Idiocy isn't only in New England!!

[Len-2A Training]

I have not vetted this story, just re-posting what I read on another forum.

It's posted as an ILLUSTRATION of idiocy, NOT as a starting point to debate open carry! Thanks

Wisconsin (West Allis) Update

Gun Rights? Any Rights? What Rights?


2/11/09

It's less than a week until the Constitution gets another court hearing. To recap what happened, in August 2008 Brad Krause was arrested at gunpoint in West Allis, Wisconsin while planting trees in his yard. The reason: he lawfully possessed a holstered weapon. (Full story at: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20081212b.htm )

His first hearing was December 16, where the story started to unfold under oath. 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.

The first witness was the man who had called the police. Normally this person is the victim of a robbery, mugging, or other violent attack, but in this case the man testified he called the police to find out if a person could legally carry a handgun within city limits. He went on to say that although he thinks only police officers should carry weapons for self defense, it was never his intention "for Brad, excuse me, I mean Mr. Krause, to end up in court." 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.



The next witness was the first officer to respond, who said he saw a man with a gun and immediately called for backup. A back-and-forth line of questioning ensued:

Attorney: "Officer, you were the first person to see Mr. Krause in his yard, correct?"
Officer: "Correct."

Attorney: "What was he doing when you saw him in his yard?"
Officer: "I believe he was planting a tree."

Attorney: "Was he in any way handling the gun?"
Officer: "No."

Attorney: "Was the gun plainly and openly carried?"
Officer: "Yes."

Attorney: "You had no question that was a handgun on his hip?"
Officer: "Yes, I knew it was a handgun on his hip in a holster."

Attorney: "And he was not handling it, waving it, doing anything with it?"
Officer: "No. I believe he had a shovel in his hand and was in the process of planting a tree."

The questioning continued, eventually with the officer testifying Mr. Krause was cooperative the entire time, and never used any profanity or even raised his voice.



The second officer testified what happened when they approached:

Officer 2: "...we approached the person that was in the side yard of that residence."

Attorney: "And how did you approach him? Was there any special precautions that you took?
Officer 2: "Yes, I drew my gun and pointed it at him."

Attorney: "And why is that?"
Officer 2: "Because he was armed."


He continued to testify that by Mr. Krause wearing a gun visible to the public, that created a disturbance, and that was disorderly, so Mr. Krause was therefore arrested for Disorderly Conduct While Armed.

* * *

Wisconsin has a unique set of laws pertaining to guns:

The WI Constitution has an amendment for individual citizens to keep and bear arms in Article I Section 25.
Concealed carry is illegal under WI Statute 941.23, but openly carrying a handgun is legal without any sort of permit or training, according to several WI Supreme Court cases.
The state does not allow local governments to create laws more restrictive than state laws (WI Stat. 66.0409).
The WI Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that laws can't be applied to restrict Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Confused yet? The end result is that almost anyone can carry a gun in public if others are able to see it -- no training or permit required, but stick it in your pocket and you're a criminal.

What makes this case unusual is that most cases in Wisconsin are about people concealing a weapon and therefore breaking a law, but claiming they had a right under the WI Constitution due to need. This is the first case where no law was broken, but the person is being prosecuted anyway.

If no law was broken and another law is being misapplied in order to prosecute the case, what happened to property rights and the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure? Apparently, like the rest of your rights, they don't exist when the government says they don't.

The judge questioned the prosecutor at length about the right to expression, unfortunately using the Nazi flag as his example. Does the judge's neighbor have the right to fly the Nazi flag? "It depends," was the prosecution's answer. The judge tried to repeatedly narrow the question, and eventually the answer came down to the city claiming to have the ability to make the decision. What happens if it's just the German flag? Or the Swiss flag? Depending on who doesn't like it, the outcome might not be so good.

* * *

The next hearing is Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at 8:00 AM. It is open to the public, and you are encouraged to attend.

West Allis Courthouse
11301 West Lincoln Avenue
West Allis, WI 53227

http://www.ci.west-allis.wi.us/about/city_maps.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Mirror Site: JPFO.net
All Rights Reserved 2006 JPFO

P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745 | Fax (262) 673-9746 | [email protected]

 

[drgrant]

Attorney: "And how did you approach him? Was there any special precautions that you took?
Officer 2: "Yes, I drew my gun and pointed it at him."

Attorney: "And why is that?"
Officer 2: "Because he was armed."

[sad2]

This country is going to the shitter in a handbasket.

-Mike

 

[Admin]

[sad2]

This country is going to the shitter in a handbasket.

-Mike

+1 I can't believe this.

 

[TomH]

Thanks a LOT, you're making my head explode!

 

[doobie]

Wasn't this posted yesterday or maybe I read it on JPFO yesterday, oh well.

Hey, it's important to make sure law-abiding citizens minding their own business are treated like the criminal scum we all know they are!

 

[MikeH]

This is so wrong. I had to read the article twice to make sure I didn't miss something. This guy is in his own yard planting a tree. He is openly carrying a handgun, which is allowed by WI law and backed up by numerous test cases. He is not even in a public place. They come into his yard; he's arrested and charged with something that's not a crime.
I hope he has the opportunity to sue all involved in this persecution.

 

[CRSIII]

I hope I never slip and fall off a ladder in the course off my job and need assistance. Ambulance, fire and recue, the P.D. will all show up. Quite a disturbence I have caused! I will probably be paralyzed. I can see it now, as the EMTs srtap me to the back board, and find the Smith in my waist band, the omnipresent officer will probably taze my sorry (and broken) ass. Because he "feared for his safety"

These people are out of control!

 

[center442]

Attorney: "And he was not handling it, waving it, doing anything with it?"
Officer: "No. I believe he had a shovel in his hand and was in the process of planting a tree."

Maybe it was an assault tree, one of those high-capacity black elms?

The guy seemed to be obeying WI law, so obviously deserved to be arrested.

 

[doobie]

I hope I never slip and fall off a ladder in the course off my job and need assistance. Ambulance, fire and recue, the P.D. will all show up. I will probably be paralyzed. I can see it now, as the EMTs srtap me to the back board, and find the Smith in my waist band, the omnipresent officer will probably taze my sorry (and broken) ass. Because he "feared for his safety"

These people are out of control!

That and they'll get you for unlawful storage of it for it not being locked up while you were incapacitated.

Wasn't there some guy who was deemed unsuitable and fined for leaving his safe open with all his firearms laying around after being hauled away in an ambulance after having a heart attack while cleaning his firearms?

 

[Teej]

So let me see if I got this correctly. A man following the law is arrested for Disorderly Conduct While Armed because he was following the law in his yard and one neighbor (the article only refers to one neighbor) calls to ask if it is legal to carry a gun. One person asking a simple valid question is a disturbance?! Are you serious?!! The only disturbance going on here is the officers' ocular examination of their posterior palpebra. So because these officers had nothing better to do that day they decided to "investigate" instead of answering a simple question. Way to go there Sherlock and Watson. Not only is an innocent man being dragged into court but your wasting tax payer money on a frivolous trial. Unbelievable.

I hope the victim has the money for a good defense team. Though with the reported questions by the judge it looks like he'll be okay and maybe a good precedence will be set.

 

[Teej]

That and they'll get you for unlawful storage of it for it not being locked up while you were incapacitated.

Wasn't there some guy who was deemed unsuitable and fined for leaving his safe open with all his firearms laying around after being hauled away in an ambulance after having a heart attack while cleaning his firearms?

Why do I get the sick feeling that actually happened.... It reminds me of a story (completely unsubstantiated) I heard while living in VA. The story goes that a person was hit by a car while crossing the street using the marked crosswalk. When the cop and ambulance showed up not only was the driver of the vehicle cited but the pedestrian was sited for not being in the crosswalk. When the officer was told that the pedestrian was using the crosswalk the officers response was in order for the pedestrian to not be cited for jaywalking they must remain in the crosswalk at all times, being forced out of the crosswalk by the car had no bearing.

 

[jhblaze1]

So let me see if I got this correctly. A man following the law is arrested for Disorderly Conduct While Armed because he was following the law in his yard and one neighbor (the article only refers to one neighbor) calls to ask if it is legal to carry a gun. One person asking a simple valid question is a disturbance?! Are you serious?!! The only disturbance going on here is the officers' ocular examination of their posterior palpebra. So because these officers had nothing better to do that day they decided to "investigate" instead of answering a simple question. Way to go there Sherlock and Watson. Not only is an innocent man being dragged into court but your wasting tax payer money on a frivolous trial. Unbelievable.

I hope the victim has the money for a good defense team. Though with the reported questions by the judge it looks like he'll be okay and maybe a good precedence will be set.

Hopefully the judge will throw it out. Too bad he hasn't yet though, but that might depend on what kind of hearing it was. Maybe on the 17th it can get dismissed. who knows.

Guns are sooooooo super scary though. I mean, why do you need a gun to plant a tree? Everyone knows that due to the fact that trees can grow kinda big, they're a bit scary in and of themselves. But, add a gun to the mix, and that is like a friggin' nightmare come alive. I know if I saw my neighbor planting a tree while wearing a terrifying killing tool, I wouldn't be able to call the cops because I'd be too busy pooping my pants in fear.

 

[seanc]

The law is like the Koran. Anybody can read the Koran. But only an Imam is allowed to tell you what the words mean.

black is white. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia..

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK, I finally succeeded in finding a genuine news article about this (one that isn't on a gun forum/site). More interesting info on this case:

'Open-carry' becoming central gun-rights issue
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=8970

Attorney general won't say whether open carry is legal
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=8985

But this one has me suspicious! It claims that Mr. Krause had followed others' advice and was carrying a tape recorder in his pocket, recording everything that happened. Don't know about you, but if I were planting a tree, I wouldn't be "prepared" to be arrested. [NOTE: Don't try it in MA, it is a serious crime - wiretapping and you will get prosecuted.] I'm beginning to smell a deliberate attempt to get arrested to make a point (more power to him if he wins, but going for the ride is expensive and disruptive and in states like MA make you a "criminal for life" as the arrest will never get expunged after being found not guilty).
http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/ydonate.html

 

[seanc]

But this one has me suspicious! It claims that Mr. Krause had followed others' advice and was carrying a tape recorder in his pocket, recording everything that happened. Don't know about you, but if I were planting a tree, I wouldn't be "prepared" to be arrested. [NOTE: Don't try it in MA, it is a serious crime - wiretapping and you will get prosecuted.] I'm beginning to smell a deliberate attempt to get arrested to make a point (more power to him if he wins, but going for the ride is expensive and disruptive and in states like MA make you a "criminal for life" as the arrest will never get expunged after being found not guilty).
http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/ydonate.html

A bit off topic...

But's say that the wife is sitting inside the home with a video camera recording (expecting to catch the hubbie maiming himself or other wise save his embarrassment forever) for all to see for family get togethers.


If the cop in this situation walks on to their property, is she breaking the law by letting the camera continue to roll??

 

[terraformer]

A bit off topic...

But's say that the wife is sitting inside the home with a video camera recording (expecting to catch the hubbie maiming himself or other wise save his embarrassment forever) for all to see for family get togethers.


If the cop in this situation walks on to their property, is she breaking the law by letting the camera continue to roll??

Video is allowed without notification. Audio is what is covered under this backwards application of wiretapping. As I understand your question, if she has the audio on and can hear the officer, then she is still guilty. If the officer comes upon them with the camera on and clearly sees they are video taping, it is up to barney fife to tell them to stop it. They almost always will even if they don't appear to be taping so they can get that tossed after the fact in case someone left it on. By asking if it is on and requesting that if so, it be turned off, they are putting the onus on the user to verify the state of the recorder. Once they do that, the user of the recorder can't claim they just failed to turn it off. This opens said user up to prosecution and pretty much makes it impossible to use the tape against Barney Fife.

 

[NHCraigT]

Need a bigger toilet

To fit this country into it....

 

[Ray-500]

The law is like the Koran. Anybody can read the Koran. But only an Imam is allowed to tell you what the words mean.

black is white. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia..

Yup, independent thought not allowed. Can't have that.

 

[Kalahari]

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Chris]

OK, so this guy comes onto your property and draws a gun on you.

Just who is the aggressor here?

Lets charge the cop with assault with a deadly weapon.

Man the pussification of society is really getting out of hand.

But hey, I'm not surprised.

I just learned that the Jan 16 meeting of the Gun Control Advisory Board took place even when the chairman and several members were located in counties the Governor had declared "Disaster Areas" and only "essential personnel" were permitted to travel.

I guess the Gun Control Advisory Board is now considered some kind of essential entity despite the fact that anything they pass on to the Secretary of Public Safety tends to take up to 6 months to be acted on.

This is the same panel that by their own unanimous vote declared:

1) Meetings would be published one year in advance

2) Contact information for all members would be published

To this day, meeting notices are usually given with just days notice (a few times just HOURS) with NO AGENDA and no contact information of the members is available.

Gotta love how such blatant disregard for Open Meeting laws are ignored by the Attorney General. After all, it's ONLY been 10 years now.

 

[terraformer]

OK, so this guy comes onto your property and draws a gun on you.

