Ashwaubenon Ordinance/Police Response

[RugerMan]

imported post

I've recently moved into the village of Ashwaubenon (adjacent to Green Bay).

In my previous letters to the local Police Departments, Chief Dunning gave me the coldest reply. (other than Green Bay, who didn't reply)

I emailed Ashwaubenon Public Safety Chief Dunning again about 9 days ago, and got no reply. Since then, I examined the villages ordinances, and found the following:

Sec. 9-02. Possession of dangerous weapons. (1) Firearms. No person, except an authorized police officer, shall discharge any firearm or have any firearm in his possession within the village unless it is unloaded, knocked down and enclosed in a carrying case or other suitable container, except as follows: (a) The board may issue permits to an organized gun club to engage in target practice within the village at times and places designated by the director of public safety. (b) The director of public safety may issue permits to persons employed by armored car services allowing them to carry firearms while engaged in such employment: 1. The permit shall be issued annually and be valid for the period from and including April 1 of one year to and including March 31 of the following year. 2. The cost of the permit shall be $15.00 per year or any part thereof. 3. The director of public safety shall establish standards and requirements to qualify for the permit or any renewal thereof. 4. The permit shall be subject to revocation at any time upon conditions to be established by the director of public safety. (2) Dangerous weapons. No person shall wear, conceal about his person or display in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon. This section shall not be construed to restrict the public safety department or other peace officers in the proper discharge of their duties. (3) Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings indicated: Dangerous weapon. See Wis. Stats. § 939.22(10). The term "dangerous weapon" means and includes, without limitation by enumeration, firearm, peashooter, slingshot, bow made for throwing or projecting arrows or other missiles, nunchiku, cross-knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other metal or any knife with a switch blade or device whereby the blade can be opened by a button, pressure on the handle or other mechanical contrivance. Firearm means any rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver, air gun, BB gun or pellet gun, whether called by one of the forgoing names or any other name. Peace officer. See Wis. Stats. § 939.22(22). (4) Destruction or withholding of weapons. In addition to the penalties provided herein for ordinance violations, the court may, following conviction under this section and upon a finding that it is necessary for the health, safety or welfare of the public, order a weapon destroyed or held for a specified period of time before being returned to its owner. The owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard by the court before any such order is made. (Code 2006, § 9.02; Ord. No. O8-01-84, 8-28-1994; Ord. No. O12-02-84, 12-18-1994)

Who can spot the problems here? First, the way it it is written, a resident could not have a loaded firearm in THEIR HOME, much less on their person.

So this time I wrote the Village President and CC'd the Chief. That got him to respond! He wrote the following:

I can assure you that the Village is in the process of revising the current ordinance Sec 9-02 to reflect the state law and the opinion from the AG’s office. In the mean time a memo was sent to the officers addressing this concern.
Eric J. Dunning
Chief

He included the memo and it is attached.

The part that bothered me most was the part about how not answering "voluntary" questions could in itself amount to reasonable suspicion and warrant a detainment. If an officer doesnt have reasonable suspicion previous to approaching you, and you decide not to give him the time of day for whatever reason, how could he have gleamed any more info from your non-response. The last time I checked, a non-answer could never be used against you. So says the 5th amendment.

Thoughts?

 

[smithman]

imported post

RugerMan wrote:

Who can spot the problems here? First, the way it it is written, a resident could not have a loaded firearm in THEIR HOME, much less on their person.

The part that bothered me most was the part about how not answering "voluntary" questions could in itself amount to reasonable suspicion and warrant a detainment. If an officer doesnt have reasonable suspicion previous to approaching you, and you decide not to give him the time of day for whatever reason, how could he have gleamed any more info from your non-response.

The ordinance was invalid the day preemption went into effect (the opinion from the AG just brought it to the attention of the people who are supposed to know the law).

The chief needs a lesson on detention. If you are detained, throw around big words like "reasonable articulable suspicion". This will get a cop to think twice if he should be detaining you. If carrying a gun openly is not illegal (duh!), it is illegal for him to detain you solely for that.

 

[logan]

imported post

Well you gotta hand it to them for actually putting out a memo, and that they are actually changing the laws.

But I kinda understand what he's saying. Cause if you are asked why you are carrying, I think we can all answer that...either self-defense, it's your right, or just because you can...it may be voluntary, but I think we all have no problem saying why we are carrying. And if a criminal happens to be openly carrying, maybe just on accident...I think they'd have a hard time explaining why they have it. That's just my opinion...but unlike some of you guys, if a police officer came up to me, I'd talk to them and answer their questions, instead of trying to play a game and getting myself in trouble.

 

[Woodchuck]

imported post

I say, Good for the commander to put out the memo and it was written well with our citizen rights in mind.

 

[RugerMan]

imported post

logan wrote:

Well you gotta hand it to them for actually putting out a memo, and that they are actually changing the laws.

But I kinda understand what he's saying. Cause if you are asked why you are carrying, I think we can all answer that...either self-defense, it's your right, or just because you can...it may be voluntary, but I think we all have no problem saying why we are carrying. And if a criminal happens to be openly carrying, maybe just on accident...I think they'd have a hard time explaining why they have it. That's just my opinion...but unlike some of you guys, if a police officer came up to me, I'd talk to them and answer their questions, instead of trying to play a game and getting myself in trouble.

Well, the memo is a good start. But since it takes a mere vote to change an ordinance in a small village, It wouldn't take much to make it right. I will be monitoring the village closely and looking for the progress, if any, theyre making.

I've got nothing against Law enforcement. I'd gladly talk to any LEO. But, I don't want them to believe that i have to. Let's say I put some cookies in the oven only to realize I forgot the icing. So I walk to the store real quick to buy some. But an officer stops me for a "voluntary" chat because I'm carrying. Well, I'm in a rush because my cookies will burn, So I politlly decline the chat. He then tells me that I'm detained because he suspects I'm in a rush because I'm running from the scene of a crime. My cookies burn and my house fills with smoke while they call every officer in the village to have more "chats" with me.

The point is, voluntary means just that. I can choose not to talk to them without any fear of reprisal. Just as if you refuse to let your house or car be searched absent a warrant, they can not use that as probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

I like cops when they are our to protect and to serve.

I don't like cops when they are out to deprive and harass.

There are some that fall in either category, and If I come across the latter, I won't talk to him.

In two weeks, I'm going to go down to the counsel meeting and address the board directly on the matter.

 

[RugerMan]

imported post

And lets not forget, this is the same municipality whom said they would see any armed citizen as a "threat" and act accordingly just 7 months ago.

A little pressure on our public servants is a healthy thing. I might be nitpicking, but if you give up teeny tiny little pieces of liberty, it adds up. Just ask places like Massachusetts. Who has a richer heritage of 2A rights? Now look at them.

 

[logan]

imported post

Good point...I guess I'm never in too much of a rush, I don't work atm and only have class 1 night a week But ya, I can see them trying to take like 10-15 and turn it into an interpretation instead of a quick 'voluntary' conversation.