Dumb, dumb. Dumb!!!

My wife has family that works in that school district. I talked with them about what had happened. He was in his right to be there, but what he was arrested for was that he was causing a public disruption and was not complying with the officers. He would not tell them his name, state why he was there or confirm if he had a carry permit. If he would have told them that information and he had a permit they would have let go on his way after asking him to leave. I do know that he was released waiting on the County DA to decide if there needs to be charges. He also had a video camera and voice recorder on him and running during the incident.

I agree that he had the right to be there, but this does not help if he would have been forth coming about his information maybe this would have made for a better story and example for the rest of our country. Most likely not because then it would not have been reported.

jak67429 said:

He was wrong does not matter even if he had a ccw. cannot posses a loaded firearm within 1000' unless you have special permission, are on private property, or are hunting on school forest with permission, you can firearm your in vehicle or if you are passing through. here is alink to the FAQ on wi odj website.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dles/ccw/ccw-faq.pdf

Click to expand...

So, according to you, it is illegal even for a person licensed to carry a loaded firearm within 1000' of any school unless "special permission" is obtained?

Respectfully, you would be incorrect. On page 37 of the very document that you posted, if you read it, you would find this:

A person who is a CCW licensee or out-of-state CCW licensee may possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, but not in or on school grounds. Wis. Stat. § 948.605(2)(b)1r.

Click to expand...

However, the statement that an out-of-state CCW licensee may legally possess a loaded firearm within 1000 feet of the grounds of a school is incorrect because the exception for a licensed person contained in 18 USC 922 (q)(2) (Federal law) requires the license to be issued bythe same state the school zone is located in.

This is the Federal law:

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts
(q)
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Click to expand...

^^ Idiocy in action.

I live about 1 mile from the Sikh Temple where a mass shooting took place (Oak Creek WI), and that recalibrated a lot of our beliefs in this area. Let me say this: As a second amendment activist, I believe in our rights and in the constitutional privileges that we hold. BUT: My view is that it's stupidity to do what this guy did. Know this: If I saw someone doing exactly that I'd call the police, watch carefully, plan to intervene with lethal force if he acted out in any way, and would cheer the police on as they tossed the guy on the ground. This behaviour is not normal or rational. It's deviates from social norms sufficiently enough to bring anyone with any sense from condition yellow to condition orange.


I drive by this site every day: The crosses are in the lawn. These were our peaceful neighbors and friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting




Willie

.

Willie, how exactly do you "plan to intervene with lethal force if he acted out in any way" as you would have given up your right to be the "good guy with a gun" that is needed to stop the bad guy with the gun.

Just something to think about.

It's deviates from social norms sufficiently enough to bring anyone with any sense from condition yellow to condition orange.

Click to expand...

Social norms are not laws and I'd hate to think what would happen if they were. If he broke no laws he deserves no charges.

^^ I'm not saying he ought to be charged (and apparently has not been).

But: anyone who slings an AR on his back and walks around a town and thinks he's not going to be hassled is living on the moon. And by that I mean both hassled by the police, and watched intently by people like me before the police respond, to ensure that the slung AR does not become an AR being shot at our community members.

Social norms are triggers that cause others to react when they are broken. No crime in carrying an AR on your back? Fine. It's equally no crime for others to be alarmed and suspicious either. It's like seeing a racoon walking down main street at noon... it might not be rabid, but if you pretend that there's no possiblity that it's rabid you are a fool. A man walking down the street with an AR in the United States without any visible reason to be doing so, and who refuses to engage the police with conversation, is mentally disturbed in one way or another... no matter if you like it or not. There's a name for this: It's called anti-social behaviour....


"Willie, how exactly do you "plan to intervene with lethal force if he acted out in any way" as you would have given up your right to be the "good guy with a gun" that is needed to stop the bad guy with the gun."

In my town? A mile from where we had a mass shooting not too long ago? I'd call 911, stay on the phone, watch and observe while the police respond, not intervene or engage, and if he unslung and aimed at someone I'd draw and do my very best to shoot him in the head. That's exactly how. Any questions?



Willie

.

In my town? A mile from where we had a mass shooting not too long ago? I'd call 911, stay on the phone, watch and observe while the police respond, not intervene or engage, and if he unslung and aimed at someone I'd draw and do my very best to shoot him in the head. That's exactly how. Any questions?

Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't get my point.

You said "My view is that it's stupidity to do what this guy did."
Well, I MAY agree with you. It depends on what you think the stupid part is.
All I'm saying is the laws that apply to him would also apply to you, which means if he can't legally have a gun there neither can you. So if he decides to go mass murderer, then you want be able to "shoot him in the head" and stop him.

It's basically the gun free zones do nothing but make killing fields argument.

I'm a CCW holder in the state where this took place. By virtue of that, the location he was in is where I can be legally armed (and would have been). I just don't do so by slinging an AR-15 across my back. Perhaps a reading of Wisconsin statutes is in order.


Willie

.

What's legal and what's socially appropriate are two different things. Add the danger of the tactical stupidity of this, and it is easy to make a case that this guy could have put a scenario in motion that got him and/or others killed. Just stupid. There are better ways to make an important social statement. How about organizing an open carry event, where the local PD is notified and the press as well in order to bring the issue into the public? That would have been FAR better.

AKElroy

The obvious problem with that is if that's what these people did they wouldn't get their You Tube video of them being harassed by cops or getting to show the cops who's really the man. Whatever

That's what these people are almost always after, attention. They could do something useful or meaningful, as you pointed out. But that would be much less likely to get the desired outcome.

^^ and further, these people are in the game for "them" and not for "us" or the pro 2nd political agenda. They gain whatever attention they personally want... And they hurt us all. How many people to you think we're positively influenced by this? How many soccer moms said " wow, I think ill write my representative and support gun rights" using this as a positive example? How many fence sitters did he make lifelong anti-gunners out of? These people are worse than most "quiet" antis... They cause us all to look like fools.

As you say, he's lucky he was not shot.


Willie

.

MedWheeler said:

No, it doesn't. One should have a reason for doing pretty much anything beyond the simple reason that he/she "has a right" to do it.

I have a "right" to play loud music from my truck's stereo, but I'll be angry if someone tells me I "should" just because of that. If I do it, it will be because I want to.

Seriously, do you do everything you have a right to, just because you have that right?

Click to expand...

Those are some powerful words medwheeler. Do you need to have a "reason" to refuse a search? Do you need a "reason" to refuse to quarter troops in an unused bedroom of your home? Do you need a "reason" to buy and sell goods and services? (I'll give you a hint: the answer is no.)

You have a right to do anything that is legal.

Similarly:

Others have a right to hold you up for scorn and ridicule. They have a right to be fearful and skeptical. Don't suppose for one moment that others don't notice.

At some point your behaviors can become so overtly antisocial that you become a problem to society. At that point, if neighborly hints aren't sufficient to offer correction suggestions, we have a choice as onlookers: decide to accept it, leave, or let the professionals see if the malefactor poses a danger to himself or others.

Like I said, I'd have cheered on the cops as they cuffed this guy if this happened in my town. That's why I pay my taxes.

Willie

.

My wife has family that works in that school district. I talked with them about what had happened. He was in his right to be there, but what he was arrested for was that he was causing a public disruption and was not complying with the officers. He would not tell them his name, state why he was there or confirm if he had a carry permit. If he would have told them that information and he had a permit they would have let go on his way after asking him to leave. I do know that he was released waiting on the County DA to decide if there needs to be charges. He also had a video camera and voice recorder on him and running during the incident.

Click to expand...

There you go. If you're sitting by a pond with a pole and a can of worms, and a line and hook out in the water, you're fishing!

People that do things like this aren't exercising their rights, or standing up for our rights, they're deliberately trying to damage the rights of ALL of us. They may think they're doing a good thing, but they're actually not. It may be perfectly legal to walk down a sidewalk past a school with a loaded handgun on your hip and a loaded AR15 over your shoulder, but why on Earth would anybody feel a need to do that? The only possible reason to do that would be to inflame other people and draw a police response.

Guys like that need to be kicked in the balls. Our rights are precious, and stunts like this only damage them. And stunts like this are becoming a very disturbing trend. Makes me wonder who may really be behind them. JMHO.

Willie

You said

You have a right to do anything that is legal.

Click to expand...

Then you said

Like I said, I'd have cheered on the cops as they cuffed this guy if this happened in my town. That's why I pay my taxes.

Click to expand...

Many, many, of these people (possibly even this guy) 'looking for trouble' with the law for a little attn. are doing it in a completely legal, albeit unproductive, manner.

See the problem.

There is no way (I can think of) to make this activity illegal with having consequences on good law abiding people.

Guys who troll for attention and are uncooperative when the police come do our cause no good.

i'm reminded of the TN resident who openly carried his Draco in the park. Yep, he painted the gun orange to prevent the cops from shooting him. The guy lost his concealed carry permit.

so the guy in Tenn. was punished for doing something legal?

alsaqr said:

Guys who troll for attention and are uncooperative when the police come do our cause no good.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. What I don't agree with is the "I would have cheered the cops as they cuffed him because he did something I don't like, whether or not it was actually illegal" mentality.

Being a jerk and doing things counterproductive to the goals of the pro 2A movement are not crimes. Neither is exercising your rights, even if you do it in an ill-advised manner.

Yep I remember the thread and the story. Well his time and money, and like I said before I have better things to do with my time and money than look for problems. Its unfortunate the attitude some of these youtube guys carry with them I agree. I always thought if your standing for something a smile and information is much more effective than yelling "I know my rights"

And I would add if your a 2nd amendment guy be friendly and informative. CCW and guns in general are not about being tough guys or B.A.'s.

Ruezim said:

My wife has family that works in that school district. I talked with them about what had happened. He was in his right to be there, but what he was arrested for was that he was causing a public disruption and was not complying with the officers. He would not tell them his name, state why he was there or confirm if he had a carry permit. If he would have told them that information and he had a permit they would have let go on his way after asking him to leave. I do know that he was released waiting on the County DA to decide if there needs to be charges. He also had a video camera and voice recorder on him and running during the incident.

I agree that he had the right to be there, but this does not help if he would have been forth coming about his information maybe this would have made for a better story and example for the rest of our country. Most likely not because then it would not have been reported.

Click to expand...

Is there a legal duty to self-identify if one has not commited an actual infraction there?

PavePusher said:

Is there a legal duty to self-identify if one has not commited an actual infraction there?

Frank Ettin said:

If the circumstances are such as to create probable cause that a crime has been committed, e. g., someone with a gun within 1,000 of a school, and if the evidence of the reason it is not actually a crime, e. g., possession of a valid CHL, is in the control of the subject, then as a practical matter the subject will ultimately need to identify himself and show that he has a defense.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In addition, one has to consider EXACTLY how the law is written. In this case the law is written such that it is illegal to possess a firearm within 1000' of a school. PERIOD. The only elements of committing the crime are the location and presence of a firearm. Then after that there are exceptions to the law. This guy was in clear violation of the prohibition. Then it becomes the subject's duty to prove that he meets one of the exceptions.

i can't understand what motivates guys to do this stuff. This subject of this thread intentionally open carried a gun near a school, refused to co-operate with the police and may have filmed and recorded the event. Maybe these guys are looking for acceptance or something.

Leonard Embody advertised his intentions beforehand-on this fourm:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=492845