Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2010, 9:56 PM
MindBuilder MindBuilder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Wisconsin cops officially insist open carry is disorderly conduct

The Madison Wisconsin police department has officially decided to charge five peaceful open carriers with disorderly conduct for actions that COULD HAVE caused a "disturbance", even if they didn't actually cause a disturbance on that occasion. The recording of the 911 call makes it clear that the carriers were not acting in a threatening manner and therefore the officers were breaking the law just by detaining the carriers to conduct an investigation. When two of the carriers refused to identify themselves, they were arrested for obstructing an investigation (even though there was no basis for reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigation), handcuffed, and searched for ID. Then they were given tickets for obstructing and released. The obstructing charges have been dropped, but all five will now be charged with disorderly conduct.

The thing the Madison police don't seem to get is that just because something disturbs people, doesn't make it illegal. For example if ten skinheads with nazi tattoos and studded black leather jackets walked into that restaurant, it would have likely disturbed some people, but assuming they didn't do anything threatening, it would still be legal. The right to bear arms for hunting, defense, and other lawful purposes is protected in the Wisconsin constitution.

Examiner Article:
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...e-s-no-problem

Official City of Madison press release:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

Three recordings of the event and the 911 call here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...ml#post2965071


Here is a condensed version of the relevant parts of the 911 call. The complete transcript will follow:


* 911 Operator: 911. What's the address of the emergency?

* Caller: I don't know if it's an emergency but I'm out
at Culver's at East Town.
...
* Caller: And I see that there are two men ... They both have side arms on. Fully
exposed, what appear to be guns.

* Operator: And they're inside the Culver's?

* Caller: No they're sitting outside at a picnic table.
...
I didn't know if maybe
you had people out here. But it seemed really strange to me.

* Operator: ... Right now they're sitting at a picnic table?

* Caller: Yea. ...

* Operator: And did you say the guns were in holsters?

* Caller: Yea. ...

* Operator: Are they, do they seem to be threatening or talking or
what do they?

* Caller: No. They're just talking. They seem extremely relaxed. We
couldn't believe it. They were leaning up against the vehicles
with these sidearms prominently displayed. They're not under their
T-shirts. They're just right out in plain sight. I thought if they
were police officers it just, it just didn't look like police
officers.
...

* Operator: Ok, well that's Ok. Will uh, well if you'll just be in
the silver Accord in the back parking lot?

* Caller: Yea, we're actually just outside the parking lot. We're
just kind of idling.

* Operator: You're safe right where you are, you think?

* Caller: Yea, we are. But there's the place is full of people.
...
* Caller: It's just the strangest thing I've seen.
...
* Caller: So I just wanted to let you know in case it wasn't right.

* Operator: Uh Hm. Ok. Well, not threatening anyone that's really
what we're worried, concerned about right now.

* Caller: No. They're just sitting there extremely relaxed.

* Operator: I do believe now that it is um just for your information
it was asked by the state Attorney General that it is legal to be
armed in Wisconsin if they're not threatening or someone is not
disturbed by the uh by your weapon.

* Caller: I didn't know that.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: So anybody can wear a side arm in plain sight like that?

* Operator: Yea. It's actually uh concealed it's uh issue now.

* Caller: Ooohhh.

* Operator: But out in plain sight has now recently been passed by
the Attorney General.

* Caller: Wow. All right that's news to us. So apparently there's no
problem and it's not an emergency. That's I

* Operator: Well, if you're um, if you're concerned or disturbed by
the weapons then it becomes a problem.

* Caller: No, they weren't threatening anybody and they weren't
acting threatening. It was the fact that they uh, no it just came
as a shock to us. It's not

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: Yea. All right well thank you.

* Operator: Sure, not a problem. We are sending police officers over
to to check them now. [inaudible]

* Caller: Well, I feel bad then because

* Operator:No.

* Caller: if they're not doing anything wrong then it's my mistake.
I just

* Operator: No, well you know what ma'am we, that's the kind of
thing where you just don't know if they're going to do anything
wrong or not. And [inaudible] being armed in the city of Madison
is just not a, you know, usual thing. So, it's quite all right, we
we we're perfectly happy that [inaudible] called.
...


Complete transcript of 911 call:

* 911 Operator: 911. What's the address of the emergency?

* Caller: I don't know if it's an emergency but I'm out
at Culver's at East Town.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: And I see that there are two men in, one's got black
T-shirt I can't see the writing on it and another man in a T-shirt
with a long gray beard. They both have side arms on. Fully
exposed, what appear to be guns.

* Operator: And they're inside the Culver's?

* Caller: No they're sitting outside at a picnic table.

