Gun rights group files suit over Culvers incedent

[blaze]

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_72e2cf1c-cc11-11df-9688-001cc4c03286.html

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc.]

The question of what police can and cannot do “is an issue that’s going to have to be worked out through the courts” and the state’s legislators and attorney general, DeSpain said.

This has already been worked out in the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. In 2002 the court accepted the "state's" position that one could walk up/down state street with a loaded shotgun or a holstered pistol. Assistant Attorney General Kassel argued that exact position twice on November 14, 2002.

It is unfortunate that these so-called reporters don't do there due diligence.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP It is unfortunate that these so-called reporters don't do there due diligence.

But, he was helpful in revealing the cops' planned theory of their case--the federal judgement, still on appeal, against OC.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

DeSpain said the department’s position is based in part on a May 2010 federal court decision in the Eastern District of Wisconsin in which a judge found officers were justified in citing a man with disorderly conduct for openly carried a firearm into a Menard’s and a Wal-Mart, saying, “No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance.” That case is being appealed.

Despain may want to do his homework a little better. Officers in the case they reference NEVER cited the man with disorderly conduct.

I'm sure the appeal will take care of Judge Adelman's irrational comments that are completely based on his own imagination and not one piece of fact.

Open-carry is not highly disruptive. And it never creates a disturbance. NOT ONCE in Wisconsin.

Only in Judge Adelman's mind does OC create a disturbance. He may as well have just written that the earth is flat in his decision. That's how non-fact based it was.

 

[Shotgun]

This has already been worked out in the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. In 2002 the court accepted the "state's" position that one could walk up/down state street with a loaded shotgun or a holstered pistol. Assistant Attorney General Kassel argued that exact position twice on November 14, 2002.

It is unfortunate that these so-called reporters don't do there due diligence.

Maybe Mad PD takes that too literally-- so far State Street has been THE place to OC without police interference.

 

[Brass Magnet]

But, he was helpful in revealing the cops' planned theory of their case--the federal judgement, still on appeal, against OC.

I KNEW it! I suspected immediatly that would be their shaky legal basis. I'd dig up my post from last week but I'm not that big of a "I told you so" kinda guy..... :lol:

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

I KNEW it! I suspected immediatly that would be their shaky legal basis. I'd dig up my post from last week but I'm not that big of a "I told you so" kinda guy..... :lol:

A number of us suspected the same thing the moment the DC charges were issued. Also considering we had been well aware Madison PD sent around a legal update earlier this summer citing Judge Adelman's rambling non-sense comments in his decision.

It was very clear debating with the Chief of Police yesterday that they are basing "tending to cause a disturbance" not on any real evidence of a disturbance but on Judge Adelman's comments that open-carry in a retail store is "virtually certain to cause panic"

We all know that isn't true.

When I asked Chief Wray to give me ONE example of when Open-carry caused a disturbance he suggested Menards and Walmart (the locations involved in the pre-ag memo OC arrest/no charges)

I informed him there WAS NO DISTURBANCE either place. In Menards the non-emergency number was called and they asked if it was legal. No one ran for the door. No one freaked out. They did ask the open-carrier to leave but there was no disturbance and no charges ever issued.

That was the ONLY example Chief Wray could give and it proves he knows NOTHING about the case other than Judge Adelman's conjured up personal assumption in his decision.

He has no factual basis to prove open-carry causes a disturbance. IT NEVER HAS. He's relying on Adelman's rambling assumptions. They kept pointing me to that decision highlighted in the legal update they sent out.

Problem is one anti-gun liberal judge's assumptions are not evidence. The depositions of the Federal case prove there was no disturbance. 1000's of people open-carrying every day proves OC doesn't "tend" to cause a disturbance. it tends NOT to cause a disturbance.

If OC DID cause a disturbance, that would be the exception, NOT the rule. WCI has video evidence of multiple OC situations and there is no disturbance in any of them. That is all evidence that OC does not cause a disturbance.

Lastly, NONE of that matters when it comes down to it, because even if it did cause a disturbance (which it doesn't) its a constitutional right to carry. Disturbance or not, we have the right (state and federal constitutionally guaranteed)

 

[Brass Magnet]

[Snip]
Lastly, NONE of that matters when it comes down to it, because even if it did cause a disturbance (which it doesn't) its a constitutional right to carry. Disturbance or not, we have the right (state and federal constitutionally guaranteed)

I agree, this is the most important. I think the "constitutional scholar" even touched on this fact during the show. Just like one of the posters mentioned above about "Illinios Nazi's"
http://www.entertonement.com/clippr/xsjqbzpyqm

"Illinois Nazis; I hate Illinios Nazis......"

 

[DKSuddeth]

maybe the chief should learn a bit more about law and case precedent before relying on the idiotic ramblings of a foolish judge.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 7R

"The assertion of federal Rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24

"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied because of hostility to their assertions and exercise, vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson vs. Memphis, 375 U.S. 526

 

[J.Gleason]

Despain may want to do his homework a little better. Officers in the case they reference NEVER cited the man with disorderly conduct.

I'm sure the appeal will take care of Judge Adelman's irrational comments that are completely based on his own imagination and not one piece of fact.

Open-carry is not highly disruptive. And it never creates a disturbance. NOT ONCE in Wisconsin.

Only in Judge Adelman's mind does OC create a disturbance. He may as well have just written that the earth is flat in his decision. That's how non-fact based it was.

I think you proved that with the video of, I think it was your girl friend, who went shopping while armed. It very clearly proves that no one was "disturbed" by seeing her with a firearm. And from what I remember the firearm was very visible with pink grips and there were quite a few people looking at it. Seems like very good evidence for the appeal.

 

[March Hare]

Judge Adelman's comments that open-carry in a retail store is "virtually certain to cause panic"

If that were true, then Arizona would be in a constant state of mass panic and hysteria!
It just doesn't work that way!

-MH

 

[xenophon]

DeSpain said the department’s position is based in part on a May 2010 federal court decision in the Eastern District of Wisconsin in which a judge found officers were justified in citing a man with disorderly conduct for openly carried a firearm into a Menard’s and a Wal-Mart, saying, “No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance.” That case is being appealed.

What happened in that May 2010 federal case? What was he cited with/what is he appealing?

 

[Brass Magnet]

What happened in that May 2010 federal case? What was he cited with/what is he appealing?

Here's the history and the appeal in that case.
http://georgiacarry.com/gonzalez_westmin/

 

[GlockFirstQsLater]

I'm sorry to be a noob with the legal matters, but IANAL.

Re: the Culver's 5:

1) Were their guns taken? If so were they returned? If not returned, will they ever be?
2) If the Culver's 5 win their lawsuit, who receives the $ judgement? WICarry or the individual?

I'm hoping that these individuals aren't out a pistol and a bunch of time.

 

[GlockFirstQsLater]

delayed dbltap

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I'm sorry to be a noob with the legal matters, but IANAL.

Re: the Culver's 5:

1) Were their guns taken? If so were they returned? If not returned, will they ever be?
2) If the Culver's 5 win their lawsuit, who receives the $ judgement? WICarry or the individual?

I'm hoping that these individuals aren't out a pistol and a bunch of time.

1. The two that were arrested and given disorderly charges had their firearms removed unloaded and the given back when they were released after being cited.
2. Dunno.

 

[Shotgun]

Despain may want to do his homework a little better. Officers in the case they reference NEVER cited the man with disorderly conduct.

I'm sure the appeal will take care of Judge Adelman's irrational comments that are completely based on his own imagination and not one piece of fact.

Open-carry is not highly disruptive. And it never creates a disturbance. NOT ONCE in Wisconsin.

Only in Judge Adelman's mind does OC create a disturbance. He may as well have just written that the earth is flat in his decision. That's how non-fact based it was.

Furthermore, we know that when members of various Nazi groups hold public rallies it doesn't "tend" to cause a disturbance-- it CAUSES a disturbance! Yet I recall watching a couple hundred law enforcement officers, including many from the Madison police department standing there PROTECTING the Nazis in the exercise of their constitutional rights of assembly and free speech outside of the state capitol a couple of years ago.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

2) If the Culver's 5 win their lawsuit, who receives the $ judgement? WICarry or the individual?

In previous judgments, Wisconsin Carry doesn't take any money from a judgment above our legal costs.

In the case of Racine the $10,000 judgment was distributed between attorney fee's and the co-plaintiff.

A damage award from Madison would go to legal fee's and the plaintiffs other than WCI. Wisconsin Carry never takes anything from a damage award above the legal costs we incurred.

One of our attorneys has shared with me that if/when a case goes through to its conclusion a judgement often includes separate awards for attorney's fee's and damages. In that situation damages go to the plaintiffs other than WCI and legal fee award obviously goes to the attorney.

 

[GlockFirstQsLater]

Furthermore, we know that when members of various Nazi groups hold public rallies it doesn't "tend" to cause a disturbance-- it CAUSES a disturbance! Yet I recall watching a couple hundred law enforcement officers, including many from the Madison police department standing there PROTECTING the Nazis in the exercise of their constitutional rights of assembly and free speech outside of the state capitol a couple of years ago.

actually, when i was a student there (01-03) I recall a nazi march near the capitol.

Also good to know that WCI is not keeping the money. I would hate to see the questions people would ask if you kept it as a "legal fund" to lobby and advertise the 'cause'. That said, I hope some of the award is donated back to WICarry.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Furthermore, we know that when members of various Nazi groups hold public rallies it doesn't "tend" to cause a disturbance-- it CAUSES a disturbance! Yet I recall watching a couple hundred law enforcement officers, including many from the Madison police department standing there PROTECTING the Nazis in the exercise of their constitutional rights of assembly and free speech outside of the state capitol a couple of years ago.

Has anyone considered that what happened in Madison was a violation of first amendment rights as well? I mean, WCI, OCDO, and their members advocate public and police education through normal and lawful open carry of firearms. A lawful assembly like a picnic, for instance, should be protected under more amendments than just the 2nd.

Nordyke v. King has an interesting perspective on the exercise of 1st amendment rights through lawful carry.