January 22nd, 2009 12:31 PM
Our Governor says itís OK ???
'Open-carry' becoming central gun-rights issue
Well we can only hope to start somewhere I guess. Do you folks think that this OC issue could change some minds of our representatives regarding CC? Remember this is the guy that has consistently vetoed passage of our CC hope.
January 22nd, 2009 01:01 PM
I'm sure glad I live in New Mexico where I can openly carry a fully loaded firearm
and the law is on my side.
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness
January 22nd, 2009 01:21 PM
Shame for the people of WI.
OTOH, nice article that included both sides without a diatribe.
How unusual, a journalist who can report.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
January 22nd, 2009 06:02 PM
Yes, a very good read! Liberty must not die, and it looks like people are waking up!
The thought of me being stopped and detained or even arrested just because someone saw my firearm makes my blood boil! I didn't serve my country to have liberties eroded away from law-abiding citizens!
Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)
"First Duty is To Remember"
January 22nd, 2009 07:02 PM
Good job investigating Richard! You put together an accurate and complete article.
January 22nd, 2009 07:12 PM
Question: b/c I live in King Dick's realm, I have to store my handguns outside of Chicago. So I call a few gun shops and ranges in IN, I talk to INDR personnel among others and they start giving me this bs about how I have to have a special permit to transport firearms to a range or elsewhere in IN. Have you or has anyone heard this line?
I told the INDR/State Trooper that I have a UT CCW and he was like, "that's not valid for IN". I said to him, well, I certainly doublecheck with a lawyer, but I'm 99% certain I can. Have you seen handgunlaw.us or the The Travelers Guide? You should check them out...."
I've also heard that people get hassled around Terre Haute, I guess b/c of the prison. I am planning on seeing the Debs house there....
Originally Posted by Gun Bunny
January 22nd, 2009 07:40 PM
That's b/c NM isn't a strategic popln center like Chicago, NYC, LA. The ruling/political class can live with ccw in the south and west, well partly they have to live with it b/c of the historical traditions of the people there (and good for you).
I have it even worse- I live in Chicago. The last time we had open carry, German socialist workers were parading in the streets with rifles and the car hadn't been invented. The rulers here definitely want to avoid that kind of exercise. That's why they crushed the labor movement through terror and banned the carry of firearms.
Originally Posted by automatic slim
January 22nd, 2009 08:56 PM
Maybe the governor should have his Attorney General pass the word to the police departments that OC is legal...
January 22nd, 2009 10:09 PM
In Indiana we accept any license or permit from any State or Country! Yes, you do need a license to transport any handgun within the State (except for a couple of reasons), a lot of Hoosiers don't realize this and in fact are breaking the law. A License to carry or a Hunting/target license is needed to transport, but you have a valid carry license so you are good to go in Indiana!
Originally Posted by njr
Never heard about getting hassled anywhere with in the state, but it is possible I guess. This is a very gun/carry friendly state!
Recognition of retail dealers' licenses and licenses to carry handguns issued by other states
35-47-2-21 Sec. 21.
(a) Retail dealers' licenses issued by other states or foreign countries will not be recognized in Indiana except for sales at wholesale.
(b) Licenses to carry handguns, issued by other states or foreign countries, will be recognized according to the terms thereof but only while the holders are not residents of Indiana.
Last edited by Gun Bunny; January 23rd, 2009 at 04:16 AM.
Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)
"First Duty is To Remember"
January 27th, 2009 04:33 PM
Are Wisconsin gun owners organized? Do they have a grassroots lobbying organization? I think there needs to be some acts of legal civil disobediance, where several small groups of open carriers visit several local restaurants for dinner. If you do nothing else, you'll start to condition other citizens to seeing people with guns on their hips. If police are called, they will also be conditioned. If they're getting calls all over town, maybe they'll start to get the message that it is not disorderly conduct, but rather normal conduct.
January 27th, 2009 09:42 PM
Governor Doyle : "If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip."
Sounds like a great governor, 2A wise.
January 29th, 2009 08:13 PM
Our Governor says itís OK ???
I do not think OC will change much in Wis. it will stay ok in the field, not ok in town. Probably have to NUKE Milwaukee and a few other cities to get a change.
February 26th, 2009 08:41 AM
Judge finds Krause not guilty in open carry tangle
2/20/2009 9:07:00 AM
Judge finds Krause not guilty in open carry tangle
Constitution ‘trumps’ state law, municipal ordinances
A municipal judge has found West Allis resident Brad Krause not guilty of disorderly conduct for openly carring a holstered firearm while planting trees in his yard, saying state law does not prohibit open carry and that state and local ordinances cannot trump the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Paul Murphy also used his oral decision to chastise the state Legislature for not clarifying the legality of open carry - the carrying of legal firearms in plain public view - and he chided the state's attorney general for refusing to take a stand.
