Wisconsin might fall soon: "Concealed carry law on the horizon"

[Logical]

The anti-gun crowd is losing this battle is every area. And the dems are losing votes by fighting it. When will we start focusing on issues we can actually win? Healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, Etc. The gun battle is over. Hopefully Walker can sign this bill and then get his ass recalled.

Wisconsin may soon join the list of 33 other states that allow citizens to carry a concealed handgun with a permit. Republicans are moving to introduce a bill that would allow permits to be granted based solely on ta person meeting certain criteria laid out by the law.
State Sen. Pam Galloway, R-Wausau, is drafting a concealed-carry bill to be introduced within the next couple weeks, according to The Journal Times.

"Concealed carry has been pretty high on the GOP agenda for a while," UW political science professor Charles Franklin said. "The big question is what are the provisions by which you obtain a concealed weapon permit."

<snip>

http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/concealed-carry-law-on-the-horizon-1.2213125

[msongs]

1. soon enuff all non-gun owners will need to buy guns to protect ourselves nt

[Logical]

2. From who? CC license holders? Give it a rest. The most lawful group out there are CCW holders. n-t

[DonP]

3. Congratulations, you're finally getting it!

Since the police have no legal duty to protect you and there aren't enough of them around anyway, you are the first responder in an emergency.

It certainly took you long enough to figure out the obvious.

But remember, nobody, not even your buddies in the NRA, want you to buy a gun if you aren't comfortable with learning to use it safely.

Keep that front sight on the target!

[ThatPoetGuy]

4. "the police have no legal duty to protect you"?

Eh?

[Logical]

5. Common knowledge. Courts have ruled as such. n-t

[ThatPoetGuy]

8. The supreme court ruled that the police can't be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order

which isn't the same thing as "the police have no legal duty to protect you," outside of right-wing blogs.

[Logical]

9. Try suing the police if you die in a robbery. See where that goes. n-t

[ThatPoetGuy]

13. Try buying a taco if you're dead.

What an inane argument.

[RagAss]

27. LOL !

[X_Digger]

15. That was one case (Castle Rock, CO)..

Here's some history for you, since you seem to be woefully behind the times..

Riss v. City of New York

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)

Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

[ThatPoetGuy]

28. I'll ignore the personal attack, and address the dishonesty.

The cases you're discussing involve "police protection" -- that is, 24-hour, round-the-clock surveillance to protect someone from a potential danger.

Equating that to "the police have no legal duty to protect you" is dishonest.

If you call the police and say there's an intruder in your house, it's not "police protection" -- it's responding to a complaint.

Elsewhere on this thread, a pro-gun poster reverently linked libertyfight.blogspot.com, a pro-gun blog which proudly hates jews, abortion providers, and gun safety advocates.

That blog and others like it are trying to trick people into mistaking the legal decisions that the police are not obligated to provide 24-hour, round-the-clock surveillance for a paranoid statement like "the police have no legal duty to protect you."

[rrneck]

29. Breaking into a home is illegal.

You are not calling for protection. You're calling to report a crime in progress. If they fail to intervene in time you have no remedy in court as far as I know.

[DonP]

30. Only if you are in custody

That's the exception. If you are in custody the police actually are legally responsible for your safety.

But if you call them about a break in or any crime in progress and they show up too late, or don't respond at all, they are not responsible for anything that happens to you legally. Obviously an order of protection relies on the offenders "good will" to obey it and is literally and figuratively "just a piece of paper".

You, or more likely your estate, can not sue the city or the police for damages based on whathappens to you. I'm sure they'll do their best but ... no recourse if they don't get there in time or go to the wrong address etc. So you're on your own until (or if) they get there. You decide if you want to trust to the 911 call ... or have an alternative.

The short version, in spite of that cute motto on the side of the squad car "To Serve & Protect", it has all the legal weight of "I'm Lovin It" in a court of law. You're on your own for the most part.

You may not like it, but it's black letter law in every court in the country.

[gejohnston]

32. that is why I like Google Scholar

In the Warren vs DC case, it was responding to a complaint as you define it. While the women were being raped, the cops knocked on the door before walking off. Of course we both know primary source documents are reposted and reprinted by various sites for their own reasons. If I can find case in a law database, I will be sure to send it.


http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/novalr10&div=73&id=&page=


http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

[X_Digger]

41. Did you read the part that I bolded?

Warren v. DC is the case you want to click. One of the claims that Carolyn Warren made was that the dispatcher failed to send officers to her home the second time she called 911.

The court specifically said that the police have no legal obligation to provide protective services to an individual.

The court said that the police have no duty to come when you call them. It's not rocket science.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure {**5} to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; {*3} the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a.m. call.
....
The trial judges correctly dismissed both complaints. In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 796 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Holding that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants in No. 796, Judge Hannon concluded that no specific legal duty existed. We hold that Judge Hannon was correct and adopt the relevant portions of his opinion. Those portions appear in the following Appendix.

That's direct from the opinion.

How much more clearer can it be? "..a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

It's not about protective custody (the term you were thinking of.)

Morgan v. DC shows that the only time an individual is due personal protection is when a 'special' relationship has been established. In Morgan's case, it was incarceration:

Having incarcerated the individuals, stripped them of all means of self-protection, and foreclosed access to private aid, the state is constitutionally required to provide prisoners with some protection from the dangers to which they are exposed. See Washington v. District of Columbia, 802 F.2d 1478, 1481-82 (D.C.Cir.1986)

Please, ask a criminal lawyer about these cases if you find the legalese a bit too thick.

[Logical]

16. Many other examples here. Enjoy reading.....

A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department. The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. “The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled ‘discretionary’ or ‘ministerial.’” Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332

http://libertyfight.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/california-dreaming-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-any-individual-from-harm/

[ThatPoetGuy]

20. LOL, linking to a right-wing nutjob's blog

The author describes himself as a "paleoconservative" and says he hates "pinkos" and "zionists." That's a reliable resource fur shur.

[gejohnston]

33. maybe so, but paleocons tend to be authoritarian

where the cops are always right. If it were me, I would look for the case it mentioned to see if is for real. A very wise scholar guy told me
"that is just a variant of ad hominim judgement. A wise person judges on the basis of the evidence mounted in favor of a conclusion, not on the basis of the qualities (real or suspected) of the person drawing the conclusion, or their affiliations."

[Logical]

34. So the information is wrong? LOL....nice try. n-t

[one-eyed fat man]

31. Let's put it this way

If a policeman watches a couple thugs kick your ass up between your shoulder blades he has no obligation to stop them. In fact he could wait until they are just plum tuckered out from the exertion and then arrest them for assault.

Once he arrests them and they are in his custody, the courts have ruled he is obligated to protect them.

The courts have ruled if you call the cops and they don't come you have no grounds to sue.

[Bold Lib]

46. There are multiple cases.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

[jpak]

19. GOP/NRA propaganda - ignore

yup

[NewMoonTherian]

23. For the sake of improved discourse, can you show why it isn't valid? n/t

[Bold Lib]

45. Yeah, sure. Try broadening your knowledge and read this.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

I doubt you will. The allure of willful ignorance is strong with some. It makes the self righteous more resolute.

[Bold Lib]

44. Google is your friend (actually I use yahoo).

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

It is well cited and footnoted. It is well worth the read.

[HockeyMom]

6. I think he was being sarcastic

No thank you. I will be dead from old age sooner than I will need a gun to keep myself alive.

[Logical]

7. I hope that is true. n-t

[ManiacJoe]

10. No, he was very serious and very correct.

The courts at all levels have repeated ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals. Their job is to protect society as a group by investigating crimes after they occur and by arresting suspects for prosecution.

The safety of individual members of society is the responsibility of the individuals.

[HockeyMom]

12. Not really true

If a police officier seem a crime in progress, he has a duty to stop it (thereby protecting individuals). If you are a medical professional, you have a duty to stop at an accident and provide help. If you are a teacher, you have a duty to protect the children in your care. If you are a parent, you have a duty to protect your own children. There are individuals in certain professions which have a duty beyond that of the protection of themselves.

It isn't a free for all, everybody for themselves. THAT is a problem with you gun owners. It is all about ME, ME, ME.

[Logical]

14. Once again, if I provide you examples where CC holders protected other people will you...

admit you are wrong??

[ThatPoetGuy]

22. Your username is hilarious.

Those examples are anecdotal. A million of them would only prove that a million anecdotes occurred. A million stories about concealed carrier rapists would prove nothing meaningful either. Both sides need to become logical, but neither side demonstrates logic in any consistent way.

How bout, every logical person from both sides starts condemning EVERY idiotic anecdote that proves nothing?

Condemn the "grandpa saves the world using his antique rifle" posts AND the "toddler shoots anus off with dad's gun" posts. They prove nothing.

[NewMoonTherian]

25. That's the tack I've chosen.

The anecdotes might prove useful in spurring action on a local basis, but in the scheme of national policy - and certainly on this board - they're just cluttering things up.

[ThatPoetGuy]

26. Honestly, if both sides of the gun argument would stop posting the stupid anecdotes,

DU's "latest" page would be much less cluttered, and the whole site would function better.

And my blood pressure would drop by about four points.

Good on you for calling out the clutter. We're very much in disagreement, since I consider myself a moderate on the guns issue and you label yourself an "absolutist," but there are things that improve the discussion and things that waste everybody's time. I'm glad we can agree on that, at least.

[Logical]

36. Funny you never call out the anti-gun side much! Nice try! :-)

[ThatPoetGuy]

39. I try not to comment on either, in order not to kick the threads,

and I unrec both.

So you've posted a complete and total falsehood.

Again.

And you've falsely accused another DUer.

Again.

Nice try!

[Logical]

42. LOL.....ok, here we go again....

The poster said: "THAT is a problem with you gun owners. It is all about ME, ME, ME. "

No, if you are so unbiased where was you post to her saying how unfair that post comment was to lump all gun owners as selfish.

Seriously, if you want to "act" like you are unbiased you need to sort of react to posts like that also.

[ThatPoetGuy]

43. I'm not unbiased, and I hope I didn't portray myself that way.

My complaint was about posts in general, but especially OPs, that tell a story of something that happened this one time and try to use that story to make a broad point.

Some days that crap -- from either side of this debate -- makes up 30 or 40% of the Latest page, and it's really frustrating. Guns would be my political issue number 6,742 approximately, if it weren't for the spamming here.

If I have a "side" in the debate, it largely comes from conversations with my best friend. He's a black man who owns five guns and is an NRA member, who passionately opposes concealed carry laws. He says the laws will be enforced in a racially unfair manner; he thinks black men with concealed weapons are more likely to be shot by nervous cops, and the cops are more likely to be let off the hook for shooting black men.

But aside from that issue, and the issue of communities making their own decisions, I really don't have an opinion about guns and the law. I think a lot of the larger narratives around guns feed into unhealthy frames (I'm not permitted to give an accurate description of those frames), and a lot of propaganda gets transmitted.

Tell enough stories about the government trying to take away the little guy's guns, and the narrative bleeds into stories about OSHA and the EPA trying to interfere with a businessman's ability to make a buck. Those stories need to be challenged, because they reinforce a particular set of unwholesome perceptions.

[Logical]

35. Once again, you are so biased you argue with everything.....

she said CC holders were selfish. I have proof they are not. Get it now??
You just like to argue. I like it also.

[ThatPoetGuy]

40. "You just like to argue. I like it also."

LOL, yeah, I'm bored tonight. Pleased to meetcha.

How come nobody responds to non-argumentative threads?

[X_Digger]

17. See post #15.

Cops cannot be held liable for failure to respond to a crime.

[ManiacJoe]

24. Yes, very true.

If a police officier a crime in progress, he has a duty to stop it
This "protecting an individual" would be only incidental to stopping the crime. If he is not able to get there in time, he is not liable.

Your definition of "duty" seems to cover more of a "desired moral obligation" than a "legal requirement/obligation", whereas we are all talking from the legal perspective.

[YllwFvr]

47. Perhaps not totally correct HM

We had the court cases explained to us in class, and it was affirmed, no duty to respond. Of course dept policy would make a difference, and we might get fired. But still no duty to go. Also many depts are removing "protect and serve" from cruisers.

[mvccd1000]

11. Only 33 other states?

They must be talking about "shall issue" states only... I thought there were 40-some states with CCW laws.

[jpak]

18. Yeah- we love us some GOP sponsored gun laws - don't we

<snip>
State Sen. Pam Galloway, Redit-moran-Wausau, is drafting a concealed-carry bill to be introduced within the next couple weeks, according to The Journal Times.

"Concealed carry has been pretty high on the GOP edit-moranagenda for a while," UW political science professor Charles Franklin said. "The big question is what are the provisions by which you obtain a concealed weapon permit."
<more>

yup

[Logical]

37. Why do you keep needing to edit your posts to add the same phrase? n-t

[onehandle]

21. Between that and other GOP supported 'accomplishments' in Wisconsin... nt

[Logical]

38. Dems in Wisconsin want CC also. Please read the polls. n-t