interesting WI situation

http://wcco.com/wisconsinwire/22.0.html?type=local&state=WI&category=n&filename=WI--CarryingWeapons.xml

"Van Hollen (the AG), a Republican, issued a memo Monday explaining how disorderly conduct overlaps with the constitutional right to bear arms. Van Hollen concluded citizens have a constitutional right to openly carry firearms, and disorderly conduct charges depend on the circumstances."

"State Rep. Leon Young, D-Milwaukee, a former police officer, said he was shocked by Van Hollen's memo. He said he planned to look into drafting legislation to ban open carry."

ummmm....i thought you would need a constitutional amendment to do that?

thats done all over.

if your constitution protects the bearing of arms

and that there whole basis for regulating Concealed carry is that it doesnt infringe on the right to bear arms because they allow open carry

but the Supreme Court has not stated that means that jurisdictions may not regulate such, as to where and under what circumstances. The Court has only found that DC's approach was not appropriate. In Heller, Mr. Justice Scalia wrote:

'The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'



And furthermore, in a more recent case, 'Ruling for Hayes, the appeals court said this "generic battery" conviction did not count as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," and it freed him from the federal charges.

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling Tuesday in United States vs. Hayes and restored the broad view of the federal law. Ginsburg's opinion said the ban on gun ownership extends to any person who has been convicted of any crime involving "physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon," so long as there was a "domestic relationship" between the perpetrator and the victim.'

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131885.html

constitution

"if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,'' Flynn said"

'My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,'' Flynn said. ''Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.''

Maybe he'll end up impoverished and in jail after being convicted of violating the civil rights of the citizens. And someone needs to tell this shithead that those aren't troops, they're policemen and both they and he have to operate under the US Constitution because they are in the United States.

''Police will be quick to ask you, 'Why do you have a gun with you? Is somebody stalking you?' Those are going to be fair inquiries,'' he said. ''We'd be particularly concerned if someone was openly possessing a gun in the context of an ongoing dispute or feud.''

Proper answer: Because I can.

Very similar to the answer you give when asked why police why you are refusing a search- Because I can.

the proper and responsible use of a firearm, instead of the "guns are evil" mantra.

"we're not going to start with the assumption that someone displaying a handgun is doing it lawfully."

bad juju, no cookie.