It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Just looked on http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail...ffset=1&mode=details&submit=View+Case+Details and MKEGal has been charged with a 941.23(2) violation.

Time to pull out the stops, let's get State v Walls taken care of.

 

[oak1971]

Crap. Here we go.

 

[TheManInBlack]

Oh, ITS ON!!!!

 

[E6chevron]

MKEgal was carrying in the same way that the majority of people plan to Open Carry when driving in a vehicle.

I have first hand knowledge that there is good visibility of her weapon from outside her car when she is Open Carrying and in the drivers seat.

Those who support the 2nd amendment and their organizations, NEED to put their money out to suppoort this case.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Looks like she's due for an appearance in court 11/22 at 1:30 PM.

My argument would be two-fold:

1. Walls is bad case law due to plain sight doctrine.

2. The intent of the legislature with Act 35 is for loaded OC in a car to be legal without a license or they would have exempted only licensees.

IMO the must probable outcomes are:

1. Ruling that it's concealed for the purposes of 941.23 but that the legislature wanted to allow it. Dismissed and legislature told to fix it.

2. Walls case law is thrown out as overly broad and inconsistent with other jurisprudence. Dismissed.

3. A combination of 1 and 2.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[TyGuy]

I don't see where concealed is defined?

Also, isn't it lovely that the police can hassle, arrest, jail you for hours, release you, and THEN decide what law you broke? What was their RAS to start with? Where's the 4th Ammendment here?

Don't get me wrong, I like LEOs in general, as I have a long family line of them, but this just stinks!

 

[XDFDE45]

What a load of

.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I don't see where concealed is defined?

Also, isn't it lovely that the police can hassle, arrest, jail you for hours, release you, and THEN decide what law you broke? What was their RAS to start with? Where's the 4th Ammendment here?

Don't get me wrong, I like LEOs in general, as I have a long family line of them, but this just stinks!

Defined in the annotations below 941.23

RAS was prowling/loitering.

"concealed" weapon was seen so search was initially legal under plain sight doctrine. See the contradiction? LOL

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

Defined in the annotations below 941.23

RAS was prowling/loitering.

"concealed" weapon was seen so search was initially legal under plain sight doctrine. See the contradiction? LOL

 

[protias]

It is on like Donkey Kong!

 

[Captain Nemo]

This is just the case that needs to get to at least the courts of appeal. Unfortunately to get there Krysta will need to be found guilty and none of us want that. The State is not about to let this case get to the higher courts. A catch 22 for us. As much as I hate to say it maybe this is one time the NRA/ILA should get involved.

The prowling and loitering RAS sucks. The owner of the property gave permission for people to use his internet access point after hours.

 

[Marco]

Who's heading up her fund raising efforts in WI?

 

[TaurusToter]

Who's heading up her fund raising efforts in WI?

A fund was started. Donations can be made via Paypal to: mkegal.legal@yahoo.com

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

This is the email I sent to the NRA-ILA:

My friend and fellow NRA member, Krysta Sutterfield, has been charged with a concealed weapon violation for open carrying in her car, as per the procedure told to us by Darren Lasorte at Cabellas in Richfield. It seems that Act 35 didn't actually fix 941.23 so that non permit carriers can open carry in their vehicles. The DA is using precedent (State v Walls) set in 1994, before WI passed a pro-gun Constitutional amendment and while the WI Supreme Court was more liberal than it is today.

I would ask that the NRA offer their resources to get this precedent overturned. Krysta was acting in good faith when she got arrested.


Thanks!

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

A fund was started. Donations can be made via Paypal to: mkegal.legal@yahoo.com

That link keeps getting posted and all it does is open Outlook for me.

 

[Grapeshot]

A fund was started. Donations can be made via Paypal to: mkegal.legal@yahoo.com

Here is the button as a direct link:

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

This is just the case that needs to get to at least the courts of appeal. Unfortunately to get there Krysta will need to be found guilty and none of us want that. The State is not about to let this case get to the higher courts. A catch 22 for us. As much as I hate to say it maybe this is one time the NRA/ILA should get involved.

The prowling and loitering RAS sucks. The owner of the property gave permission for people to use his internet access point after hours.

Questiton:

If one it found guilty, it can be appealed that the Courts of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals reverse the verdict, then the State can Appeal to the Supreme Court.

But if one is found not guilty, the State cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals, correct? That would be double jeopardy?

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

That link keeps getting posted and all it does is open Outlook for me.

Well, yeah, it's an email address. You have to go to Paypal and send money to that address.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Questiton:

If one it found guilty, it can be appealed that the Courts of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals reverse the verdict, then the State can Appeal to the Supreme Court.

But if one is found not guilty, the State cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals, correct? That would be double jeopardy?

Acquittals generally cannot be appealed.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Questiton:

If one it found guilty, it can be appealed that the Courts of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals reverse the verdict, then the State can Appeal to the Supreme Court.

But if one is found not guilty, the State cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals, correct? That would be double jeopardy?

The State can appeal as well. Appeals aren't a new trial but rather granted due to a perceived error in procedure or law as I understand it. So double jeopardy doesn't apply.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk