Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DNR to hunters: Hand over your guns on demand
Lakeland Times ^ | 9 January, 2009 | Richard Moore

Posted on 01/10/2009 10:36:44 AM PST by marktwain

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a simple, blunt message for hunters in Wisconsin: When a DNR warden asks you to give up your legal firearm, do so, plain and simple, no matter what.

What's more, that goes for all citizens, the agency has asserted. Citizens with firearms, the DNR argues, should always do exactly what law enforcement officers tell them to do, regardless of the circumstances of the situation.

To which one former hunter education instructor for the department has an equally simple and blunt response: The agency's directive is unconstitutional, plain and simple, and citizens don't have to hand over their firearms without any probable cause.

That viewpoint is the reason Mark Palan, the owner of Palan's Outpost Sporting Goods in Iowa County, has the word 'former' attached to his title. After 14 years as a volunteer instructor, the DNR cast him out last year for, in the agency's words, misrepresenting agency standards to hunter education students.

The issue promises to affect many more people than hunters in the coming year. In fact, the DNR's foray into gun rights issues on the Palan matter represents just one cloud in a growing storm over what authority law enforcement officers actually have to seize openly carried but legal firearms, whether it's from a hunter in the field or a citizen on the street.

Wisconsin is ostensibly an open-carry state; the media debate thus far has focused on whether to extend so-called carrying rights to concealed weapons.

But the latter could soon be yesterday's news; the DNR's excommunication of Palan, and its subsequent articulation of a broad grant of power for law enforcement to confiscate legal firearms, has suddenly called the legitimacy and reality of open carry itself into question.

Just as important, along with an ongoing non-DNR case in West Allis, the agency's expression of support for the ability of police to take away legal firearms upon simple command has in effect opened the door for a de facto state policy for all law enforcement.

The question is, is it constitutional, or, as Palan contends, does the DNR's position characterize an unconstitutional breach of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure?

Simply asked, can law enforcement take a person's legally carried firearm without any probable cause that a crime is being committed? Must a hunter in the field surrender his firearm just because a conservation warden tells him to?

Palan's encounter

To Palan, the answer is no.

"For 14 years, I've been teaching my students the same thing, over and over and over," Palan told The Lakeland Times.

The first thing he teaches is, he said, when a person is on private property and a warden stops and asks to see a license, the first thing to do is ask the warden for his credentials. The second thing, Palan said, is to boot the warden off the property because he's trespassing.

"And when they start throwing their weight around, you just reach in your pocket and dial 911 and have the police come out and have them removed," he said.

Being approached by a warden on public land is different, Palan said.

"If you are on public ground and a warden stops you and wants to see your license, you should ask him for his credentials, then you show him your license," he said. "And when he says, give me your gun, you show him your gun. You set it down on the ground or you can hand it to him. But your right is that you do not have to give him your gun. And if you set it down on the ground and he picks it up, now he's taken your gun without your permission. I've been teaching that for 14 years."

But, Palan said, his instruction collided with DNR attitudes last March when a local conservation warden lectured at one of his classes and discovered what Palan was teaching.

A confrontation ensued, Palan recalls, both in the class that night and a few days later in his store, and Palan says the DNR gave him a choice - either admit to the class that what he had been teaching was wrong, or get kicked out.

Palan got kicked out.

For the record

DNR documents corroborate Palan's version of events.

In an April 28, 2008, letter, DNR hunter education administrator Timothy Lawhern told Palan he was being ousted as a DNR instructor for a variety of reasons, including Palan's alleged refusal to abide by a program instructor code of conduct, his refusal to accept constructive criticism from local conservation warden Joe Frost, and his refusal to teach the program as the DNR wanted.

The removal applied to all recreational safety programs, Lawhern stated, boater education as well as snowmobile education, ATV education as well as hunter education and bow hunter education.

"You have trained many hunter education graduates contrary to our program standards of how to handle a firearm when approached by a law enforcement officer," Lawhern wrote. "This training has now placed those students in a potentially dangerous attitude which could have catastrophic results for themselves and members of the law enforcement community."

Palan certainly had the right to disagree with the DNR's approach, Law- hern added, but that did not give him any authority to teach one of their programs contrary to the agency's guidelines.

"You may disagree with our required training as you have every right to do so," Lawhern wrote. "However, you have no authority to teach our program contrary to our guidelines."

Lawhern followed his April 28 letter to Palan with a May 19, 2008, missive to Palan's former students. That letter instructed them to always follow the commands of a law enforcement officer, no matter the circumstance and even if it meant giving the officer the firearm.

"It has come to our attention that a portion of the training you received while taking the Department of Natural Resources Hunter Education Course in Iowa County was not in compliance with our program policies," Lawhern began. ". . . . The portion of the training I need to clarify for you is what is expected of citizens when they are contacted by a law enforcement officer."

Lawhern didn't name Palan but said the "instructor" had misrepresented the DNR's program training standards regarding such contacts.

"What you should have been taught was to maintain good muzzle control and then follow the instructions of the law enforcement officer," Lawhern wrote. "This will vary depending on what type of contact it is, where it is taking place, the circumstances behind the contact, the officer's intuition or concern about safety and your demeanor during the contact."

What the DNR teaches in its hunter education program must carry over to everyday real-life situations, Lawhern continued.

"That is why it is important to understand that law enforcement communities, regardless of their branch of service (i.e. state trooper, county deputy, municipal police, conservation warden, etc.), have expectations that their instructions will be followed," he wrote. "This is for your safety, the safety of the officer as well as any other citizens that might be nearby."

For the most part, Lawhern wrote, wardens were simply checking for legal firearms for the game being pursued, magazine capacity (waterfowl hunting), and legal ammunition types - all the while maintaining a safe environment.

Examples of instructions a person might receive during a hunting situation might include the following, Lawhern stated: "Please open the action of your firearm"; "Would you mind safely unloading your firearm"; "You may place your firearm safely against that tree until we are finished"; "I'll hold your firearm while you check for your license"; "Allow me to check your magazine for a plug while you find your license."

Listening to law enforcement, no matter what, was the proper course of action, he wrote.

"Your cooperation with law enforcement is vital no matter what the situation is," Lawhern concluded. "To act any other way could result in a tragedy easily avoided by simply following their instructions."

The letter stunned Palan.

"They took the time and the taxpayer dollars to send a letter to every student that I've taught in 14 years, telling them that they were misrepresented by an Iowa county instructor," he said.

But the former instructor said he was more interested in what the letter did not say.

"Now what is expected of citizens?" he asked. "It doesn't say here that the law says that you will hand over your firearm."

To the next level

Even after removing Palan as an instructor, Lawhern wasn't content to leave the issue alone. He also addressed it in the April 2008 issue of the Wisconsin Hunter Education newsletter, which is distributed to hunter education instructors.

In the article, entitled "When a Warden Approaches, What Do I Do with my Gun," he expanded the scope of authority to include all law enforcement and all citizens. In so doing, he put the DNR on a collision course with the state's open-carry law.

"About 8 years ago the International Hunter Education Association raised the question about what is being taught in hunter education courses relative to how hunters should handle their firearms during license checks in the field," Lawhern wrote. "The aftermath of the debate was that a survey should be done within the law enforcement community to determine what they expected as appropriate behavior. The debate caused us to ask all manner of law enforcement since what we teach we wanted to meet every cop, state trooper, county deputy or municipal officer's expectations."

Law enforcement wanted just two things, he said of the survey's results. One was to maintain good muzzle control. The other was to "do exactly what the officer tells you to do."

"This may seem a bit odd as it's a standard that could be different from one officer to the next or different when situations are different," Lawhern wrote. "The officers instructions can and will vary depending on the situation."

Lawhern them moved on to address the likely response of law enforcement in general when officers see someone openly carrying a firearm, which, again, is not illegal per se in Wisconsin.

"Note that the officer on the street doesn't expect to see firearms openly exposed," he wrote. "In most cases when they do see a firearm, they draw theirs and tell the person 'Let me see your hands! Don't move!' In some cases they yell, 'Put the gun down,' or "Drop the gun!'"

Similarly, he stated, there would be times when a warden would ask a hunter to put down a gun or unload it or hand it to the warden.

"The point is, we must be teaching our students to follow the officer's instructions," he concluded.

To Lawhern, then, the mere presence of a firearm was reason enough for the police to give commands that must be obeyed, in addition to launching preliminary use-of-deadly force tactics such as drawing weapons.

Mystified at that reasoning, Palan sought out a legislative viewpoint, asking his state senator, Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), whether a DNR warden in fact possessed any authority to take custody of a legal firearm, absent any probable cause.

Schultz retrieved an opinion from a senior staff attorney for the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The answer was vague, at best. Still, the attorney, Mark Patronsky, could find no blanket authority, except that arising from certain specifically defined statutory reasons.

"Within the scope of the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the courts have carved out authorization for law enforcement officers (such as conservation wardens) to take control of a firearm to protect the safety of the law enforcement officer," Patronsky wrote. "The officer, after further investigation and determination of a probable cause, may proceed to arrest the individual and seize the firearm."

Other situations in which a firearm might be seized included violations of various ammunitions and transporting regulations or the creation of a public nuisance.

The bottom line was, though, police needed some reason for the seizure.

"The statutes and administrative rules described in this memorandum, as well as a variety of other statutes and rules, do allow a warden to take a person's firearm for various reasons," he wrote.

Palan says that means a warden simply can't take a firearm without some probable cause.

"Nowhere in the hunters' education manual, nowhere in the instructors manual, nowhere in any state statutes that I can find, does it say you must hand over your firearm," he said. "Nowhere."

Real-life impact

One practical effect of Lawhern's expansive grant of confiscatory powers to police, not to mention their supposed prerogative to draw their weapons on gun-carrying citizens, would be a practical evisceration of Wisconsin's open carry status.

That status is already murky.

On the one hand, despite Lawhern's drawn-gun scenario, the heads of multiple Wisconsin law enforcement agencies told The Lakeland Times their officers would not act in the manner Lawhern described upon merely seeing someone with a gun. They acknowledged the legality of open carry.

In addition, the Use of Deadly Force policy of the Oneida County Sheriff's Department would seem to prohibit such conduct, without some other probable cause or suspicion.

"In any use of force decision, the officer must be certain that he or she has the right to make contact," the policy states. "The intervention must have legal beginning based upon articulable facts or circumstances. Officer presence can be based upon invitation, reasonable suspicion, community caretaker function, probable cause, exigent circumstances or other 'legal beginnings.'"

According to the policy, officer presence - which presumably could include a drawn gun - is the lowest level of use of force, but, the policy emphasizes, "an excessive or negative presence must be avoided or, if used, must be justified."

How could Lawhern's scenario be reconciled with such a policy? That could only logically occur if open-carry was by itself illegal, by definition constituting reasonable suspicion, probable cause, exigent circumstance or some other "legal beginning" that justified police contact and presence.

Then, too, both the state, under then attorney general Jim Doyle, and the Supreme Court recognized open-carry rights in State of Wisconsin v Hamdan, in which the High Court carved out a concealed weapon exemption for small storeowners.

The Department of Justice argued against the exemption, citing the ability of citizens to already possess and carry an open weapon: "The State argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the [concealed carry] 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, or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view," the court stated in summing up the DOJ's brief.

In her dissent of the final decision, chief justice Shirley Abrahamson went even further.

"That is, [the law] does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes," Abrahamson wrote. "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. The gist of the offense is the concealment."

Then again

On the other hand, police have increasingly begun to cite those openly carrying firearms for disorderly conduct, which a September 2000 memorandum by the Legislative Reference Bureau warned could happen.

"Wisconsin law does not specifically prohibit the open carrying of loaded or unloaded firearms in public, but a person doing so may risk being arrested, and charged with disorderly conduct, on the grounds that the display threatens the public peace or safety," the brief stated.

If that's the case, then police departments and the DNR could effectively make open carry illegal by defining it as disorderly conduct from the get-go, making an end run around both the Supreme Court and the Legislature. Using the same logic, any law enforcement commands not obeyed could result in a disorderly conduct citation.

Until recently, those charged with disorderly conduct for carrying open firearms have not fought the issue. That changed last year.

In West Allis, in August, in a scenario eerily similar to the one Lawhern outlined, West Allis police drew their weapons and arrested Bruce Krause, who was wearing a holstered legal pistol while planting trees on his own property.

In a case that could finally clarify both police authority to seize firearms and the state's open carry law, Krause is fighting back, and a landmark U.S. Court of Appeals decision last month could be decisive in the outcome.

Those cases will be discussed in the next article.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; donutwatch; guncontrol; gungrab; huntersafety; hunting; jackbootedthugs; jbt; jbts; molonlabe; opencarry; policestate; shallnotbeinfringed; streetganginblue; thugswithbadges; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last
A long, but excellent article on open carry and the DNR in Wisconsin. The important part is that officers do not have the authority to disarm you simply because you are carrying a weapon. If that were the case, the constitional right to bear arms for self-defense and security in Wisconsin would make no sense.
1 posted on 01/10/2009 10:36:45 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Your cooperation with law enforcement is vital no matter what the situation is," Lawhern concluded. "To act any other way could result in a tragedy easily avoided by simply following their instructions."

Translation: "Do vat die Gestapo sess or ve vill see to it dat you suffer die conseqvences!"

Maybe some effort should be expended teaching law enforcement personnel to issue LEGAL "instructions."

2 posted on 01/10/2009 10:41:15 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

"Come and take them"

3 posted on 01/10/2009 10:41:55 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

And cops wonder why they are viewed as a threat to liberty.


4 posted on 01/10/2009 10:43:37 AM PST by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Jack booted thugs.


5 posted on 01/10/2009 10:44:17 AM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It looks like it has started.


6 posted on 01/10/2009 10:45:39 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

DNR hunter education administrator Timothy Lawher should be removed for cause. He is advocating a policy that is against the state’s current laws.

It seems to me that Palin was advocating policies that were sound from the perspective of the private citizen. Law enforcement should not have a problem with that.


7 posted on 01/10/2009 10:46:29 AM PST by DoughtyOne (I see that Kenya's favorite son has a new weekly Saturday morning radio show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
You've got that right!


I wonder how good those DNR warden survival skills will be for them when they are hogtied, bare assed, to a tree deep in their own territory?

8 posted on 01/10/2009 10:47:47 AM PST by G.Mason (If you surrender your right to own a gun, you surrender your right to your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; All

We have the somewhat situation here in Mi. The dnr believes that they can go where ever they want to. I have a NO TRESSPASSING signs posted on my property & I will defend this to the death!

Badges! We need no stinking badges!


9 posted on 01/10/2009 10:47:55 AM PST by TMSuchman (I'll heat up & bring the tar, you bring the feathers & we'll meet in DC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"Come and take them"

By the time they actually get around to doing that, they will have whittled the likes of true Patriots into such a minority that there won't be much you can actually do. Killing one or two in the process might give you a keen sense of satisfaction just before dying though.
10 posted on 01/10/2009 10:48:59 AM PST by hiredhand (Understand the CRA and why we're facing economic collapse - see my about page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
11 posted on 01/10/2009 10:49:54 AM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Any wives of said enforcement officers should do two things immediately.

Get extended life insurance benefits for hubby, get enrolled with eHarmony.

I kid thee not, America is fed up and will not bend over any more.

No amount of threatening postures is going to convince the public to roll over and submit, some will of course.

Its Obamas fault.


12 posted on 01/10/2009 10:51:03 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“In West Allis, in August, in a scenario eerily similar to the one Lawhern outlined, West Allis police drew their weapons and arrested Bruce Krause, who was wearing a holstered legal pistol while planting trees on his own property.”

OMG...how utterly ridiculous. The guy is on his own property, engaged in some innocuous activity, but happens to be wearing an openly visible, legal pistol, and he gets arrested?

I hope he gets a very big settlement...

Unfortunately, this kind of Gestapo tactic will become more and more prevalent under the Anointed One, I fear.

Time to refresh the tree of Liberty?


13 posted on 01/10/2009 10:51:26 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

30+ years ago, the Game Wardens in S. Dakota would ask you to surrender your rifles, shotguns, ect. If you surrendered them, they were confiscated and sold at auction.

However, if you were ‘wise’ enough to say ‘No, I demand due process’; the game warden may issue you as many tickets as you were entitled to, but he could not forcibly take the weapon.

An interesting point was brought up by a wealthy poacher (3 deer, plus others and no license whatsoever) when he was arrested. The law in S. Dak in the 80-90’s (don’t know if it’s still current) held that the Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks could confiscate all vehicles and property used in the act of poaching. In this case it was a new 4-wheel drive truck, a new RV and a new boat/trailer, plus all the contents found inside.

The arguement was that it was ‘unfair’; in that the penalty of using a Lexus SUV to obtain game was a higher price to pay than the person who used a 1980 Ford POS.


14 posted on 01/10/2009 10:52:28 AM PST by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman

Most conservation “officers” here in Alabama are nothing more than jack booted thugs. There, I said it. The have done more to lessen the number of hunters here than anything else. And if any of the “game wardens” here want some examples I’ll be glad to oblige.


