PDA

View Full Version : OPEN CARRY - Milwaukee, WI Police Chief orders Officers to violate the 4th A.


Liberty1
04-21-2009, 8:23 PM
http://wcco.com/wisconsinwire/22.0.html?type=local&state=WI&category=n&filename=WI--CarryingWeapons.xml

Milwaukee chief to officers: Ignore gun memo

MADISON, Wis. (AP) Milwaukee's police chief said Tuesday he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he'll continue to tell officers they can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

''My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,'' Flynn said. ''Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.''

State Justice Department spokesman Kevin St. John declined to comment.

Wisconsin is one of 29 states that allow people to openly carry a firearm without a permit. It's one of two states that ban concealed weapons.

Flynn's comments came as gun control advocates and state lawmakers derided Van Hollen's ruling.

''The idea of people ... openly carrying guns strikes me as somewhere between bonkers and totally ridiculous and stupid,'' said state Rep. Josh Zepnick, D-Milwaukee.

Van Hollen, a Republican, issued a memo Monday explaining how disorderly conduct overlaps with the constitutional right to bear arms. Van Hollen concluded citizens have a constitutional right to openly carry firearms, and disorderly conduct charges depend on the circumstances.

OpenCarry.org, a gun advocacy Web site, issued a statement saying the finding was ''spot on.'' The Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association said the memo clearly finds people can bear arms in an orderly manner.

But Oregon, Wis., Police Chief Doug Pettit said the memo doesn't provide much direction for police, who already know open carry is legal in Wisconsin and disorderly conduct is a case-by-case judgment call.

''I don't know if the memo clarifies anything, other than it's not an automatic disorderly conduct charge,'' Pettit said. ''Clearly, I think law enforcement, like anything else, will have to use their discretion.''

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said open carry cases have rarely come up, but he'd want to know why someone has chosen to carry a gun before making a charging decision.

''Police will be quick to ask you, 'Why do you have a gun with you? Is somebody stalking you?' Those are going to be fair inquiries,'' he said. ''We'd be particularly concerned if someone was openly possessing a gun in the context of an ongoing dispute or feud.''

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said the memo just muddies things. Police still aren't clear on what might constitute disorderly conduct, he said.

''How we approach a person with a gun, I can tell you right now, isn't going to change. As far as a law enforcement person is concerned, you just don't walk up to a person with a gun and say 'excuse me, sir,''' Clarke said. ''On the ground, give up. Get that gun under control and then we'll figure out what we got here.''

Gov. Jim Doyle, a former attorney general, believes local communities should be allowed to create their own gun ordinances, spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner said. A 1995 law bars municipalities from enacting stiffer ordinances than state statutes, but carrying a rifle during hunting season is different from walking around Milwaukee with a gun on your hip, Sensenbrenner said.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Van Hollen's memo underscores the nation's weak gun laws. The Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, a statewide organization dedicated to ending gun violence, estimates guns kill about 450 people in the state each year.

''A lot of people who get guns and carry guns don't always understand the responsibility and risk that goes with gun ownership,'' Helmke said. ''People get drunk, people get angry, people make mistakes. More guns generally mean more violence.''

State Rep. Leon Young, D-Milwaukee, a former police officer, said he was shocked by Van Hollen's memo. He said he planned to look into drafting legislation to ban open carry.

''It's just a bad idea. We've just had too many incidents of gun violence,'' Young said.

Flynn, Milwaukee's police chief, said the opinion was clearly drafted in the safety of the Justice Department's offices, not on Milwaukee's streets.

''From an officer's safety point of view and a public point of view,'' he said, ''we're not going to start with the assumption that someone displaying a handgun is doing it lawfully.''

nick
04-21-2009, 8:28 PM
The sad part is that he can do that and not get prosecuted.

SkatinJJ
04-21-2009, 8:34 PM
The sad part is that he can do that and not get prosecuted.

Oh Yeah? Says who?

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

rp55
04-21-2009, 8:44 PM
He'd better be damned careful post-Heller.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Desert_Rat
04-21-2009, 8:46 PM
in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.
This is sadly true.I travel to Racine Wi three to four times a year and every time I go there is a murder or two in the week I'm there. Kenosha,Milwaukee and Racine are all in the same approximate area and the news agencies report from all areas.
Odd trend I've noticed over 8 years of going back there is most murders I hear about is during winter and it's usually a wife killing a cheating husband.

CABilly
04-21-2009, 8:49 PM
http://wcco.com/wisconsinwire/22.0.html?type=local&state=WI&category=n&filename=WI--CarryingWeapons.xml

''My message to my troops is..."
Militarized police mentality. Awesome.

''Police will be quick to ask you, 'Why do you have a gun with you? Is somebody stalking you?' Those are going to be fair inquiries''
So what are the OC laws in Wisconsin? Is it the same here, where they can only check to see that your gun is unloaded, or are they allowed to interrogate you as well?

Their attitude seems to place the Milwaukee PD in the sights of anyone looking to set some good case law.

rrr70
04-21-2009, 8:51 PM
in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

Well, maybe MPD need to do their job better.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 8:53 PM
It will be a great case to send him to prison for that under 18-242.

CitaDeL
04-21-2009, 8:55 PM
''From an officer's safety point of view and a public point of view,'' Flynn said, ''we're not going to start with the assumption that someone displaying a handgun is doing it lawfully.''