* Operator: OK. At Culver's East Town you said?

* Caller: Yes.

* Operator: Correct? At what are, what's the phone number where you
can be reached?

* Caller: I'm on my cell phone. What is my cell phone number? I I
don't even know my [inaudible].

* Marty?: 279

* Caller: 279

* Marty?: 99xx

* Caller: 99xx I think. Sorry I just never call it myself.

* Operator: OK That's OK. Can I get your name please?

* Caller: Yea. It's Phyllis xxxxx x x x x x. I didn't know if maybe
you had people out here. But it seemed really strange to me.

* Operator: I don't know. Right now they're sitting at a picnic table?

* Caller: Yea. Can you see them still Marty? Pull ahead so we can
see them. Um.

* Operator: And did you say the guns were in holsters?

* Caller: Yea. On their right on their right sides, they've Yea my
number's 279-99xx. Pull ahead. They look like semi-automatic. Yea
they're still there. Ok I'm gonna put my phone down now.

* Operator: Ma'am, can you describe the men again for me please.

* Caller: Yea. The one man has blue jeans on and a gray tee shirt
and a long beard, kind of gray in color. And the other man has
short hair and a black T-shirt, and I don't know what's on the
back. Yea, something on the back it's like a white shape of the
state of Wisconsin. But I can't read the writing on it. I really
don't want to get any closer to them.

* Operator: Ok, I'm sorry slow down because I can't keep up with
you. The second man had a what colored T-shirt?

* Caller: Black T-shirt. One one has a black T-shirt and one has a
gray T-shirt.

* Operator: All right and the black T-shirt had a symbol on the
back? Some kind of

* Caller: Of the state of Wisconsin. An outline of the state of
Wisconsin with writing but I can't read it. They're uh in the
parking lot side of Culver's and they're sitting at a picnic table
on the parking lot side in the back side.

* Operator: Are they, do they seem to be threatening or talking or
what do they?

* Caller: No. They're just talking. They seem extremely relaxed. We
couldn't believe it. They were leaning up against the vehicles
with these sidearms prominently displayed. They're not under their
T-shirts. They're just right out in plain sight. I thought if they
were police officers it just, it just didn't look like police
officers.

* Operator: Uh hm. Yea. Ok. Uh great, so one had gray beard, gray
T-shirt, and jeans, right?

* Caller: Yes, Yes.

* Operator: And the other black T-shirt with the outline of state of
Wisconsin and jeans also?

* Caller: And what?

* Operator: And jeans?

* Caller: I think the second guy had jeans too, didn't he, the guy
in the black T-shirt? I think so.

* Operator: Oh. All right. Um, will you be available if we need you
by phone?

* Caller: Um, we can sit here. We're just in the back of the parking
lot right now.

* Operator: Ok, what kind of car are you in?

* Caller: We're in a silver Honda Accord.

* Operator: Ok, all right. Do you know the plate off hand?

* Caller: Of our car?

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: Uh, what is it? GBxxxxxxx? Uh, I don't know [inaudible]

* Operator: That's Ok.

* Caller: I think it's 50xxxx but I'm not positive.

* Operator: Ok, well that's Ok. Will uh, well if you'll just be in
the silver Accord in the back parking lot?

* Caller: Yea, we're actually just outside the parking lot. We're
just kind of idling.

* Operator: You're safe right where you are, you think?

* Caller: Yea, we are. But there's the place is full of people.

* Operator: Uh Hm.

* Caller: It's just the strangest thing I've seen.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: So I just wanted to let you know in case it wasn't right.

* Operator: Uh Hm. Ok. Well, not threatening anyone that's really
what we're worried, concerned about right now.

* Caller: No. They're just sitting there extremely relaxed.

* Operator: I do believe now that it is um just for your information
it was asked by the state Attorney General that it is legal to be
armed in Wisconsin if they're not threatening or someone is not
disturbed by the uh by your weapon.

* Caller: I didn't know that.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: So anybody can wear a side arm in plain sight like that?

* Operator: Yea. It's actually uh concealed it's uh issue now.

* Caller: Ooohhh.

* Operator: But out in plain sight has now recently been passed by
the Atorney General.

* Caller: Wow. All right that's news to us. So apparently there's no
problem and it's not an emergency. That's I

* Operator: Well, if you're um, if you're concerned or disturbed by
the weapons then it becomes a problem.

* Caller: No, they weren't threatening anybody and they weren't
acting threatening. It was the fact that they uh, no it just came
as a shock to us. It's not

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: Yea. All right well thank you.