15 posted on 01/10/2009 10:52:57 AM PST by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"Come and take them"

Agreed!

16 posted on 01/10/2009 10:56:29 AM PST by meyer (We are all John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM; Eye of Unk; TMSuchman; DoughtyOne; Eagle Eye; Mark was here; Texas Fossil; IronJack

Here is a web site of activists that are working to improve the situation:

http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/


17 posted on 01/10/2009 10:58:55 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

They may not have the authority but they have the power, and if consequences have anything to do with “authority,” try resisting and getting killed by one of them and see if they get reprimanded or ordered to compensate your family. Then tell me they didn’t have the authority.
I used to say it would be 20 years before gun rights vanished from America. Now I’m thinking 10 should do it. :(


18 posted on 01/10/2009 11:00:57 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (If you want Palin in 2012, better start closing those primaries now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty


19 posted on 01/10/2009 11:01:24 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is EXACTLY why when I decided to leave Illinois I have not looked at moving to WI.


20 posted on 01/10/2009 11:01:58 AM PST by Petruchio (Democrats are like Slinkies... Not good for anything, but it's fun pushing 'em down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Good advice:
21 posted on 01/10/2009 11:03:20 AM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

A ping for your Upper Midwest/outdoors/rural list.


22 posted on 01/10/2009 11:04:21 AM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is the way they are disarming you.


23 posted on 01/10/2009 11:05:27 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Although I loathe poachers, I loathe any form of pre-conviction asset forfeiture even more.

One effect of asset forfeiture is that the penalties of a crime are rather open ended and inconsistently applied as you noted in the case of one man losing a Lexus and another losing a POS for the same crime.


24 posted on 01/10/2009 11:05:34 AM PST by Eagle Eye (Libs- If you don't have to play the rules then neither do we...THINK ABOUT IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Giving up a person’s right to bear arms is the first step towards totalitarianism.


25 posted on 01/10/2009 11:05:42 AM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

DNR SWAT Teams - coming soon to the woods nearest you.


26 posted on 01/10/2009 11:07:57 AM PST by 43north (11.04.08: the day America committed voluntary suicide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petruchio

Amen brother! Hellinois gun control gained them increased gun crime while also making its citizenry helpless. Got to get that “VOIT” card; NEVER!


27 posted on 01/10/2009 11:08:59 AM PST by Colonel Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here
I have told my daughter, who's in the Navy, that if a national crisis should occur, the police will be the ones shooting at us. Hopefully, our military will be the ones protecting us from the police. Does anyone know if police officers take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution as the military do?
28 posted on 01/10/2009 11:09:00 AM PST by My hearts in London - Everett (Remember the 3 Rs: Respect for self; Respect for others; and Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

My son in law and bro in law were in the mountains on public land target shooting. They saw a state game officer pulling up to them (female, BTW). My rat bastard son in law, wanted to make her fell more comfortable and leaned his .22 rifle against his pickup tailgate and stepped away from the gun. She returned the favor by writting him up for having a loaded weapon in a vehicle.


29 posted on 01/10/2009 11:10:38 AM PST by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My hearts in London - Everett

Many sources I read lately is that military commanders have all the proof they need that if Obama issues any order they can legally decline to follow it.

Our military is aware of the legal repercussions of taking orders illegally.

If it came down to either an Obama army or LEOs forcing themselves upon the US the military may be our weapon of defense.

Possi comitotus in reverse would be a bitch Barry.


30 posted on 01/10/2009 11:15:15 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The key to present law is to deliberately create vague ambiguous situations. Vagueness and ambiguity then create a question of fact. A question of fact then creates the need for a trial(with all the burden and expense unaffordable to most people). A trial generally results in an appeal. An appeal then allows the judiciary to formulate “POLICY.” Everyone knows the general drift of “POLICY” i.e. eternally leftward.


31 posted on 01/10/2009 11:15:20 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
And if you set it down on the ground and he picks it up, now he's taken your gun without your permission. I've been teaching that for 14 years."

That's BS. If the warden needs to check to see if there is a plug in your auto-5, he should be allowed to inspect your gun, he should just not be allowed to confiscate it.

32 posted on 01/10/2009 11:15:35 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Indeed an excellent article. The writer seems to be a real journalist of the old school, which is a great compliment.

