The reason it was sent to committee is that there were NO senators sponsoring the bill. So it's gone to senate committee.

  6. #6
    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 bmwguy11 View Post
    AB246 can absolutely be stopped. It was voted on and passed in the assembly. The reason it was sent to committee is that there were NO senators sponsoring the bill. So it's gone to senate committee.
    Yes; well, I don't know if that's why it was sent to committee, but this is why everyone should contact the Senators on that committee. Tell them who your senator is, and tell them why you oppose this. In the very least it could get fixed.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 11-17-2011 at 03:51 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    AB246 can absolutely be stopped. It was voted on and passed in the assembly. The reason it was sent to committee is that there were NO senators sponsoring the bill. So it's gone to senate committee.
    That is not why it went to a Senate committee. In order for this bill to come to the Senate Floor, it must have a Senate Public Hearing.

    Yes, I could be stopped, but I doubt it will be.

  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Yes; well, I don't know if that's why it was sent to committee, but this is why everyone should contact the Senators on that committee. Tell them who your senator is, and tell them why you oppose this. In the very least it could get fixed.
    I believe that laguage could be strenghtened to protect OC'er who refuse to ID. That is what I think we should focus on.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 11-17-2011 at 04:05 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Please, If you think...

    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I believe that laguage could be strenghtened to protect OC'er who refuse to ID. That is what I think we should focus on.
    ...my email is wrong, or misleading do let me know. I just spoke with Senator Wanggaard's office, and AB 237 is not dead. It's setting in Rules.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  10. #10
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by wild boar View Post
    ...my email is wrong, or misleading do let me know. I just spoke with Senator Wanggaard's office, and AB 237 is not dead. It's setting in Rules.
    You are asking me about an email I am not privy to. I cannot comment on it if you don't provide it.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Talking It's In The First Post....

    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    You are asking me about an email I am not privy to. I cannot comment on it if you don't provide it.

    Dennis is referring to his post.
    “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

  12. #12
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    Dennis is referring to his post.
    I don't know which post he cited that email in.

  13. #13
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    This post started this thread, and...

    Quote Originally Posted by wild boar View Post
    AB 237 & AB246 must be stopped, are there only a few of us who care anymore!

    Senator Wanggaard, This email is addressing AB 237, and AB246 which you are strongly supporting. The question I must ask, and demand an answer to is, why would the state grant police expanded powers of arrest along with stricter penalties under the law; and in doing so, remove any liability which may result from police’ ignorance of the law after the fact. To further empower the states police; who have no legal obligation under law to protect the people, causes the people to ask WHY? The people see no benefit in this state sanctioned power grab, only tools of legal harassment along with the peoples diminished rights of protection from what will be a police force that acts with immunity.

    The following cases support the claim that the police are not obligated to protect.
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).
    Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990
    Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990))
    (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
    (Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)).
    (Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).
    adphamm@yahoo.com Thank you, Constituent

    ...is the email that I am referring to .boar out.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  14. #14
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445
    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.

    The first LEO that arrests a lawful open carrier for not presenting ID under this statute is going ot get sued. Not the department, but the officer personally. It would be obvious that such a stretch would be a violation of civil rights that would make them personally liable

    With respect, this purposed law says nothing about the legality of being armed, licensed, or not; further, the mention of “remains or becomes armed” leads to the suspicion that the situation is already out of the officers control. This would clearly be a case where a self defense shooting on the part of the officer would be warranted. As far as “lawfully” on the part of the officer, who’s to say what his/her disposition is at the time, we all know how narrow the window of probable cause is. This being said, I really don’t feel any better about this law knowing the contempt the majority of police have for carriers. There are already laws that would apply to all these contingencies. The fact is this law is aimed at legal gun carriers who would not think of shooting a LEO, if this was real, the perp would be dead, bang! boar out. But I could be wrong?
    Last edited by wild boar; 11-17-2011 at 07:13 PM.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post


    [I]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 have a real problem with this bill, because it will make a simple verbal statement to a cop a felony. and who is to say the cop will not lie in his charging you just to nail you with a felony.
    I have had it happen to me already, got hauled in on a bogus D-O charge, jail officer says to cop "Homeboy has money to make bail, whatcha wanna do about it?" and cop says to jail geek " Didn't you just hear him threaten me?, I did!" Bam! Now my bail is in excess of $10K instaed of the $500.00 that I had in my pocket.

    To allow police to charge a person for a felony for some alleged verbal statement is complete and utter ********! This has got to be stopped at any and all costs/

  16. #16
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Senator wannggard

    Senator Wanggaard, as hard as I tried I couldn’t make this up! The state would have the people believe that police are in need of an enhanced penalty for those who are armed or try to become armed and attempt to prevent police from taking them into custody. This would be an all units, code three, officer needs help call. The person who was armed, or tried to become armed would have been shot! This wanted law by the state is clearly a law that would not even be considered in a response to a man with a gun call. With that being said, what’s left? I’ll tell you, how about a Constitutional open carrier, or perhaps a licensed concealed carrier. Now this makes sense, an honest, legal gun carrier would not consider shooting a law enforcement officer, but may take a Constitutional stance of verbal resistance, and this is where the felony comes in. With a simple act of refusing to show I.D. the person will never be able to apply for, hold a carry license, buy a pistol, or even vote again. I’m telling you sir that this stinks, the motive is clear, and if tried in a court of law, I don’t believe it will stand. adphamm@yahoo.com
    [I]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
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by wild boar View Post
    ...my email is wrong, or misleading do let me know. I just spoke with Senator Wanggaard's office, and AB 237 is not dead. It's setting in Rules.
    I know Representative Litjens says AB 237 looks like it's dead, but that, if it's not, she'll put her foot in its ass and stomp a mudhole in it. (I may have embellished that last part.)