The hubris of this statement is dumbfounding.

Imagine if someone said, "From an officer's safety point of view and a public point of view, we're not going to start with the assumption that someone is innocent before they are proven guilty."

Possession of a firearm is NOT reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. And yet this is his justification for felony proning and disarming every armed person his officers encounter. I hope he digs himself a deeper hole, because I think some carry advocate will bury him in it.

Desert_Rat
04-21-2009, 8:57 PM
a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.
Well, maybe MPD need to do their job better.
AGREED!!!:thumbsup:

ETD1010
04-21-2009, 9:02 PM
That article made me sick to my stomach.

professorhard
04-21-2009, 9:09 PM
lol come take me down while I am exercising my legal rights as a citizen. You may face fierce opposition

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 9:11 PM
I believe that the police let the criminals they arrest run their mouths so that it makes their job easier when the criminal is prosecuted, so why should we as citizens do any different? An old saying that my uncle told me a very long time ago was to allow the offender enough rope to hang himself. Apparently this Chief is either too arrogant or too stupid to understand that and if the perfect storm comes together that may just be his undoing.

nick
04-21-2009, 9:15 PM
Oh Yeah? Says who?



Says I. WHo'll do the prosecuting? The like-minded DAs?

N6ATF
04-21-2009, 10:24 PM
It will be a great case to send him to prison for that under 18-242.

Or Article III, Section 3.

n6nvr
04-21-2009, 10:29 PM
The sad part is that he can do that and not get prosecuted.

How many lawsuits that the city will deadbang lose do you think need to get filed before the City Council and Mayor make him change his mind and orders, if not his place of employment?

Liberty1
04-21-2009, 10:29 PM
Milwaukee will pay the price and when they are tired of paying they will obey their State Constitution and the 4th A. and terminate this loose cannon Chief.

And soon they'll have the 2nd A. incorporated too...

n6nvr
04-21-2009, 10:32 PM
lol come take me down while I am exercising my legal rights as a citizen. You may face fierce opposition

Oh that's absolutely one of the most brilliant ideas IU've ever read here.

You can try and shoot it out after making it extremely difficult for your widow and orphans to win a lawsuit, especially since you will be dead.

Or you can smile and cooperate and proceed directly to the lawsuit stage. Which do you think makes more sense?

DDT
04-21-2009, 10:33 PM
Just Wow.
''My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,''

This has got to be one of the dumbest things that anyone in Law Enforcement could possibly say out loud. Not only will his "troops" put anyone open carrying on the ground they also get to decide if they have a right to carry. hmmm... Might think the legislature, the constitution, SCOTUS, etc. have a bit more pull than a police chief in deciding who has a "right to carry."

My only wish is that a California police chief would say this same thing. That pretty much sums up abuse of power and unequal protection for the right to bear arms.

DDT
04-21-2009, 10:34 PM
lol come take me down while I am exercising my legal rights as a citizen. You may face fierce opposition

As hard as you tried that is only the second dumbest thing said in this thread. Flynn is a hard act to follow.

Dark&Good
04-21-2009, 10:35 PM
Police Chief Ed Flynn sounds like a cowboy.

bulgron
04-21-2009, 10:50 PM
The Wisconsin state Supreme Court has been edging towards Vermont-style CCW for a while now. If memory serves, the last time a CCW case came before them, they pretty much told the Wisconsin state legislature to pass a shall-issue CCW law or see CCW become unrestricted.

To be fair, the Wisconsin legislature tried very hard twice to pass a shall-issue law, but the governor vetoed it both times, then strong armed enough representatives that they couldn't override his veto.

Now this.

I'm thinking that the next time a CCW case comes before the supremes in that state, they're going to go Vermont and that will be the end of that.

I also think Milwaukee is begging to go broke on lawsuits. Should be a fun show to watch. I just hope an honest citizen doesn't get shot by the cops before the courts can reign in that police department.

N6ATF
04-21-2009, 10:52 PM
Milwaukee's police chief said Tuesday he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm ...
''My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,'' Flynn said. ''Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys.''

Oh man, these statements are oh so close to sounding like open carriers are to be treated like rabid animals and put down, or somewhat related to the well-debunked "Wild Wild West" myth (one shootout, Hickok vs Tutt, was multiplied to absolute gunfighting anarchy).

nick
04-21-2009, 11:01 PM
How many lawsuits that the city will deadbang lose do you think need to get filed before the City Council and Mayor make him change his mind and orders, if not his place of employment?

Good question. What would San Francisco do? The problem is, it's not their personal money that's at stake.

DDT
04-21-2009, 11:09 PM
How many lawsuits that the city will deadbang lose do you think need to get filed before the City Council and Mayor make him change his mind and orders, if not his place of employment?

Possibly none. He may have signed his own resignation by giving that interview.

CABilly
04-21-2009, 11:15 PM
I wonder if retired MPD are allowed to carry.

DDT
04-21-2009, 11:16 PM
I wonder if retired MPD are allowed to carry.

Fired != retired.

N6ATF
04-22-2009, 12:10 AM
Good question. What would San Francisco do? The problem is, it's not their personal money that's at stake.

San Francisco would double his salary over 5 years, and that's a conservative estimate.

Whatever it takes to waste taxpayer dollars and reward victim disarmers.

Bizcuits
04-22-2009, 12:51 AM
What a sad excuse for a police officer... :(

JDay
04-22-2009, 1:24 AM
Militarized police mentality. Awesome.


So what are the OC laws in Wisconsin? Is it the same here, where they can only check to see that your gun is unloaded, or are they allowed to interrogate you as well?

This may come as a shock to you but I believe they are allowed to open carry loaded firearms.

cdtx2001
04-22-2009, 7:22 AM
What I like is that the Chief said "We will decide if they have a right to carry..." Now they are the judge and jury.

Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea, but never actually practiced in this country.

7x57
04-22-2009, 7:38 AM
So what are the OC laws in Wisconsin? Is it the same here, where they can only check to see that your gun is unloaded, or are they allowed to interrogate you as well?


Why would it be unloaded? UOC seems to be a CA-specific hack for CA-specific laws, and I doubt WI has the same insanity.

This bothers me. Because of the peculiar nature of CA's open-carry ban and the unloaded work-around, California gunnies are actually starting to think that UOC is OC. It's akin to someone noticing that a ban on carrying flashlights defines them as "capable of providing light," and therefore that without batteries they are not flashlights within the meaning of the law. Therefore CA hikers start carrying their flashlights without batteries, and an industry springs up to support it with battery speed-loaders, spring-loaded battery compartment doors, and so on. Soon CA hikers are wondering what kind of speed loaders people in America use.

That's it. I will not call UOC open carry anymore. This is distorting our whole picture of gun rights and such. Bearing loaded is not some unusual or special privilege we would like to have. The right is to carry your weapon as you see fit without the government being permitted opinions about where the ammo might be. Unloaded carry is *not* bearing arms in any sane way. It is a legal hack, and we must not forget that.

7x57

SwissFluCase
04-22-2009, 8:21 AM
Why would it be unloaded? UOC seems to be a CA-specific hack for CA-specific laws, and I doubt WI has the same insanity.

This bothers me. Because of the peculiar nature of CA's open-carry ban and the unloaded work-around, California gunnies are actually starting to think that UOC is OC. It's akin to someone noticing that a ban on carrying flashlights defines them as "capable of providing light," and therefore that without batteries they are not flashlights within the meaning of the law. Therefore CA hikers start carrying their flashlights without batteries, and an industry springs up to support it with battery speed-loaders, spring-loaded battery compartment doors, and so on. Soon CA hikers are wondering what kind of speed loaders people in America use.

That's it. I will not call UOC open carry anymore. This is distorting our whole picture of gun rights and such. Bearing loaded is not some unusual or special privilege we would like to have. The right is to carry your weapon as you see fit without the government being permitted opinions about where the ammo might be. Unloaded carry is *not* bearing arms in any sane way. It is a legal hack, and we must not forget that.

7x57

I agree. At this point it is only a matter of time before CCW or LOC (or both) are rammed down the state's throat. I'd rather let the UOC thing just go on it's way to the history books as our version of the civil rights marches.

That said, I'm sure we will see either the police chief in SF or LA try the same stunts. The anti's are going to make their last stand.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

CABilly
04-22-2009, 8:21 AM
Why would it be unloaded? UOC seems to be a CA-specific hack for CA-specific laws, and I doubt WI has the same insanity.

This bothers me. Because of the peculiar nature of CA's open-carry ban and the unloaded work-around, California gunnies are actually starting to think that UOC is OC. It's akin to someone noticing that a ban on carrying flashlights defines them as "capable of providing light," and therefore that without batteries they are not flashlights within the meaning of the law. Therefore CA hikers start carrying their flashlights without batteries, and an industry springs up to support it with battery speed-loaders, spring-loaded battery compartment doors, and so on. Soon CA hikers are wondering what kind of speed loaders people in America use.

That's it. I will not call UOC open carry anymore. This is distorting our whole picture of gun rights and such. Bearing loaded is not some unusual or special privilege we would like to have. The right is to carry your weapon as you see fit without the government being permitted opinions about where the ammo might be. Unloaded carry is *not* bearing arms in any sane way. It is a legal hack, and we must not forget that.

7x57

I appreciate what you're saying, but I did ask if it was the same as it is here. CA law concerns me the most, so I'm not as up to speed on other states' laws as I suppose I could be.

SwissFluCase
04-22-2009, 8:25 AM
I appreciate what you're saying, but I did ask if it was the same as it is here. CA law concerns me the most, so I'm not as up to speed on other states' laws as I suppose I could be.

AFIK you can LOC in WI.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
04-22-2009, 8:37 AM
I appreciate what you're saying, but I did ask if it was the same as it is here. CA law concerns me the most, so I'm not as up to speed on other states' laws as I suppose I could be.

That wasn't particularly aimed at you, I've seen the same sentiment before. The problem is that reading Calguns seems to lead to the obvious conclusion that UOC is *normal*., because that's what we talk about. Then when OC comes up other places, people think of it through the UOC lens.

My point is that we need to discuss the issue on Calguns in such a way that it isn't misleading to people who are just starting to learn about these things. The right to carry was *always* *loaded* carry. This is just obvious, given that it was possessed by people whose arms were muzzleloaders. I can only imagine what *they* would have said about unloaded carry--almost certainly that it wasn't just not having the right, but that it was also a ludicrous farce.