A real practical issue in this misunderstanding is safety. No one wants to have an officer expecting one thing, and the citizen expecting another. That is why the DNR’s pushing the limits is even more than just an attempt to shade the law: it creates the chance of a dangerous misjudgment.

I have heard too many accounts of accidents occurring in ordinary traffic cases, such that in the last decades whenever I have been stopped while driving, I keep my hands on the steering wheel, or on the edge of the window, so that the officer cannot possibly misinterpret.

I know a young chap who was stopped at night returning home with friends after a party. The officer asked the boy for his driver’s license, and the kid responded by reaching under his seat (where he habitually placed his wallet). The next thing he knew, he heard a click, and felt a large barrel against his head.

I am not saying that this is good police procedure, but police are often injured or killed in what seemed at the time like a routine stop. I would never reach under a seat like that without explaining what I was doing. It is absolutely necessary to understand what is going on both sides of the “interview.” It is good fortune that nothing bad happened in the case of my friend (he didn’t even get any sort of ticket), but to my way of thinking that is a close call.

Likewise, it would be good if the courts figured out (correctly) this matter with the DNR in Wisconsin.


33 posted on 01/10/2009 11:16:58 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.


34 posted on 01/10/2009 11:18:04 AM PST by Pablo Mac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

There is nothing unconstitutional about revolution.


35 posted on 01/10/2009 11:20:18 AM PST by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty

Thanks for the tag line.
36 posted on 01/10/2009 11:24:21 AM PST by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Bookmark!
37 posted on 01/10/2009 11:24:56 AM PST by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dools007
There is nothing unconstitutional about revolution.

yup and it is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

38 posted on 01/10/2009 11:26:46 AM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

It started long before this. Long before katrina when the government confiscated peoples personal firearms saying it was for safety and law and order. The government will disarm the very people who will make up the militias to back them up in case of attack by a foriegn or domestic terrorists.


39 posted on 01/10/2009 11:28:19 AM PST by Americanexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

It started long before this. Long before katrina when the government confiscated peoples personal firearms saying it was for safety and law and order. The government will disarm the very people who will make up the militias to back them up in case of attack by a foriegn enemies or domestic terrorists.


40 posted on 01/10/2009 11:29:27 AM PST by Americanexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

WisComm-sin?


41 posted on 01/10/2009 11:38:43 AM PST by RoadTest (The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jer.17:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
"I hope he gets a very big settlement...

Oh he'll make some money on the deal but the officer involved won't have to pay any of it. The taxpayers won't even notice what has been stolen from them either so they won't complain. If it should happen several times, as it apparently has in Virginia, the taxpayers may take notice and complain... but I doubt it.

42 posted on 01/10/2009 11:40:03 AM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

I agree. There are a lot of P O’d people out there and an underground movement on many fronts is going to start up. Occupied people always find ways to undermine the occupiers. Doing so in smart ways is the key.


43 posted on 01/10/2009 11:41:47 AM PST by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

More importantly, the prudent citizen would be very very very reluctant to empower the police to make primary stops of any kind. Because the attitude of the State is do what we say or we can and will shoot you. This is an implicit threat because of the fact that Police carry loaded firearms.


44 posted on 01/10/2009 11:45:17 AM PST by DariusBane (I've got a bracelet too :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

What was it that Charlton Heston used to say?


45 posted on 01/10/2009 11:45:23 AM PST by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unkus

Sadly though if it happens most likely it will be branded negatively, some groups do have a negative agenda, its up to most of us to exercise a POSITIVE agenda, and not just be another angry mob.

Case in point the Berkley riot about the BART shooting, it sent a message but the players came from a bad source.


46 posted on 01/10/2009 11:45:37 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“West Allis police drew their weapons and arrested Bruce Krause, who was wearing a holstered legal pistol while planting trees on his own property.”

Apparently, planting trees is a big no-no these days!


47 posted on 01/10/2009 11:47:23 AM PST by proudpapa (Obama - The Worst One Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Diana in Wisconsin

Ping on Wisconsin


48 posted on 01/10/2009 11:47:27 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

It will be interesting to see how it all evolves.


49 posted on 01/10/2009 11:51:28 AM PST by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
Many sources I read lately is that military commanders have all the proof they need that if Obama issues any order they can legally decline to follow it.

I haven't heard a single officer even suggest this.

50 posted on 01/10/2009 11:51:29 AM PST by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson