Open Carry legal in Wisconsin!

[Rockrz]

Apparently, the AG of Wisconsin has ruled that it's OK to carry openly.

Found the story at
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Def ... ?id=528512" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How long do you think it'll take for this to be challenged
in court by those liberals types of peoples?

[seamusTX]

The law in Wisconsin has been in place since Wisconsin was a territory in the 19th century. All attempts to outlaw open carry there have failed.

Unfortunately, big-city police chiefs ignore the law and get away with it.

- Jim

[Rockrz]

Unfortunately, big-city police chiefs ignore the law and get away with it

If it's a law on the books, why don't those that get arrested
file, and win, lawsuits against the city that charges them?

Doesn't Texas have an old law on the books allowing this in Texas?

[seamusTX]

There is a huge presumption that police officers' actions are justified.

Please think about this: When you hear on TV or read in the paper that someone was busted for having a kilo of pot or driving a stolen car, does it cross your mind that maybe the guy was framed?

Lawsuits for false arrest rarely succeed. They require a preponderance of evidence that police officers intentionally gave false testimony or violated someone's civil rights. That is usually difficult to prove.

Texas has prohibited open carry of handguns since the 1870s, and the law has been upheld by courts many times.

- Jim

[Rockrz]

Lawsuits for false arrest rarely succeed.

How can that possibly be true when there is a law that
specifically says it's OK to open carry up there?

The government cannot have laws that say it's OK to
do something, and then put people in jail for it.

That's like driving down a freeway that has a posted
speed limit of 70mph, and a cop gives you a ticket
for speeding when you were going the posted speed limit.

Under common legal grounds, this cannot happen.

If it does, then the government is saying that they
aren't abiding by / honoring their own laws, which is
grounds for suing everyone in sight, and winning
some serious cash along the way!

Many lawyers would take a case like that for
free up front just to make a name for themselves
so they can write books, and expand their practice,
and get on TV, etc, etc

This doesn't add up legally

[Liberty]

Lawsuits for false arrest rarely succeed.

How can that possibly be true when there is a law that
specifically says it's OK to open carry up there?

Welcome to the real world.
The courts and judges rule as they see fit.

[longtooth]

You are correct:
As they see fit in talking care of us peasants who know not what is best for our lives. Man we need a puke icon here.

[seamusTX]

Thank you, gentlemen.

In our system of justice, if you are arrested, tossed in the clink, pay your bail, go to trial two years later, and are found not guilty after paying a lawyer $20 or $50,000, it is said that justice has been done.

I don't make the rules. I just tell it like it is.

We could propose that the government reimburse defendants who are found not guilty, but either we would have to pay more in taxes or cut some other expense.

Many lawyers would take a case like that for free up front just to make a name for themselves so they can write books, and expand their practice, and get on TV, etc, etc

Public sympathy and the prejudices of the media come into play here.

If the police wrongfully arrest an attractive young mother of two cute kids, the case may get a lot of sympathy.

If they arrest a grizzled redneck like me for carrying a GUN, fer cryin' out loud, not so much. "I mean, what was that guy doing carrying a gun? That's dangerous."

- Jim

[Conagher]

There is a huge presumption that police officers' actions are justified.

Please think about this: When you hear on TV or read in the paper that someone was busted for having a kilo of pot or driving a stolen car, does it cross your mind that maybe the guy was framed?

Lawsuits for false arrest rarely succeed. They require a preponderance of evidence that police officers intentionally gave false testimony or violated someone's civil rights. That is usually difficult to prove.

Texas has prohibited open carry of handguns since the 1870s, and the law has been upheld by courts many times.

- Jim

Hi Jim,

I'm trying to collect some information in this regard. Do you know of specific court cases/rulings that you can share that have upheld prohibiting open carry?

Thanks and Have a Nice Day.

[seamusTX]

Sure. This information is from a Texas legislative report that was prepared when the Legislature was considering the CHL law in 1993:

1836 ~ Texas declared independence from Mexico. ~ Texas Declaration of Rights adopted: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the Republic."

1845 ~ Texas admitted into statehood. ~ Texas State Constitution adopted: "every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself and the state." _(At this point, weapons could be worn openly or concealed without legislative infringement. This right was extended to slaves.)_

1861 ~ Constitutional Convention: Reenacted 1845 arms provision verbatim. ~ Texas secedes from the United States and joins the Confederate States of America.

1866 ~ Constitutional Convention: Once again reenacted 1845 arms provision verbatim. ~ First gun control measure enacted: "I shall not be lawful for any person or persons to carry firearms on the enclosed premises or plantation of any citizen, without the consent of the owner or proprietor."

1870 ~ New Texas Bill of Rights adopted: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." ~ February 18 D* Texas ratified the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ~ March 30 D Texas was readmitted into the Union. ~ August D "An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" was enacted. This Act was adopted during the period in which Governor E.J. Davis, an appointed governor, had declared martial law in Texas. Legislators who opposed his policies were arrested so that his radical policies would be adopted. One of these "radical" policies was the aforementioned Act which greatly limited one's right to bear arms in this state.

1871 "An Act Regulating the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons" was enacted as another part of Governor Davis' radical plan. This Act was even more restrictive than the 1870 Act because it prohibited the carrying of ALL arms except rifles and shotguns. _(It is important to note that this Act is the basis of our current weapons statute.)_

1871 __English v. State__: The Texas Supreme Court, appointed by Governor Davis, upheld the 1871 firearms act by ruling that the only "arms" citizens had the right to carry were those used for military purposes. The Court reasoned that this was the meaning of the Texas Constitution and the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. _(This Court's decisions would later be considered non-binding because the Court was appointed during the military occupation of Reconstruction.)_

1872/1873 ~ Governor Davis was defeated by the Democrats and most of his radical acts were repealed, except the ban on bearing arms. ~ A new state Supreme Court was formed.

1872/1873 __State v. Duke__: The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not intended to limit state action. Furthermore, it ruled that arms protected by the Texas Bill of Rights were not limited to those used by the militia. The decision was based on the federal review of the __Slaughterhouse Cases__, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that rights granted in the U.S. Constitution could not be used to limit state government.

1875 ~ Texas Constitutional Convention: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state; but the legislature shall have the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." z* The legislature could only _regulate_, not _prohibit_, how arms were worn. z Keeping and bearing arms were supposedly beyond legislative control, wearing arms could be regulated, however. z Legislative regulation was only to be done with a view to prevent crime. _(It is worth noting that several amendments were offered but rejected. One such amendment would have given the Legislature the power to prohibit, not regulate the wearing of arms.)_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1876 ~ __U.S. v. Cruikshank__: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federally recognized rights of peaceable assembly and bearing arms did not limit state action on these rights.

1877 ~ __Lewis v. State__: The Texas Supreme Court set the precedent for the way firearms were carried or used by ruling that firearms in one's saddlebags or on one's person were prohibited by the Texas Constitution.

1877 __Jennings V. State__: A Texas Appeals Court ruled that even though the Legislature can regulate the wearing of arms, these arms cannot be permanently taken away from the individual who illegally wears them. In other words, a person cannot be forced to forfeit a weapon that is being held in violation of state acts.

* These letters are the result of a character-set translation problem. I don't know what they represented in the original report.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

P.S.: After the 1870s, the general ban on carrying handguns was considered settled law and thus not appealed often. However, there is further case law clarifying (or confusing, depending upon your point of view) the traveling exception. These rulings upheld in passing the general ban.

The 2007 text of 46.02 creates the possibility that a person can carry a handgun openly while walking from his home or business to his vehicle; but AFAIK, no one has dared to test it.

- Jim

[Conagher]

Thanks Jim!

Have a Nice Day!

[Rockrz]

The 2007 text of 46.02 creates the possibility that a person can carry a handgun openly while walking from his home or business to his vehicle; but AFAIK, no one has dared to test it.

If somebody wants to cover my legal expenses, I'll test it

It'd be good to test this to establish a court precedent so everybody
can enjoy doing this for protection when they get off work

Besides, wouldn't a fella get into trouble for CONCEALING the
handgun if he didn't have a CHL but wanted to take advantage
of being able to carry in their vehicle (concealed inside of course)?

I wouldn't want to have to hire someone with a CHL just to help
me get my pistol from my home out to my truck

[seamusTX]

Thanks for offering, but if you lose, you could have a class A misdemeanor on your record.

Texas law never distinguished concealed versus open carry, until concealed carry was legalized in 1995. That is in contrast to other states, where open carry was legal but concealed carry was not.

- Jim

[Rockrz]

Well, I guess we'll have to wait on some rich
guy to do this and get busted so he can test it in court.

You're right. I've not been in trouble with the laws
since I was 17 (charges were dropped )
so I don't want to start a life of crime now...

I heard those fellas in prison gave up on women!