* Operator: Sure, not a problem. We are sending police officers over
to to check them now. [inaudible]

* Caller: Well, I feel bad then because

* Operator:No.

* Caller: if they're not doing anything wrong then it's my mistake.
I just

* Operator: No, well you know what ma'am we, that's the kind of
thing where you just don't know if they're going to do anything
wrong or not. And [inaudible] being armed in the city of Madison
is just not a, you know, usual thing. So, it's quite all right, we
we we're perfectly happy that [inaudible] called.

* Caller: And do you need us to stay around here or is it all right
for us to leave then?

* Operator: Um well, if you'll be available by phone [inaudible]

* Caller: Sure. I'll keep my phone on.

* Operator: Ok. That'll be good. Then I'll. Yea, I'll let you go and
um you can [inaudible] want talk to you about it they will call
you, Ok?

* Caller: Ok, Sure. And our home phone is 249-34xx if they need to
reach us we should be home within about ten minutes.

* Operator: Ok, all right thank you very much.

* Caller: Yea, thank you.

* Operator: Uh Hm. Bye Bye.

* Caller: Bye.


If I have any copyright interest in this transcript, I release my interest in the transcript (and the post) into the public domain.

Last edited by MindBuilder; 09-26-2010 at 12:57 AM.. Reason: added disclaimer of copyright and condensed summary of call
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:22 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's their right unless it's disturbing someone? I didn't know that's how it worked.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:37 PM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

From the MPD press release:

Quote:
The complainant's statement clearly reveals that she recognized the potential for violence from these armed men, and it was this fear that motivated her call to police. On the basis of this fact, the MPD will be rescinding the 2 obstructing citations. They were issued in error. Instead, citations for City Ordinance DC will be given to those who engaged in the behavior that led to the need for police to be called.

The DC statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance
Here we go...

(1) Under the constitution we do not have the right to "feel unafraid" and fear is not a valid reason to snub somebody's rights in the BOR. This is said often but - there was a time where the color of one's skin would cause "legitimate fear".

(2) DC = the potential to cause DC????

I predict a big fat slamdunky lawsuit coming on now that RKBA is an enumerated fundamental right.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:39 PM
FS00008's Avatar
FS00008 FS00008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

OOOOH. Gots my popcorn and beer ready :-D
__________________
"No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:44 PM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I read somewhere that flipping off a leo can be prosecuted as indecent exposure. I don't know about oc but disorderly conduct is not a far cry from indecent exposure, imo.

that's not unjust, in my opinion that the leos ticketed the oc'ers because now they've got a cool problem to work-out and it sounds like an easy one and one also in which they've set a good example.

I bet you though that they chicken-out in court and plea-bargain because they really don't think that they're not-guilty or innocent, and are unwilling to go the whole nine.

we shall see.
__________________
Member, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:55 PM
faterikcartman's Avatar
faterikcartman faterikcartman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego area.
Posts: 1,119
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

The cities and cops have nothing to lose when these things go to court -- we pay for them to abuse us!
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not giving you or anyone else who reads my posts legal advice. I am making off-the-cuff comments that may or may not be accurate and are personal, not professional, opinion. If you think you need a lawyer please retain a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction. Your local bar association may be able to help if you need a referral.

Two Weeks!: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...p/t-59936.html
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:01 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Lawsuit Filed

Fortunately, the open carriers involved look to be key members of Wisconsin Carry.

They've already filed a lawsuit, and are asking for donations.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:09 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,184
iTrader: 138 / 100%
Default

What Madison police does get though is that they can get away with it. This will continue for as long as Madison police gets away with doing things like that. Unfortunately, very few places have real laws against official oppression, with real punishments for it, and even in the places those laws exist, they're rarely enforced.

Basically, until our jails are full of government employees who abuse the authority given to them, such things will continue. Otherwise, even if the culprits here lose in court, they'd still pay for their defense with our money. and so they effectively suffered no injury for their wrongdoing.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:10 PM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009_gunner View Post
Fortunately, the open carriers involved look to be key members of Wisconsin Carry.

They've already filed a lawsuit, and are asking for donations.
They've got to win, first, their criminal case or I, for one, don't care because their case is not worth supporting it apparently even to them.

They win, it's another matter. maybe they're really out to stir up trouble in madison, wisconsin.

it's a good thing the leos got to them first before all heck broke loose.

no credit/don't ask.
__________________
Member, NRA

Last edited by duldej; 09-25-2010 at 11:13 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:25 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,942
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
I read somewhere that flipping off a leo can be prosecuted as indecent exposure. I don't know about oc but disorderly conduct is not a far cry from indecent exposure, imo.
Seriously? You're way off base on this one. I've been a LEO for 32 years. It is not illegal to flip off LE.

It's not a smart move either, since it gets you noticed and you're fair game for any other violation we see you make.

Does it piss me off? Yes. Is it illegal? No


Regarding the OP, anyone actually know how the section they are using is worded. That would answer some questions rather than pure speculation.

I ask this because, in CA being intoxicated in public does not apply inside a private residence under the penal code, since it is not in public, however, many cities have municipal codes that do apply inside a private residence if certain conditions are met, and they have withstood court challenges so far. It would be interesting to see what the actual section says that is being applied to this case. I'm not taking sides, just trying to get FACTS, since I don't operate on supposition and inuendo.

Aloha,

Ron
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target

Last edited by Ron-Solo; 09-25-2010 at 11:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:33 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
They've got to win, first, their criminal case or I, for one, don't care because their case is not worth supporting it apparently even to them.

They win, it's another matter. maybe they're really out to stir up trouble in madison, wisconsin.

it's a good thing the leos got to them first before all heck broke loose.

no credit/don't ask.
If you listen to the audio of the 911 call, you'll notice there was no heck about to break loose.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor

Last edited by 2009_gunner; 09-25-2010 at 11:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:50 PM
MindBuilder MindBuilder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

duldej wrote:
Quote:
They've got to win, first, their criminal case or I, for one, don't care because their case is not worth supporting it apparently even to them.
They have not been accused of doing anything criminal other than exercising their constitutional right to open carry in a public place. They were expecting that there was a high probability that the cops would be called, and they were on their best behavior. There has been no suggestion that they made any threats or did anything suspicious or even gave anybody a dirty look. The purpose of the federal lawsuit is to make the criminal charges go away. They will win the federal suit, and when they do, the state criminal charges will be thrown out by the federal court.

Quote:
it's a good thing the leos got to them first before all heck broke loose.
What kind of heck do you think would have broken loose? People in various states routinely open carry without incident. I've seen no reason to think there would have been any problems in this situation if the cops hadn't caused a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:53 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The conduct of the Madison, WI Police Department is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. I am formally charging them all with disorderly conduct, RIGHT NOW!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-25-2010, 11:58 PM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
Seriously? You're way off base on this one. I've been a LEO for 32 years. It is not illegal to flip off LE.

It's not a smart move either, since it gets you noticed and you're fair game for any other violation we see you make.

Does it piss me off? Yes. Is it illegal? No
well it might be stretching it some, but

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/415.html

penal code 415

plus

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/8/s314

penal code 314

plus that elusive code where you're guilty of a misdemeanor if you don't remove a public nuisance surely makes flipping off le a crime, but not le, per sé.

disorderly conduct is only the same sort of minor violation and surely fits in with the above mentioned codes, but that's wisconsin codes so I am not a party to it.

I sincerely hope the da is worth is weight in madison wisconsin because I don't think either party has it in him to win this case.

the finger versus a gun, in my opinion is the roughest part of the 911 transcript. if one's illegal, then so is the other.

but that's another ball of wax, that again these fools are not going to pursue or win, either.

arguably if the people freak-out and call 911 then it was a bad place to open carry, and if the defendant is conscientious, which he's not, then he would not have done that, but would have taken his affairs elsewhere.

I, myself, would not have ratted on them, but I'm not in wisconsin, where they do.
__________________
Member, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:08 AM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBuilder View Post
duldej wrote:


They have not been accused of doing anything criminal other than exercising their constitutional right to open carry in a public place. They were expecting that there was a high probability that the cops would be called, and they were on their best behavior. There has been no suggestion that they made any threats or did anything suspicious or even gave anybody a dirty look. The purpose of the federal lawsuit is to make the criminal charges go away. They will win the federal suit, and when they do, the state criminal charges will be thrown out by the federal court.


What kind of heck do you think would have broken loose? People in various states routinely open carry without incident. I've seen no reason to think there would have been any problems in this situation if the cops hadn't caused a problem.
well, the leos that were there and on the scene, for one, were not enforcing constitutional law per sé, but criminal law, so they were not acting out of line.

These guys were pr*cks, in my opinion, just trying to prove the 2a point, this time in the middle of the wisconsin state capital where everybody's got to prove a point.

They don't deserve to win anything, but maybe have their ticket thrown-out because, like you said, there's nothing at stake as they allegedly routinely open carried.

It's shameful that they're appealing to our pocketbooks when they should have the decency and self-respect to subsidize their own fights.

The leo's again were merely responding to a call where a family man and his wife were upset.

probably in wisconsin like california you're obligated to remove a public nuisance such as it's apparent to me those pr*cks were causing.

if anything, the district attorney ought to respond, pursue it and pursue it well because if he's anything like me he's not willing to grant 1" in this case.

Let the feds eat their own.
__________________
Member, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:13 AM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Didnt a judge somewhere, not to very long ago, not only spank a jurisdiction for this kind of crap, but also remove the LEO's immunity as well? Didnt Madison get the memo? It cracks me up that even Wisconsins own AG is on board, but others just dont get it.

If other states like AZ, NV, etc can properly deal with regular folk running around armed, then other areas can tow the line as well...
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:16 AM
pullnshoot25 pullnshoot25 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, KA area
Posts: 8,073
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default Re: Wisconsin cops officially insist open carry is disorderly conduct

Quote:
Quote:
duldej wrote:


They have not been accused of doing anything criminal other than exercising their constitutional right to open carry in a public pl
well, the leos that were there and on the scene, for one, were not enforcing constitutional law per sé, but criminal law, so they were not acting out of line.

These guys were pr*cks, in my opinion, just trying to prove the 2a point, this time in the middle of the wisconsin state capital where everybody's got to prove a point.

They don't deserve to win anything, but maybe have their ticket thrown-out because, like you said, there's nothing at stake as they allegedly routinely open carried.

It's shameful that they're appealing to our pocketbooks when they should have the decency and self-respect to subsidize their own fights.

The leo's again were merely responding to a call where a family man and his wife were upset.

probably in wisconsin like california you're obligated to remove a public nuisance such as it's apparent to me those pr*cks were causing.

if anything, the district attorney ought to respond, pursue it and pursue it well because if he's anything like me he's not willing to grant 1" in this case.

Let the feds eat their own.
Wow. Just wow.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:18 AM
pullnshoot25 pullnshoot25 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, KA area
Posts: 8,073
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default Re: Wisconsin cops officially insist open carry is disorderly conduct

Quote:
Quote:
I read somewhere that flipping off a leo can be prosecuted as indecent exposure. I don't know about oc but disorderly conduct is not a far cry from i
Seriously? You're way off base on this one. I've been a LEO for 32 years. It is not illegal to flip off LE.

It's not a smart move either, since it gets you noticed and you're fair game for any other violation we see you make.

Does it piss me off? Yes. Is it illegal? No


Regarding the OP, anyone actually know how the section they are using is worded. That would answer some questions rather than pure speculation.

I ask this because, in CA being intoxicated in public does not apply inside a private residence under the penal code, since it is not in public, however, many cities have municipal codes that do apply inside a private residence if certain conditions are met, and they have withstood court challenges so far. It would be interesting to see what the actual section says that is being applied to this case. I'm not taking sides, just trying to get FACTS, since I don't operate on supposition and inuendo.

Aloha,

Ron
This has to be the best post you have ever made.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:19 AM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
probably in wisconsin like california you're obligated to remove a public nuisance such as it's apparent to me those pr*cks were causing.
You clearly have much insight into this case.

How were the open carriers being pr*cks? The 911 call says they were sitting calmly.

Do tell the additional info that makes them a public nuisance.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor

Last edited by 2009_gunner; 09-26-2010 at 12:20 AM.. Reason: pointless arguing
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:28 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,942
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
well it might be stretching it some, but

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/415.html

penal code 415

plus

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/8/s314

penal code 314

plus that elusive code where you're guilty of a misdemeanor if you don't remove a public nuisance surely makes flipping off le a crime, but not le, per sé.

disorderly conduct is only the same sort of minor violation and surely fits in with the above mentioned codes, but that's wisconsin codes so I am not a party to it.

I sincerely hope the da is worth is weight in madison wisconsin because I don't think either party has it in him to win this case.

the finger versus a gun, in my opinion is the roughest part of the 911 transcript. if one's illegal, then so is the other.

but that's another ball of wax, that again these fools are not going to pursue or win, either.

arguably if the people freak-out and call 911 then it was a bad place to open carry, and if the defendant is conscientious, which he's not, then he would not have done that, but would have taken his affairs elsewhere.

I, myself, would not have ratted on them, but I'm not in wisconsin, where they do.
I seriously think that you should give up trying to intrepret the penal code. You are so far off base in your 'stretching' of these sections it isn't funny.

and to Quote "PullnShoot25", all I can say is "WOW"
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:35 AM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
well, the leos that were there and on the scene, for one, were not enforcing constitutional law per sé, but criminal law, so they were not acting out of line.

You have got to be kidding, right? Are you sure you are on the right forum? I guess people should only do constitutionally protected things only when its not going to get someone else's panties in a wad..

These guys were pr*cks, in my opinion, just trying to prove the 2a point, this time in the middle of the wisconsin state capital where everybody's got to prove a point.

I really dont understand your reasoning. If its legal and its not hurting anyone with a room temperature IQ or above, then how are they being *****s?

They don't deserve to win anything, but maybe have their ticket thrown-out because, like you said, there's nothing at stake as they allegedly routinely open carried.

They deserve to win and when they do, It should be costly for Madison. That is how things work in the world. Bad behavior with an officer costs the agency money, which comes out of their budget...which makes it painful for the chief of said agency...which reduces the chances that the bad behavior repeat itself

It's shameful that they're appealing to our pocketbooks when they should have the decency and self-respect to subsidize their own fights.

The leo's again were merely responding to a call where a family man and his wife were upset.

probably in wisconsin like california you're obligated to remove a public nuisance such as it's apparent to me those pr*cks were causing.

if anything, the district attorney ought to respond, pursue it and pursue it well because if he's anything like me he's not willing to grant 1" in this case.

Ok, is this a joke? Come on, you can tell me! Set aside the fact that the "family man and his wife" were possibly born in a cave and clueless, they didnt seem all that scared...more busy body curious. Even still, in what universe should someones wetting down their leg solely at the sight of that evil-baby-puppy-killing-mind-of-it's-own-bang-bang-gun be cause to violate someones rights?!?!?!? R I G H T S. "Fundamental" - Alioto

Let the feds eat their own.
Unless those that find rights distasteful for common folk get hammered over this kind of stuff, it only gets worse. Do I care that these guys excersized their rights knowing that someone might call the police? Not a chance. I see it as just speeding up the karma is all....
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-26-2010, 12:49 AM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009_gunner View Post
You clearly have much insight into this case.

How were the open carriers being pr*cks? The 911 call says they were sitting calmly.

Do tell the additional info that makes them a public nuisance.
Accurately they were a public nuisance because they offended the family man which is fine, but there are two opposing viewpoints, and I'm inclined to sidle with the caller and not the 2a pr*cks.

for one if they're so peaceful then how come there's a federal case all of a sudden over a measly ticket for disorderly conduct?

Why not sue Culvers? the spot where they were so dining? why not sue the city?

Now I've got to hear about it all the way over here in California where they're supposed to be so laid-back over in wisconsin.

that there's a federal case over almost nothing, note, please, that the cops were equally peaceful, but saw fit to ticket the pr*cks is case in point that they were at least proving a point.

The caller, by contrast is much more worthy of my sympathy than the two p's because he's getting a burger or something but he's conscientious enough to call the cops when he feels threatened, and let them fight fire with fire.

ultimately it's wisconsin's problem where the p's still have to prove their great point in court, and I want to see them lose, but I'll change my mind after they win the criminal case.

I just don't think they've got it in them to fight and win this case so again they're pr*cks or chicken or both.

I would argue that they started it, but in wisconsin, as the operator explained to the caller, the attorney general's office changed oc laws so it's a hot topic and that means that I, for one, have got to take a side, and in this case I sidle with the family man caller because he had to speak his mind and was concerned for his safety.

That's reason enough to call. It's not personal. sorry so long-winded.

still if it's such a passive affair, then how come the federal case? a federal case is a big deal, almost by definition. the two guys are punks. two broke punks.
__________________
Member, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-26-2010, 1:05 AM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
Unless those that find rights distasteful for common folk get hammered over this kind of stuff, it only gets worse. Do I care that these guys excersized their rights knowing that someone might call the police? Not a chance. I see it as just speeding up the karma is all....
wow from me, too, because they were so peaceful and all in the public burger joint (with sidearms).

I'm not arguing the constitutional right to bear arms, and I'm also not arguing the right to peaceably demonstrate, not in public, anyway, so they shouldn't, either.

If they do, then they deserve the repercussions, but they're not man enough to handle it on their own, and NEED YOUR HELP, and not mine.

oh, poor oc'ers. sue the president. I'm wondering what's the damage? they demonstrated, they got ticketed, they did not even go to jail so what's the problem? the federal case is unwarranted.

They're too chicken to handle it in a court of criminal law which is what they were trying in a public place.

Maybe they're fooling you, but they don't fool me.

