Wisconsin cops to violently arrest all gun owners

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 20:10
VIEWED: 2003
PAGE 1 of 1

PIRATENEWS

Monday, October 19, 2009 1:42 PM

KWICKO

Monday, October 19, 2009 5:39 PM

Quoted text from the video:

Quote:

"Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.

Chief Ed Flynn said officers can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the last two years.

He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away, and then decide if the person has a right to carry it."

My problems with this are twofold:

1. Issues with the Second Amendment.

2. Issues with the presumption of guilt, and with the Fourth Amendment.

Under the LAW, and under a presumption of innocence, and lacking any reasonable cause to think otherwise, officers MUST "assume people are carrying guns legally" - unless they have a SPECIFIC reason (or knowledge) to assume otherwise. And simply having a gun isn't probable cause, any more than owning a car is probable cause to search your car, or living in a house is probable cause to search your house.

This is why I said before that I most likely WOULDN'T go open-carry if it were allowed in Texas by law: it simply gives the police a REASON to stop and hassle you, ask you to produce your papers, etc., regardless of whether or not you were actually doing anything wrong at the time. It might not be LEGAL for them to pull this kind of shit, but that has nothing to do with it for most police and most prosecutors. Just ask our own "Hero", an admittedly corrupt attorney, who'll keep someone's legally-owned, legally-bought, and legally-possessed guns for just as long as he physically (not "legallly") can, without any real reason for doing so, other than to be a pain in the ass to someone who had the temerity to cross him in a court of law.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 19, 2009 6:04 PM

So, naturally, Chief Ed Flynn will, I presume, illegally detain and/or arrest any of his officers whom he finds to be carrying openly.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, October 19, 2009 6:27 PM

So, no matter what the law is, the cops plan to do as they please - despite being sworn to uphold it, despite that being their entire supposed purpose.

And this surprises anyone ?

You know what the difference between Police and Mafia is ?

Perceived Legitimacy.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Monday, October 19, 2009 7:11 PM

Hello,

I was recently watching a history channel special on the Samurai, and it occurred to me how similar the Samurai were to our law enforcement.

Elite class with special rights responsible for the protection of the realm. Supposedly holding to a code of honor. Ultimately abusing their powers and lording them over the population, bringing retribution upon anyone who does not sufficiently bow and scrape.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 19, 2009 8:04 PM

In an unarmed society, you better be as good as Tony Jaa.

Even then tho, the BGs will STILL have guns.

So you have to ask yourselves.. who would want the people unarmed? And Why?

For those of you wishing for a happy peaceful society, great!

I want 1 quadrillion dollars, and a flying dragon.

So lets who gets their wish first, and at what cost.

GEEZER

Monday, October 19, 2009 9:26 PM

Somebody call the ACLU!!!

Oh, wait. They only protect the Constitutional rights they approve of.

Maybe if the guy said carrying a firearm was a tenent of his religion?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Monday, October 19, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Somebody call the ACLU!!!

Oh, wait. They only protect the Constitutional rights they approve of.

Maybe if the guy said carrying a firearm was a tenent of his religion?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I think you mean "tenet", unless it's an inhabitant of his religion...

And the ACLU even occasionally fights for the rights YOU approve of, too. Remember, it was the ACLU who sent a Jewish lawyer to argue that the KKK had the legal right to have a march in Skokie, Illinois - a predominantly Jewish town at the time.

It wasn't that they wanted the Klan there - it was that they wanted to protect UNPOPULAR speech, to show that ALL speech should be protected, even that with which you disagree.

I believe they've also filed some suits in some gun-rights cases recently, too. In FAVOR of gun owners, I might add. I'll have to see if I can track down some info on that, but it came up on one of the gun boards I frequent, and many people there were rather surprised that the ACLU would be looking out for them.

Seems the ACLU has this radical notion of defending EVERYBODY's rights, not just those of Republicans or Democrats. Crazy notion, and I doubt you'll ever wrap your head around it, but give it a shot.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Monday, October 19, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I was recently watching a history channel special on the Samurai, and it occurred to me how similar the Samurai were to our law enforcement.

