Gonzalez v. City of West Milwaukee (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2012)
This is a discussion on Gonzalez v. City of West Milwaukee (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2012) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Has anyone read Gonzalez v. City of West Milwaukee (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2012) http://tinyurl.com/6vdo6k8 ?
Other than him not getting damages under qualified-immunity, does ...
February 3rd, 2012 09:48 PM
Gonzalez v. City of West Milwaukee (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2012)
Has anyone read Gonzalez v. City of West Milwaukee (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2012) http://tinyurl.com/6vdo6k8 ?
Other than him not getting damages under qualified-immunity, does this case have any impact on carry -- OC or CC?
The Seventh Circuit seems to have not address the underlying issues -- but just addressed his suit for damages.
It seems to me that:
After we heard
argument and took this case under advisement,
Wisconsin clarified its law on whether openly carrying
a firearm can constitute disorderly conduct. Effective
November 2011, the state legislature amended Wisconsin’s
longstanding ban on carrying concealed
firearms and adopted a licensing regime in its place.
See Wis. Act 35, 2011-2012 Wis. Legis. Serv. 825 (West).
In that same legislation, lawmakers added the following
language to the disorderly conduct statute:
Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate
a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the
person apply, a person is not in violation of, and
may not be charged with a violation of, this section
for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm,
without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or
is concealed or openly carried.
WIS. STAT. § 947.01(2); see Wis. Act 35, 2011-2012 Wis.
Legis. Serv. 825, 849 (West). The legislature also adopted
a new statute similarly providing that openly carrying
a firearm cannot constitute disorderly conduct under
any local ordinance, subject to the same proviso
regarding criminal or malicious intent. See WIS. STAT.
§ 66.0409(6); Wis. Act 35, 2011-2012 Wis. Legis. Serv. 825,
as the district court apparently did, that openly
carrying a firearm in a retail store is disorderly conduct
as a categorical matter goes too far.
Accordingly, although we
think the district court’s probable-cause finding was too
categorical, its alternative holding—that the officers were
entitled to qualified immunity—was on much firmer
seem to leave carry alone and deal only with qualified-immunity.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
February 3rd, 2012 10:08 PM
From the snippet it appears the Court found that the legislature answered the question by clarifying the law to state that the conduct was not disorderly without more than simply carrying however the court found that since it was apparently not clearly established law prior to the clarification that the police were entitled to qualified immunity.
February 3rd, 2012 10:53 PM
So in other words now that it is clarified, LEO's will no longer be able to claim immunity?
Originally Posted by Chada
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check Made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best!
February 3rd, 2012 10:58 PM
February 4th, 2012 09:10 AM
I live in Wisconsin. Here is the real world, is some parts of this state the DA and courts are 98% controlled by grounds that will push their agenda no madder what the law.
Wisconsin Dis orderly conduct law allow you be arrested for just about any thing you may get off in court down the road but it is going to cost you.
There have been a few rules that have said they can not arrest you for only open carry, however they keep doing it. In one case where a Group was arrested the court issued a 10,000 fine after a long court battle. The DA did not care about the fine it was tax payer money and vowed to keep arresting open carry in Madison.
In order to charge an Office you Must have a DA the will file charges, they have made it clear that will not happen.
I am one of those that was beaten by Madison Police for open carry. If the DA and courts will not follow the the law it is a long battle.
February 4th, 2012 09:43 AM
While the DA would be required to charge the officer criminally that would not stop a citizen from bringing a suit against the police for violating his rights. I agree with you though that based on the Madison Police pamphlet I read in another thread that the police appear to be violating the law.
February 4th, 2012 10:46 AM
The only way to Change Madison is to continue to attack the liberal concept of how they feel the state should be run. The DA should be removed from office I agree! but good luck. The touchy feely mindset in Madison is sickening! They are not above the law, but they do control the law! Just as the framers warned, liberties surrendered are lost forever. The liberal experiment is a failure in Madison.
February 4th, 2012 11:47 AM
Apparently, case law on open carry and disorderly conduct has been established. Mere presense of an openly carried firearm does not constitute disorderly conduct. It requires some measure of disorderly personal conduct. Firearms do very little in the way of conducting anything except lead.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
Search tags for this page
can i carry a gun openly while a charge is under advisement in va
can i open carry in milwaukee wisconsin
gonzales seventh circuit wisconson gun case
gonzales v. west milwaukee
gonzalez firearms wisconsin
gonzalez v. city of west milwaukee
gonzalez v. city of west milwaukee (7th cir. feb. 2, 2012)
gonzalez west milwaukee
smail emtot soul
state disorderly conduct wi
wis gun forums dc dva
Click on a term to search for related topics.