More follow up on Wisconsin Man being arrested for legal open carry of firearm.

OpenCarry.org ^ | 16 February, 2009 | Doug Huffman

[marktwain]

More details about the West Allis Brad Krause case. It turns out the neighbor wasn't even upset with Brad, he just wanted clarification if it was legal to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin. Because Brad was exercising his right under the Wisconsin Constitution, the officer explained that he was involved in disorderly conduct.

Wow! It will be very interesting to see what happens at the hearing tomorrow!

[rellimpank]

-bflr-

[Squantos]

BTTT for tomorrows read !

[Pearls Before Swine]

It sounds as if the judge is sympathetic to Krause from the brief description of his questions.

[GeronL]

The O is going to challenge the Constitution on a weekly basis

[PubliusMM]

With Gestapo tactics like this, the judge using the Nazi flag as an example seems rather appropriate.

There must be some recompense in the future for Mr. Krause, I hope.

[atomic conspiracy]

“Disorderly conduct”
Fascist catch-all, something like “conduct detrimental to the state.”

[DTogo]

Over zealous police + over zealous politicians = why we need The 2nd Amendment.

[garyhope]

The neighbor is a dumb ass. Has he never heard of google?

[NonValueAdded]

Sounds like the cops were the only ones being disorderly that day. I wonder if they are immune? Might make for an interesting countersuit. I hope Krause bankrupts that municipality when all is said and done. Malicious prosecution simply to cover a mistake, false arrest, swearing out a false affidavit (if the cops' testimony contridicts any of the paperwork). Nail ’em, Brad!

[arderkrag]

Here’s hoping Krause walks and the officer is relieved of his duty, or at the very least, put on probation for a while.

[Redbob]

He testified that "Mr. Krause" is a nice guy, they get along fine, and..."

Be my guess that "get along fine" business is over and done with.

[familyop]

"The prosecution admitted into evidence a small semi-automatic handgun, positive retention holster, and self-defense ammunition, each item being the type of equipment police officers are known to use for their own protection, not the sort of thing criminals tend to carry"

That's irrelevant. Open carry is a constitutional right regardless of the name brand of the firearm. Many policeman have carried concealed, cheap stainless steel .380s, because some of them are long lasting and don't rust.

"He testified that "Mr. Krause" is a nice guy, they get along fine, and the first time they met was when "Mr. Krause" came over to help him dig his car out of the snow. There was no sign of animosity between the neighbors who apparently are still on a first-name basis."

That's also irrelevant, if he wasn't using the weapon to threaten his neighbor.

[marktwain]

It may be irrelevant, but it makes for a good test case.

[familyop]

"The judge questioned the prosecutor at length about the right to expression,..."

...way irrelevant! ...wrong Amendment!

[marktwain]

The unstated assumption is: if the police are allowed to carry this type of ammunition and firearms, so should citizens under the Constitution of this State and the United States.

That is an assumption we should all applaud.

[Natural Law]

"Because Brad was exercising his right under the Wisconsin Constitution, the officer explained that he was involved in disorderly conduct."

Too bad there isn't a mandatory IQ test to become a LEO.

[shoutingandpointing]

"Sounds like the cops were the only ones being disorderly that day. I wonder if they are immune? Might make for an interesting countersuit. I hope Krause bankrupts that municipality when all is said and done. Malicious prosecution simply to cover a mistake, false arrest, swearing out a false affidavit (if the cops' testimony contridicts any of the paperwork). Nail ’em, Brad!"

--

"West Allis Krauseberg, Wisconsin?"

[marktwain]

...way irrelevant! ...wrong Amendment!

---

Not irrelevant at all. The judge is implying that “disorderly conduct” standards should apply the same to free speech and to the right to keep and bear arms.

This is highly relevant.

[familyop]

It should be stated, IMO. The court is acting improperly by evading the Second Amendment argument. And it’s the intent of laws that count—not technicalities.

[Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. If you need legal advice, seek a properly licensed attorney. This is a discussion of public policy.]