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

Skip to comments.

Brad Krause West Allis Wisconsin Open Carry Case - Feb 17 Hearing Results
Self | 2-17-09 | Self

Posted on 02/17/2009 10:10:18 AM PST by Secret Agent Man

Was in the courtroom today to hear the ruling from municipal judge Paul Murphy regarding Brad's case.

For a quick rundown, WI is an open carry state. Brad was on his property planting a tree, and was wearing a holstered firearm in plain sight. A neighbor calle West Allis police asking about the legality of open carry. The result was two squads being dispatched and BRad being drawn on by two officers, handcuffed for 45 minutes whiel the police tried to figure out what to charge him with (as open carry is the only legal way to carry in WI). They charged him with disorderly conduct and confiscated his weapon and holster.

The result today was the judge had a couple months in between the first date to today to read over briefs filed by both Brad Krause and his attorney Steve Kane, and the city attorney's office, to which he'd be issuing a ruling on whether BRad was guilty or not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. (I would point out the whole reason the police charged Brad with 'disordery' conduct was the mere fact he was armed. So in reality the charge against Brad was more accurately, 'being armed while armed.')

The courtroom apparently was pretty packed for a West Allis Tuesday morning. I would estimate a good 50-ish people were there for this one case.

Basically the judge seemed to go back and forth while issuing his reasoning before the verdict. First citing the idea that city governments can't pre-empt state constitutional rights was one avenue of thought. Then being upset that the legislature and our Attorney General (who ducked this issue) could clear all of this up by either issuing a ruling (AG) or clearing up the laws pertaining to carrying them in WI. Then discussing how e felt bad for the police because they don't really know what to do about this. Then steering back into the fact that people being offended doesn't trump constitutional rights. Making a statement to the effect that it is not lawful to use ordinances and statutes to deprive someone of their constitutional rights. Finally discussing whether Brad, simply by carrying was being disorderly or not. It looked like at some times it would go the city's way, and some times it appeared he would rule in Brad's favor.

The end result was that Brad was found not guilty of 'disorderly conduct while armed'. The judge made it clear that this is most likely not the end of this case because he believed whatever side 'lost' would probably appeal to a higher court. Certainly if Brad lost an appeal would be in the works. It is unclear at this early point if the city of West Allis will appeal or not. If I were to bet on it, IMPO, they will.

The issue of returning his weapon and holster are a separate issue per the judge, and it will be up to Brad to get his property back from the police department. There is a chance that he will have to go to court to get a court order, if they do not return it to him after he again submits a request to them to have it returned to them.

The ironic thing is that his weapon is the same weapon the West Allis police use, and his ammo was the same that they use. The only difference is that he has a superior holster than they do (positive retention) that makes it almost impossible for someone other than Brad to remove the gun.

So the end result to day is that there is a win for Brad. It probably is not over, he still needs to get his property back, and deal with the legal bills. But it's definitely a good day in Wisconsin, for every gun owner out there. Because the issue is not just about guns. It is a larger issue about rights, constitutionally guaranteed rights, that can't be taken away by local government just because they say they can (pre-emption). It is about not being able to have your rights taken away because someone else is offended or uncomfortable about you simply exercising your rights. It is a much bigger issue than just guns.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; firearms; freedoms; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Dead Corpse

That sounds about right.

I just wasn’t sure of the code.


21 posted on 02/17/2009 10:42:09 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

If it were me I’d be asking him to pay my legal bills as if not for his False police report I’d not be having these legal problems.

yes this would not lead to good relations but neither dose being arrested because of a irrational fear at the mere sight of a gun.


22 posted on 02/17/2009 10:42:16 AM PST by mtnjimmi (“When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil.” Max Lerner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

The judge was not great, and he wasn’t bad. He is a municipal level judge, he did do his homework, he wanted to take time to spell out his reasoning because he was delivering an oral verdict rather than a more detailed, written, annotated verdict. The reason is that he knows this case is almost 100% guaranteed not to end with him. He just wanted to do enough due diligence and citing of case laws to show he has given the issue thought, and be able to give sufficient justification for his verdict. But he knew this was not going to be the final stop for this issue. He wants to make sure nobody can later come back and point to a poorly reasoned verdict by him and overturn him, and for that, I don’t blame him. He did his homework and he came to what most of us believe is the only correct decision he could have, given current Wisconsin law.

And it took more than five minutes. It was about 20-25 minutes worth of reasoning and the verdict.


23 posted on 02/17/2009 10:42:31 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

It would be a stretch to prove conspiracy. Misapplication of a law is not automatically ‘conspiracy’. The only way you could prove conspiracy is with hard evidence.


24 posted on 02/17/2009 10:44:13 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
241 is Conspiracy. 242 is deprivation. Either can carry life in prison or death penalty.

Insufficiently used provision in the USC if you ask me... We could clear out 3/4 of Congress and most of the FBI/IRS/FCC/FDA/FAA if it were.

25 posted on 02/17/2009 10:44:19 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

He needs to sue the city for everything.

This is simply not acceptable.

False arrest and false imprisonment for two. A good attorney should be able to come up with a dozen charges against the city, the arresting officer/s, and his superior/s, as well as the mayor of the city, and city council.


26 posted on 02/17/2009 10:44:29 AM PST by chainsaw (The Democrat Party = The Party of Corruption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Thanks for the report SAM.

I’m new to WI and was curious about the laws here regarding carrying. I understand that there is no concealed carry permitted, but I didn’t know about open carry. Is a permit required? There is no registration requirement as far as I could tell.

Thanks again!


27 posted on 02/17/2009 10:47:01 AM PST by Sopater (I'm so sick of atheists shoving their religion in my face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
The charges against him were the conspiracy, not the arrest. Attempting to throw a man in jail for exercising his rights should never have even made it as far as it did...

"Private property? Open carry? Oh... sorry. Can we give you a lift back to your place?"

Should have been case closed.

28 posted on 02/17/2009 10:47:04 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
Suing the City sounds like fun, but you are just increasing the tax on your fellow tax payers. Find those who actually decided pushing these charges was a "good idea", and toss them in jail.

Especially if they turn out to be the Chief of Police or the City Attorney.

29 posted on 02/17/2009 10:48:36 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Was the judges decision based at all on the fact that he was on his own property, or could this be interprited as being applicable anywhere.


30 posted on 02/17/2009 10:48:37 AM PST by SJackson (a tax cut is non-targeted…no guarantee…they’re free to invest anywhere that they want, J Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
The guy was rightly found not guilty, with what possible reason do they presume to retain a private citizen’s confiscated property?

Because they can ...

31 posted on 02/17/2009 10:50:02 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

3/4 ths? You’re an optimist.

There might be a couple who could go around and turn out the lights, but it would take them a several days with all the empty offices.

I agree on the alphabet soup agencies.


32 posted on 02/17/2009 10:54:05 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Well this is the reason why this case is important.

The WI Constitution says the only legal way to carry a firearm is out in the open. There is no concealed carry. Concealed carry has been rejected because of teh fact we have open carry, and therefore there is no need to carry concealed.

The problem is that the state Constitution says if you carry, you must do so in the open. However depending on your city or area’s law officers, they may be fine with it, or they may not and arrest you on disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. They cannot arrest you for for carrying a firearm openly, because that would be unconstitutional, but they technically get you on an ordinance violation, but the end result of this is a de facto arrest for carrying a gun, because it’s carrying the gun that makes you disorderly.

So in certain areas of WI a local ordinance or law can allow police (if they are afraind of citizens using their 2A rights) to take away that 2A right if someone complains or if they see you and they themselves consider you dangerous or disorderly because you are wearing a firearm. It ends up giving you no legal way to carry a gun (you can’t carry concealed, and if you carry open you’re arrested) and that violates the WI constitution.


33 posted on 02/17/2009 10:54:38 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I’m not too sure that this case isn’t designed to go to the state supreme court. Krause sounds like the perfect test case. Law abiding, carrying on his own property while working peacefully and the neighbor called to inquire about the law, not to report his fear of the gun.

Carry cases in Wisconsin have generally been found in favor of the law abiding armed citizen.

The Hamdan case threw out Wisconsin’s prohibition on CCW in your own home. It would be nice to have a court rule in favor of open carry on your own property.


34 posted on 02/17/2009 10:56:44 AM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Open carry is legal in WI, but be prepared to be arrested for disturbing the peace, as in this case. Particularly in urban areas.


35 posted on 02/17/2009 10:57:34 AM PST by SJackson (a tax cut is non-targeted…no guarantee…they’re free to invest anywhere that they want, J Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
You’re an optimist.

Are you still an optimist if your are positive things are going to get worse before they get better? ;-)

But yeah, I was assuming some of our GOPper's would be redeemable. And yeah, some of the FedGov's job positions are actually required by the Constitution. Can't get rid of them all, even if we wanted to.

Unless, you want to go back and revise the Articles of Confederation with our Bill of Rights grafted on to it... I'd be ok with that.

36 posted on 02/17/2009 10:58:51 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

On his property was not really the issue being decided. What the judge had to decide was if Brad was rightly arrested for ‘disorderly conduct while armed.’ And the facts of the case show Brad was not disorderly. Testimony by the officers affirmed it. The judge’s ruling basically negated the concept that a citizen that is openly carrying a gun legally, that act in an of itself, is not disorderly conduct.


37 posted on 02/17/2009 10:58:51 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
The Hamdan case threw out Wisconsin’s prohibition on CCW in your own home. It would be nice to have a court rule in favor of open carry on your own property. On your business premises as well, as was the case in Hamdan. Some speculated that that decision would extend to concealed carry on your own property, though that hasn't been tested.
38 posted on 02/17/2009 11:00:58 AM PST by SJackson (a tax cut is non-targeted…no guarantee…they’re free to invest anywhere that they want, J Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Yes, you are correct. Whether or not you would get arrested for disorderly conduct currently depends on the law enforcement people where you live. That is why it would be nice for the WI AG to issue a directive on this case. He declined to. It keeps things complicated.

I probably would wait to open carry out in public (other than your own property) until this case gets resolved at the WI SC level. You can already carry concealed on your own property (Hamden) so you can do that and nobody would ever freak out about it because they wouldn’t know you were doing it.


39 posted on 02/17/2009 11:02:43 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
On his property was not really the issue being decided. What the judge had to decide was if Brad was rightly arrested for ‘disorderly conduct while armed.’ And the facts of the case show Brad was not disorderly.

Good. As I noted in post 38, the Supreme Court ruling implied the right, though concealed, on your property. I don't plan on being test case #2, but the clear implication should this hold up on appeal is that open carry is, in fact, legal in WI.

40 posted on 02/17/2009 11:04:12 AM PST by SJackson (a tax cut is non-targeted…no guarantee…they’re free to invest anywhere that they want, J Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 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