Just who is the aggressor here?

Lets charge the cop with assault with a deadly weapon.

Man the pussification of society is really getting out of hand.

But hey, I'm not surprised.

I just learned that the Jan 16 meeting of the Gun Control Advisory Board took place even when the chairman and several members were located in counties the Governor had declared "Disaster Areas" and only "essential personnel" were permitted to travel.

I guess the Gun Control Advisory Board is now considered some kind of essential entity despite the fact that anything they pass on to the Secretary of Public Safety tends to take up to 6 months to be acted on.

This is the same panel that by their own unanimous vote declared:

1) Meetings would be published one year in advance

2) Contact information for all members would be published

To this day, meeting notices are usually given with just days notice (a few times just HOURS) with NO AGENDA and no contact information of the members is available.

Gotta love how such blatant disregard for Open Meeting laws are ignored by the Attorney General. After all, it's ONLY been 10 years now.

Seems like this is something a judge should step in and fix. Has anyone tried?

 

[Chris]

Seems like this is something a judge should step in and fix. Has anyone tried?

How do you get a corrupt AG office to file the charges?

 

[packingungal]

I say "Off with his head" - now, just whose head should we "off"!?

 

[terraformer]

How do you get a corrupt AG office to file the charges?

Civil, in that GOAL or some other entity (retailers assoc) with standing to file.

 

[Len-2A Training]

How do you get a corrupt AG office to file the charges?

Well first you file a complaint with the AG's office for non-compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Or perhaps it is the Ethics Committee that handles it. Not certain.

I know of town boards that have had their hands slapped for non-compliance and that is how it is handled (the DA in the case of the cities/towns, so AG makes sense for violations by a state board).

Good luck, please let us know how they respond.

 

[mikem317]

I love JPFO. Both JPFO and GOA are really no-nonsense type gun rights organizations.

I hope Mr. Krause counter-sues (if he hasn't already).

 

[Bill Nance]

It's Wisconsin. They'll probably give the lawful gun owner a trip to the pen for 25-life.

 

[lord1234]

Open Carry in WI is officially ok

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html

West Allis man not guilty in open carry gun case

By Linda Spice of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Feb. 17, 2009 12:26 p.m.

A West Allis municipal judge today ruled in favor of a local man arrested for disorderly conduct after a neighbor complained that he was carrying a gun while planting a tree.

Judge Paul Murphy found Brad Krause not guilty of disorderly conduct in a case that drew to a hearing numerous gun rights advocates to witness what may be the first open carry gun case heard in a Wisconsin courtroom.

For Krause, however, the significance of the case extended beyond gun rights: It was an infringement on civil liberties, he said after today's decision.

"The reason people are upset about this is it's not about guns. It's about civil liberties. And we obviously have a property issue. There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk," Krause said. "My wife was very worried that she would be a widow in short order because I was planting a tree."

West Allis police responded to Krause's home last August after a neighbor called to ask about the legality of him openly carrying a gun in a holster on his property. Police responded, arrested Krause and ticketed him for disorderly conduct, an offense he and his attorney, Steven Cain, fought during a court trial in December. Police also seized his gun.

Cain said today, "The big overarching issue is whether open carry is legal. The law in Wisconsin really only limits concealed carry. The law in Wisconsin, as we see it, is that open carry is absolutely legal, protected, and should be."

Cain argued that the U.S. Supreme Court last summer in the case of D.C. vs. Heller concluded that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. That's what the case is generally all about."

In explaining why he was carrying a gun while planting a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights. I and everyone else are able to go to church, they're able to vote, they're able to speak their mind. Even though the city might not like it, we have that right."

The case is also one that has been watched closely around the country, particularly by the co-founders of the Virginia-based OpenCarry.org, John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk.

Said Pierce: "Really, the larger issue is not even a gun rights issue. It's the issue of having a disorderly conduct statute that is a catchall statute for otherwise legal behavior."

I wonder how this will change Open Carry throughout the country. This is probably a landmark case.

 

[mikem317]

Justice.

 

[M1911]

I wonder how this will change Open Carry throughout the country. This is probably a landmark case.

Huh?

It is a single case at the lowest level of a state court. The judge's decision isn't even binding on other cases within that municipality, let alone within the state of Wisconsin, let alone other states. If it was a federal case and this was an appellate court decision, then it would be important. It's not.

This case will have no impact on open carry until and unless it is appealed through federal courts.

Nothing to see here. Move along.