March 8, 2010

City agrees ordered to pay resident, gun rights organization $10,000 for arrest in open-carry case

Update: Deputy City Attorney Scott Letteney writes to correct this post: The court did not order the city to pay; rather, the city decided to settle the suit for $10,000.

Original post:

A federal court ordered the city of Racine to pay a city resident and a guns-rights organization $10,000 for violating the man's rights last September.

Frank Hannan-Rock was arrested Sept. 9 after police found him sitting on his porch at 417 Luedtke Ave. with a gun. Officers were called to the area for a report of shots fired, but Hannan-Rock had nothing to do with the incident.

However, Hannan-Rock refused to answer police questions and was arrested for obstructing justice an officer. His gun was also confiscated. He was released without any charges filed and his gun was returned.

Wisconsin Carry sued the Racine Police Department on Hannan-Rock's behalf in the U.S. Eastern District Court located in Milwaukee. The federal court ruled Friday the city must pay Hannan-Rock and Wisconsin Carry $10,000.

Here's a story by Wisconsin Carry on the court decision.

The Racine City Council's Finance and Personnel Committee is scheduled to meet in closed session tonight to discuss Hannan-Rock's case.


  1. So this gun owner wants to hit the taxpayers in the wallet?

  2. The gun owner wanted to exercise his constitutional rights (like you do by commenting). The police violated those rights. The court ordered Racine to pay, not the gun owner.

  3. Anon 10:40, you hit it on the head. The case itself was not about money, it was about our afforded rights as U.S. citizens.

  4. So the taxpayers get to foot the bill for this freedom loving gun owner?

    Glad to see this guy living off of the government dime....actually our dime!

  5. Would you prefer that there were no consequences for police violating constitutional rights?

  6. So this clown decides to fire off his gun, calls the cops and then waits for them to come so he can remain silent and be arrested.

    It was all a setup to test the laws and make money..

    I've heard of welfare fraud, but now we're going to have taxpayer funded gun fraud.

    Any jackass can now fire their weapons in a neighborhood and try to get arrested to get a sweet lawsuit and government check courtesy of the taxpayers.

  7. He had a good idea how the police would respond. Wisconsin's Attourney General had previously determined open carry was legal and local police forces around the state said they would challenge that determination in different ways.

  8. This was reverse entrapment. Numb nuts here does what amounts to a prank call to the cops that the taxpayers get to fund. Hooray, what a hero. Quick get my flag so I can start a parade in his honor.

  9. So this prick gets a government check for deliberately wasting the valuable time of our police department?

    Am I still on Earth? Wtf?

  10. No, let's have a parade for numb nuts who try to spin a story to their favor: the man has a right to carry his gun openly and the police violated that right. What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

  11. What a patriot! F-around with the cops and then rake the taxpayers over the coals for your own profit....during a deep recession when money is tight. This isn't 1776 a-hole. The revolutionary war is over.

    That's not spin. That's calling a spade, a spade. You want to waste police time for your ego driven money making scheme, then be prepared for the backlash.

  12. Keep Dickert and the rest of the liberals in office and that won't be the only civil right that they take from you.

  13. "This isn't 1776 a-hole. The revolutionary war is over."

    The revolution is just beginning, or have you been hiding under your bed these past few years? A lot of people are fed up with our government and we intend to take it back.

    PS Calling people "a-hole" will surely win converts to your way of thinking.

  14. Of the system promises protection of constitutional rights, and that's not happening, then by all means, challenge it... LEGALLY.

    To challenge it illegally kind of does make you an a-hole, and as we've seen here, costs taxpayers.

  15. "challenge it... LEGALLY."

    The case went to federal court and was decided in favor of the plaintiff. How much more LEGAL can it get?

    Again, what don't you understand about this? If you're upset about the money outlay, talk to the Racine Police Dept. which decided to arrest this man even after the state attorney general gave a differing opinion.

  16. Anon 12:21,

    I agree, and in this particular case, our legal / justice system has determined that no wrong-doing was committed.

    *IF* this had gone down the way some posters here described (guy discharges weapon deliberately to "entrap" police), that would be the example of illegal challenge that I would not support.

  17. Only $1000? What's that? I heard that he's buying a new FN 57 now with his winnings.

  18. When will we see the NAACP meeting on CAR 25? THey had lots to say about the RPD

  19. Oops! $10,000. I heard that this guy was invited since he's the city's newest multi-thousandaire.

  20. All Should Bare Arms3/08/2010 12:56 PM

    It amazes me that all you Liberal pigs have no problem flipping the bill for those to lazy to work, but when ones constitutional rights are violated and he is compensated you have an issue!

  21. It amazes me that liberals have no problem dealing out money to people to lazy to work, yet when a persons constitutional rights are compromised and he is compensated for it he is a leaker!