Then again if there were no federal case, there would be no discussion over here in california! st*pid wisconsinites. can you understand my reasoning now?

that's what criminal courts in wisconsin are for and at best that's what civil courts in wisconsin are for... so I don't have to hear about it over here where there's courts already.

one of those parties has ordered a ticket from the burger joint, so to speak, and he ought to eat it, too.
__________________
Member, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-26-2010, 1:18 AM
jello2594's Avatar
jello2594 jello2594 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 382
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I'm pretty sure we can ignore duldej. He's admitted to previously having a 5150, and only fired a firearm for the first time August 2010. I think he's on the wrong forum.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-26-2010, 1:19 AM
Turo's Avatar
Turo Turo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SLO + Tulare
Posts: 5,059
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
Accurately they were a public nuisance because they offended the family man which is fine, but there are two opposing viewpoints, and I'm inclined to sidle with the caller and not the 2a pr*cks.

for one if they're so peaceful then how come there's a federal case all of a sudden over a measly ticket for disorderly conduct?

Why not sue Culvers? the spot where they were so dining? why not sue the city?

Now I've got to hear about it all the way over here in California where they're supposed to be so laid-back over in wisconsin.

that there's a federal case over almost nothing, note, please, that the cops were equally peaceful, but saw fit to ticket the pr*cks is case in point that they were at least proving a point.

The caller, by contrast is much more worthy of my sympathy than the two p's because he's getting a burger or something but he's conscientious enough to call the cops when he feels threatened, and let them fight fire with fire.

ultimately it's wisconsin's problem where the p's still have to prove their great point in court, and I want to see them lose, but I'll change my mind after they win the criminal case.

I just don't think they've got it in them to fight and win this case so again they're pr*cks or chicken or both.

I would argue that they started it, but in wisconsin, as the operator explained to the caller, the attorney general's office changed oc laws so it's a hot topic and that means that I, for one, have got to take a side, and in this case I sidle with the family man caller because he had to speak his mind and was concerned for his safety.

That's reason enough to call. It's not personal. sorry so long-winded.

still if it's such a passive affair, then how come the federal case? a federal case is a big deal, almost by definition. the two guys are punks. two broke punks.
So people that exercise their 2nd amendment rights are pr*cks because someone afraid of guns called police to see if what they were doing was wrong?

It seems like you have a bone to pick with people who open carry. Did one of them piss you off or something? You say it's not personal, but it looks that way to me.

And by the way, suing the police department who violated rights seems like a very peaceful way to handle the situation, and still make criminals take their punishment.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jello2594 View Post
I'm pretty sure we can ignore duldej. He's admitted to previously having a 5150, and only fired a firearm for the first time August 2010. I think he's on the wrong forum.
I would be inclined to agree. Maybe this would be a better place since he seems so against the 2nd amendment.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson

Check me out on YouTube! Shooting, Engineering, and Dogs. What's not to love?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-26-2010, 1:23 AM
ENTHUSIAST's Avatar
ENTHUSIAST ENTHUSIAST is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,561
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
Accurately they were a public nuisance because they offended the family man which is fine, but there are two opposing viewpoints, and I'm inclined to sidle with the caller and not the 2a pr*cks.
I do not believe your opinion represents that of most members of Calguns or the NRA.

Are you being serious with your posts?
__________________
Quote:
America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

-Ron Paul
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-26-2010, 1:30 AM
jello2594's Avatar
jello2594 jello2594 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 382
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Allow me to direct you to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej
i tried unsuccessfully, once, to sue the people of los angeles over my having once been so detained [section 5150 (wic)] for $10,000.00.

again, i lost the case, and i refused to appeal it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-26-2010, 1:40 AM
duldej's Avatar
duldej duldej is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Sacramento
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTHUSIAST View Post
I do not believe your opinion represents that of most members of Calguns or the NRA.

Are you being serious with your posts?
do you want to know something? I disagree, and that's all that I'm saying.

if you want to fight for the rights of some schm*ck in wisconsin when this is CAL guns and not WI guns, go right ahead.
__________________
Member, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-26-2010, 2:20 AM
Massan's Avatar
Massan Massan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

To serve and protect...special interests.

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with you but I support your right."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-26-2010, 2:34 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
do you want to know something? I disagree, and that's all that I'm saying.

if you want to fight for the rights of some schm*ck in wisconsin when this is CAL guns and not WI guns, go right ahead.
But what you're essentially saying is that it's OK for OCers in WI to be harassed and charged w/disorderly conduct by simply sitting at a picnic bench talking to each other. If they aren't protected, then a constitutional right will be exercised only at the risk of a DC charge. Keep in mind WI has no concealed carry(lawful anyway), this is the only mode of carry available.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-26-2010, 5:08 AM
Ezliving Ezliving is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Undisclosed Secure Location
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is the second go-around for one of those individuals cited. The first time, he won a $10K settlement. One would think that, even if the cops don't "get it," the prosecutor would.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-26-2010, 5:31 AM
vantec08 vantec08 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,800
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
I read somewhere that flipping off a leo can be prosecuted as indecent exposure. I don't know about oc but disorderly conduct is not a far cry from indecent exposure, imo.

that's not unjust, in my opinion that the leos ticketed the oc'ers because now they've got a cool problem to work-out and it sounds like an easy one and one also in which they've set a good example.

