What is wrong with you people

wild boar · Nov 17, 2011

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

Lurchiron · Nov 17, 2011

View attachment 7419
Plant these...then grab the goose. :dude:

McX · Nov 17, 2011

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.

BROKENSPROKET · Nov 17, 2011

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.

Senator Wanggaard (Chair)

Senator Grothman (Vice-Chair)

Senator Lazich

Senator Wirch

Senator King

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.

bmwguy11 · Nov 17, 2011

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.

Brass Magnet · Nov 17, 2011

bmwguy11 said:
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.

BROKENSPROKET · Nov 17, 2011

bmwguy11 said:
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.

BROKENSPROKET · Nov 17, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
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.

wild boar · Nov 17, 2011

Please, If you think...

BROKENSPROKET said:
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.

BROKENSPROKET · Nov 17, 2011

wild boar said:
...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.

rcawdor57 · Nov 17, 2011

It's In The First Post....

BROKENSPROKET said:
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.

BROKENSPROKET · Nov 17, 2011

rcawdor57 said:
Dennis is referring to his post.

I don't know which post he cited that email in.

wild boar · Nov 17, 2011

This post started this thread, and...

wild boar said:
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.

wild boar · Nov 17, 2011

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?

Nutczak · Nov 17, 2011

BROKENSPROKET said:
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/

wild boar · Nov 17, 2011

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
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

DangerClose · Nov 18, 2011

wild boar said:
...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.) :lol:

wild boar · Nov 18, 2011

Looks good on paper...

DangerClose said:
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.) :lol:

...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.

wild boar · Nov 19, 2011

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

BROKENSPROKET · Nov 19, 2011

wild boar said:
...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.

What is wrong with you people

Regular Member

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member