See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Weapons Confiscation in Wisconsin. You wont believe this shit. Well, maybe you will...
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 13, 2008
Author: .
Post Date: 2008-12-13 12:30:32 by PSUSA
Ping List: *Jack-Booted Thugs* Subscribe to *Jack-Booted Thugs*
Keywords: None
Views: 416
Comments: 17
Update - 12/13/08 - the trial date we hear has been postponed to a later date. If someone disagreed with you about an article or story you published and then complained to the police who came into your business and arrested you for disorderly conduct, would that incident be newsworthy? What if the police arrested you for disorderly conduct while you were exercising any other constitutionally protected right because someone did not want you to exercise your right? Would you want to tell the people of Wisconsin how fragile it is to exercise their rights? Once arrested, do you think an employer or all your friends and neighbors would understand or would some of them want to maintain more distance with you? Unfortunately, being arrested is the same thing as being found guilty to many people in the court of public opinion. The police don’t arrest innocent people just for exercising a constitutionally protected right after all. That would be outrageous. Or do they? Please come (or send a reporter) to the West Allis City Courthouse on Tuesday December 16th at 8 am when this question will be answered in court. On August 22, Brad Krause was planting trees in his yard, at least until police stormed his residence and arrested him. It turns out they received a call from a man who said he didn't appreciate that Brad carried a gun, and wanted something done about it. The West Allis police department sent two squads to investigate, and found Brad in his yard, minding his own business planting trees. From behind him, police rushed him, yelling, "Don't move!" while bearing down on him with their weapons drawn. They shortly discovered Brad had no criminal record and was lawfully openly carrying on his own property, but instead of releasing him and returning his weapon, they tried to figure out how to arrest him. A call to the supervising lieutenant provided the answer: claim his action of carrying a weapon is disorderly conduct, and haul him down to the station. His firearm was taken away from him without a receipt, and it has not been returned. The police have effectively banned his exercise of his right by disarming him. The fact is that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 does not ban or prohibit the lawful carrying of firearms by citizens. By enacting the law, the legislature intended to force citizens to openly carry their firearms while in public, which is what Mr. Krause was lawfully doing (additionally, he was on his own property). Mr. Krause is self employed as a property manager and this action by the City of West Allis has cost him long term business relationships. The police had him standing in handcuffs on his own property for 45 minutes with squad cars parked in front of his residence while they tried to figure out a way to arrest him. Fortunately, Mr. Krause had taken a friends advice and he had a voice recorder with him and the entire incident was recorded and it has been transcribed. Civil rights are very important – all of them – which is why they are protected from governmental actions just like this. The media would be all over this story if a voter had been wrongly arrested while waiting in line to vote, or a worshipper had been arrested while attempting to enter their place of worship, or a reporter was arrested while writing an article. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said an otherwise reasonable exercise of police power cannot be invoked in a way that "eviscerates," "destroys," "frustrates," or "nullifies" the constitutional right to bear arms, yet that is exactly what is being done by law enforcement departments all over Wisconsin today. In Wisconsin, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power. See Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis. 2d 550, 564, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976); see also Robert Dowlut & Janet A. Knoop, State Constitutions and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev 177, 185 (1982) (describing the general application of this principle).That is why this is such an important matter and I am asking for you to publically expose this unlawful use of police power. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Below is important background information: 1) There is no state statute prohibiting an openly carried firearm in Wisconsin. To the contrary, Wis. Stat. § 941.23 was enacted by the legislature to force the open carry of firearms. 2) Excerpts from State of Wisconsin v. Munir A. Hamdan - (emphasis added - footnotes can be found on the link below): www.wicourts.gov/sc/opini...f?content=pdf&seqNo=16460 ) - or download the PDF file here on JPFO. ¶41 Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25.The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained. ¶68 If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises. ¶71 In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right. ¶72 For instance, in order to keep and bear arms for the purpose of securing one's own property, a weapon must be kept somewhere and may need to be handled or moved, all within the weapon owner's property. During these times, the firearm will be either visible or concealed. The State ** argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the CCW statute, a person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open——holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall,32 or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view.