• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Open Carry Baraboo Wisconsin

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Were the curbs painted? Signs posted? Was there a 100Ft Mark on the sidewalk?

Otherwise, how would you know?

The statute does in fact say "Knowingly"
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Interceptor_Knight wrote:
 

If I were given a pass when the police had proof of me committing a felony, I would not go after them for how they handled the incident and I would not want TV, radio, newsprint, etc broadcasting to the world that I committed a felony but did not get charged...;)

Technically, he didn't commit a felony unless he KNEW he was within 1000 feet of a school. That's what the statute says, 'knowingly'.

If I knew where a school was, but I am a really bad judge of Distance ( also time) and I claim, "I did not realize I was THAT close". Would that costitute a defense?

Now, I know it would be if I did not know there was a school there.

I would ASSuME that he would have a defense, especially since he was 917 feet away. If he was 5 feet, that would be another story.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
I would ASSuME that he would have a defense, especially since he was 917 feet away. If he was 5 feet, that would be another story.
Read about the Sorites Paradox.

With a defense at 917 feet but not at 5 feet, then we must ask, "how about 6 feet, 7 feet, 8 ft. ... when prior to 917 feet does his 'defense' appear?"
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
BROKENSPROKET wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Interceptor_Knight wrote:


If I were given a pass when the police had proof of me committing a felony, I would not go after them for how they handled the incident and I would not want TV, radio, newsprint, etc broadcasting to the world that I committed a felony but did not get charged...;)

Technically, he didn't commit a felony unless he KNEW he was within 1000 feet of a school. That's what the statute says, 'knowingly'.

If I knew where a school was, but I am a really bad judge of Distance ( also time) and I claim, "I did not realize I was THAT close". Would that costitute a defense?

Now, I know it would be if I did not know there was a school there.

I would ASSuME that he would have a defense, especially since he was 917 feet away. If he was 5 feet, that would be another story.
He was aprox. 820 feet away. 917 feet was to the school building, not the edge of school property.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
WOW, cuffed for legal OC, JERKS !! Sounds like your town Police are real tough, harassing Law abiding citizens.....Next time lock your ID inside your car & don't say a word to them......917 feet from GFSZ, how did the cop know exact footage ?? Tell them to maybe post signs GFSZ signs every 50 feet.:)
"Next time lock your ID inside your car & don't say a word to them"

When I open carry I NEVER have ANY ID on me. I agree 100% with Glock34! There is NO law stating that we must all have an State Issued I.D. on us at all times. When we get to that point we all know we will have NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

The only times we need I.D. are for instances where we are driving, buying age restricted items or entering restricted zones such as military posts, buying guns, etc....we all KNOW what they are.

When I enter a store open carrying the only thing on me is either cash or my credit card/debit card. If I ain't driving I ain't carrying an I.D.

:exclaim:
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Interceptor_Knight wrote:


If I were given a pass when the police had proof of me committing a felony, I would not go after them for how they handled the incident and I would not want TV, radio, newsprint, etc broadcasting to the world that I committed a felony but did not get charged...;)

Technically, he didn't commit a felony unless he KNEW he was within 1000 feet of a school. That's what the statute says, 'knowingly'.

I would not wish to bet my freedom and potential permanant loss of liberties on an escape clause which hinges on my ability to prove that I did not do something "knowingly"...

Does anyone have an example of this defense being successful?
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The school zone ban, the gift from Herb Kohl that keeps on getting.Can anyone name one piece of legislation from Kohl that has benefited Wisconsin??
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
imported post

Does anyone have an example of this defense being successful?

The only prosecution of a school zone that has been completed that I became aware of the person pleaded to a misdemeanor (that guy in Pewaukee from last year)

I'll have to find the link. I ccap'ed him and they really threw the book at him though it was all plead down to a misdemeanor.

Thats why they have you by the balls with the felony charge. Its such a huge potential risk to take a felony charge to trial. If a jury doesn't buy the "didn't know" excuse, you have a felony. People will be WAY tempted to not even try to fight the charge EVEN if they didn't know and just plead to the misdemeanor they get offered.

Thats why criminal court is NOT the place to fight school zones. Civil court it. Hopefully our GFSZ lawsuit will deal a severe (or fatal) blow to the school zone law.
 

Parker

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
1
Location
Wisconsin
SB1132 Good News LEOSA Revised!

My former employer Federal Prison in Oxford Wisconsin refused to train us and local law enforcement won't provide training either, so we have to wait until the improvment act is passed before I can get a permit to cc

I was just thinking about this this morning. With the passage of SB1132 and the President making it law there is now a way to get your "Q Card". I plan on talking to my boss this week about opeining up our facility to facilitate this. Dont know what his response will be but it is worth a try. My proposal will be -- Say something like a Qualified Retired LEO pays a reasonable "range fee" qualifies on the course of fire that our agency utilized meeting all the performace standards and a "Q Card" could be issued. QRLEO is then entered into our data base as being issued a "Q Card" under HR218. After supplying copies of all appropriate ID issued from Agency they reitred from. I'm sure there would be other paperwork such as hold harmless agreement... blah, blah. This may be especially attractive to those who worked for an agency that refuse to "qualify" their retired / honorabley seperated officers.