  18. #18
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Smile Looks good on paper...

    Quote Originally Posted by DangerClose View Post
    I know Representative Litjens says AB 237 looks like it's dead, but that, if it's not, she'll put her foot in its ass and stomp a mudhole in it. (I may have embellished that last part.)
    ...sir, and I thank you for your vigilance. I don't know your Representative, but my State senator still has his name on It. What else looks good are the emails of paper patronage I get from him, the,"I'll be sure to keep your thoughts, and concerns in mind". boar out.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  19. #19
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Email to walker

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Governor Walker: The preamble of the Constitution is as much a part of the document as any other. This is the introduction to the framework that this great country was built on, and holds within the guaranties to its people.
    I ask of you the answer to one question, is your administration living up to the guaranties we hold dear? The guaranties set forth in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
    I ask this as there are two bills that are moving through our state government that do nothing to support the guaranties we have under the laws of the Constitution. AB-237, and AB-246; in no way, do anything to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, or secure the Blessings of the people’s Liberty.
    AB-237, lends to the possible arrest for the slightest infraction of forfeiture laws. Are the people to accept this as Just? What will this offer to Tranquility, or defense, nothing! As to its ability to promote the general welfare, or secure the people’s liberty, for these, they will only be hindered.
    AB-246, what is there for the people in this but fear from the law? This is unbridled police power with a guaranty of immunity for their infractions, and ignorance. The people will fear their right of speech as written in the First Amendment, for fear of the wrongful discretion of the police, and a felony arrest. People will suffer deprivation of the protection under the Fifth Amendment. When they fail to answer, or lawfully withhold property. Then, once again by the discretion of the law, a felony is issued.
    Now, these scenarios may seem to be the extreme, but not near as far a reach as the fore mentioned laws. The people only ask what is just, and hope you will veto these bills if they reach your desk. We thank you for your time sir. You can send your response to adphamm@yahoo.com
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  20. #20
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by wild boar View Post
    ...sir, and I thank you for your vigilance. I don't know your Representative, but my State senator still has his name on It. What else looks good are the emails of paper patronage I get from him, the,"I'll be sure to keep your thoughts, and concerns in mind". boar out.
    He may also be up for a recall elelction, if he does not take his name off and disassociate himself, he is screwed. The campaign adds will smear this in his face.

    ETA: I just sent an email to Waangard and everyone in his office.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 11-19-2011 at 03:30 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    He may also be up for a recall elelction, if he does not take his name off and disassociate himself, he is screwed. The campaign adds will smear this in his face.

    ETA: I just sent an email to Waangard and everyone in his office.

    I wrote everyone on the Senate committee. If I don't try and It passes, I'll feel failure,If I give It my best, I'll go with my boots on. boar out.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  22. #22
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Thumbs up Send this to your reps, & senators

    Why is it that us, the honest, law abiding people are noticed only when we become victims? When the law abiding fear the law, and the evil, then we must also fear the law creators; as well as, the administrators. We suggest that evil must fear the good, for we are the masses. The laws do good to keep the honest among us, honest, but the only affect to evil is flight. Evil does not fear a law, only administers, and this is only affective upon detention, and prosecution, not during an act of defiance.
    Do the people need AB-237, and AB-246, perhaps, but not as a threat to the lawful. To avoid viewing these laws as a tyrannical act, they must be just, and specific, both in face and spirit. The good must be afforded protection, and if by self, so be it, as this is when evil rears its ugly head.
    The people of Wisconsin who have demonstrated, not only the desire, but the ability to live a lawful life has been awarded the license to have protection during the act, when it is needed. We have received congratulations from the State for our lifestyle, in that we now can exercise our State, and Federal Constitutional Right. We hope that these purposed enhancements to existing law do not affect our rights. We are not afforded any ignorance of the law, and should not be expected to tolerate it.

    Thank you
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  23. #23
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    To date ,no replies to my concerns!

    I can only believe that what has been suggested, both as concerns, and suggestions, are of NO importance to the state as they conceder AB-237 & AB-246. I do believe that It have been very clear in these correspondence regarding possible wrong doing from the misuse of these laws.

    I do not intend on being a victim of ignorance. Too many times law enforcement has over stepped their bounds at the cost of lawful carriers. My emails will stand; as intended, a notice of the possibility of unintended ramifications to innocent people brought about by an unconcerned State Government. It is my true hope that in the event of wrong doing that these emails may help. boar out.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  24. #24
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    AB237 is dead.

    AB246 only has the very slightest chance of bding used by a rogue cop on a LAC OCing. Even then, that cop will be personally sued, along with the department. IF it does happen, it will only happen once.

    I have not seen you once offer any suggestion how the language in AB246 could be tightened up to protect LAC's from wrongful arrest.

    Here it is. Take a shot at it.

    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Smile BROKENSPROCKET, I feel my last email was sugestive...

    Here it is. Take a shot at it.

    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.

    CHECK OUT #22
    ..., maybe not. I put both the existing law, and the proposed changes side by side and your right' LAWFUL does protect us. The first law I saw was the new language to amend,and it looked bad. Both side by side show it a little different. They could have showen that on the first post, I know I didn't miss the one I found last, I still don't like the 24 hour notice. thats where a lobbyist comes in handy. Thank you, boar out.
    Last edited by wild boar; 11-24-2011 at 08:32 PM. Reason: kuz
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

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
  •