Posted: 5/1/2009 3:23:45 AM EDT
|
I sent very similar emails to the Washington County Sheriffs Dept and the West Bend Police Dept.
Here was my email to West Bend (They did not have a direct email to anyone but dispatch): *** To Whom this is Best Suited: There has been a lot of flurry from every media source since Mr. Van Hollen's memo stating a law that has been around for a long time. I always knew the law and understood what it allowed me to do and not do. I was a bit concerned by Chief Flynn's statement of 'Taking Down' anyone who Open Carry's. What is the opinion of the West Bend Department? Will I be taken down if I am walking down my street in front of my home while open carrying? I read the recent story of the Pewaukee man who got himself in trouble in Richfield. It seems that not only was he within 1000' of a school zone (a law that is a little broad and makes travel almost impossible in some places) with a gun, but it seemed (from the text of the article) that he had it holstered in his car, which is illegal based on the way I understand the law. This is unfortunate that gun advocates instantly get this black eye, because of an un educated person. Am I right to think a Shall Issue Concealed Carry Law would be a better way to go, that way the state and counties and cities could regulate (something I don't like, but is a necessary evil) who gets a CC permit by way of a training requirement and background check? It just seems that right now, the only people who carry weapons of any sort are criminals, because they just don't care if they are breaking the law. I follow the law and therefore am unarmed or run the risk of being 'Taken Down' by open carrying. Thank you for your time and any response you provide me with. I appreciate what you and your officers do for our city. *** The email was forwarded to Sgt Brian Scharinger who sent me this responce: *** Thank you for your mail and question. I will do my best to answer your question and help clarify the issue. You are correct, there has been quite a bit of “flurry” since Attorney General Van Hollen issued his memo regarding “Open Carry” in Wisconsin. As you know Concealed Carry in Wisconsin is illegal. Open Carry has been legal for sometime and nothing in Attorney General Van Hollen’s memo changes that. Attorney General Van Hollen’s memo was issued to clarify the issue of whether or not someone could be charged with Disorderly Conduct for simply carrying a firearm in the open, absent other factors. The clarification was requested from county District Attorneys throughout the state. An arrest and/or charge for Disorderly Conduct can only occur for Open Carry if there are elements present that would cause alarm or cause a disturbance, or potentially do so. There are too many circumstances one could make to list the times when this would apply. I can not comment on the issue of the Pewaukee man arrested for the Richfield incident. I did read the article in the Milwaukee Journal, but not having all the facts of the case I can not respond to that. As for your thoughts on the “Shall Issue Concealed Carry Law”, as you know this has been and will continue to be a hotly debated issue in our state. Again I can not offer an opinion on the issue. This is an issue for the Courts and Legislature to decide on. If you have strong feelings on the issue I would recommend that you contact your Legislatures and express your feelings. As for the legal issue of “Open Carry”. As you know you can “Open Carry”, subject to applicable State Statutes and Municipal Ordinances. You mentioned the 1000 feet of a School Zone as an example. Here is a list of the State Statutes and Municipal Ordinances that apply. A word of caution on the Municipal Ordinances. These are for West Bend. I do not know what other county or municipal ordinances are out there, you would have to be familiar with those in those jurisdictions. State Statutes: · 167.31(2)(b) and (4)(a)e – Safe Use and Transportation of Firearms and Bows o This prohibits the transportation of firearms in a vehicle unless that firearm is unloaded and incased. · 813.12 – Domestic Abuse Restraining Orders and Injunctions o Forbids someone enjoined in an Domestic Abuse Injunction from possessing a firearm. · 813.122 – Child Abuse Restraining Orders and Injunctions o Forbids someone enjoined in a Child Abuse Injunction from possessing a firearm. · 813.125(4m) – Harassment Restraining Orders and Injunctions o Person can be court ordered not to possess a firearm · 941.20 – Endangering Safety By Use of Dangerous Weapon o Forbids endangering safety of another by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon o Forbids going armed while under the influence of an intoxicant o Forbids going armed with a detectable amount of a controlled substance o Forbids pointing firearm at another o Forbids pointing firearm towards: Law Enforcement, Firefighter, EMT, 1st Responder, Ambulance Driver or Warden o Dangerous Weapon does include a firearm. Under the influence of an intoxicant refers to alcohol. · 941.235 – Carrying Firearm in Public Building o Forbids going armed in a building that is owned or leased by the state or a political subdivision. · 941.237 – Carrying a Handgun Where Alcohol Beverages May Be Sold and Consumed o Prohibits being armed with a handgun on a premises that holds a “Class B” liquor license · 941.29 – Possession of a Firearm o Possession prohibited by persons: § Convicted of a felony § Found not guilty of a felony by reason of mental disease or defect § Person committed for treatment under Chapter 51 (Mental Health Statute) and ordered not to possess a firearm · 948.60 – Possession of Dangerous Weapon (firearm) by a Person Under 18 · 948.605 – Gun Free School Zones o Prohibits possession in or on school grounds o Prohibits possession within 1000 feet of a school or school grounds. Municipal Ordinance o 20.02(21) o Prohibits anyone from discharging any firearm or from bringing, carrying or possessing any weapon in any park. There are some exceptions to some of these laws. This is just a summary of the laws. The complete statutes, exceptions and further explanation can be found on the State’s Website. The Municipal Ordinance can be viewed on a link on the City’s website. The last point you bring up was Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn’s statement of “taking down” anyone who Open Carrys’, and your question regarding West Bend Police Department’s position on Open Carry. I can not comment on the policy and procedures of the Milwaukee Police Department. As for West Bend Police Department. We will respond to any call we receive of a person carrying a firearm. If our Officers observe a person carrying a firearm they are required to take action. We will make contact with the individual, identify the individual and determine that they are not violating