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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
This is my report, I was there.
1 posted on 02/17/2009 10:10:18 AM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Thanks for the report.

He needs to sue the city for everything.

This is simply not acceptable.


2 posted on 02/17/2009 10:12:12 AM PST by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

ping


3 posted on 02/17/2009 10:14:16 AM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

How’s Brad getting along with that neighbor these days?


4 posted on 02/17/2009 10:15:35 AM PST by Rennes Templar (The Messiah and the Religion of Fleece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

GREAT REPORT, Man! I hope Brad follows that Georgia US District Court ruling that such a seizure was a Fourth Amendment violation but that is a different Circus and would not be binding on WI. I’d love to see Brad follow several avenues here and ratchet this all up to SCOTUS (quick before the balance changes!). I almost hope the town appeals so a precedent is set when he wins all the way up the chain.


5 posted on 02/17/2009 10:15:53 AM PST by NonValueAdded (May God save America from its government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Is the name of the complaining citizen (future candidate for subject) known?


6 posted on 02/17/2009 10:16:19 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Thanks very much.

In IL the law specifically states that one can be armed while on ones own property. I carry a copy of the Statute with me.

L

7 posted on 02/17/2009 10:17:21 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Thanks for the update, sounds like an intelligent judge. Brad prolly didn't want to become a test case, but that might be where this goes, depending on the city's reaction.
8 posted on 02/17/2009 10:18:08 AM PST by Southern Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I hope he can sue the crap outta the city.


9 posted on 02/17/2009 10:18:13 AM PST by herewego (obama- the best prez terrorrists $ can buy. - Got .45?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

West Allis used to be a nice place! I bought my first two pedal steels from West Allis Music.


10 posted on 02/17/2009 10:18:23 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Great report! Thanks. It will be interesting to see how the corrupt MSM will end up spewing this. Any bets on how the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel will try to swing opinion? (Here’s a clue: They hate guns with a white-hot passion.)

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


11 posted on 02/17/2009 10:19:53 AM PST by Obadiah (Party - my house - on December 22, 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Thanks for the report. I was intending to do the same thing a few years back. I went to talk to our local sheriff and realized I wouldn’t be picked up... he was completely on my (our)side. Juneau County Wisconsin at the time.


12 posted on 02/17/2009 10:21:47 AM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
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.

How does a prosecutor appeal a "not guilty" verdict? I trust that there is no double jeopardy in Wisconsin.

At least the judge could read the Constitution, which is more than we can say for a majority of the USSC in the Kilo case.

13 posted on 02/17/2009 10:22:33 AM PST by DeFault User
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Thanks much.

Great report. Good outcome.


14 posted on 02/17/2009 10:26:44 AM PST by Quix (POL BOSSES say fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Brad was on his property

15 posted on 02/17/2009 10:31:06 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (The Election of 2008: Given the choice between stupid and evil, the stupid chose evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Brad MUST sue for
1. his legal bills
2.being deprived of the use of his property without cause
3. stress
4. whatever punitive amount he and his attorney decides is appropriate
5. to force the law drones to take classes so this doesn’t happen again.
6. for civil rights violations where applicable.


16 posted on 02/17/2009 10:33:16 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southern Partisan

“Thanks for the update, sounds like an intelligent judge.”

I must disagree. The decision shouldn’t have taken 5 minutes. The man is on his own property minding his business and not bothering anyone. Even IF he wasnt on his own property it is an open carry state. How can peaceably carrying a holstered gun on your own property be creating a disturbance. THE JUDGE IS A COMPLETE MORON. It is troubling that this OBVIOUSLY open and shut case should be so hard to decide.


17 posted on 02/17/2009 10:34:59 AM PST by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Thank you for the after action report. A tentative “win” for the good guys.


18 posted on 02/17/2009 10:38:05 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Nice report. As a fellow Wisconsinite, I am closely following this case.

I wonder if they’d have still arrested him if it was a toy gun.


19 posted on 02/17/2009 10:38:44 AM PST by tractorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
Against the city attorney/police cheif who filed these idiotic charges? Title 18, Section 241. Conspiracy to commit deprivation of civil Rights under color of law.
20 posted on 02/17/2009 10:41:18 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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]

To: Secret Agent Man; SJackson
There is no permit required? As far as I can tell, there is not even a requirement to register a handgun, rifle, or shotgun in WI.

REGULATION OF FIREARMS IN WISCONSIN
41 posted on 02/17/2009 11:08:16 AM PST by Sopater (I'm so sick of atheists shoving their religion in my face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Thank you for the update.
42 posted on 02/17/2009 11:21:20 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunhem?), change America will die for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny; Ladysmith; Diana in Wisconsin; JLO; sergeantdave; damncat; phantomworker; joesnuffy; ..

If you’d like to be on or off this Upper Midwest/outdoors/rural list please FR mail me. And ping me is you see articles of interest.


43 posted on 02/17/2009 11:21:26 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 40 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

nice job


44 posted on 02/17/2009 11:49:36 AM PST by Kryptonite (Keep Democrats Out of Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

see this aricle too, please ping it!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2187644/posts


45 posted on 02/17/2009 11:50:26 AM PST by Kryptonite (Keep Democrats Out of Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

no permits needed.


46 posted on 02/17/2009 11:59:56 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 41 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead; Secret Agent Man

Echoing Secret’s comments. A municipal judge is a political animal and all but the most secure will carefully weigh political as well as judicial factors. I’m not familiar with that locale in specific so I can’t judge (npi) how courageous a stand this might be, but I suspect he stuck his neck out a bit.


47 posted on 02/17/2009 12:05:32 PM PST by NonValueAdded (May God save America from its government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

And I will clarify that the judge made pretty clear that the whole ‘disorderly’ charge stemmed from the fact police arrested him under disorderly conduct BECAUSE he was armed. Being armed WAS the disorderly conduct. So they were saying he was guilty of disorderly conduct (i.e. being armed), while armed. The fact he was armed was the basis for the disorderly conduct charge, according to the arresting officers.

Which is why is was right for the judge to say not guilty, otherwise EVERYONE who open carries is automatically guilty of disorderly conduct because they are armed.


48 posted on 02/17/2009 12:07:55 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Well done.


49 posted on 02/17/2009 12:10:25 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo (This Ain't No Party.....This Ain't No Disco..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Well, he knows people were watching the case. He did research the laws on the books, and addressed the constutional issues. rarely do these kinds of cases happen in municipal courts, and since he knows it will probably continue past his court, he wants to do the best job he can and give good reasoning for it because higher courts are going to be looking at his reasoning and verdict. If you’re a lower court judge and expect the case to be appealed, you don’t want to have the higher courts saying ‘you were wrong’ and overturning your verdict because you didn’t do your job, making you look incompetent.


50 posted on 02/17/2009 12:11:29 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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