Open Carry In Court
From the email.
If someone disagreed with you about an article or story you published and then complained to the police who came into your business and arrested you for disorderly conduct, would that incident be newsworthy?
What if the police arrested you for disorderly conduct while you were exercising any other constitutionally protected right because someone did not want you to exercise your right? Would you want to tell the people of Wisconsin how fragile it is to exercise their rights?
Once arrested, do you think an employer or all your friends and neighbors would understand or would some of them want to maintain more distance with you? Unfortunately, being arrested is the same thing as being found guilty to many people in the court of public opinion. The police don’t arrest innocent people just for exercising a constitutionally protected right after all. That would be outrageous.
Or do they?
Please come (or send a reporter) to the West Allis City Courthouse on Tuesday December 16th at 8 am when this question will be answered in court.
On August 22, Brad Krause was planting trees in his yard, at least until police stormed his residence and arrested him. It turns out they received a call from a man who said he didn’t appreciate that Brad carried a gun, and wanted something done about it.
The West Allis police department sent two squads to investigate, and found Brad in his yard, minding his own business planting trees. From behind him, police rushed him, yelling, “Don’t move!” while bearing down on him with their weapons drawn.
They shortly discovered Brad had no criminal record and was lawfully openly carrying on his own property, but instead of releasing him and returning his weapon, they tried to figure out how to arrest him. A call to the supervising lieutenant provided the answer: claim his action of carrying a weapon is disorderly conduct, and haul him down to the station. His firearm was taken away from him without a receipt, and it has not been returned. The police have effectively banned his exercise of his right by disarming him.
The fact is that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 does not ban or prohibit the lawful carrying of firearms by citizens. By enacting the law, the legislature intended to force citizens to openly carry their firearms while in public, which is what Mr. Krause was lawfully doing (additionally, he was on his own property).
Mr. Krause is self employed as a property manager and this action by the City of West Allis has cost him long term business relationships. The police had him standing in handcuffs on his own property for 45 minutes with squad cars parked in front of his residence while they tried to figure out a way to arrest him. Fortunately, Mr. Krause had taken a friends advice and he had a voice recorder with him and the entire incident was recorded and it has been transcribed.
Civil rights are very important – all of them – which is why they are protected from governmental actions just like this. The media would be all over this story if a voter had been wrongly arrested while waiting in line to vote, or a worshipper had been arrested while attempting to enter their place of worship,
or a reporter was arrested while writing an article. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said an otherwise reasonable exercise of police power cannot be invoked in a way that “eviscerates,” “destroys,” “frustrates,” or “nullifies” the constitutional right to bear arms, yet that is exactly what is being done by law enforcement departments all over Wisconsin today. In Wisconsin, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power. See Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis. 2d 550, 564, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976); see also Robert Dowlut & Janet A. Knoop, State Constitutions and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev 177, 185 (1982) (describing the general application of this principle).That is why this is such an important matter and I am asking for you to publically expose this unlawful use of police power.
If you can attend, please do so and support Mr. Krause.
Sounds like a job for KopBusters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmP_KtmcB4KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana. When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.
The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster’s attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster’s secret mobile office nearby.
http://www.kopbusters.com/v2/node/176Posted by David on December 11, 2008 at 2014 hrs
Good on you for posting this. We need to get it so we can open carry without being charged and soon enough they’ll pass CCW to get the guns they hate so much out of their sight!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2008 at 2128 hrs
So he was planting trees in his yard, but happened to have a voice recorder on him to record the whole incident? Sounds fishy to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2008 at 2241 hrs
Now why on earth would that sound fishy? Unless you think that a) the guy was expecting the cops to hassle and arrest him, and b) that he has no right to protect himself, in any way, from the police.
Posted by tee bee on December 11, 2008 at 2330 hrs
Until this issue gets fully resolved, anyone who chooses to exercise this civil right is wise to carry a voice recorder of some type. Some DAs openly state they will charge (harass) Disorderly Conduct while others have correctly concluded that it is a legal activity and does not come anywhere near the definition of Disorderly Conduct as set forth by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 0546 hrs
The Volokh Conspiracy posted about a story eerily similar, but it was about police abuse of a man who they “thought” was carrying a weapon.