one of the above laws. If there is no law being violated, the individual can legally possess a firearm and if there are no other issues that would be a cause for alarm that would end our contact with the individual. Those actions are within current state law and court decisions that allow Police the right to stop and temporarily detain someone that is carrying a firearm. You ask if you will be “taken down” if you “Open Carry” in West Bend. This can be a complicated issue. There are many factors that will be taken into account by Officers when responding to such a call, or taking action upon personal observation. These factors are too many to go into here. Depending on what you mean by “taken down” I can not say our Officers would or would not do that. Our Officers will use their training, proper tactics, proper use of Officer Safety principles, discretion and sound judgment to determine what the appropriate, reasonable response will be. The action you refer to (if I understand what you are trying to say) is an option the Officers have, but is not going to be the automatic response. I know you were probably hoping for a more concrete answer. I am not trying to be intentionally vague, but an absolute answer is not possible given all the variables that may be present. We are mindful of the right of an individual to “Open Carry” and have no intention to infringe on that right, as long as no other applicable laws apply. Citizens also need to be mindful that along with any right they have comes a certain amount of person responsibility. Based on your email it is clear that you keep up on this issue, know the laws that apply to you and want to do the responsible thing. Thank you for your comment that you appreciate what our Officers do for the city, our Officers do not hear that enough. I realize this is kind of long. I hope I have answered all your questions. If you have any other questions, comments or like to speak about this I would be happy to do so. My contact information is listed below. *** So All in all not a bad responce, much more in depth than I expected, but obviously skirting some issues, which I can't really blame him for. It is nice to know that the local PD will be approaching this with a seemingly level head, that they apparantly haven't been given the orders to take us down. I will update if/when I get a responce from Washington CO. Bob |
|
Whoa, hold on a cotton-pickin' minute here;
Quote from the article: As for West Bend Police Department. We will respond to any call we receive of a person carrying a firearm. If our Officers observe a person carrying a firearm they are required to take action. We will make contact with the individual, identify the individual and determine that they are not violating one of the above laws. If there is no law being violated, the individual can legally possess a firearm and if there are no other issues that would be a cause for alarm that would end our contact with the individual. Those actions are within current state law and court decisions that allow Police the right to stop and temporarily detain someone that is carrying a firearm. Really? I was under the impression the police needed something called "reasonable suspicion" that a crime was committed in order to detain you. The act of OC and walking down the street has no basis for detainment any more than standing in front of city hall with a sign does. If I'm missing something here PLEASE, let it be known. We are mindful of the right of an individual to “Open Carry” and have no intention to infringe on that right, as long as no other applicable laws apply. Citizens also need to be mindful that along with any right they have comes a certain amount of person responsibility. Regarding the previous statement, the two seem to contradict each other. Municipal Ordinance o 20.02(21) o Prohibits anyone from discharging any firearm or from bringing, carrying or possessing any weapon in any park. Does this even have any legal standing since it's position is that of which is more stringent than state law? |
|
All these responses from PD's seem to be following the same vane in assuming someone is doing something illegal by exercising their right to carry a firearm.
They all say they will stop people carrying to determine if they are committing a crime how many times will they stop someone,yesterday he was legal but today I just do not know that he is so I have to stop him again. Seems like we are really no further along than we were, you are still going to get stopped and treated like a criminal until they can determine you are not and that is going to be real subjective on most of their parts. |
|
Quoted:
Municipal Ordinance o 20.02(21) o Prohibits anyone from discharging any firearm or from bringing, carrying or possessing any weapon in any park. Does this even have any legal standing since it's position is that of which is more stringent than state law? The consensus so far is that a municipality/county etc may not prohibit carrying a firearm in a park unless it is a State park as this is the lowest level State statutes prohibit. Be prepared to fight this one in court though if the City Attorney is standing behind the statute. |
|
Quoted:
Whoa, hold on a cotton-pickin' minute here; Quote from the article: As for West Bend Police Department. We will respond to any call we receive of a person carrying a firearm. If our Officers observe a person carrying a firearm they are required to take action. We will make contact with the individual, identify the individual and determine that they are not violating one of the above laws. If there is no law being violated, the individual can legally possess a firearm and if there are no other issues that would be a cause for alarm that would end our contact with the individual. Those actions are within current state law and court decisions that allow Police the right to stop and temporarily detain someone that is carrying a firearm. Really? I was under the impression the police needed something called "reasonable suspicion" that a crime was committed in order to detain you. The act of OC and walking down the street has no basis for detainment any more than standing in front of city hall with a sign does. If I'm missing something here PLEASE, let it be known. I'm pretty sure if you call the police about anything, guy carrying gun, rabid dog, vandalism, they will send someone out. I think that is what he meant by the statement. Bob |
|
Quoted:
Wow, I have to say that's an impressive response. Whoever wrote that spent probably close to 1 maybe 2 hours composing it. I have to agree. Man I wish you guys would get CCW up there. I feel naked when I visit and can't carry. I know the legislators up there are wondering why someone from NC was sending them emails when it came up last time.  Oh well- keep up the good fight guys.
|