Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc fast-tracking lawsuit against Madison Police Department

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by bnhcomputing, Sep 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. snubbies

    snubbies Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    Illinois
    Thanks

    I appretiate your comments. I am sure you know as a marine you pick your fight if you can. I feel and have tried however inadequately to bring across my point that this case in not the right one in light of other efforts toward concealed carry in Wisconsin. If the individuals want to pursue action against Madison then that is their perogative. The Unions have learned to pick and choose their battle grounds. You don't back a cause that may set an unwanted precedent.
     
  2. jackpinesavages

    jackpinesavages member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    809
    Snubbies: " Question???

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

    I have been meaning to ask WI residents, Is there a training or testing you must undergo for the open carry to be legal??? Can just anyone strap on a gun?? "

    No, not just anyone can strap on a gun. For the Open Carry to be legal there are the usual guidelines to follow such as a legal ownership of said firearm, churches and bars and schools are excluded locations, etc.. However, you told me you were a paralegal for 10 years after several years of college-wouldn't this language be quite familiar to you already, from the legal fields?
     
  3. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    What you fail to understand, snubbies, is that this fight is not about the 2nd amendment. It's about the 4th amendment.
     
  4. Ramman911

    Ramman911 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Iowa
    Does anyone else find it ironic that the three that cooperated are now also receiving a CD ticket along with the two that would not show the ID? Works out better for the city financially I guess to give everyone who open carries a CD ticket. I think they want a new police gym or something and are trying to raise some funds :neener:
     
  5. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    How did the police get the names/addresses of the three that cooperated in order to issue them citations after the fact? Oh wait... they gave it to the police!
     
  6. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Snubbie, you seem to be confusing the concepts of "reasonable suspicion" with "no reasonable suspicion." In this case the responding officers identified a number of men who were apparently breaking no law. There was by definition NO REASONABLE SUSPICION. You cannot claim reasonable suspicion unless there is in fact some reasonable suspicion.

    Reasonable suspicion is not an open invitation for the officers to dig around and try to find something that might be illegal. For example I might be a criminal on a wanted list. Or there might be a bench warrant on me. But that does not give any LEO in this country a right to demand ID apropos of nothing. And since carrying a firearm in the manner described here was not illegal, the officers had NOTHING. So they dug to see if they could find something.

    If you were correct, the any officer could stop any citizen at any time and demand their ID on the "suspicion" that they MIGHT be doing something illegal. That may be a suspicion, but it is not a reasonable one.
     
  7. snubbies

    snubbies Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    Illinois
    Wrong

    They had a report of men with guns. They came to investigate. They followed policy, right or wrong. My question about "anyone strap on a gun" was rhetorical. NAVYLT The 4th amendmant rights issue has been resolved in Hibel cited above

    Please read the cite below. I posted this previously and nobody seems to read anymore.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

    Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2010
  8. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,608
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page