I will PM those interested if this can be facilitated... After I talk to the Boss

the text is cited below:

S.1132
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten An Act To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.
(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ‘which could result in suspension or loss of police
powers’ after ‘agency’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police
Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or
police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.’.
(b) Active Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’--
‘(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921
of this title;
‘(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the
provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(3) does not include--
‘(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms
Act);
‘(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).’.
(c) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code is amended
--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated from service’; and
(ii) by striking ‘, other than for reasons of mental instability’;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘retirement’ and inserting ‘separation’;
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retirement, was regularly employed
as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more’ and
inserting ‘separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of
10 years or more’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’;
(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
‘(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the
individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law
enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in
which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;’; and
(E) by striking paragraph (5) and replacing it with the following:
‘(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by
the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of
this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)
(1); or
‘(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is
separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not
qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will
not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);’;
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’; and
(ii) by striking ‘to meet the standards’ and all that follows through
‘concealed firearm’ and inserting ‘to meet the active duty standards for
qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm
of the same type as the concealed firearm’;
(B) paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’;
and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘that indicates’ and all that follows
through the period and inserting ‘or by a certified firearms instructor
that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers
within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year
before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or
otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified
to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State
to have met--
‘(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms
training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the
same type as the concealed firearm; or
‘(II) if the State has not established such standards,
standards set by any law enforcement agency within that
State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.’;
and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘firearm’--
‘(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
‘(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(C) does not include--
‘(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
‘(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title);
and
‘(2) the term ‘service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer’ includes
service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a
law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
If I am not mistaken Cowboyridn already has his permit. It is nice that they changed the amount of time a person needs to work before retirement although, I would like to have seen no limits there.

Even still corrections officers still get a hard time from cops. It is amazing.
 

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
Leosa

If I am not mistaken Cowboyridn already has his permit. It is nice that they changed the amount of time a person needs to work before retirement although, I would like to have seen no limits there.

Even still corrections officers still get a hard time from cops. It is amazing.

LEOSA

Yes, I do have my permit to CC with the LEOSA, but, its nice to see that it finally passed. Now, if the President will sign an Executive order allowing us to fly while armed, which was requested of him, that would be sweeter.

Don
 
Last edited:

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
Finally

I was just thinking about this this morning. With the passage of SB1132 and the President making it law there is now a way to get your "Q Card". I plan on talking to my boss this week about opeining up our facility to facilitate this. Dont know what his response will be but it is worth a try. My proposal will be -- Say something like a Qualified Retired LEO pays a reasonable "range fee" qualifies on the course of fire that our agency utilized meeting all the performace standards and a "Q Card" could be issued. QRLEO is then entered into our data base as being issued a "Q Card" under HR218. After supplying copies of all appropriate ID issued from Agency they reitred from. I'm sure there would be other paperwork such as hold harmless agreement... blah, blah. This may be especially attractive to those who worked for an agency that refuse to "qualify" their retired / honorabley seperated officers.

I will PM those interested if this can be facilitated... After I talk to the Boss

the text is cited below:

S.1132
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten An Act To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.
(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ‘which could result in suspension or loss of police
powers’ after ‘agency’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police
Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or
police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.’.
(b) Active Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’--
‘(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921
of this title;
‘(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the
provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(3) does not include--
‘(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms
Act);
‘(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).’.
(c) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code is amended
--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated from service’; and
(ii) by striking ‘, other than for reasons of mental instability’;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘retirement’ and inserting ‘separation’;
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retirement, was regularly employed
as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more’ and
inserting ‘separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of
10 years or more’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’;
(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
‘(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the
individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law
enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in
which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;’; and
(E) by striking paragraph (5) and replacing it with the following:
‘(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by
the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of
this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)
(1); or
‘(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is
separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not
qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will
not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);’;
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’; and
(ii) by striking ‘to meet the standards’ and all that follows through
‘concealed firearm’ and inserting ‘to meet the active duty standards for
qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm
of the same type as the concealed firearm’;
(B) paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’;
and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘that indicates’ and all that follows
through the period and inserting ‘or by a certified firearms instructor
that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers
within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year
before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or
otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified
to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State
to have met--
‘(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms
training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the
same type as the concealed firearm; or
‘(II) if the State has not established such standards,
standards set by any law enforcement agency within that
State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.’;
and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘firearm’--
‘(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
‘(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(C) does not include--
‘(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
‘(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title);
and
‘(2) the term ‘service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer’ includes
service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a
law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

This finally passed, cool, it's sweet to have a cc permit in all 50 states, and even sweeter not having to uncase and case my firearm getting in and out of the vehicle.

I would like to see the guys face the guy that was posted on here, the one who had road rage, and punded on the driver who pulled in front of him, I'd like to see his face if it was me, and I got out of the car wearing my S&W 40, I'd bet he would not have pounded on me.

Don
 
Top