** Jim Doyle was the Attorney General whose office argued that open carry was lawful. ¶119 To determine whether Wis. Stat. § 941.23 is constitutional on the facts of this case we must ask two questions. The first question is whether the regulation on concealed weapons is a reasonable exercise of the police power, namely, does the statute promote public safety, health, or welfare and bear a reasonable relation to accomplishing those purposes.56 The second question iswhether the reasonable exercise of the state's police power eviscerates the constitutional right to bear arms. ¶120 No one disputes that the prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon is a reasonable exercise of the State's police power.57Wisconsin Stat. § 941.23 promotes public safety. The primary justification for the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons is that it protects the public by preventing an individual from having a deadly weapon on hand of which the public (including a law enforcement officer) is unaware, which may be used in the sudden heat of passion.58 The public is safer, the argument goes, if it is able to take notice of those people who are carrying weapons and proceed accordingly. Indeed, in a case similar to the present case, State v. Mata, 199 Wis. 2d 315, 321, 544 N.W.2d 578 (Ct. App. 1996), the court of appeals concluded that a persuasive argument can be made that "a tavern owner's display of a handgun may deter crime while concealment of the gun probably would not."59 ¶121 Moreover, by making it a misdemeanor to carry a concealed weapon, Wis. Stat. § 941.23 bears a reasonable and substantial relationship to the end of promoting public safety. Criminalizing conduct stigmatizes conduct and deters people from doing it, a conclusion the majority opinion agrees with as well.60 (However, the practice of criminalizing lawful conduct effectively creates an unlawful ban) ¶122 The second question in the present case is whether the reasonable exercise of the State's police power eviscerates the constitutional right to bear arms.61 As the majority opinion explains, an otherwise reasonable exercise of police power cannot be invoked in a way that "eviscerates," "destroys," "frustrates," or "nullifies" the constitutional right to bear arms.62 Short of that, however, as the majority opinion further explains, the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation.63 ¶123 In order to determine whether a statute eviscerates a constitutional right or merely reasonably regulates a constitutional right we must examine the "degree" to which the regulation frustrates the purpose of the constitutional right .64 For example, in City of Seattle v. Montana, 919 P.2d 1218 (Wash.1996), the Washington Supreme Court upheld a city ordinance regulating the carrying and possession of "dangerous knives" in the face of a constitutional amendment granting the right to bear arms. The court reasoned that the police power was reasonably exercised to "promote public safety and good order," and that the city did not enact a "complete prohibition on possession and carrying knives" but merely "regulated the carrying, transport, and use of knives."65 Therefore, the statute was constitutional.66 ¶124 Wisconsin Stat. § 941.23 is similarly constitutional when applied to the defendant because it does not eliminate the right of an owner of a privately operated business to bear arms for security or defense but simply limits the manner in which he or she may exercise the right to bear arms. That is, § 941.23 does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes. Rather, it limits the manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon that is on a person or within a person's reach not be concealed.67 The gist of the offense is the concealment. Thus, nothing about Wis. Stat. § 941.23 comes close to eviscerating, destroying, frustrating, or nullifying the right to bear arms in Wisconsin for the defendant here or any other person. The right to bear arms "is not impaired by requiring individuals to carry weapons openly."68 ¶129 Second, and more importantly, the majority's dubious conclusions are irrelevant. The statute is presumed constitutional and the burden on the challenger is heavy. By enacting the statute the legislature has determined that public safety is advanced when owners of privately operated businesses, like all other individuals, are required to carry their guns openly. Although the majority opinion has set forth counterarguments to the legislature's determination that concealed weapons are hazardous to public safety, neither the majority opinion nor the challenger has carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that the legislative determination is unconstitutional because the degree to which it restricts the right to bear arms for owners of privately operated businesses eviscerates the constitutional right. 3) State Statute (66.092) 1995 Wisconsin Act 75, section 2: says; …no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute. 4) This is Wisconsin case law defining what behavioral elements constitute Disorderly Conduct (no mention of a firearm): State v Douglas D 2001 WI 47, para 15.243 WIS 2d, 204,626N.W, 2d 725. Para. 15 "The State must prove two elements to convict a defendant under this statute (947.01)" First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unnecessarily loud, or similar disorderly conduct. Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance". Emphasis added I hope to see you on the 16th in West Allis. If the date should be moved for any reason, I will let you know. Thank you. Gene German Minnesota DPS Certified Firearms Instructor Utah BCI Certified Firearms Instructor AACFI Wisconsin State Director
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: PSUSA (#0)
I tell foreigners, who are often completely clueless about these things, that in America there is an enormous distinction between public and private. Concealed weapons are okay; carrying them openly is not. Most people don't know it, but the showdown between the Earp brothers and the Clantons was about open carry. In the old West, gun belts were not allowed in towns. Weapons had to be checked at the sheriff's office. The Clantons refused, and when the Earps went to disarm them -- carrying their own weapons in the pocket -- things got out of control and there was a shootout. The difference between "public" and "private" has been part of American culture for a long time, and it's unfortunate that even some Americans do not understand it.