I bet you though that they chicken-out in court and plea-bargain because they really don't think that they're not-guilty or innocent, and are unwilling to go the whole nine.

we shall see.
The old 650.5 PC (outraging public decency) was declared unconstitutional years ago and dumped from the code.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-26-2010, 6:14 AM
socal2310 socal2310 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Camarillo, CA (Ventura County)
Posts: 808
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
do you want to know something? I disagree, and that's all that I'm saying.

if you want to fight for the rights of some schm*ck in wisconsin when this is CAL guns and not WI guns, go right ahead.
This isn't about only California. This state may be our particular concern, but the treatment of gun owners in other locales can make a difference to us. As Benjamin Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Ryan
__________________
Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-26-2010, 6:57 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gura is going to tear Madison a new one if he gets a chance.

Really the Madison police are doing us a favor here. By bending the branch down so far to the ground, we now have low hanging fruit where before there was none. More good precedent, coming up!
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-26-2010, 7:20 AM
microwaveguy's Avatar
microwaveguy microwaveguy is offline
klaatu barada nikto!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

This ^^^

The Washington DC and Chicago cases have had a major impact on things in CA. Also it can work the other way when we are not vigilant. The dark days of when our AWB was passed transformed itself into the 1994 national AWB that thankfully had a sunset clause. Many things outside of this state can and do further the legal challenges we face and overcome in this state. We all need to work together to ultimately have a consistence application of the 2A in all of the states.
__________________
Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail.

Beware of people who are certain they are right. That certainty allows them to justify almost any act in pursuit of their goals. ( Jack campbell , Guardian)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-26-2010, 7:27 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's disappointing to me how many people don't see the connection between all of these rights issues. We've all seen the snowball effects in other nations. First, the government will first ban "Assault Weapons." The AW users will cry for help, but other gunners say "certainly my shotgun and hunting rifle will always be safe." Then the handgun ban comes, and they compromise, and accept for the same reason. Finally comes the outright ban, and there's nothing they can do but watch. They kept letting their rights slip, until there was only one more thing to take away.

I can see why people prefer CCW to open carry, but if you don't think the two are at all related, I feel you have a bad wakeup call coming at some point. The same goes for saying cases around the country have no effect in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-26-2010, 7:35 AM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The presumption of sarcasm ended before duldej's first post here.

To duldej; Your behavior is consistent with the rest of your anti-self-protectionist crowd. Go back to where you came from. Contrary to what you say, you have nothing productive to add to this topic.


To all others;

Step #1; Stop feeding the troll.

Step #2; Ban the troll.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-26-2010, 7:42 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,227
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

I'm amazed that someone with some legal sense hasn't stepped in and stopped Madison from doing exactly what these open carry folks were hoping for. The five will get paid, and this might also provide more ammo to make WI a shall issue state.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-26-2010, 7:42 AM
SixPointEight's Avatar
SixPointEight SixPointEight is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 3,533
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
do you want to know something? I disagree, and that's all that I'm saying.

if you want to fight for the rights of some schm*ck in wisconsin when this is CAL guns and not WI guns, go right ahead.


If you can't realize the the firearms rights in all cities, counties and states are fundamentally linked, and that when other cities institute bans and limitations on the RTKBA, it fuels the lawmakers in CA to do the very same thing.

I don't know why you love the word ***** so much, but I'm doubting you read the whole 911 call. The caller REPEATEDLY said they weren't doing anything wrong, he was just surprised that he saw people with pistols. If people are offended by guns, too darn bad. It's a fundamental right, the second one granted to use by the Constitution, if you disagree, you should probably find a new forum to overuse the word "*****" on.

Last edited by SixPointEight; 09-26-2010 at 7:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-26-2010, 8:15 AM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,593
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
well it might be stretching it some, but

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/415.html

penal code 415
No Fighting involved, no Noise involved, and No words involved. Doesn't meet the requirements of a 415 violation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by duldej View Post
well it might be stretching it some, but


http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/8/s314

penal code 314
No lewd exposure of private parts. Doesn't meet the requirements of a 314 violation.


S..............T..............R..............E.... ..........T..............C..............H

is definitely the right word.

Any more of a stretch and you could start a yoga class.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.