Posted by Nick on December 12, 2008 at 0940 hrs
The date may change due. I will post only if a change is necessary. We should know by Saturday.
John, I had to chuckle at your comment. It appears you’re okay with being armed while planting trees, but having a voice recorder was fishy?
If you lived in Wisconsin, you would understand.
Posted by ccwtrainer on December 12, 2008 at 1022 hrs
ccwtrainer- I live in Wisconsin, and have good friends in West Allis and are there at least once a week.
My point is that the way it was written it sounded like he was just minding his own business and the cops came up and harassed him because of a complaint. The fact that he had a recorder in him leads me to believe that they were setting up the police, which is fine but be honest about it, and the “complaint” was a friend of his trying to get the police there so they could record the reaction.
Like I said, if that is what they are doing then be honest about it. I believe that the police should always react the same way no matter it they are being recorded or not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 1108 hrs
As a former West Allis resident, this upsets me but doesn’t surprise me. The city has a history of abusing its power; my parents had more run-ins with the building inspector than I care to relate, even while other houses in our area were in worse shape. I really hope I don’t have to work Tuesday morning so I can be there for his hearing. I’ll bring my laptop along and take notes if I’m able to make it. Assuming, of course, the city doesn’t cook up some dumb rule saying I can’t have my laptop, and come up with a way to arrest me too.
Posted by Coop on December 12, 2008 at 1138 hrs
I am working through a situation right now where my brother in law’s guns were confiscated. MPD was on site to take my sister away to rehab and he had his and his dad’s guns out for cleaning(he had been to a trap shoot that day). He was given reciepts for the shotguns and told to come down in a couple days to get them. He asked why they were being taken and he was told that it was a sight confiscation and because his wife is potentially suicidal they can take them.
He went down to get them the other day and was told that if he is lucky he may get them sometime in August and he is going to have to go to court to get them back. They are not involved in any crimes, are owned by him and his dad, neither have any domestic charges historically or pending or currently, neither are felons, and yet he is getting the run arround.
My suggestion to him is to start filing lawsuits. If his gun wasn’t a customized Benelli and the other his dad’s I might be inclined to say lesson learned because he is going to have enough problems coming up but the fact is that in Milwaukee, they can’t ban outright so they are going to make it immpossible to own in other ways.
Any suggestions as to laws to look into would be appeciated.
Posted by fishaddict on December 12, 2008 at 1155 hrs
This was definately not a set up.
You have an interesting spin on reality.
Posted by ccwtrainer on December 12, 2008 at 1157 hrs
I don’t have any good answers for those who are dealing with the return of property other than contact a good lawyer and fight.
Quit just accepting the corruption.
Posted by ccwtrainer on December 12, 2008 at 1224 hrs
I don’t know the area, is West Allis ghetto? Even if it is, would it really be safe to do heavy lawn work with a firearm on your belt? And he carries a voice recorder? Sounds like BS to me. Unless he had a good reason to be afraid in his own yard, I think that he was probably behaving in a politically motivated, disorderly fashion, no different than any other activist or protester who steps over the line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 1300 hrs
Jason it does not matter if it is a ghetto. If i want to put my shotgun against a tree while I work in my garden that is my perogative. If I want to wear a sidearm while laying out or hanging laundry, or watering the lawn, I am allowed by law and the constitution of this state and country to do so. The issue here is not should he but could he. Disorderly conduct is the catch all charge. If someone complains then they complain. If you are planting a tree and I don’t think you should be in shorts can I call the cops and have you arrested for disorderly? All you were doing was wearing shorts. Don’t give crap about no pair of shorts ever caused anyone harm either…I have a golf course right down the road from me and I can tell you that some of the guys walking around in the summertime should not be so comfortable in their skin. Seriously though, a holstered gun is a secured gun. It was just like any othe article of clothing. It could not have lept out and shot someone, it could not have ‘just gone off’, and it could not have offended anyone any more than a bad pair of legs sticking out of bright purple shorts and yet he is arrested and charged. That is the issue. I want to see people try a movement against vehicles because they kill more people across this great land than guns ever will.
ccwtrainer, I told him to lawyer up. I have had issues and a buddy who was a range and armoury master for a company in milwaukee also had issues. Again they can argue that you are not allowed to discharge but carry? That seems over the top. I am wondering if he can have the neighbor arrested because I am sure he does not appreciate living around someone that is using oxygen that would be better utilised by his compost heap.
Posted by fishaddict on December 12, 2008 at 1455 hrs
Its shameful.
We have a right to bear arms in wisconsin. Our constitution guarantees it and governor doyle himself has said that by openly carrying a gun “strapped to your hip” you have the right to exercise your constitutional right…
..and then when you go about exercising your constitutional right THE ONLY WAY THEY ALLOW, they cite you for discorderly conduct. (when in fact, there is nothing disorderly about it)
wether you support the right to bear arms or not, people ought to be bothered by a state where police arrest people for breaking NO laws.
If they can do that in this case, they can do it in any case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 1507 hrs
I live in West Allis and this does not surprise me one bit. One of the news stations went into almost every police station in south eastern WI and asked for the form to file a complaint on an officer. Guess which city got the worse review? Yep, West Allis! Want to guess how they got such a bad review? They jacked the guy up right there in the police station…......but the guy had a hidden camera! It was all over the news. Do you know what happened to the cop that did it? That’s right, nothing.
I may be able to attend. Court is at the main police station/court house located next to the high school, correct?
BTW, whoever posted this, I got the same email from JPFO. Thanks for passing on the word.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 1825 hrs
I may be able to attend. Court is at the main police station/court house located next to the high school, correct?
yepPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 2052 hrs
The fact that he had a recorder in him leads me to believe that they were setting up the police, which is fine but be honest about it, and the “complaint” was a friend of his trying to get the police there so they could record the reaction.
John, gun owners tend to be very learned in their rights and infringements upon them.
As such, it is common knowledge in a vast part of the gun community that in MANY MANY MANY portions of the state people frequently walk around in public in populated areas openly carrying a firearm without any encounter or harrasment from law-enforcement (who know that such conduct is PERFECTLY legal). These same gun owners ALSO know in their research and assocations amongst other gun owners and gun owner groups that in sporadic parts of the state people are improperly detained and arrested under false and misapplied charges of disorderly conduct.
As such, it is VERY common practice for people who wish to exercise their legal rights to carry a voice recorder “just in case”.
So no… This was not a “set-up” and I’m quite certain Mr. Krause had no intention of attracting police to his residence. (who in their right mind would want to be standing at GUNPOINT of 2 policemen who are one tap of the trigger away from killing you)
The conduct of the police in this situation should worry EVERYONE.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 2107 hrs
Just as a complete outside observer, the police policy on this is completely insane. Now, I don’t have any guns, although I have in the past. I don’t think an occasional reasonable regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation of everybody’s guns, either. But what are they thinking? It’s a constitutionally protected right, whether they like it or not.
Maybe it’s because I’ve lived in Texas all my life, where for better or worse (and it can be both), guns are fairly common, but I don’t understand the reasoning that led them to think this was even possible in the first place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2008 at 2136 hrs
xxpilot is absolutely correct.
The person who called the police was certainly not a “friend”. This is a documented fact.
Get over it.
Posted by ccwtrainer on December 12, 2008 at 2145 hrs
Any suggestions as to laws to look into would be appeciated.
Posted by fishaddict on December 12, 2008 at 1155 hrs
It sounds like an illegal seizure to me. I would immediately contact both the FBI and the State AG’s office. Also file a complaint against LEO with the DA. Claim your civil rights have been violated, and that this is ABUSE of POWER.
When you go to the FBI, and the DA wear your voice-activated recorder so you have evidence if they try to sluff you off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2008 at 0932 hrs
So if I take someone’s property that’s a crime and I go to jail. But if the police take someone’s property and it’s later deemed “illegal seizure” They just have to give it back.
I’m a fan of the police and respect the job they do but this is wrong. I will be tuned in on the trial Tuesday and I hope the judge respects the constitution of the United States and Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2008 at 1136 hrs
I will be tuned in on the trial Tuesday
It will be interesting. I’ve been told by a very educated resource that NO disorderly conduct charge against someone for openly carrying a weapon has EVER been tried in a court of law in Wisconsin. EVER.
If it happens tuesday it will be historic.
There is precedent in other states that people who have been arrested for disorderly conduct for openly carrying a firearm have obained LARGE financial settlements when they sued the departments/municipalities that arrested them.
I expect that will be the case in wisconsin soon.
Anti-gun liberals might want to think about contacting your legislators because now isn’t the time for municipalities to be paying out settlements for this harrasment of innocent citizens. Either pass a law banning open carry (good luck with that) or pass CCW. Or pay $...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2008 at 1527 hrs
I’m going to say something that will get me yelled at here. But think it through.
We don’t want the defendant to win right now: we want him to loose. Sound stupid? Hear me out.
Should he loose, he can appeal. remember that, the last time a concealed weapon charge was before the SSC, they included verbiage in their decision essentially telling the legislature to provide some system of licensure for carrying a concealed weapon. The legislature (and Governor) responded by noting that open carry is legal.
Should this go to the supreme court, there’s a good chance we’d see things get just a bit shaken up…
Posted by Strings on December 14, 2008 at 1530 hrs
Strings, I don’t think it matters… Win at the local level, or win when it goes to appeal.
The statute of disorderly conduct is such that there is no way the actions of Mr. Krause have the elements of disorderly conduct.
Should this go to the supreme court, there’s a good chance we’d see things get just a bit shaken up…
The supreme court can’t do anything. They can’t legislate, they can only offer a judgement in the facts of this case. Precedent is precedent, wether it comes from a local court or supreme court I would think. (and i"m not an atty but…)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2008 at 1815 hrs
Yes, but if there’s precedent from the SSC, it should range from kinda good (“DC cannot be charged for simply being armed, which is legal”) to very good (“laws barring CCW are now considered unconstitutional”)...
Posted by Strings on December 14, 2008 at 1818 hrs
I thank everyone for the suggestions and we did get the equipment back. the way we had to do it is a bit distasteful and I did not like it at all. He threatened to file a theft by police officer report. It is not like it was the officer’s fault, he was doing as instructed but the idea was that if they are all going to hide behind the idea of just following instruction and so on he would have to go after the guy giving the instruction as well as the guy following. that got things moving and the weapons were returned on SAT. Again thanks for the suggestions and while this won’t work in all situations. The way I figure it, illegal seizure is, in fact, stealing. Using that principal might be the way to go in some cases. I would be prepared to have to fight that as well though because some depts. might not care one wit about such complaints.
Posted by fishaddict on December 15, 2008 at 1019 hrs
Anyone know if/when this is set for trial?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2008 at 1545 hrs
The hearing was this morning. Started at 8, lasted til about 9:45. The city attorney dropped a legal brief on the lap of the defense attorney 8 minutes before the judge walked in, and the judge got it at the same time. The testimony was still given by the 2 responding officers, and the homeowner who called the police. The judge talked with the attorneys for a great length of time It was a very very interesting hearing.
I took a shit-load of notes. If anyone is interested I can share some VERY interesting details, but I need to get my ass outside and move some snow now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2008 at 2211 hrs
oh, and forgot to add. So that the judge had time to read the 8 page legal brief the city attorney gave him moments before the hearing the judge is giving both attorneys to present any additional briefs to him by mid February. I believe Feb. 17th is the next hearing. Again, theres lots of other noteable details if you’re interested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2008 at 2213 hrs
Thanks xxp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2008 at 2308 hrs
Per a request by email here are some more comments after my attending the hearing: (a portion of which is cut and pasted from my post on opencarry.org)
The first person to testify was Donald Dykstra who lives across the street from Brad Krause. Donald was the one who called police. Some observations from his testimony.
First, he kept saying he was “concerned the gun would go off”. He also testified that the gun was never out of the holster, wasn’t being handled by Mr. Krause, and that he has known Mr. Krause to be a “nice guy” in the time he’s lived there.
Several times Mr. Dykstra made the comment he was worried the gun might “go off”
Which of course is such a joke…
I SO badly wanted to ask Donald Dykstra “so when the officers were in the neighborhood, were you concerned about their guns “going off” too? “
I mean the situation got MORE dangerous when the police arrived. Brad had the gun on his hip in a holster and NEVER removed it from that holster.
If a gun “in its holster” is a danger, then didn’t MORE guns in holsters showing up (on the hip of the police) increase the danger) and didn’t the police officers approaching Brad (who was planting a tree) WITH GUNS DRAWN place the neighbors in EXPONENTIALLY more danger than they were ever placed in by Brad having a gun holstered on his hip.
I hope the west allis police department would re-examine their procedures in light of this situation.
Anyway… As those in court saw, based on the facts of the case there wasn’t anything disorderly. On any level.
It was clear the judge isn’t a big gun guru or in favor of people open carrying but I feel very strongly that he couldn’t find anything in the cities case to support the charge. It seems to me that aside from needing to read the brief the city threw at him moments before the trial, he would have ruled in favor of Brad and dismissed the charges on grounds that the city did not meet the “muster” of “disorderly”. Gosh, in the 4 months since Brad was arrested you’d think the west allis city attorney could have provided a brief sooner than a few minutes before the hearing.
I was very happy to hear the judge draw the parallels that just because something offends you doesn’t trump peoples constitutional rights. I under stand the point, but believe its pejorative when the judge drew the parallel between the fact that people might be offended by something (the nazi flag being flown on someones house) or offended by the abortion protestors with their big posters of dead babies on hwy 100, but being offended (and even outraged) doesn’t trump people’s constitutional rights. I was also happy to hear him say that he has a big ego and doesn’t like to be wrong and as such he doesn’t want his decision turned over on appeal by the circuit of the state, so he’s going to issue a ruling that he believes will be embraced by both. Based on the state laws, comments from previous attorney generals, comments from our GOVERNOR. I believe that means he’s going to find in Brad’s favor.
As far as the charge “disorderly conduct” the cities position lies entirely in the verbage of the statute on DC that states conduct is “otherwise disorderly” because the specifics the statute lists “boisterous, obnoxious, blah blah as requirements of DC and the judge asserted that Brad’s conduct was none of those.
WI Statute 947.01: Disorderly Conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
When asked if Brad Krause created a disturbance Donald Dykstra testified that HE DID NOT.
In fact, Donald Dykstra testified that he called the police NOT TO COMPLAIN but to find out of the conduct was legal and the st’allis dispatcher said “we’ll send someone out”
Donald Dykstra also testified that no one in the neighborhood to his knowledge was disturbed.
Again… There is just NO evidence of anything disorderly. (not withstanding the constitutional issue that would trump anyone being ‘disturbed’ by someone carrying a non-concealled firearm)
Regardless, as he mentioned, no matter who wins, this will be appealled to circuit court. I believe this case will go to the state supreme court and I look forward to the precedence it will set.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2008 at 2304 hrs
I will await the February, 17 hearing. Maybe I can take the day off to go see for myself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1322 hrs
Also file a complaint against LEO with the DA.
Sorry but DA Chisholm does not support a citizens right to carry. You think for a New York minute that his office would ever consider a charge against an officer in this circumstance. In fact, his office has been chastised by a judge in the past for bringing a CCW case to the court. It was the case where a pizza delivery driver had to employ deadly force to protect himself. It’s hard enough getting regular criminals charged in his office now.
As a LEO, I’m disgusted by this McCann wannabe and people of his ilk who take an oath to uphold and defend peoples rights but do nothing but trample upon them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2008 at 0347 hrs
As a LEO, I’m disgusted by this McCann wannabe and people of his ilk who take an oath to uphold and defend peoples rights but do nothing but trample upon them.
I all to often feel that way to many (I hate to say most, but) most leo’s forget what their role is and forget what protecting rights really means. Its seems too often the culture in law enforcement is focused on command control and obedience instead of focusing on rights.
When I hear you stand up for rights despite that culture I percieve I’m so encouraged that there are GOOD cops out there. And if its not to patrionizing thank-you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2008 at 1010 hrs
Its seems too often the culture in law enforcement is focused on command control and obedience instead of focusing on rights.
That culture comes from the training and is meant to prevent a situation from escalating and getting out of control.
A LEO responding to a call does not know what is going on inside your head.
You could be harmless or dangerous, it is up to you to demonstrate which.
Isn’t that right, Day?
Like anything else it can be done well or done poorly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2008 at 1049 hrs
Does anyone know why there isn’t a CCAP entry for this case? I’ve been trying to verify some details about it, but I can’t find any news stories or any CCAP entry regarding this. I’m not saying its made up… I’m just having trouble finding other mention of it that doesn’t circle back to B&S;.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2008 at 1808 hrs
I think CCAP only lists cases that come up in the county circuit court system. According to the post, it looks like it is City of West Allis, which would be a municipal court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2008 at 1816 hrs
A LEO responding to a call does not know what is going on inside your head. You could be harmless or dangerous, it is up to you to demonstrate which.
This is absolutely correct. My statement was somewhat open-ended as to what I see from time to time. Specifically as to this case, I was not there and it’s always easy to be the armchair quarterback. I will say, that as a responding PO, there would be a protocol in the approach to a person with a gun strapped to their hip.
The problem here is, and I believe this is the point of the defendant in this case, the Wisconsin Constitution is clear. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, early on had made it rather clear to the legislature that the current CCW law is in conflict with the state constitution. However, the SC cannot and should not create law. A later, and more liberal SC started to do just that. A Milwaukee Circuit judge even admonished the DA’s office and suggested they read the Wisconsin Constitution. The legislatures and the Governor Diamond Jim have failed to correct the violation that is our current CCW law.
This was probably not the best way of the defendant exercising his rights…but sometimes, ya do what ya gotta do. The DC charge is rather weak, especially with the complainant admitting he did not feel threatened by the defendant carrying the gun. Not to mention that the DC charge is cheeseball.
I think CCAP only lists cases that come up in the county circuit court system.
This is correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2008 at 2004 hrs
The legislatures and the Governor Diamond Jim have failed to correct the violation that is our current CCW law.
The only reason the CCW ban runs contrary to the wisconsin constution is if open carry were illegal. It is not.
even governor doyle has stated publically that if people want to exercise their constitution right they can “wear it on their hip”
Open carry is not against the law. The mamby pamby nature by which anti-gun police chiefs can decide to charge people with disorderly conduct, while other cities and counties completely respect the state constution and allow people in wisconsin to carry openly (thereby exercising their constitutionally given right) is unfair.
Our rights shouldn’t be at the feet and discretion of a police chief. I can open carry in madison and Waukesha with NO problem. If I open carry in St’allis and I would be arrested.
Do people not recognize how fucked up that is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2008 at 2359 hrs
Just curious does anyone know what Mr. Krause was wearing that day?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2008 at 1402 hrs
> The only reason the CCW ban runs contrary to the wisconsin constution is if open carry were illegal. It is not.
even governor doyle has stated publically that if people want to exercise their constitution right they can “wear it on their hip”<
Odd there: I could have sworn that the Supreme Court, in the Hamdan decision, included instructions to the legislature to “correct” the problem by passing some form of licensing procedure. That would kinda suggest the Supremes saw some kind of conflict…
Posted by Strings on December 23, 2008 at 1421 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 58
Total anonymous users: 3
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 07:54 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).