Republicans believe in abortion -- they just wait until they're born and then call them 'collateral damage'.
ping
Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security ping
Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now they bleat like sheep for security The West Allis police department sent two squads to investigate, and found Brad in his yard, minding his own business planting trees. From behind him, police rushed him, yelling, "Don't move!" while bearing down on him with their weapons drawn. They shortly discovered Brad had no criminal record and was lawfully openly carrying on his own property, but instead of releasing him and returning his weapon, they tried to figure out how to arrest him. A call to the supervising lieutenant provided the answer: claim his action of carrying a weapon is disorderly conduct, and haul him down to the station. His firearm was taken away from him without a receipt, and it has not been returned. The police have effectively banned his exercise of his right by disarming him. These cops knowingly arrested an innocent man. And the penalty for these cops should have been....can you guess??
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count ?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Fuck it. I am probably on a list anyway. Death.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Nehemiah 4:14 And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”
Depends on the state you live in. You will find people peacefully packing in the open today in the wild west and in Big Sky Country. In these places, one gets into trouble for concealing any weapon without a CCW. People are often shocked when they wander into some small town and nobody cares if the locals walk around with pistols on their hips and rifles in the rifle racks of the back windows of pick-ups. Generally, there are a few restrictions to the open carry, such as no guns in federal or state buildings.
Open carry - the act of publicly carrying a firearm in plain sight. Turtle, here's a list of open carry states: AK, MT, ID, WY, SD, AZ, NM, KY, WV, VA and VT. : )
Add to that OR outside of Portland and Beaverton - and - California so long as it is unloaded (!)
It is now time for Atlas to shrug.
The west coast states are more severely resticted than the Permissive Open Carry States listed. These states are Licensed Open Carry States, Wisconsin is also in this catagory. Then there are Anomolous Open Carry States where open carry is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions. Permissive Open Carry are the least ristrictive with no license requirements, then Licensed Open Carry States, followed by the Anomalous Open Carry States and then the most restictive states are Non-Permissive Open Carry States.
Oops, I meant to say least restricted, no license required for open carry states. : )
Connecticut has no restriction against open carry in law. Here's one person trying to fight that: October 9, 2008 Minutes He went to resturaunt, gun was exposed, shit-head bitch saw his gun, called Glastonbury Gestapo, arrested him, took his gun, was declared inoccent at trial, trying still to get his pistol back. What is "funny" is that the "legal advisor" to the Permit Board is that he's trying to get _his_ concealed carry license renwed for the past 8 months. I don't know what is the resolution to this. I'm trying to follow this case.
.
Insane denial of Kuck a PDF document. Case 3:07-cv-01390-VLB Document 33 Filed 07/25/2008 ...For the reasons given below, Kuck’s motions [Docs. #19, 20] are DENIED as futile and the defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. #13] is GRANTED. Kuck’s original three-count complaint alleges that the defendants denied him procedural and substantive due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (counts one and two), and that the defendants retaliated against him for exercising his right to free speech (count three). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the defendants move to dismiss on the ground of failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Kuck moves to amend his complaint. The amended complaint contains nearly three times as many pages as the original complaint, but the three counts remain the same. Kuck seeks to join the following six defendants: Ronald Bastura, Thomas Karanda, and Barbara Mattson, who are on the staff of the public safety department’s licensing unit; Christopher Adams, chairman of the Connecticut State Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (“firearms board”); Susan Mazzoccoli, administrative manager of the firearms board; and Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell. The three counts of the amended complaint appear to be brought against the two original defendants and the six new defendants; the amended complaint appear to be brought against the two original defendants and the six new defendants; the amended complaint does not specify whether any defendants are excluded from any of the counts. ...Kuck alleges that he held a Connecticut pistol permit from 1982 to 2007. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-30(c), pistol permits must be renewed every five years. When Kuck applied for renewal in 2007, the public safety department’s licensing unit requested that he provide his birth certificate, United States passport, or voter registration card because pistol permits cannot be issued to illegal aliens pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29- 36f(b)(9). Kuck alleges that the licensing unit had never requested those documents in connection with his previous renewal applications, although he did provide his birth certificate when he first applied for a permit in 1982. He declined to provide any of the requested documents in 2007, asserting that the request was unconstitutional. Consequently, in April 2007, the licensing unit declined to renew Kuck’s permit. Kuck appealed to the firearms board, which has scheduled a hearing for November 2008, nineteen months after the licensing unit denied his renewal permit application. Kuck contends that nineteen months is an excessively long period of time for him to wait for a hearing. If the firearms board affirms the denial of Kuck’s renewal permit application, he may then appeal to the Connecticut Superior Court pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-32b(f). Kuck is also a member of the firearms board, having been appointed in 1998 to the seat reserved for a representative of Ye Connecticut Gun Guild, Inc. He served as secretary of the firearms board from 2003 to 2007. Kuck alleges that the estimated wait time for a board hearing has increased from three months to 22 months since 2001. Although Kuck urged Adams, the board chairman, to implement procedures to decrease the estimated wait time, Kuck alleges that Adams opposed his suggestions. Kuck also alleges that the licensing unit denies permits in some cases solely because it is aware of the delayed board hearings. According to Kuck, the licensing unit then settles many of those cases just prior to the board hearing, effectively depriving people of their permits for up to 22 months for no legitimate reason. Kuck alleges that Adams and Mazzoccoli, the board’s administrative manager, attempted to persuade Governor Rell’s office not to reappoint Kuck to the firearms board. ...The Court turns to the standards governing Kuck’s motion to amend and the defendants’ motion to dismiss. “Although Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ it is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend. . . . A district court has discretion to deny leave for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2008). “In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, [the court] ac as true all factual statements alleged in the complaint and draw[s] all rea inferences in favor of the non-moving party. . . . In general, [the court’s] limited to the facts as asserted within the four corners of the complaint, t documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and any documents incorporated in the complaint by reference.” McCarthy, 482 F.3d at 191. In the present case, the Court concludes that Kuck’s amended complaint is futile because it does not survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court will examine each of Kuck’s three counts. As to procedural due process (count one), the Court considers “(1) whether [Kuck] possess[es] a liberty or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause; and, if so, (2) whether existing state procedures are constitutionally adequate.” Ford Motor Credit Co. v. NYC Police Dept., 503 F.3d 186, 190 (2d Cir. 2007). The defendants concede that under Connecticut state law, Kuck has a liberty interest in obtaining renewal of his pistol permit. See Conn. Const. art. I, § 15; Rabbitt v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Supp. 108, 112 (1979). Kuck therefore focuses on the waiting period for a hearing before the firearms board and asserts that his nineteen-month wait constitutes undue delay. However, “[t]he mere assertion that state remedies are lengthy . . . will not render state remedies inadequate [under the Due Process Clause] unless they are inadequate to the point that [they are] meaningless or nonexistent.” Gyadu v. Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 129 F.3d 113, 1997 WL 716128 at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 17, 1997). Because parties commonly endure significant delays in securing administrative and judicial relief, the Court cannot conclude that a nineteen-month wait for a hearing is so inadequate as to make the availability o review by the firearms board “meaningless or nonexistent.” ...The government action, namely, the licensing unit’s denial of Kuck’s renewal permit application, on the basis of Kuck’s refusal to provide documentation of his citizenship, was not egregious, outrageous, or shocking to the contemporary conscience.
.
The only restriction in CT is a permit or license, since it is a Licensed Open Carry State. Permissive Open Carry states do not require a permit or license to carry on foot or in a vehicle.
Thanks for the informative post on the Kuck case. : )
Yes, this is all true.
It is now time for Atlas to shrug.
Death to the enemies of gun ownership.
#2. To: PSUSA, *libertarians*, *Humor-Weird News*, , *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#0)
#3. To: PSUSA, *Shooters* (#0)
#4. To: PSUSA, rotara (#0)
Brad Krause was planting trees in his yard, at least until police stormed his residence and arrested him. It turns out they received a call from a man who said he didn't appreciate that Brad carried a gun, and wanted something done about it.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#5. To: IndieTX (#4)
These cops knowingly arrested an innocent man. And the penalty for these cops should have been....can you guess??
#6. To: IndieTX (#4)
These cops knowingly arrested an innocent man. And the penalty for these cops should have been....can you guess??
#7. To: Turtle (#1)
Concealed weapons are okay; carrying them openly is not.
#8. To: Turtle (#1)
#9. To: abraxas (#8)
#10. To: mirage (#9)
#11. To: All (#8)
AK, MT, ID, WY, SD, AZ, NM, KY, WV, VA and VT
#12. To: abraxas (#11)
#13. To: All (#12)
#14. To: rack42 (#12)
Connecticut has no restriction against open carry in law.
#15. To: rack42 (#13)
#16. To: abraxas (#10)
#17. To: Turtle (#1)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest