Defensive Carry banner

Federal civil rights lawsuit filed against West Milwaukee

3K views 24 replies 17 participants last post by  theghostrider 
#1 ·
DC Gun Rights Examiner: Breaking News: Federal civil rights lawsuit filed against West Milwaukee

Mike Stollenwerk,
DC Gun Rights Examiner
.

Today civil rights attorney John Monroe filed a federal lawsuit against West Milwaukee and it's police force for gross abuses of power against a man solely because the man was legally carrying a holstered gun. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

The complaint alleges that police illegally detained, harassed, and arrested Jesus Gonzalez without cause in violation of the federal constitution. Further, the complaint alleges that police unlawfully demanded Gonzalez' social security number in violation of Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act, arguably a felony under the Social Security Act at 42 USC 408.

Mr. Gonzalez was never actually tried in court, but the complaint alleges that the police have refused to return the property confiscated from Mr. Gonzalez. OpenCarry.org's co-founder John Pierce, a law student at nearby Hamline University in Minneapolis, MN where open carry is also legal, says that "the police have no more power to confiscate openly carried handguns that they do to confiscate openly carried cell phones."

In Wisconsin, like most states, citizens can openly carry handguns in public without any permit. Recently a Wisconsin judge ruled that mere open carry of holstered handguns is not "disorderly conduct" in Wisconsin.

Forty-eight states allow concealed carry of handguns, but all of these states but Vemont and Alaska require a permit to carry concealed. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) has repeatedly vetoed legislation that would have created a concealed handgun permit program for those who wish to carry their handguns concealed in Wisconsin.

Currently "open carry" is the only option for citizens wishing to carry handguns in Wisconsin. Doyle argued that concealed carry is not necessary because in Wisconsin citizens can already carry handguns on their hip.

In a statement to the Examiner regarding this new lawsuit, Gonzales' attorney John Monroe said:

"Despite the fact that the governor and multiple other state officials have declared that open carry is not illegal, some law enforcement officers continue to deprive Wisconsin citizens of their constitutional rights by harassing them for engaging in this perfectly lawful behavior."

Civil rights organizers, The Lakeland Times' Richard Moore, and groups like OpenCarry.org have previously warned Wisconsin officials that lawsuits would follow if the unlawful police intimidation against open carriers did not stop. Cities in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, and Louisiana have paid cash settlements over the last two years to settle lawsuits by open carriers. In one Virginia case, a federal judge upheld the lawsuit mainly on the grounds of unlawful social security demands by police, something alleged against West Milwaukee by Mr. Gonzalez in his complaint filed today in federal court.

Last year the United States Supreme court overturned the DC gun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment provides the right to own and "carry" handguns. The Court's opinion in dicta noted that while bans on concealed carry outside the home were probably not unconstitutional, state courts have historically held that the right to open carry guns outside the home is constitutionally protected. Wisconsin state courts have gone further, holding that in some instances concealed carry may be protected by the Wisconsin constitutional which provides at Article I, Section 25 that:

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I hope he wins a pile of money. Doyle's a dummy.
 
#4 ·
'Bout time...'nuff said!

Stay armed...open a new bank account...stay safe!
 
#5 ·
I only see one problem; Carrying or being singled out because of a firearm isn't a civil rights issue. But, I think the complainant has a legit issue, its just not one of civil rights.
 
#13 ·
But you don't think he can make a civil rights case because he was harassed he was lawfully exercising a civil right? This is no different than if the police detained him for praying as he walked down the street demanded his social security number, confiscated his bible and refused to give it back without due process. Prohibiting, punishing and harassing a citizen for exercising their civil rights is by definition a civil rights violation. Despite some police officers using their unreasonable fears to justify being liars and wantonly violating the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution of The Untied States and their respective states, while knowingly and deliberately endangering the very lives of the citizens that they also swore to protect.
 
#8 ·
actually, discrimination by a governmental agent based on the exercise of a constitutionally protected activity IS a civil rights issue.

For example, the harrasment or arrest of someone because they are a reluigious leader, member of a particulr religion, etc. would be a civil rights violation.

Arrest of someone who refused permission to search a home without a warrant, because they refused, would be a civil rights violation.

Ergo, arrest of a person who is legally in posssion of a firearm could be made into a civil rights action.

The "protected classes" only apply to discrimination by non-governmental parties.
 
#11 ·
Im just glad they have the Hammer for the case John Monroe is the man



the suit is a section 1983 federal civil rights suit

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
 
#12 ·
$$$$$$$$

Its about time, I just heard this on our local news channel this morning. Maybe Doyle can possibly start to think through his position regarding our 2A rights. :nutkick: I highly doubt it though. He will find a reason to twist this in his favor.
 
#15 ·
I hope hope he wins big time. It's about time people like Doyle are put in their place. People like Doyle tend to trample all over peoples rights and get away with it too often. All he dose is cost tax payers money due to his twisted anti gun views.
 
#18 ·
This is not a Federal issue. It is a state issue. Gonzales has no standing in Federal court.

If he was indeed treated poorly (we never do hear the other side of the story), his weapon should be returned and he should be awarded the sum of $1.00. And if he turns out to be an illegal (why didn't he provide a social security number?) he should be immediately deported.
 
#19 ·
It's a Federal issue and and a similar case has also been filed in Michigan in Grand Haven for numerous Constitutional Rights being violated. Under Judge Bell, I predict this case will escalate to over a million dollars.
 
#21 ·
It's a Federal issue and and a similar case has also been filed in Michigan in Grand Haven for numerous Constitutional Rights being violated.
It is obviously not a Federal issue:

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I find it curious that so many want to find the Texas couple guilty, this guy a millionaire without even considering the facts of the case. Strike that, I do not find it curious. I find it typical of statists, liberals and libertarians.

Under Judge Bell, I predict this case will escalate to over a million dollars.
If the man turns out to an illegal would you support him being deported? With or without a million dollars of taxpayer's money?

I find it disturbing there is an entire subculture of gun owners that want to be harrassed so they can perhaps make a million dollars.

Suits like this should be thrown out.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top