Thread to Organize Lawsuit and/or Open Carry Walks

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

I know there's a lot of people in the Lakes areas who want to come into Wisconsin and open carry. I speak as a person who offered, BEGGED to do lead an open carry march in Wisconsin, flying out from Seattle, doing everything possible to bring this to the light.

I also speak as a man who also open carried in both Portland and Seattle's Pride celebrations last month. I am not shy to the idea of confronting police stupidity head on, and getting rich from it down the line.

However, let's get a few things straight: The only reason I and many others open carry in Washington and Oregon is because I actually layed the groundwork via the training bulletins on open carry via the police departments.

My own perspective is that the police departments in Wisconsin are not that willing to listen to their citizens on the subject as they are in the western states when I did so. Think I haven't tried?

That being said, I believe that open carry in Wisconsin isn't prudent at this time. The one problem about Wisconsin is that open carry in one's car is for the most part unlawful. If CCW passes, we'll definitely get car carry for open carry, similar to Washington. To me, that's a step forward from the current situation.

Do I know anything special? Not really. I do have a general idea of what's going on, however, and I'm glad that I'm lucky enough to live in a state where I can get a license to conceal when I need to. Wisconsin has no such flexibility.

An election year is a different situation, and I also point out that it took almost a year of personal research and constant hammering by me of my then-local PD for the first training bulletin in the Northwest to be issued (Federal Way) on the subject. Now, scores of urban agencies have issued training bulletins throughout the urbanized Northwest, including some very big agencies (King County Sheriffs, Portland Police Bureau, and possibly soon, Seattle).

I want CCW to pass in Wisconsin, if only so I can open carry in my car. I also trust Dick Baker to know the lay of the land there, and I also trust him to know WHEN it's a good idea to make a political statement by open carrying. I know it's hard, I know it doesn't make much sense, but I ask anyone who's considering an open carry march now, aren't you sick of having to unload and case in your car? You want that to stop? Then let's get CCW passed.

If WCPS does go back on it's word, trades open carry away, or something similarly stupid, I will be the first to raise cain and wanting the leadership of WCPS' heads on a pike. Count on it. Let's give the new group a chance.

FYI: My statement to give WCPS a chance is in no way an attack on the motives or stances of anyone who wants to do an open carry march now. BB62, and many others do have some very good points that are being brought up in the frustration of lack of information. I am merely pointing out from my own experiences with open carry and how to get it accepted by the cops to where open carry=/automatic arrest.

 

[BB62]

imported post

Lonnie,

I value and respect your opinion.

Maybe you can help those of us who are throughly baffled by the "political statement" angle offered by someactivists in WI?

Specifically, a few questions come to mind:

1) Just what political statement would be made by OCing?

2) If OC is legal (except in a car), do you see a downside to establishing that (now) as the case?

3) What circumstances would have to exist to "push the button" on OCing?

The reason I'm so questioning about their reticence is that one the eve of the latest (and presumably greatest for a while) push for CCW, open carry was off the table. If it's off the table then, then when would it ever be on, except AFTER CCW is obtained?

I keep coming back to the notion that WI is actually an alternative reality...

Clue me (and the rest) in, will you?

 

[Lammie]

imported post

Lots of conversation on this forum concerning the firearms carry problems caused by statute 167.31(2)(b), the statute thataddresses the carry of a firearm in or on a motorized vehicle. Many feel that the privlege of having a CCW statute will solve the problem. It will not. Twice the Wisconsin State Supreme Court has issued the conditions that define concealment and provide justification for the State to prosecute. The conditions are: The person knows the firearm is present, the firearm is hidden from view and the firearm is within reach. Those conditions are key to this post.

Some people think that the passage of a CCW statute would solve the problems of carrying a visible defensive weapon in a motor vehicle in opposition to statute 167.31(2)(b) which prohibits it. Wrong, unless there is some very creative writing in the statute a CCW statute will only solve the problem for those persons that elect to get a CCW permit. It will do nothing to solve the problem for those that don't wish or can't afford a permit. It will do nothing for the the majority of the 800,000 plus hunters that take to the fields and woods each year. Now don't misread this post. I am not anti-CCW. I fully support a privlege to carry concealed weapons. I am just trying to clarify the wrong notion by many of the members of this forum, the DNR and the SSC that the solution to avoiding a conflict between the concealed weapon prohibition statute 941.23 and statute 167.31(2)(b) is to carry theweapon "out of reach" thereby eliminating one of the conditions that define concealement. It will only resolve the conflict if it is possible to carry the weapon out of reach.

How manyrealize that technically you are violating the law any time you transport a firearm on any, what I describe as, single passenger vehicle. Vehicles i.e. ATV's, snowmobiles, certain utility vehicles, trail bikes etc.There is no way to avoid meeting all three conditions that define concealment on such vehicles so the operator is technically guilty of violating statute 941.23 if he complies with 167.31(2)(b) or guilty of violating 167.31(2)(b) if he complies with 941.23. That just describes the absurdity of Wisconsin firearm laws.

Consider this. During the fall hunting season the DNR has a special disabled persons deer hunt. In fact the DNR participates in it. Any person in a motorized wheel chair that participates in the hunt, even if he has a disabled persons permit, istechnically guilty of violating statute 167.31(2)(b) if he so much as moves the wheelchair while the weapon is not encased. Of course no conservation officer in their right mind would issue a citation in that scenario and the courts would probably apply a rule of reasonability to the casebut the fact remains that the person was carrying an uncased weapon on a moving motorized vehicle.

Note: A disabled person permit gives a holder the right to have a visible firearm on a motorized vehicle only if the vehicle is stationary.

The issues surrounding the transport of weapons in motor vehicles is more complex than just thinking that the issuance of a CCW permit will solve the problem. Constitutional amendments Article I chapter 25 and Article I chapter26 as well as modern hunting techniques have in my opinion made statute 167.31(2)(b) unenforcible and it should be removed. It is also my opinion that the statute is now unconstitutional. I say that for these reasons. The WSSC ruled in para. 48 of State v Hamdan that statute 941.23 is a strict liability statute and has no exceptions, including the activities contained in Article I chapter 25. Statute 167.31(2)(b) establishes an exception. Next, because statute 941.23 is a strict liabilityagainst concealed carry the state does not allow an alternative manner of carry when transporting a weapon on a motorized vehicle if it is not possible to carry the weapon out of reach on that vehicle. Finally, statute 167.31(2)(b) is an unconditional statute and applies to all motorized vehicles yet it can not be complied with on certain vehicles without putting the operator in jeopardy of violating statute 941.23.

This has been a long winded way of saying that the solution to carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle is not as simple as just getting a CCW permit.

If you are hunting this fall and transporting your weapon on your ATV, cased or uncased, keep an eye out . There could be a deputy sheriff or conservation officer behind the next tree.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Thank you for your efforts and insight.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed whre they will, with wits and guns and the truth. KMA$$ NRA

 

[BB62]

imported post

Lonnie Wilson,

I'm very interested in your thoughts in response to my Tuesday post.

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

BB62 wrote:

Lonnie,

I value and respect your opinion.

Maybe you can help those of us who are throughly baffled by the "political statement" angle offered by someactivists in WI?

Specifically, a few questions come to mind:

1) Just what political statement would be made by OCing?

2) If OC is legal (except in a car), do you see a downside to establishing that (now) as the case?

3) What circumstances would have to exist to "push the button" on OCing?

The reason I'm so questioning about their reticence is that one the eve of the latest (and presumably greatest for a while) push for CCW, open carry was off the table. If it's off the table then, then when would it ever be on, except AFTER CCW is obtained?

I keep coming back to the notion that WI is actually an alternative reality...

Clue me (and the rest) in, will you?

My apologies to not responding earlier. I've been working long hours at work and therefor have not had the time to respond appropriately.

I'll relate to you a situation that I know Two very good friends of mine, who I consider almost brothers, live in southern Milwaukee County. They happen to be a gay couple as well, as well as supportive of gun rights.

You have several different laws in play preventing these two from carrying at all.

First you have the stupid car carry provisions in chapter 167, you have the state's thousand foot school rule as well which is a FELONY, not a misdemeanor, which prohibit a person from knowingly carrying within a thousand feet of school grounds. An out of town visitor may be able to claim ignorance, but can someone live there do the same?

It's nice to say "Well, it's a violation of the constitution for those laws to exist". The only problem is that unless you want to go the route of declaratory judgement, you have to be under threat of a criminal charge in order to have standing to challenge the laws.

If there's a school within 1000 feet of any open carry stop, if the cop happens to know about the location of the school, and knows about this law, you will be charged with a FELONY, which will lead to a lifetime loss of firearms rights if you happen to lose.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't roll that dice. I don't trust the courts to make the right decision in most cases, so I do my best to address the issue through getting the law enforcement training, which even in the best circumstances, is difficult to achieve.

The reason why WCPS is rather cagey with the is that Doyle and his cronies have a hell of an intelligence network in the political scene, not to mention a lot of help from the gun control machine south of the Wisconsin border.

You don't think Illinois gun control machine is pouring a tremendous amount of influence and money into this situation? If Wisconsin were to fall to getting concealed carry, even with a license, Illinois would stand alone as the only CCW prohibited state, and that would put a microscope onto them like you wouldn't believe. If Wisconsin falls, the CCW ban in Illinois being struck down by legislature or court ruling would no longer an if but when.

Again, I don't know of any particulars, other than Doyle may be stating publically that open carry is ok, he's telling the top cops to arrest for open carry for "disturbing the peace", in order to score political points for the anti-gun side. Would explain why efforts to get the PD's in Wisconsin to issue a training bulletin is falling flat.

The situation, however, is not as hopeless as it seems. It's just that there's a lot of behind the scenes stuff that isn't being aired. Read above with Doyle.

Again, I only offer this advice in the sense of getting the most bang for buck. I won't tell someone to not open carry. That is their decision, and I would never stand in the way of that.

However, from a hard boiled political perspective, I want concealed carry too, and I want open carry in my car, and I want an exemption from the state thousand foot school rule, when I visit Wisconsin, and for that couple that I care for so much.

 

[lockman]

imported post

I would like to see maps showing all school property for various towns. Two reasons, it makes a good showing that OC is severely restricted and/or prohibited in many areas. This would cause a major problem with the WI Supreme Court decision. Second, for those that choose to OC it can provide definite areas to avoid.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Couple of things:

Lonnie do you know for a fact that Doyle has told cops to charge with disturbing the peace, or are you speculating on that?

Regarding the stupid school zone, my plan is to visit all of the schools in any part of Madison I'm likely to be near and to walk the perimeter with my GPS for each of them, storing waypoints along the way. That way, I'll always know if I'm flirting with being within 1000' of them. Alot of work, yes, but it will give me ammunition should an LEO try to talk "school zone" with me.

As for your friends in Milwaukee, that would probably involve many more schools than are here in Madison. Anyway, that's my plan.

 

[ilbob]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Couple of things:

Lonnie do you know for a fact that Doyle has told cops to charge with disturbing the peace, or are you speculating on that?

Regarding the stupid school zone, my plan is to visit all of the schools in any part of Madison I'm likely to be near and to walk the perimeter with my GPS for each of them, storing waypoints along the way. That way, I'll always know if I'm flirting with being within 1000' of them. Alot of work, yes, but it will give me ammunition should an LEO try to talk "school zone" with me.

As for your friends in Milwaukee, that would probably involve many more schools than are here in Madison. Anyway, that's my plan.

Just curious. Does anyone know if the 1000' rule is for the school building itself, or the entire school property?

 

[Lammie]

imported post

The state statute is 948.605. It reads "within 1000ft of the grounds of a school".

 

[Lammie]

imported post

ibob Note in para 2.1 of statute 948.605 that the "school zone law" does not apply if a person is on private property within a school zone.

 

[ilbob]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

ibob Note in para 2.1 of statute 948.605 that the "school zone law" does not apply if a person is on private property within a school zone.

so we could all go over to george's house that is next to a school and walk around in hisfront yard with our AK's?

 

[Lammie]

imported post

Do a Google search on Wisconsin Statutes. On the response page click on Wisconsin Statutes. On the next response page enter 948.605 in the statute search page. On the next response page open the pdf file. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

So what is the status of organizing a lawsuit OR an open carry walk at this time? Have y'all met yet?

 

[restlessnomad]

imported post

I was recently made aware of this website after posting on another forum about my frustrations as a handgun owner in a Wisconsin. I live in Stevens Point and am between Kenosha and Madison frequently. My thoughts of OC'ing in any of those cities down right scares me, from both the law and the situation OC presents. I feel CC is a much safer practice than OC for a few reasons:

1) OC in populated areas scares people, and that's all there is to it. It brings attention to the point where it becomes the cause of conflict.

2) OC is a more dangerous practice then CC for both the person carrying, and everyone else in proximity. It highlights the option of disarming the carrier, makes it harder for that person to retain the weapon in such an event, and can further escalate a situation simply by others being aware of its presence.
(a) A fair percentage of Police officers that are shot ever year are done so by their own weapons.

Though this is my first post and I've just outlined why I don't think OC is the right choice, it is however our only choice at the moment. That being said you can count me in for any event that brings this subject to attention. I'd also be happy to put in time organizing, planning, cleaning or whatever else I could do.

Please feel free to contact me - restlessnomad84@gmail.com

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

restlessnomad wrote:

My thoughts of OC'ing in any of those cities down right scares me, from both the law and the situation OC presents. I feel CC is a much safer practice than OC for a few reasons:

1) OC in populated areas scares people, and that's all there is to it. It brings attention to the point where it becomes the cause of conflict.

2) OC is a more dangerous practice then CC for both the person carrying, and everyone else in proximity. It highlights the option of disarming the carrier, makes it harder for that person to retain the weapon in such an event, and can further escalate a situation simply by others being aware of its presence.
(a) A fair percentage of Police officers that are shot ever year are done so by their own weapons.

Though this is my first post and I've just outlined why I don't think OC is the right choice, it is however our only choice at the moment. That being said you can count me in for any event that brings this subject to attention. I'd also be happy to put in time organizing, planning, cleaning or whatever else I could do.

Please feel free to contact me - restlessnomad84@gmail.com

Making an ill-warranted presumption here; so you keep your tattaos and piercings covered and present yourself conservatively? Alternative appearance, marked or armed, is Constitutionally protected. I do judge 'books by their covers' and on first impressions and on appearance, but we are not allowed to take overt actions except where they are politically correct.

'Conflict' is an odd word here, perhaps 'opposition' would be better. If there is to be conflict then I am/will be armed.

Again you restrict perception in 'highlighting the option,' do you also drive an unattractive junker to preclude the perception of the opportunity for theft. Is your SO so unattractive that rape is not an option?

'Escalating conflict' is an argument used by Milwaukee to grab guns.

And apparently you believe that LEO should CCW only?

OC is a right choice in so far as it is 'Vermont carry' unencumbered by infringements like permitting.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

 

[restlessnomad]

imported post

Making an ill-warranted presumption here; so you keep your tattaos and piercings covered and present yourself conservatively? Alternative appearance, marked or armed, is Constitutionally protected. I do judge 'books by their covers' and on first impressions and on appearance, but we are not allowed to take overt actions except where they are politically correct. 'Conflict' is an odd word here, perhaps 'opposition' would be better. If there is to be conflict then I am/will be armed. Again you restrict perception in 'highlighting the option,' do you also drive an unattractive junker to preclude the perception of the opportunity for theft. Is your SO so unattractive that rape is not an option? 'Escalating conflict' is an argument used by Milwaukee to grab guns. And apparently you believe that LEO should CCW only? OC is a right choice in so far as it is 'Vermont carry' unencumbered by infringements like permitting. Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Doug, I never said it was the wrong choice for the state or people shouldn't do it. I simply stated my reasons for not OC though it is within my legal right. Even though it is an option, I feel it is a poor one, and one designed as an alternative to CC upon the assumption that OC can be discouraged though other methods.

Apple's & Orange's my friend. The last time I checked piercings and tattoos couldn't be used to take someones life, at least not in a manner in which a weapon can be used. At the center of the gun control issue I feel this is the determining factor and the one that the public is most conscious of. If your trying to argue that firearms are the same as all other consumer goods then, I have to disagree wholeheartedly.

I also said nothing about LEO CC their weapons, I merely pointed out that a number of shooting where LEO where shot, was with their own weapon.

I simply wanted to state where I was coming from as a Wisconsin Resident and as a new member of this board. I agree with you mostly, why split hairs?

 

[FoggyPete]

imported post

First post... count me in on any march or other lawful demonstration of open carry.

Foggy

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

restlessnomad wrote:

I don't think OC is the right choice, it is however our only choice at the moment. That being said you can count me in for any event that brings this subject to attention. I'd also be happy to put in time organizing, planning, cleaning or whatever else I could do.

Please feel free to contact me - restlessnomad84@gmail.com

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

vmaxanarchist wrote:

I'm not from Wisconsin either. However, I'm willing to drive up there from Illinois to participate in a open carry walk.

Pfft. If I was in IL, I'd be willing to drive ANYWHERE to get out of that hell-hole (no offense intended)