Elite class with special rights responsible for the protection of the realm. Supposedly holding to a code of honor. Ultimately abusing their powers and lording them over the population, bringing retribution upon anyone who does not sufficiently bow and scrape.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

That sounds about right.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 19, 2009 10:08 PM

http://www.jpfo.org/index.htm

KWICKO

Monday, October 19, 2009 10:54 PM

http://freeamerican.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/aclu-and-nra-fight-white-
house-over-unconstitutional-gun-bill/

http://www.wdsu.com/news/19930035/detail.html

It should be noted that the ACLU's *official* position on the Second Amendment is that it's a COLLECTIVE right, not an individual one (they pay more attention to the "well-regulated militia" part of it than "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" part.

Still, even with that position, they've come down on the side of the individual in this case, stating that he was legally allowed (and even licensed) to carry a firearm at the time of his arrest, no charges were filed, none were pending, so there was no crime, therefore his firearm MUST be returned to him. NOPD says it doesn't return weapons confiscated during an arrest.

Here's the thing: YOU - anybody, anywhere, any single one of you - can be arrested at any time, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. It isn't strictly *legal*, mind you, but it IS done, more often than you'd believe. You can fight it in court, and you'll win, or more likely the charges will be dropped before it ever goes to court - but that doesn't get you your property back, does it?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

PIRATENEWS

Monday, October 19, 2009 11:33 PM

What about hunters? Are they supposed to conceal carry? Black trenchcoats required for a hunting license?

If I were ever arrested for open carry, I'd argue Equal Protection doctrine in the 14th Amendment to US Constitution, which orders that when gubmit employees get a right or immunity (cops with open carry on duty), then everyone gets that right.

Many business owners in TN open carry at their business. Hard to rob a gun store when all employees are packin for quick-draw...

BLAZINGUN

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:23 AM

Frack'em all!! Move ta Arizona!!! I can carry my firearm in the open right on my hip where it belongs!!!

Lil Gal Big Gun

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Seems the ACLU has this radical notion of defending EVERYBODY's rights, not just those of Republicans or Democrats. Crazy notion, and I doubt you'll ever wrap your head around it, but give it a shot.

Everyone BUT children, Mikey.

S'why I have a bone to pick with them, in all my years they've never taken a single case thereof brought to them, and in some of them went straight on to defend the predator or aggressor.

They're also indirectly responsible for the death of Tempest Kayne Smith, by ignoring and rejecting pleas of pagan children regarding discrimination and abuse directed at them - and yet if you ban crosses oh they'll be johnny on the spot, won't they now ?
*hissss*

And them there was the specific legal defense of Nambla after the murder of Jeffrey Curley by some perps who were following the grooming/enticement playbooks offered by such went and killed him when that didn't go as planned...

That actually went far beyond defense of rights straight into collaboration - but that can be traced to internal corruption cause the director involved in that, one Charles Rust-Tierney, was later busted for being a predator and trafficker himself - so that was more internal corruption than official policy, but still I have not forgotten it.

They CAN be especially useful if they decide to intervene, but for my part I've found them to be in general, spectacularly useless - any organization which gets beyond itself by growing past certain critical sizes begins to exist of and for only itself, and they're a classic example, usually only getting into it when they get to cause enough public fiasco to run up donations and fill the coffers, although I was more than a bit miffed when they didn't jump on that FLDS mess in El Dorado cause it seemed tailor made for that, didn't it ?

*IF* you can get them involved, they can be useful, sure, but don't be counting on it, only reason I can strong-arm the Michigan branch is cause of co-opting some of them to my own causes over their own personal revulsion at the Nambla/Tierney mess - and they STILL wouldn't take on the hellcamps, even so.

And yes, Wulf - the JFPO is indeed more effective and efficient than the NRA, but they're also smaller - remember what I said about the half hearted and back handed support of a million trumping the rabid support of a thousand ?

Not that I LIKE the NRA mind you, considering them to be a buncha freakin pansyfied semi-collaborators - but yanno, numbers do count for something, so it's worth exploiting that route.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:05 PM

Well, I suppose I'd better not join the JFPO then. After all, I'd hate to see them get so much support that they grow into a group that exists for the sake of itself...

