J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Hey, I have a great suggestion. Take the damn thing home and look it over!
Hey, I have a great suggestion. Take the damn thing home and look it over!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Commotion in Onalaska
- Thread starter bnhcomputing
- Start date
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Some of you guys miss the point. The vehicle carry statute 167.31 only applies to firearms, bows and crossbows. The man was perfectly within his legal rights to examine the B.B. Gun in his vehicle as long as he wasn't doing it in a menancing manner. He didn't even have to worry about the "out of reach" and concealed weapon conditions because if someone could call and complain about his actions the B.B.gun was obviously "in normal view".
Do we have some hypocrites on the forum? People that exclaim they aren't going to do this or that because it violates their lawful or constitutional rights and then suggest this fellow should have examined the B.B. Gun in the store before he entered his vehicle or he should have waited until he got the weapon home.
Come on. We either have rights or we don't have rights. We can't have it both ways.
My opinion.
Some of you guys miss the point. The vehicle carry statute 167.31 only applies to firearms, bows and crossbows. The man was perfectly within his legal rights to examine the B.B. Gun in his vehicle as long as he wasn't doing it in a menancing manner. He didn't even have to worry about the "out of reach" and concealed weapon conditions because if someone could call and complain about his actions the B.B.gun was obviously "in normal view".
Do we have some hypocrites on the forum? People that exclaim they aren't going to do this or that because it violates their lawful or constitutional rights and then suggest this fellow should have examined the B.B. Gun in the store before he entered his vehicle or he should have waited until he got the weapon home.
Come on. We either have rights or we don't have rights. We can't have it both ways.
My opinion.
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Lammie wrote:
Lammie wrote:
And a good one too.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
I personally agree Lammie. A BB Gun is not a firearm, however the LEO could say that it is a fascimilie and looks like a real firearm.
As far as taking it home, I was just making the point that you could even have it out in your yard and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
This is nothing more than the Starbucks anti's and the Brady Bunch stirring up crap. We need to start fighting back instead of turning the other cheek all the time.
Just like the guy who got kicked out of Wally World because some guy started yelling that about him carrying a gun OC.
The OCer should have made a citizen's arrest and had the individual arrested for disorderly conduct and creating a disturbance in a public place. That was no different then yelling fire in a crowded theater.
I personally agree Lammie. A BB Gun is not a firearm, however the LEO could say that it is a fascimilie and looks like a real firearm.
As far as taking it home, I was just making the point that you could even have it out in your yard and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
This is nothing more than the Starbucks anti's and the Brady Bunch stirring up crap. We need to start fighting back instead of turning the other cheek all the time.
Just like the guy who got kicked out of Wally World because some guy started yelling that about him carrying a gun OC.
The OCer should have made a citizen's arrest and had the individual arrested for disorderly conduct and creating a disturbance in a public place. That was no different then yelling fire in a crowded theater.
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
J.Gleason wrote:
What he did was not illegal. What the caller did was not illegal. What the cops did was not illegal till they charged him with Disorderly.
That is the crux of my ire with this situation and should be our focus, IMHO. Using the law as a club in some misguided attempt to set an example of this guy is not good police work, again IMHO.
J.Gleason wrote:
True J. The guy could have used better judgement but if one is not in the habit of handling guns, i.e. many in this state, one may not be aware of the havoc one's actions may inspire.
What he did was not illegal. What the caller did was not illegal. What the cops did was not illegal till they charged him with Disorderly.
That is the crux of my ire with this situation and should be our focus, IMHO. Using the law as a club in some misguided attempt to set an example of this guy is not good police work, again IMHO.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I submitted an FOI request.
It was denied citing an ongoing investigation.
Suggestions on how to proceed?
I submitted an FOI request.
It was denied citing an ongoing investigation.
Suggestions on how to proceed?
M
McX
Guest
imported post
picket.
picket.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
When Frank got taken, and Jesus, and even Yates we got the police reports right away even though the case wasn't "disposed of yet."
I think I might be going to court over this one....
It was just a BB gun incident, but it is the principle of the thing.
If we could get Yates DC arrest report and copies of the 911 call, why can't we get this guys???
When Frank got taken, and Jesus, and even Yates we got the police reports right away even though the case wasn't "disposed of yet."
I think I might be going to court over this one....
It was just a BB gun incident, but it is the principle of the thing.
If we could get Yates DC arrest report and copies of the 911 call, why can't we get this guys???
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
I think that the AG enforces Ch. 19
XIII. Enforcement and Penalties.
A. Mandamus. If an authority withholds a record or part of a record, or delays granting
access to a record or part of a record after a written request for disclosure is made,
the requester may:
1. Bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record;
or
2. Submit a written request to the district attorney of the county where the
record is located or to the Attorney General requesting that an action for
mandamus be brought asking the court to order release of the record to the
requester.
Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1). Mandamus procedures are set forth in Chapters 781 and
783 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
B. A request must be made in writing before a mandamus action to enforce the request
is commenced. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
C. A committed or incarcerated person must bring any action for mandamus
challenging denial of a request for access to a record within 90 days after the request
is denied by the authority. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1m).
D. In a mandamus action, the court must decide whether the custodian gave sufficiently
specific reasons for denying an otherwise proper public records request. If the
custodian’s reasons for denying the request were sufficiently specific, the court must
decide whether the custodian’s reasons are based on a statutory or judicial exception
or are sufficiently specific to outweigh the strong public policy favoring disclosure.
Ordinarily the trial court examines the record to which access is requested
in camera. Youmans, 28 Wis. 2d at 682-83; George, 169 Wis. 2d at 578, 582-83.
E. The court may allow the parties or their attorneys limited access to the requested
record for the purpose of presenting their mandamus cases, under such protective
orders or other restrictions as the court deems appropriate. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a);
Appleton Post-Crescent v. Janssen, 149 Wis. 2d 294, 298-305, 441 N.W.2d 255
(Ct. App. 1989) (allowing limited attorney access only for purposes of case
preparation).
F. The public records law encourages assertion of the right to access.
1. Attorneys’ fees, damages of not less than $100.00, and other actual costs
shall be awarded to a requester who prevails in whole or in substantial part in
a mandamus action concerning access to a record under Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(a). Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a).
a. The purpose of Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2) is to encourage voluntary
compliance, so a judgment or order favorable in whole or in part in a
mandamus action is not a necessary condition precedent to finding
that a party prevailed against a requester under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2).
Eau Claire Press Co., 176 Wis. 2d at 159-60.
b. Caution: Damages may be awarded if the prevailing requester is a
committed or incarcerated person, but that requester is not entitled to
any minimum amount of damages. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a).
c. Caution: For an attorney fee award to be made, there must be an
attorney-client relationship. Young, 165 Wis. 2d at 294-97 (no
attorney fees for pro se litigant).
d. To establish that he or she has “prevailed,” the requester must show
that the prosecution of the mandamus action could “reasonably be
regarded as necessary to obtain the information” and that a “causal
nexus” exists between the legal action and the custodian’s disclosure
of the requested information. Eau Claire Press Co., 176 Wis. 2d
at 160.
e. Cases discussing recovery of attorney fees where plaintiff
“substantially prevails” and recovering fees and costs after the case
is dismissed for being moot: Racine Ed. Ass’n v. Racine Bd. of
Ed., 129 Wis. 2d 319, 326-30, 385 N.W.2d 510 (Ct. App. 1986);
Racine Ed. Ass’n v. Racine Bd. of Ed., 145 Wis. 2d 518, 522-25,
427 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1988); Eau Claire Press Co.,
176 Wis. 2d at 159-60. Actual damages shall be awarded to a
requester who files a mandamus action under Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(am), relating to access to a record containing personally
identifiable information, if the court finds that the authority acted
in a willful or intentional manner. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(b). There
are no automatic damages in this type of mandamus case nor is
there statutory authority for the court to award attorney fees and
costs.
2. Punitive damages may be awarded to a requester if the court finds that an
authority or legal custodian arbitrarily or capriciously denied or delayed
response to a request or charged excess fees. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(3).
3. Civil forfeiture of not more than $1,000.00 may be imposed against an
authority or legal custodian who arbitrarily or capriciously denies or delays
response to a request or charges excessive fees. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(4).
G. In addition to mandamus relief and civil forfeitures, criminal penalties also are
available for:
1. Destruction, damage, removal, or concealment of public records with intent
to injure or defraud. Wis. Stat. § 946.72.
2. Alteration or falsification of public records. Wis. Stat. § 943.38.
I think that the AG enforces Ch. 19
XIII. Enforcement and Penalties.
A. Mandamus. If an authority withholds a record or part of a record, or delays granting
access to a record or part of a record after a written request for disclosure is made,
the requester may:
1. Bring an action for mandamus asking a court to order release of the record;
or
2. Submit a written request to the district attorney of the county where the
record is located or to the Attorney General requesting that an action for
mandamus be brought asking the court to order release of the record to the
requester.
Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1). Mandamus procedures are set forth in Chapters 781 and
783 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
B. A request must be made in writing before a mandamus action to enforce the request
is commenced. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
C. A committed or incarcerated person must bring any action for mandamus
challenging denial of a request for access to a record within 90 days after the request
is denied by the authority. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1m).
D. In a mandamus action, the court must decide whether the custodian gave sufficiently
specific reasons for denying an otherwise proper public records request. If the
custodian’s reasons for denying the request were sufficiently specific, the court must
decide whether the custodian’s reasons are based on a statutory or judicial exception
or are sufficiently specific to outweigh the strong public policy favoring disclosure.
Ordinarily the trial court examines the record to which access is requested
in camera. Youmans, 28 Wis. 2d at 682-83; George, 169 Wis. 2d at 578, 582-83.
E. The court may allow the parties or their attorneys limited access to the requested
record for the purpose of presenting their mandamus cases, under such protective
orders or other restrictions as the court deems appropriate. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1)(a);
Appleton Post-Crescent v. Janssen, 149 Wis. 2d 294, 298-305, 441 N.W.2d 255
(Ct. App. 1989) (allowing limited attorney access only for purposes of case
preparation).
F. The public records law encourages assertion of the right to access.
1. Attorneys’ fees, damages of not less than $100.00, and other actual costs
shall be awarded to a requester who prevails in whole or in substantial part in
a mandamus action concerning access to a record under Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(a). Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a).
a. The purpose of Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2) is to encourage voluntary
compliance, so a judgment or order favorable in whole or in part in a
mandamus action is not a necessary condition precedent to finding
that a party prevailed against a requester under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2).
Eau Claire Press Co., 176 Wis. 2d at 159-60.
b. Caution: Damages may be awarded if the prevailing requester is a
committed or incarcerated person, but that requester is not entitled to
any minimum amount of damages. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a).
c. Caution: For an attorney fee award to be made, there must be an
attorney-client relationship. Young, 165 Wis. 2d at 294-97 (no
attorney fees for pro se litigant).
d. To establish that he or she has “prevailed,” the requester must show
that the prosecution of the mandamus action could “reasonably be
regarded as necessary to obtain the information” and that a “causal
nexus” exists between the legal action and the custodian’s disclosure
of the requested information. Eau Claire Press Co., 176 Wis. 2d
at 160.
e. Cases discussing recovery of attorney fees where plaintiff
“substantially prevails” and recovering fees and costs after the case
is dismissed for being moot: Racine Ed. Ass’n v. Racine Bd. of
Ed., 129 Wis. 2d 319, 326-30, 385 N.W.2d 510 (Ct. App. 1986);
Racine Ed. Ass’n v. Racine Bd. of Ed., 145 Wis. 2d 518, 522-25,
427 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1988); Eau Claire Press Co.,
176 Wis. 2d at 159-60. Actual damages shall be awarded to a
requester who files a mandamus action under Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(am), relating to access to a record containing personally
identifiable information, if the court finds that the authority acted
in a willful or intentional manner. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(b). There
are no automatic damages in this type of mandamus case nor is
there statutory authority for the court to award attorney fees and
costs.
2. Punitive damages may be awarded to a requester if the court finds that an
authority or legal custodian arbitrarily or capriciously denied or delayed
response to a request or charged excess fees. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(3).
3. Civil forfeiture of not more than $1,000.00 may be imposed against an
authority or legal custodian who arbitrarily or capriciously denies or delays
response to a request or charges excessive fees. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(4).
G. In addition to mandamus relief and civil forfeitures, criminal penalties also are
available for:
1. Destruction, damage, removal, or concealment of public records with intent
to injure or defraud. Wis. Stat. § 946.72.
2. Alteration or falsification of public records. Wis. Stat. § 943.38.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
You contact either the district attorney for that county, or the state attorney general.
You contact either the district attorney for that county, or the state attorney general.
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
Could not agree with you more. Getting involved in this is the right thing to do. If we stand aside and let this happen, we are just encouraging and emboldening the LEO extremists. Besides, it's good practice. They used this "BB" gun incident to justify their bad behavior after the fact.
Once they knew there was no threat, the person was a citizen going about his business and no laws were broken, they used a catchall to demostrate their power and control.
This was chest pounding, plain and simple.
bnhcomputing wrote:
Could not agree with you more. Getting involved in this is the right thing to do. If we stand aside and let this happen, we are just encouraging and emboldening the LEO extremists. Besides, it's good practice. They used this "BB" gun incident to justify their bad behavior after the fact.
Once they knew there was no threat, the person was a citizen going about his business and no laws were broken, they used a catchall to demostrate their power and control.
This was chest pounding, plain and simple.
SAK
Regular Member
imported post
I say we give them til Wednesday to drop the charges and apologize to Grandpa.
Otherwise I'll be with bnh in court. I'll be contacting that police department over this on Monday. This is ridiculous.
"There's a man with a gun or two guns!!!"
"Ma'am, settle down, what does the man you see look like?"
"Well, he's old, has grey hair - looks like a grandpa to me"
"What is he doing with the guns, ma'am"
"Well, he appears to be looking at them and inspecting them"
:question:
I'm prepared to go to work on this. I don't want any bad MWAG precedence.
I say we give them til Wednesday to drop the charges and apologize to Grandpa.
Otherwise I'll be with bnh in court. I'll be contacting that police department over this on Monday. This is ridiculous.
"There's a man with a gun or two guns!!!"
"Ma'am, settle down, what does the man you see look like?"
"Well, he's old, has grey hair - looks like a grandpa to me"
"What is he doing with the guns, ma'am"
"Well, he appears to be looking at them and inspecting them"
:question:
I'm prepared to go to work on this. I don't want any bad MWAG precedence.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
At this point we still don't know all the facts, that was why I submitted the FOI request. The fact that they tried to deny it outright, and then did a poor job of it, has tuned this into a "Sunshine" case.
For now, I think we should only have one front so to speak.
I will be notifying the Chief via snail mail about the issues with his response and will give him another opportunity to comply. If they choose to refuse again, then I will go to BOTH the DA and the AG.
Again, until we have the actual reports, we don't know all the facts. So we need to pursue this form the FOI route first.
At this point we still don't know all the facts, that was why I submitted the FOI request. The fact that they tried to deny it outright, and then did a poor job of it, has tuned this into a "Sunshine" case.
For now, I think we should only have one front so to speak.
I will be notifying the Chief via snail mail about the issues with his response and will give him another opportunity to comply. If they choose to refuse again, then I will go to BOTH the DA and the AG.
Again, until we have the actual reports, we don't know all the facts. So we need to pursue this form the FOI route first.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
again i remind everyone; keep those donations to wisconsin carry coming in! As you can see it's going to be a buisy year for wisconsin carry.
again i remind everyone; keep those donations to wisconsin carry coming in! As you can see it's going to be a buisy year for wisconsin carry.
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
Wise approach and good advice. In my experience these reports are available within one or two days. Something smells here but we need to be deliberate, thoughtful, and get all the facts we can; if there is a lack of cooperation then get the DA and AG involved.
bnhcomputing wrote:
Wise approach and good advice. In my experience these reports are available within one or two days. Something smells here but we need to be deliberate, thoughtful, and get all the facts we can; if there is a lack of cooperation then get the DA and AG involved.
qball54208
Regular Member
imported post
This may help. A link to FAQ Open Records Requests.
http://apps.commerce.wi.gov/OpenRecords/OpenRecordFAQ.html
Or this one.
http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openrecordslaw.html
Or this one.
http://www.sos.state.wi.us/open_records.htm
Or this one.
http://www.wisfoic.org/index.php
This may help. A link to FAQ Open Records Requests.
http://apps.commerce.wi.gov/OpenRecords/OpenRecordFAQ.html
Or this one.
http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openrecordslaw.html
Or this one.
http://www.sos.state.wi.us/open_records.htm
Or this one.
http://www.wisfoic.org/index.php
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Woodchuck wrote:
Woodchuck wrote:
What law was he breaking? You'd better look up "brandishing" and remember this guy was in his own vehicle. "Blatantly break the law"? Are you out of your mind? I think you mistook this forum for the "Brady bunch." What BS. Then they interview two morons who obviously are related to you.
hardballer
Regular Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Agreed Gunslinger. As far as I can see, he broke no law. He was not brandishing. He was inside of an enclosed vehicle, merely handling a toy bb gun.
The ones out of line were the wacko, liberal extremist, pot stirrers who saw an opportunity to incite mayhem. The caller. The cops. Oh yes, the two morons. Especially the girl. These are the very same people who are screwing with our freedom and liberty.
This is why education is so important. This is why carrying at any opportunity is so important. The more these ignorant and or stupid folk see a gun on the hip of an honest, responsible citizen, the more it becomes unexceptional, mundane.
Gunslinger wrote:
Agreed Gunslinger. As far as I can see, he broke no law. He was not brandishing. He was inside of an enclosed vehicle, merely handling a toy bb gun.
The ones out of line were the wacko, liberal extremist, pot stirrers who saw an opportunity to incite mayhem. The caller. The cops. Oh yes, the two morons. Especially the girl. These are the very same people who are screwing with our freedom and liberty.
This is why education is so important. This is why carrying at any opportunity is so important. The more these ignorant and or stupid folk see a gun on the hip of an honest, responsible citizen, the more it becomes unexceptional, mundane.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I just got a copy of the 911 call(s) and the dispatch logs from La Crosse County.
BUT
The City of Onlalaska is holding firm on their TOTAL denial to my FOI request to get a copy of the police report.
I sent them a followup email demanding the records by the end of the week. If they fail to produce them, (given I just got the county records) I'll file complaints with the La Crosse County DA, the State AG, and then I'll go right down to the local news paper and get them put on the front page.
This isn't about the actual BB gun incident any longer, this is now about our "open" government.
I just got a copy of the 911 call(s) and the dispatch logs from La Crosse County.
BUT
The City of Onlalaska is holding firm on their TOTAL denial to my FOI request to get a copy of the police report.
I sent them a followup email demanding the records by the end of the week. If they fail to produce them, (given I just got the county records) I'll file complaints with the La Crosse County DA, the State AG, and then I'll go right down to the local news paper and get them put on the front page.
This isn't about the actual BB gun incident any longer, this is now about our "open" government.
CUOfficer
Regular Member
imported post
bnh:
I don't know if this is of any use to you but I just found it:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/complaints.php#POLICE
It appears that you can make civil rights complaints to the Federal Gov. and they will investigate them only for state and local law enforcement agencies. It is the second heading down. Hope it helps.
bnh:
I don't know if this is of any use to you but I just found it:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/complaints.php#POLICE
It appears that you can make civil rights complaints to the Federal Gov. and they will investigate them only for state and local law enforcement agencies. It is the second heading down. Hope it helps.