West Allis police stormed Krause's property with their weapons drawn last August after a neighbor had called police and inquired about the legality of Krause's visible firearm. Officers subsequently charged him with disorderly conduct and confiscated the pistol.
Police have still not returned the firearm.
Speaking to reporters on the courthouse steps after the verdict, Krause said he was simply exercising his constitutional rights - an exercise he did not need to justify.
"The state constitution applies border to border, so whether I'm in my yard or walking down the street, as long as it's not a place where it is prohibited by law to possess a weapon and I'm not a felon who is not allowed to possess a weapon, this is an infringement on human rights," Krause said. "The freedom of rights is one of the things that sets America apart from other countries and that is something we hold very dear to us."
The issue isn't solely an open-carry dispute, Krause said.
"The reason people are upset is because this is not just about guns, but about civil liberties," he said, acknowledging the almost 50 people who appeared at the courthouse to support him. "The police had no permission to enter my property. There were no exigent circumstances. But they entered my property and put my life at risk. My wife was worried she was going to be a widow because I was planting a tree."
Gun rights advocates hailed the verdict but said the question of open carry was far from settled.
"I actually hope the city will appeal because we need clarity on the issue," said Gene German, a founder of Wisconsin Patriots, a grassroots organization that promotes individual rights. "The question is, if Brad straps a gun on his hip tomorrow, what will the police do? Will we be here all over again?"
There was no immediate word whether the city of West Allis planned an appeal.
Echoing German, Murphy underscored the limited reach of his decision - on that day in August, he concluded, Krause's conduct was not disorderly - but he nonetheless recognized the constitutional underpinnings of the case, and engaged in a broad discussion of their inherent complexities.
"The constitution is an important matter in this case," Murphy said at the outset, citing the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
The gist of the case, he said, revolved around that latter right, and he quickly tipped his hand about the direction in which he was heading.
"The Bill of Rights exists to protect people from government, and does not exist to sanction government to do certain things to people," he said.
Within that constitutional framework, the judge began to dissect whether Krause's conduct was disorderly.
In so doing, he observed that the neighbor had called to inquire about the legality of Krause's gun-carrying and that the police had responded to an incident involving a "proverbial man with a gun."
"The neighbor testified (at an earlier hearing) that he was concerned about the gun going off," Murphy recounted. "But [the neighbor] said [Krause] was not causing a disturbance. [The neighbor] was concerned about the defendant's safety and about the legality. There were no children present. The court concluded that the neighbor wanted the police department to have a talk with the defendant and didn't think he would be arrested."
Murphy also cited police testimony from the earlier hearing, in which officers conceded that Krause was not agitated.
"Again, he was not doing anything but gardening on his property," the judge said. "He was a planting a tree, as I recall."
The judge referred implicitly to the statutory and case-law standards for proving disorderly conduct. That conduct is defined as behavior that is violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly, and the state must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
Clearly, Murphy said, Krause was not violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, or unreasonably loud.
"So the issue is, was he 'otherwise disorderly,' under circumstances that would tend to cause a disruption?" Murphy said.
Gun laws inadequate?
To answer the question, the judge focused on the state's gun laws, noting there is no open-carry statute, only a prohibition on concealed carry. The state also has created specific exceptions to carrying firearms, such as in public buildings, he said.
Interestingly, he observed, the statutes also prohibit the carrying of a handgun where alcoholic beverages may be sold or consumed.
"It doesn't say anything about concealed or unconcealed, and other guns are apparently permitted," Murphy said. "It says 'handguns.' Presumably you could carry a shotgun or a rifle."
Murphy characterized some restrictions as 'preposterous,' such as requiring licensed private security guards or private detectives to openly carry firearms in a state such as Wisconsin, where, he said, "people wear coats and jackets."
Beyond statutory restrictions, Murphy pointed to various occasions on which people carry firearms openly and are not arrested or hampered by police.
"Open carry is allowed in many places," he said. "In West Allis, for years, there was a parade (where people carried openly), and I don't recall anyone being arrested. On Memorial Day and Veterans Day, there are gun salutes fired by proud veterans who served us honorably. They have open weapons on public land. That's allowed and it should be."
In addition, Murphy pointed to Civil War re-enactments by the West Allis Historical Society, events during which guns are carried and discharged.
Murphy then cited state of Wisconsin v. Hamdan, in which the state Supreme Court carved out an exception allowing private employers to carry concealed weapons.
Given actual practices and the lack of statutory clarity, Murphy suggested it might be time for the Legislature to act, and he cited the Hamdan decision, in which justice David Prosser encouraged the Legislature to do just that.
"The approval of a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, and any other lawful purpose will present a continuing dilemma for law enforcement until the legislature acts to clarify the law," Prosser wrote for the majority. "We urge the legislature to thoughtfully examine [the concealed carry statute] in the wake of the amendment and to consider the possibility of a licensing or permit system for persons who have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon. We happily concede that the legislature is better able than this court to determine public policy on firearms and other weapons."
That decision was filed July 15, 2003, Murphy pointed out, and he said the Legislature had ignored the admonition.
"From 2003 until now, to this court's knowledge, the Legislature has done nothing," the judge said. (In fact, the state Legislature has twice passed concealed carry legislation since 2003; Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed both versions).
One easy solution, Murphy said, would be for the Legislature to simply add "unconcealed carry" to the concealed carry prohibition, and let the courts deal with its constitutionality.
The judge also took a swipe at attorney general J.B. Van Hollen for not offering his own opinion on the legality of open carry.
"The attorney general declined to weigh in, I read in the newspaper," Murphy said. "The attorney general could have taken a great step to clarify the issue, but, for reasons known only to him, he did not."
The judge said the refusal of political officials to tackle the matter had put police departments in jeopardy.
"The troubling aspect of this is, what impact does all this have on the police department and what are they supposed to do?" Murphy stated. "I don't know. The inaction of the Legislature has put the police department at risk no matter what they do because the Legislature has refused to clarify [this issue] despite the strident warning of justice Prosser."
And so, the judge said, with no law dealing with open carry, or legal clarity on the question, "that is why we are here today."
The lack of a statutory prohibition on open carry and existing open carry practices notwithstanding, the judge did consider one other way Krause might have been disorderly: Did his conduct rise to such an offensive level that it would likely lead to a disturbance?
"In his testimony, [the neighbor] testified that he was concerned and disturbed," Murphy said. "He didn't like the idea of a gun in a holster across the street."
Murphy said his court had held lengthy discussions before about offensive behavior, including the display of a Nazi flag.
"To me that is one of the most abhorrent symbols of all, but in and of itself it is constitutionally protected," he said
Murphy cited the U.S. Supreme Court's famous decision allowing a uniformed Nazi march in Skokie, Ill.
"The march never did take place, but the Supreme Court allowed it, even though they found it was likely to provoke a disturbance," the judge said. "The conclusion is, the constitution has to trump over state law. You cannot restrict a constitutional right by virtue of an ordinance."
Given the clear and direct facts of the case, Murphy concluded, the court "finds that the defendant's conduct was not 'otherwise disorderly' and finds the defendant not guilty."
Despite the outcome, things are a long way from over.
For one thing, Krause has filed a notice of claim against the city of West Allis, a necessary precursor to a potential civil suit. For another, the city itself might appeal.
Even if they don't, the police still have Krause's gun, and Krause said after the verdict he thought they planned on keeping it for some time.
"My understanding is, they will not be returning my gun," he said. "My only option is a civil suit, to sue them to get my property back."
Indeed, Murphy said his court lacked the jurisdiction to order the gun's return, no matter the verdict. If the police don't voluntarily return the firearm, Krause must seek relief in circuit court.
In other remarks, Krause said he had hoped things would never reach the point they did.
"I had hoped that we could come to some agreement before we got to this stage," he said. "But that was not the city's position. They were going to take it as far as they could."
He also echoed the judge's comments about Van Hollen.
"This is a prime opportunity for the attorney general to clarify the issue, whether open carry is legal or it isn't, so other people are not put in the same position I was put in," he said.
German said the case had focused attention on police competence.
"This is first and foremost a training issue," he said. "The Department of Justice has guidelines on the use of lethal force and the police should follow them. We give these guys badges and stars and guns, but there's no adequate training."
February 26th, 2009 08:55 AM
Open carry is legal in WI but you will be arrested for DC when you do. The Governor and Atty Gen. like it that way, they are not pro 2nd ammendment as they want the voters to believe. Most people cannot afford to fight DC charges in court and just don't OC.
February 26th, 2009 10:14 AM
Kudos to the judge. I was glad to hear he brought up the state supreme court rulling from '03 and the Gov's veto both times the legislature passed a CC law. When I lived in WI, we always started off with the votes to override the veto but then when it came down to vote time, one or two "representatives" always got picked off and changed their mind.
"Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
Who is John Galt?
By packinnova in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 17th, 2009, 06:00 PM
By paramedic70002 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 06:51 PM
By SelfDefense in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: July 4th, 2007, 12:33 PM
By Erich in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: April 24th, 2006, 06:24 PM
Search tags for this page
firing range near terre haute
ok govenor vetoed a bill reference to firearms involving police
terre haute concealed carry
unconcealed handgun in terre haute?
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors