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 previous 1-5051-61 last
To: Secret Agent Man

“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.”

Which to me makes it an open and shut case. That would seem to make all the mental gymnastics to avoid being overturned unnecessary. But WTH do I know about being a judge.


51 posted on 02/17/2009 12:21:17 PM PST by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mtnjimmi

How is this for a legal strategy? Citizen #1 is peaceably and legally wearing a gun in public. Citizen #2 call cops to report Cit #1. On the basis of the complaint, cops arrest Cit #1 for disorderly conduct while armed. Cit #1 then sues Cit #2 for harrassment since Cit #2 had no legal basis for his complaint.


52 posted on 02/17/2009 12:34:11 PM PST by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

First citizen #1 needs to get the disorderly conduct charge thrown out. Doing the next step is separate from that.


53 posted on 02/17/2009 1:07:33 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 52 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Here in the Palmetto state open carry on your own property is legal as it can be.. was standing in my yard(armed s&w .40) talking to a deputy about this caes the other day..We both said we were sure glad we lived here where a man can do whatever he wants on his own property and no one can do anything to stop him


54 posted on 02/17/2009 4:03:06 PM PST by garykfd (American by Birth, Southern by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Thank you for this unbiased report; the only one such I've seen

"Making a statement to the effect that it is not lawful to use ordinances and statutes to deprive someone of their constitutional rights."

Now that judge, he's just a brilliant legal mind, isn't he?
</sarc>

55 posted on 02/17/2009 6:33:32 PM PST by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Didn't the City Attorney file a brief with the judge? It should now be part of the public record. If it is out there, we should get a copy to publish what their argument was. Any thoughts on how to do this would be most welcome.
56 posted on 02/17/2009 6:47:16 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

The article last night reported that he and the neighbor were on friends and on good terms. The neighbor was quoted as saying he did not make the call to cause trouble or get Krause arrested and regretted all the results. The neighbor and Krause continue to be friends according to the article.


57 posted on 02/17/2009 7:05:03 PM PST by jwparkerjr (God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
“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.”

You are right that it is an open and shut case. If the open carrying of a firearm inherently was disorderly conduct, then the law enforcement officers would themselves be guilty of the offense, and so would every hunter. Of course anyone would see that to be an irrational result, so mere open carry of a firearm can't possibly be disorderly conduct.

58 posted on 02/17/2009 7:05:59 PM PST by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
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.

If the neighbor wasn't alarmed by the man's having a weapon on his hip, it seems that any breach of the peace was caused entirely by the police themselves. Perhaps some of them need to be prosecuted for disorderly conduct (in addition to assault, etc.)

59 posted on 02/17/2009 9:10:50 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Close, but not quite...

First, the judge made it clear up front that he would not rule on any constitutional issues. He flatly refused to connect the dots that a state statute (DC) was being wrongfully applied to deny a citizen his protected right to go armed.

What you may not know, is the strategy shift made in the last brief Brads attorney submitted to the court by making Wis stat 941.23 the open carry state statute. We figured that although the judge may overlook the obvious constitutional issues, we were not giving him a pass on ignoring a 137 year old state statute which only prohibited concealed carry, while allowing open carry.

The judge acknowledged this as a fact as soon as he offered his own solution to the legislature - to just add “or unconcealed” to the law. By doing so, he admitted Brads argument that 941.23 did grant in fact a statutory authority to citizens to open carry dangerous weapons such as guns (anywhere - with certain exceptions).

So, what we now know (after 137 years of being on the books) is 1) there is a state law that grants citizens the authority to carry weapons and it specifically operates the manner of carry in Wisconsin and 2) that the law and the authority the law grants is protected by the state constitution as a citizens right. This is not an absolute right and this law does restrict concealed carry. The law does not intend to restrict open carry.

The state now has a brand new 137 year old open carry law. The two places where the judge totally blew it was his misunderstanding of the states preemption law when he suggested West Allis Common Council could pass a ban on open carry and his total ignorance that the legislature did pass not one, but two carry bills which Jim Doyle made sure would not become law. His poking his judicial finger at the legislature was wrong. They did try to fix this.

This is a process and we are not yet finished.

60 posted on 02/19/2009 2:09:21 PM PST by ccwtrainer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ccwtrainer

Yes, you are right about him complaining about the legislature not trying to ‘fix’ this issue. They brought bills through twice, only to have Doyle veto them twice, and they almost got the two-thirds overrides twice, but Doyle arm-twisted the dems to make sure they were short one vote of two-thirds each time - and one of these times the democrat that intro’d the bill voted against his own bill on the override vote, killing it.

The other thing that made me irritated was teh fact he wsa so apologetic to the police on this matter, like THEY were the victims here. He had no sympathy or regret that Brad had to go through all this. Very disturbing.


61 posted on 02/19/2009 5:19:58 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 60 | View Replies]


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