That isn't to knock the UOC guys--ludicrous farce is often what you do when working against oppression. But we have to remember that UOC is not Open Carry, it is akin to the "empty holster" protests elsewhere, and so we must not give the impression that CA has OC. CA has *banned* OC in incorporated areas, period. CA has infringed the right to bear arms. Period.

7x57

BTF/PTM
04-22-2009, 8:37 AM
I'm from Wisconsin originally - it's fast becoming a very liberal state, cities like Madison (my home town) are beginning to rival San Diego for their huge outspoken gay communities, anti-war activist groups and the like. It won't be long before lobbying is done to make the state more like California.

I think it's ridiculous for a police officer to be aggressive just becuz someone is carrying a gun. If the person reaches for that gun, then yes the police officer has every right to get aggressive. But if a person simply has a holstered gun, and is polite to the officer and keeps his hands visible and answers all the officer's questions and all the typical law-abiding citizen protocol, a police officer working to "put him on the ground...and get that gun under control" is nothing more than police brutality. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be bothered if an officer approached me with his holster strap free and his hand on the back strap while I was carrying, as long as that's as far as it went. He's got a right to be suspicious, but he's got no right to assume I'm deadly and come at me with a barrel in my face.

bombadillo
04-22-2009, 8:47 AM
Love the comment "more guns generally means more violence" :eek:


I can't stand the people who don't make sense whatsoever. More gun control means more violence every time and not one single lib can refute that. The most pro gun states are often the safest.

SwissFluCase
04-22-2009, 8:59 AM
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be bothered if an officer approached me with his holster strap free and his hand on the back strap while I was carrying, as long as that's as far as it went. He's got a right to be suspicious, but he's got no right to assume I'm deadly and come at me with a barrel in my face.

I have a big problem with it. I'm sick of the militaristic and paranoid police mentality, and LOC will force some changes. The biggest change will be that crime will fall sharply, and there will be less of a need for the overbearing tactics we see today. The second change that we will see will be the reduction in police forces in general. Lower crime rate, less police needed.

Methinks that is what the WI issue is really about, protecting their jobs.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

JDoe
04-22-2009, 9:01 AM
...Quite frankly, I wouldn't be bothered if an officer approached me with his holster strap free and his hand on the back strap while I was carrying, as long as that's as far as it went. He's got a right to be suspicious, but he's got no right to assume I'm deadly and come at me with a barrel in my face.

What if the officer approached you the same way if you didn't have a gun but had other potentially lethal objects close to you. For example lets say you are going to coach your daughter's baseball team and are innocently loading bats into your car...would it be ok for the officer to approach you with his holster strap free and his hand on the back strap?

rrr70
04-22-2009, 9:04 AM
I have a big problem with it. I'm sick of the militaristic and paranoid police mentality, and LOC will force some changes. The biggest change will be that crime will fall sharply, and there will be less of a need for the overbearing tactics we see today. The second change that we will see will be the reduction in police forces in general. Lower crime rate, less police needed.

Methinks that is what the WI issue is really about, protecting their jobs.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Amen

Sutcliffe
04-22-2009, 9:16 AM
This could get very interesting.

SwissFluCase
04-22-2009, 9:24 AM
This could get very interesting.

I expect that the police will be more selective about whom they contact. I think we will see that they will only contact those citizens who raise valid PC, and we will see less hassling and fishing. Whatever happens, the 2A will finally be the check on abuse of .gov power that is is supposed to be, and it will be more about "psych out" rather than any actual shootouts.

I've been saying for years that this will change the relationship betweens .gov and the citizens.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

cineski
04-22-2009, 9:27 AM
in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

That's what you get with some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Wisconsin is playing yes man to the Chicago machine.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-22-2009, 9:44 AM
Wonder how much this memo will help this guy?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=173363

YoungGun2
04-22-2009, 10:09 AM
Really come on now, this is such a simple-minded statement. :cuss:

Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.

DDT
04-22-2009, 10:16 AM
How long before he's out of Wisconsin and in San Francisco?

Roadrunner
04-22-2009, 10:32 AM
http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007134_flynn.jpg

Edward Flynn's Bio (http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/EdwardAFlynnChiefofP24315.htm)

It's no wonder he's so anal about guns. He's from Massachusetts.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-22-2009, 10:34 AM
http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007134_flynn.jpg

Edward Flynn's Bio (http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/EdwardAFlynnChiefofP24315.htm)

It's no wonder he's so anal about guns. He's from Massachusetts.


lol, I used to live in Connecticut and we used to make fun of how liberal Mass-a-two-****s was; considering how liberal Connecticut was, that said a lot.

Theseus
04-22-2009, 10:56 AM
Why you got to put my open carry down man? Haha!

I tell you that I think I am at a point where I think we need to put up or shut up.

We keep threatening to sue and take action, but then when something happens the majority of us cower and resort to at best sending a strongly worded letter.

Either we start making good on our promises or we need to shut up and accept that we don't have the balls to do it.

That wasn't particularly aimed at you, I've seen the same sentiment before. The problem is that reading Calguns seems to lead to the obvious conclusion that UOC is *normal*., because that's what we talk about. Then when OC comes up other places, people think of it through the UOC lens.

My point is that we need to discuss the issue on Calguns in such a way that it isn't misleading to people who are just starting to learn about these things. The right to carry was *always* *loaded* carry. This is just obvious, given that it was possessed by people whose arms were muzzleloaders. I can only imagine what *they* would have said about unloaded carry--almost certainly that it wasn't just not having the right, but that it was also a ludicrous farce.

That isn't to knock the UOC guys--ludicrous farce is often what you do when working against oppression. But we have to remember that UOC is not Open Carry, it is akin to the "empty holster" protests elsewhere, and so we must not give the impression that CA has OC. CA has *banned* OC in incorporated areas, period. CA has infringed the right to bear arms. Period.

7x57

GuyW
04-22-2009, 11:10 AM
Police Chief Ed Flynn acts like a JBT

Sorry - I had to fix it....
.

Dark&Good
04-22-2009, 11:18 AM
Well, I used cowboy, because he was calling others cowboys, who don't have half of his macho attitude... ;)

N6ATF
04-22-2009, 12:16 PM
Don't we, as citizens, have a right to resist unlawful arrest? This could get very interesting.

Especially since the chief's orders are this close to being a license to kill anyone who dares to defend themselves. I wouldn't LOC in his jurisdiction without a ballistic helmet+cam and a IIIA vest.

jamesob
04-22-2009, 12:19 PM
Well, maybe MPD need to do their job better.
its more like the mpd and the criminal justice system.

nobody_special
04-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Yes 7x57, I completely agree. Actually, I think California is not an OC state for two reasons: the first is that only LOC qualifies, and the second is the many prohibited areas (school zones being one of many).

As far as the article goes, it's a perfect example of an out-of-control statist running the police department. He's making threats which (using 1st amendment terminology) will have chilling effects on the exercise of a fundamental enumerated right. That is illegal. Ed Flynn should be fired, but it sounds like he has some political support.

BTW, am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that police are allowed to essentially commit assault w/deadly weapon without consequence, even if no arrest takes place?

If I had money and lived in Wisconsin, I'd be sorely tempted to contact a lawyer and cause some trouble. It'd be beautiful to see the feds intervene and stomp on such behavior.

nobody_special
04-22-2009, 12:31 PM
Don't we, as citizens, have a right to resist unlawful arrest?
In general, no we don't and there are laws against it.

That's another thing that bothers me...

7x57
04-22-2009, 12:39 PM
Why you got to put my open carry down man? Haha!


Cuz you hogged the chips at BWO's party. ;)

Actually, I basically said that we're not done even if you can UOC without hassles. If it isn't loaded and that is not your choice, your right is still being infringed.


I tell you that I think I am at a point where I think we need to put up or shut up.

We keep threatening to sue and take action, but then when something happens the majority of us cower and resort to at best sending a strongly worded letter.

Either we start making good on our promises or we need to shut up and accept that we don't have the balls to do it.

This is the counsel of defeat. War after war after war has been lost because the troops had the courage to charge but not the restraint to wait until the order was given. We are doing something--using good strategy. We are planning to use our strength to maximum effect. We must not give that up just to feel better.

I am happy, however, to see just how many people will respond when the Right People are ready to follow up in court. If we're lucky, we'll stun the legislature with how many people we have.

7x57

7x57
04-22-2009, 12:41 PM
If I had money and lived in Wisconsin, I'd be sorely tempted to contact a lawyer and cause some trouble. It'd be beautiful to see the feds intervene and stomp on such behavior.

Since the State Supreme Court has said that OC is legal, it seems to me that Wisconsin is ready for activism. We're not, but it would probably help us if we have Wisconsin as another example to add to the list when the time comes.

7x57

Theseus
04-22-2009, 1:31 PM
So now I need to wait to sue because "The Right People" want to focus on other things?

I think not. I am not talking about challenging a 2A law, I am talking about actions for 4A reasons. At this point I might wait only because now I can add a 2A argument to it.

12031 may be constitutional under a 2A reason, but likely not as much for a 4A reason.

Cuz you hogged the chips at BWO's party. ;)

Actually, I basically said that we're not done even if you can UOC without hassles. If it isn't loaded and that is not your choice, your right is still being infringed.



This is the counsel of defeat. War after war after war has been lost because the troops had the courage to charge but not the restraint to wait until the order was given. We are doing something--using good strategy. We are planning to use our strength to maximum effect. We must not give that up just to feel better.

I am happy, however, to see just how many people will respond when the Right People are ready to follow up in court. If we're lucky, we'll stun the legislature with how many people we have.

7x57

CA_Libertarian
04-22-2009, 1:45 PM
The sad part is that he can do that and not get prosecuted.

Apparently that's what he thinks.

Terry v Ohio makes it clear that a person cannot be seized unless they are reasonably suspected of criminal activity. Chief Flynn needs to be reminded that the 4th Amendment is still alive and well. In fact is getting healthier, as the SCOTUS just this week essentially shut down 28 years of warantless searches that LE felt entitled to (See Arizona v Gant).

Chief Flynn is both criminally and civilly liable if he violates the rights of his fellow men under color of authority. This civil liability created not only for him personally, but also the department and city as a whole. Also, his statements indicate that he premeditates these violations, opening up the possibility of charges of conspiracy to commit a federal offense.

Mr Flynn better rethink his decision before it lands his city and family in the poor house, and him and his officers in federal prison.

The supreme court in the last year has stood up for our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights in ways that have been long overdue. Now is definitely NOT a good time to be a tyrant.

CCWFacts
04-22-2009, 1:51 PM
Yes 7x57, I completely agree. Actually, I think California is not an OC state for two reasons: the first is that only LOC qualifies, and the second is the many prohibited areas (school zones being one of many).

OpenCarry.org labels CA as an "anomalous" open carry state, which I guess is the best categorization. To me, an "open carry state" would mean I can openly carry a loaded gun as I go about my business, without worrying about school zones and so on, perhaps having to disarm for actually entering schools and government buildings.

In CA we have this weird UOC thing where it's just barely ok to carry an unloaded (ie, not functional) gun in semi-urban and rural places.

I hope our current California-style UOC thing will be left behind in the dustbins of history, and we move to a real open carry system.

383green
04-22-2009, 2:07 PM
So now I need to wait to sue because "The Right People" want to focus on other things?

I think not. I am not talking about challenging a 2A law, I am talking about actions for 4A reasons. At this point I might wait only because now I can add a 2A argument to it.


You do not need to wait to sue. You can do it today if you want to. However, if it's more important to you to charge off on your own campaign rather than being part of the "Right People's" carefully planned strategy, then you will need to be prepared to fund your fight out of your own pocket. And in the end, you may just find yourself rotting away in prison for a long time, without any meaningful support from the people whose advice you ignored to get there.

Do what you feel is right, but please do not make a martyr of yourself simply because you could not exercise some self-restraint.

yellowfin
04-22-2009, 2:13 PM
Mr Flynn better rethink his decision before it lands his city and family in the poor house, and him and his officers in federal prison.

The supreme court in the last year has stood up for our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights in ways that have been long overdue. Now is definitely NOT a good time to be a tyrant.
Ah, but don't you see, that's why we DON'T want him rethinking it! :43:

Publius
04-22-2009, 2:14 PM
OpenCarry.org labels CA as an "anomalous" open carry state, which I guess is the best categorization. To me, an "open carry state" would mean I can openly carry a loaded gun as I go about my business, without worrying about school zones and so on, perhaps having to disarm for actually entering schools and government buildings.

The school zone restriction is federal law. So by your reckoning, is there currently no such thing as an open carry state?

Theseus
04-22-2009, 2:20 PM
1st CalGuns Foundation is not financing my CRIMINAL case, the users of CalGuns are.

2nd, tell me how a CIVIL suit can land me in jail if I loose?

All I am saying is that at some point we will need to follow through on our threats and until such time as we do we need to accept that things will not really improve.

You do not need to wait to sue. You can do it today if you want to. However, if it's more important to you to charge off on your own campaign rather than being part of the "Right People's" carefully planned strategy, then you will need to be prepared to fund your fight out of your own pocket. And in the end, you may just find yourself rotting away in prison for a long time, without any meaningful support from the people whose advice you ignored to get there.

Do what you feel is right, but please do not make a martyr of yourself simply because you could not exercise some self-restraint.

CCWFacts
04-22-2009, 2:27 PM
The school zone restriction is federal law. So by your reckoning, is there currently no such thing as an open carry state?

No, AFAIK school zone problems don't exist in some other states. I think in many states (AZ, AK, VT, etc) I can load up and walk around without worrying about school zones? Is this correct? I should look into this.

383green
04-22-2009, 2:29 PM
2nd, tell me how a CIVIL suit can land me in jail if I loose?

Sorry, my mistake. My tired old brain confused your comments with the other undesirable excitement that you're presently engaged in.

All I am saying is that at some point we will need to follow through on our threats and until such time as we do we need to accept that things will not really improve.

I agree. All I am saying, though, is that we have limited funds and resources with which to follow through on our threats, so we naturally need to pick our battles carefully for greatest effect. The Right People, as we like to call them, have a particular strategy in mind. Since they have a good track record so far for getting real results, a lot of people (myself included) will tend to follow their lead, and send money in their direction. If you choose to follow a different strategy, then you are free to do so, but you may find yourself fighting the battle all by yourself. And if you choose the wrong battle, or choose the right one and don't execute on it properly, there is risk that you could cause legal precedents to be set which cause more harm than good, and end up costing all of us.

1st CalGuns Foundation is not financing my CRIMINAL case, the users of CalGuns are.

I'm one of those users who has helped (in a very small way) to finance your criminal case, by the way. ;)

7x57
04-22-2009, 2:32 PM
Ah, but don't you see, that's why we DON'T want him rethinking it! :43:

Agreed. If he quietly skirts the law, we have to re-fight when we get a new chief or just when the existing chief decides the time is right. And we have to do this jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

If a chief is convicted on federal charges, overnight good things happen everywhere in the United States and stay that way for a while.

Here's hoping Mr. Flynn volunteers to be made an example of.

7x57

383green
04-22-2009, 2:34 PM
Despite what I've written above, if Theseus had standing to sue Mr. Flynn, I'd definitely kick in some bucks for that. Flynn's really begging to be bludgeoned about the head and neck with a federal judge's gavel.

Publius
04-22-2009, 2:35 PM
No, AFAIK school zone problems don't exist in some other states. I think in many states (AZ, AK, VT, etc) I can load up and walk around without worrying about school zones? Is this correct? I should look into this.

I don't believe so. On opencarry.org, every state has a note that says "NOTE: The Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act Restricts Carry to Permit Holders." So if you have a carry permit, you're okay, but without a permit you can't carry in a school zone in any state, open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, unless the gun is in a locked container or on private property.

nobody_special
04-22-2009, 2:46 PM
Publius, recall that the Federal Gun-Free School Zone act (modulo a tiny textual difference) has already been ruled unconstitutional. The new one, which is identical except for the "has traveled in interstate commerce" bit, has not been challenged, but is not substantially different from the one that was overturned. In fact, IIRC when it was first overturned, the logic was that the carrying of firearms in a school zone is not subject to commerce clause legislation...

CA_Libertarian
04-22-2009, 3:15 PM
RE: the Fed School Zone Law.

Yeah, the fed law got slapped down as unconstitutional. The "new" law is identical, and will get slapped down again if it ever goes to court.

So, people in the other states simply ignore the fed law, knowing it can't be enforced.

Theseus
04-22-2009, 3:19 PM
I'm one of those users who has helped (in a very small way) to finance your criminal case, by the way. ;)[/quote]


And that help, no matter how large or small is appreciated.

I am not one to normally go off half-cocked and I am not talking so much to their overall strategy, I am more referring to OC'ers.

I was somewhat prepared to fund a defense until circumstances quickly and without much warning caused a depletion of funds I had set aside in case of needed defense.

I still advise those that wish to OC to prepare funds for defense and taking legal action when you are infringed. If you have the guts to OC, you should have the guts to take it all the way, otherwise why are you really doing it? I started OCing not as an activist, but as a means to protect and defend my family. . . Now that they attack me for doing so I will fight them.

The only reason I have not filed suit is because of the pending legal case. Once completed I will file suit with both agencies that infringed on my right.

383green
04-22-2009, 3:31 PM
Just out of curiosity (and don't reply if doing so would be tactically imprudent), I wonder if the Nordyke ruling changes things such that CGF could now take up your defense as part of a larger strategy.

Theseus
04-22-2009, 3:54 PM
I don't know, but likely not as it is not in the "proper order or venue" they wish to challenge the laws in.

To my understanding they wish to fight these things in federal courts and not CA courts.

demnogis
04-22-2009, 3:58 PM
Publius, recall that the Federal Gun-Free School Zone act (modulo a tiny textual difference) has already been ruled unconstitutional. The new one, which is identical except for the "has traveled in interstate commerce" bit, has not been challenged, but is not substantially different from the one that was overturned. In fact, IIRC when it was first overturned, the logic was that the carrying of firearms in a school zone is not subject to commerce clause legislation...

On top of that, some states have chosen not to recognize the fed GFSZ or not to instate their own GFSZ law.

I'm looking for examples, starting with Montana... The closest they have is Code 45-8-361 (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-361.htm). They also have Code 45-8-360 (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm) (rock on!)

Utah has Code 76-10-505.5 (http://www.le.state.ut.us/UtahCode/getCodeSection?code=76-10-505.5) which only prohibits carrying of firearms on or "about" school grounds, not in proximity. The only reference to 1000ft within a school grounds is in conjunction to commission of a crime, in Code 76-3-203.2 (http://www.le.utah.gov/UtahCode/getCodeSection?code=76-3-203.2) - which does not included mere possession.

Here's a bit from GOA: Gun-Free Zones Act: Myth VS. Reality (http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm).

Untamed1972
04-22-2009, 4:26 PM
I don't believe so. On opencarry.org, every state has a note that says "NOTE: The Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act Restricts Carry to Permit Holders." So if you have a carry permit, you're okay, but without a permit you can't carry in a school zone in any state, open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, unless the gun is in a locked container or on private property.

Can someone clear something up for me? Can a local/state LEO arrest you and charge you with a FEDERAL crime? Or can only a Federal LEO do that?

Dark&Good
04-22-2009, 6:21 PM
1st CalGuns Foundation is not financing my CRIMINAL case, the users of CalGuns are.


Which reminds me of that thread... any news? How's your case?

yellowfin
04-22-2009, 8:49 PM
Nordyke has gotta be great for Theseus.

KylaGWolf
04-22-2009, 9:13 PM
Can someone clear something up for me? Can a local/state LEO arrest you and charge you with a FEDERAL crime? Or can only a Federal LEO do that?

Nope only Federal can charge a federal. Although the state can refer the case over to the feds the state cannot charge you with a federal crime.

mzagg
04-22-2009, 9:32 PM
He'd better be damned careful post-Heller.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Does this mean we can carry loaded if it is in the open? Or what does this change for us in CA?

yellowfin
04-22-2009, 10:05 PM
Does this mean we can carry loaded if it is in the open? Or what does this change for us in CA?
Conviction of a chief of police under federal law for obstructing right to carry could have nice implications for us.

Nanook
04-22-2009, 10:20 PM
Conviction of a chief of police under federal law for obstructing right to carry could have nice implications for us.

Just reading that makes me all tingly.

Wonder what TRP have to say 'bout that.

CitaDeL
04-22-2009, 10:29 PM
Does this mean we can carry loaded if it is in the open? Or what does this change for us in CA?

Please check out opencarry.org and californiaopencarry.org

There are no changes to what is legal or illegal. Yet. Stay tuned.

