Wisconsin “West Allis man not guilty in open carry gun case”

[jody]

West Allis man not guilty in open carry gun case

Judge Paul Murphy found Brad Krause not guilty of disorderly conduct in a case that drew to a hearing numerous gun rights advocates to witness what may be the first open carry gun case heard in a Wisconsin courtroom.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

West Allis police responded to Krause's home last August after a neighbor called to ask about the legality of him openly carrying a gun in a holster on his property. Police responded, arrested Krause and ticketed him for disorderly conduct, an offense he and his attorney, Steven Cain, fought during a court trial in December. Police also seized his gun.

Cain said today, "The big overarching issue is whether open carry is legal. The law in Wisconsin really only limits concealed carry. The law in Wisconsin, as we see it, is that open carry is absolutely legal, protected, and should be."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In explaining why he was carrying a gun while planting a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights. I and everyone else are able to go to church, they're able to vote, they're able to speak their mind. Even though the city might not like it, we have that right."

Only free men and women bear arms!

[X_Digger]

1. Disorderly conduct..

.. the law of choice when you don't like what someone's doing legally, along with 'disturbing the peace' and 'being a public nuisance.'

[spin]

2. Too often, police are unfamiliar with the law...

and it looks like their lack of knowledge caused them to overreact:

A West Allis man was arrested for planting a tree in his yard. Officers got a call from a neighbor asking if a person within the city limits can lawfully possess an openly carried weapon and responded by sending two squads. They found Brad Krause digging a hole for the tree lying next to him. Seeing the officers pull up in front of his house, Brad asked, "Can I help you?" The officers drew their weapons on the environmentalist and placed him under arrest.
It turns out the Wisconsin Supreme Court has heard many cases about concealed weapons, each time the Attorney General's office arguing that open carry is explicitly legal, so the concealed carry statute doesn't violate Article I Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Under then Attorney Jim Doyle the AG's office said in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court a person could walk down State Street in Madison with an openly displayed weapon and have no problem doing so.

At his first hearing, officers testified they saw a man planting a tree, identified he had a holstered weapon, and automatically drew their guns and pointed them at him while shouting orders. His attorney asked what provoked the officers to use deadly force in such an otherwise uneventful situation. Both officers, who coincidentally carry weapons openly under the same authority granted Mr. Krause by law, answered, "He had a gun."
http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7411&Itemid=107



The comments about this story were interesting and entertaining:

http://www.jsonline.com/forums/39730232.html

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Ooh, that's going to be expensive.

ACLU won't touch it, but this is going to end up a lawsuit, unless this guy is really charitable/nice guy or something. They had no reason whatsoever to draw down on him.

[iverglas]

4. right-wing provocateurs

Gotta love 'em.

They must be feeling so unloved these days.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Do you normally approve of trumped-up charges?

Or merely for those whose actions do not meet with your approval?

Say, like these?

Now, the city of West Allis can learn the same lesson New York City has:

The law is what the statutes say they are, not what the cops want to enforce.
And violation of a persons' rights carries consequences.

[iverglas]

5. this Brad Krause???

http://www.wicourts.gov/html/ca/97/97-2205.htm

If you're gonna abuse your partner, guys, just make sure you aren't living with her.

That way, it isn't "domestic abuse".

[X_Digger]

6. homina homina homina!

No, that would be the Brad Krause in Brookfield, WI *edit

See? I canz google 2!

Got any other ad hominems you want to throw out?

[iverglas]

8. can you read the rules?

You've published the name and address of an individual at DU without his consent.

"Homina"? Where did you study Latin?

An ad locutorem argument (no exclusionary language here, thank you) purports to rebut an argument by discrediting the speaker.

Questioning the integrity of a hero someone is worshipping is not the same thing. Questioning the motivations of the actions someone is praising is not the same thing.

I have no idea which Brad Krause is who. But dang, you do gots a lot of Germans down there!

http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take?id=14605092260615086971

... Damn, it's gone! I hate having to explain jokes ... but it was a quizzy about cultural identity. One of the questions showed a graph breaking down the ethnic background of the US population -- something like 42% German, as I recall. The possible responses, to express one's reaction to the graph, were: it shows how ethnically diverse the US is, it shows how ethnically diverse the US is not, something else, and DAng that's a lot of Germans!



Ew.

http://ask.metafilter.com/22170/Homina-homina-homina

"an expression to denote, er, lustful desires?"

[X_Digger]

9. Are google results allowed?

Put a name and a state into google..

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Brad+Krause+Wisconsin&btnG=Google+Search&aq=t

Since Brad isn't the one speaking here, an ad locutorem doesn't apply, but I guess you're right that an ad hominem wouldn't apply squarely either. Call it, what, a distraction? An off topic feint? an 'ad googlium'?

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. It was an attempt at an 'ad hominem' that failed

"If you can't argue the act, argue the actor"

Only trouble, it was the wrong actor. And irrelevant to boot.

When will some people learn?:

There is no 'morals clause' in the U.S. Constitution!

If there was, there would have been no Miranda decision, as Miranda wasn't a nice guy.
But his Constitutional rights were violated, and *that* is what mattered.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

7. I remember hearing about this when it happened. It seems that it was some time ago.

but the article does not say when he was first arrested. Does anyone have any info on when this incident happened? I also would have thought that this would have been dismissed in pre-trial motions as there is no law on the books to violate.

Yes this is going to be expensive for the tax payers!