Police seek charges against gun carrier with permit pending

[oak1971]

We will see...

We will.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

To me this comment of yours sounds like you WANT her to be charged so you and your "legal team" can throw it in everyone's face.

For MKEgirl, the best outcome is to not be charged. For her sake I sincerely hope this is what happens. She can not afford to be the test case and the City of Milwaukee may not wish to take on the inevitable very public battle. Should she be charged and if someone steps up and finances her legal battle it would have to be appealed to the WI Supreme Court in order to change case law.
So...
We will see....

 

[oak1971]

"...Milwaukee police are seeking concealed weapon charges against an area gun rights activist who was wearing a gun in her car - before getting a new state permit."

I was wondering what angle they were going to use to charge her.

The officer will take the stand and recite the following: "Based upon my observations at the scene, in addition to my training and experience, I believed that the weapon was concealed." Or some variation thereof. Standard procedure during trial to give the impression to the jury that the officer's testimony carries more weight than others. Of course, the training and experience in these cases, in light of the new laws, is woefully inadequate.

 

[oak1971]

For MKEgirl, the best outcome is to not be charged. For her sake I sincerely hope this is what happens. She can not afford to be the test case and the City of Milwaukee may not wish to take on the inevitable very public battle. Should she be charged and if someone steps up and finances her legal battle it would have to be appealed to the WI Supreme Court in order to change case law.
So...
We will see....

Existing case law prior to ACT 35 is irrelevant. Even your legal team can figure that one out.

 

[DocWalker]

The officer will take the stand and recite the following: "Based upon my observations at the scene, in addition to my training and experience, I believed that the weapon was concealed." Or some variation thereof. Standard procedure during trial to give the impression to the jury that the officer's testimony carries more weight than others. Of course, the training and experience in these cases, in light of the new laws, is woefully inadequate.

The defense should ask the officer "If it was concealed how did you see it?"

 

[DocWalker]

Let us know if they decide to prosecute. If nothing else maybe someone could set up a account for defense donations, I would give.

 

[oak1971]

Unless the DA changes his mind, its going forward.

 

[oak1971]

The defense should ask the officer "If it was concealed how did you see it?"

Ding! That's why I can't believe they are pushing this. Any judge in his right mind will toss this out.

 

[markush]

Ding! That's why I can't believe they are pushing this. Any judge in his right mind will toss this out.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one on any forum but Krysta stated that they didn't notice the gun the first time they were at her windows...it wasn't until they returned the second time that they saw it. They could try saying...since they didn't see it at first it must have been concealed and then she slid her coat back at a later time to uncover it.

 

[oak1971]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one on any forum but Krysta stated that they didn't notice the gun the first time they were at her windows...it wasn't until they returned the second time that they saw it. They could try saying...since they didn't see it at first it must have been concealed and then she slid her coat back at a later time to uncover it.

They could say that, proving it is another story.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one on any forum but Krysta stated that they didn't notice the gun the first time they were at her windows...it wasn't until they returned the second time that they saw it. They could try saying...since they didn't see it at first it must have been concealed and then she slid her coat back at a later time to uncover it.

Maybe they were not even looking until the ran her plates. When GlockRDH and I OC'd in the Capitol, there were alot of persons that did not notice it. The officer that we talked to, didn't notice until we pointed it out to him.

 

[MKEgal]

That article is libelous. MKEgal should file suit.

I suspect it'll help the suit that's already in progress, since he published information that's available from public records... which shouldn't have been there in the first place.

How can they publish all that private health information without it being a HIPAA violation??

See above... the police put it in public records.

The officer will take the stand and recite the following: "Based upon my observations at the scene, in addition to my training and experience, I believed that the weapon was concealed."

Ask e6chevron about the picture he took.

Let us know if they decide to prosecute. If nothing else maybe someone could set up a account for defense donations, I would give.

There is an account, discussed in another thread.
The email is: mkegal.legal@yahoo.com

 

[oak1971]

Ask e6chevron about the picture he took.

I remember you mentioning that, should come in handy.

 

[Trip20]

Existing case law prior to ACT 35 is irrelevant.

Is this really how it works? This is not a loaded question. I ask because I'm having a hard time finding the definition of "possess" and "conceal(ed)" in Act 35.

167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or
crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is a handgun,
as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), unless the firearm
is unloaded and encased, or unless the bow or crossbow
is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.

I argued once on here that any reasonable person might interpret "possess" as it's noted above to mean carry (which is defined in Act 35), but this particular subsection does not state carry.

If we need to look at what constitutes the definition of concealed as it relates to vehicle carry, we only have case law to reference. So if what you're saying is true (previous case law is irrelevant) that makes things much simpler.

However, the new law does not say one can carry ("go armed with") in a vehicle, it only says possess. Is possess defined somewhere?

Then we have the note in the DOJ FAQ, which throws in this little jab at the end of the section dealing with transportation of handguns with out a permit:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.

FAQ isn't law, but it still has some weight given the publisher.

 

[HandyHamlet]

To me this comment of yours sounds like you WANT her to be charged so you and your "legal team" can throw it in everyone's face.

Best post of the day. Sad but true.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Best post of the day. Sad but true.

No way, someone was posting about xxxxxxx earlier in another section. That's way better.

 

[protias]

Man, I hope she wins another lawsuit against Milwaukee. Hopefully she can win enough to move to VA where she wouldn't have to worry about all this stupid crap. Best of luck to MKEgal!

Even skidmark?

 

[Aknazer]

No way, someone was posting about breasts earlier in another section. That's way better.

Cite or it didn't happen (mainly because I want to read about this...).

 

[Law abider]

Law

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/133935443.html

The leo's are going to do all they can to find 'loopholes' in the interperetations or reinterpret the new CC and the current bills passed to deny us our inalienable constitutional rights. As to OC they are going to do the same. So is it now LEGAL to OC in a vehicle or not? Nik can you answer the question regarding OC in a car?
Pierce count sheriff had this article in our paper. Is she reading the law correctly? http://www.piercecountyherald.com/event/article/id/40855/group/Hunting/.
The more time goes on, the more confusing this all gets. I suppose leos want it that way.

 

[HandyHamlet]

No way, someone was posting about xxxxxxx earlier in another section. That's way better.

Just another example of his legal team giving him advise and NOT reading the OP. I'd ask for my money back.

Now... where are these xxxxxxx? Pics or it didn't happen.