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Still, even with that position, they've come down on the side of the individual in this case, stating that he was legally allowed (and even licensed) to carry a firearm at the time of his arrest, no charges were filed, none were pending, so there was no crime, therefore his firearm MUST be returned to him. NOPD says it doesn't return weapons confiscated during an arrest.

Hmm. Good to see them coming around, even if this seems more like a property rights issue than gun rights. In cases I followed a few years ago they were pointedly not getting involved in anything related to guns at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:35 PM

In general, they don't - they figure the NRA pretty much has it covered. The ACLU has much wider civil-liberties interestss, whereas the NRA is focused ONLY on gun rights. It is odd, but also somehow reassuring, to see them line up on the same side now and again.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:23 PM

http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/x42388263/Parente-Digging-gun-
rights-out-of-a-State-House-Dumpster

"Whereas by a Resolve of the General Court of this State, past the 2nd of April 1778, for raising 1300 men for North River, it was among other Things resolved that every person who supply himself with a good firelock and bayonet, cartouche-box, haversack and blanket ... shall receive, agreeable to a resolve by the Congress, ... two dollars for the use of his firelock, bayonet and cartouche and two dollars for the use of his blanket and four dollars in like proportion for either of them."

According to the Acts and Resolves of 1779, "after producing proper vouchers they were so provided. It is my considered belief the farmers earned tacit approval of private gun ownership." In conclusion, I said, "Had not the farmers brought their private weapons to the Revolutionary War we might not be standing here today."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:10 PM

Hell, my preferred cite is the Battle of Kings Mountain, regarding this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain
http://www.tngenweb.org/revwar/kingsmountain.html

The overmountain men were at best, pissed off neutrals with no great amount of respect for the continentals OR the tories - but when Ferguson made the dire mistake of demanding they hand over their rifles or he'd ravage and torch the countryside, they decided they'd had enough of that shit and came over the mountain to "discuss" the matter with him - and proceeded to rather soundly kick his ass.

After the fact there was much clamor about their supposed patriotism and the usual propaganda, but really they were just about as close to downright anarchists as one could get, following up the further history of Sevier and the Watauga Association (See Also: State of Franklin) after that is pretty conclusive on that fact.

But what the battle of Kings Mountain DID, besides restoring faith and hope in the revolution, was show without a doubt that comparably armed, ordinary americans were quite capable of going head to head with military regulars (although Fergusons men were initially militia, he had taken the time to train them to minimum british standards) and carrying the day.

This event was foremost in the minds of the debate over militia effectiveness between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in particular Madison expounds at length that one would not need fear a standing army too greatly when the Militia could *if comparably armed* whup it's ass.

Patrick Henry challenged that by pointing out one of the first things a government would do once it became bent on tyranny, would be deprive them of arms, and they even had the means to do so since control of those things was in the hands of the Federal, rather than State, authority.

By US Law, we the people are the unorganized militia, you see - there's no debate of this.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

And as such, Congress is responsible for our armaments and setting training requirements, leaving the State responsible for training and appointing our officers - duties they have sorely neglected, quite intentionally, and replaced with a Federalised police force which constitutes the very standing army enforcing kings-law unto us that our Founders feared the most.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
(See Section 722: Police as a standing army)

Patrick Henry dropped the bomb on that one at the time, and he was as correct today as he was then - even more so, since he has been proven so on almost every count he held against the Federalists.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm#henry-07

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.

The honorable member who has risen to explain several parts of the system was pleased to say, that the best way of avoiding the danger of a standing army, was, to have the militia in such a way as to render it unnecessary; and that, as the new government would have power over the militia, we should have no standing army — it being unnecessary. This argument destroys itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise. There are suspicions of power on one hand, and absolute and unlimited confidence {385} on the other. I hope to be one of those who have a large share of suspicion. I leave it to this house, if there be not too small a portion on the other side, by giving up too much to that government. You can easily see which is the worst of two extreme