Pont
04-22-2009, 11:19 PM
Nope only Federal can charge a federal. Although the state can refer the case over to the feds the state cannot charge you with a federal crime.

State LEOs can arrest you for a federal crime, I'm pretty sure. They are not required to, but they can. They just hand you to the feds to be charged. I'm 100% sure they can arrest you if there's a federal warrant. The vast majority of federal crimes have state analogs, however.

nick
04-22-2009, 11:51 PM
http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007134_flynn.jpg

Edward Flynn's Bio (http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/EdwardAFlynnChiefofP24315.htm)

It's no wonder he's so anal about guns. He's from Massachusetts.

Hey, be nice, I'm from MA! Well, it sucks... Can't even get a Glock there.

cousinkix1953
04-23-2009, 12:10 AM
The sad part is that he can do that and not get prosecuted.
Only if the attorney general is a gutless weenie. The state's chief law enforcement does not have to put up with a local police chief who violates a state law. We'll see; but prosecuting that jerk-off is appropiate...

CA_Libertarian
04-23-2009, 9:36 AM
On top of that, some states have chosen not to recognize the fed GFSZ or not to instate their own GFSZ law.

I'm looking for examples, starting with Montana... The closest they have is Code 45-8-361 (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-361.htm). They also have Code 45-8-360 (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-360.htm) (rock on!)

Seems like Montanans enjoy pissing in Uncle Sam's cereal... EVERY person, except prohibited felons, is individually licensed - and therefore exempt - from the GFZA.

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the people in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana constitution is considered to be individually licensed and verified by the state of Montana within the meaning of the provisions regarding individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Publius
04-23-2009, 10:05 AM
Seems like Montanans enjoy pissing in Uncle Sam's cereal... EVERY person, except prohibited felons, is individually licensed - and therefore exempt - from the GFZA.


That doesn't do any good if the federal law is valid, because one element of the licensee exemption is "the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." Hopefully, as has been discussed, the federal GFZA is invalid for everyone. But IF it's upheld, the Montana work-around is unlikely to be successful.

Theseus
04-23-2009, 10:52 AM
Maybe they can claim they did verify by the fact that someone is purchasing a handgun?

If they were legally allowed to purchase and possess then they were verified to some degree...right?

That doesn't do any good if the federal law is valid, because one element of the licensee exemption is "the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." Hopefully, as has been discussed, the federal GFZA is invalid for everyone. But IF it's upheld, the Montana work-around is unlikely to be successful.

CA_Libertarian
04-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Re-read the Montana statute I quoted above. It says that all Montanans are licensed and verified for purposes of the GFZA, except for violent felons.

Beelzy
04-23-2009, 11:43 AM
Ignorance rears its ugly head yet again.

"my troops".........that's rich.

yellowfin
04-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Interesting development...
MPD officers to use rifles instead of shotguns
By Ryan Haggerty of the Journal Sentinel
Apr. 23, 2009 7:15 a.m. | Milwaukee police officers will soon be equipped with rifles instead of shotguns.

The change is to be announced at a news conference Thursday morning, according to a news release issued by the department Wednesday night.

The change has been made "in response to what amounts to an arms race with the criminal element," according to the news release.

The rifles will better equip officers to respond to active shooter situations, according to the release.

Department spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz declined to answer questions about the change in advance of the news conference.

demnogis
04-23-2009, 12:02 PM
Milwaukee residents will still be limited by their semi-auto pistols, PD gets fully-auto rifles. :pinch:

Untamed1972
04-23-2009, 12:49 PM
Milwaukee residents will still be limited by their semi-auto pistols, PD gets fully-auto rifles. :pinch:

Wonder how many of those will get stolen out of patrol cars? Hope they lock them things up good!

Canute
04-23-2009, 1:22 PM
Oh that's absolutely one of the most brilliant ideas IU've ever read here.

You can try and shoot it out after making it extremely difficult for your widow and orphans to win a lawsuit, especially since you will be dead.

Or you can smile and cooperate and proceed directly to the lawsuit stage. Which do you think makes more sense?

I think the Bill of Rights should be renumbered to reflect the order in which they should be applied :).

Vectrexer
04-23-2009, 2:35 PM
Well, maybe MPD need to do their job better.

Maybe the MPD are doing their job just fine and it's thje M courts system that needs to do a better job executing the law. The MPD certainly does not need to start doing "street legislation".

Publius
04-24-2009, 8:31 AM
Re-read the Montana statute I quoted above. It says that all Montanans are licensed and verified for purposes of the GFZA, except for violent felons.

That doesn't make it so, when it's clear that no individual verification has taken place. State law can't define terms in federal law. Any court would look at what Congress meant by "verify." Again (just to avoid any misunderstanding), I agree that the federal law is unconstitutional on multiple grounds, and that a federal court would probably (hopefully) strike it down again based at least on the Commerce Clause, but if the law were valid I really doubt Montana's reaction would have any effect.

demnogis
04-24-2009, 10:00 AM
I keep reading about the intentional violation of Milwaukee Citizens' rights from different sources. Ed Flynn's statements and actions keep making me think he's really saying "I am, THE LAW".

Ok, street judge.

Ifticar
04-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Will you fail the firearms purchase background check if you get convicted of disorderly conduct?