  22. I am pretty sure that this is Dickerts fault, because he has F'ed up everything else.

  23. Should we all cry in unison for this poor, victimized patriot?

    Every taxpayer in Racine should send this guy a thank you letter for wasting our money for his political stunt.

  24. Why do we have to pay a guns rights group as part of the decision?

    Who is this group? What do they do and who funds them?are they even local?

    As a taxpayer, I'd like to know who is profiting at my expense on this.

  25. Wow! There was a whole trial on this issue and a finding by a judge or jury that the city violated conatitutional rights? When was that? I don't remember that being reported?

  26. JT reporting this jerk called in the complaint from his home. Bam, caught red handed. This little piece if crap just cheated the taxpayers.

    What an a-hole.

  27. Well, we all know the JT is a sacred source of the truth now don't we. They ALWAYS put the public first in their reporting.

  28. So we're giving this guy and some other bizarre non-Racine group $10K because this guy acted like a little b!tch to our men and women in blue trying to do their jobs?

  29. Bottom Line "the fine men and women in blue" broke the law. Possibly you should read the courts ruling prior to posting.

  30. Here's my message to Wisconsin Carry, Inc:

    Go f-yourself - every last single one of you. And then when you're done, go f-yourself again. The next time you want to set up our police force for some garbage lawsuit maybe do it somewhere else where they don't have 17% unemployment and budget shortfalls. We can't afford your political stunt.

    Go ahead, blame the cops. Hate on them some more. Here in Racine, we support our police and the work they do. It isn't always perfect but it is a tough job and one that you clearly do not respect. Stop wating the polic and our time and money you scumbag government leaches.

  31. Watch your language, everyone.

    Enough of the profanity, partial profanity, etc. Let's try to have a civil discourse.

  32. Anon 2:03, did you read the Court's ruling? Here is the court's entire ruling: "Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a),
    IT IS ORDERED that judgment in the amount of $10,000.00, inclusive of
    attorney’s fees and costs, is entered in favor of plaintiffs, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and
    Frank Hannan Rock and against defendants, City of Racine, Sgt. Nethery, and R.
    Prince, as to all claims of said plaintiffs, state and federal, respecting this action."
    Do you know what Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) is or means?
    There is no finding of fact in this ruling saying that the City broke the law or violated anyone's rights.

  33. Wisconsin Carry is the moral equivalent of ambulance chasers.

    Shots were fired in the vincinity of children. Call made from the guy's place to police. Cops show up and they guy in the lawsuit has a gun on him and is sitting in his porch waiting. He refuses to give his name and records the incident on a voice recorder.

    This was an obvious setup. Wisconsin Carry's real motivation is to get a law revoked that says you can't have a gun within 1000 yards of a school. Lo and behold this guy just so happens to live within a thousand yards of a school. Imagine that!

    They intentionally tried to dupe the police into a mistake so they can challenge the ruling.

    These police haters then used the incident to rape the Racine taxpayer and claim a win for themselves.

    They owe our fine men and women of the police force an engraved apology. They should also give their "winnings" back to the taxpayers now that their disgusting actions have been revealed. There are better ways of proving your points besides setting up our cops.

  34. Anon 11:04, that's insane. The report specifically states, and so do the police, that Rock was NOT involved in the "shots fired" reported incident. I guess it's OK with you lefties if a gun owner's Constitutional rights are violated, but don't let anyone say anything against a homosexual, or a girl too stupid to prevent a pregnancy and is now wanting the taxpayers to pay for her abortion, or for some leftist organization's attempt to remove God and Christian principles for our lives, or a (so called) president who wants to infringe on our First Amendment rights. And I hardly call a $10K out-of-court settlement "living off the government dime." I'm sure I wouldn't hear you complain one bit if that money was given to some slob on welfare who WON'T get off his/her can and go find a job or start a business or get an education.

    I do agree that Rock was wrong in not responding to police questions and should possibly be charged with obstruction of an officer. But where, in anything printed or in court transcripts, do you people find where he ever fired his gun or has been accused of entrapping these officers? You anti-gun people are the numb nuts here, with your false accusations and made up stories.

    No, Anon 1:12, everyone should send a thank you letter to the police department for infringing on this man's Constitutional right to carry a sidearm, thus costing the city $10K. I guess it's just easier for you liberals to blame the victim and let the perpetrator (in this case the police) get off.

    Anon 1:17, if you had read the article you would have seen that the "gun rights group" represented Rock and brought suit against the police department themselves. That is why they are part of the settlement.

    Anon 1:41, go back and read the article. Rock did not call in the complaint.

    Anon 2:38, where is your PROOF of what you state? It is pure speculation. If the court had thought this was a set-up that would have been brought out and this trial would still be going on.

  35. anon 2:32 yes, I do know what that means.

    It means that the city of Racine knew that the Officers in the case were wrong in their handling of this instance.

    Hence their offering of the 10k to settle the case prior to it going in front of a court.

    Through their admittance earlier this year (RPD) they knew they were in the wrong, luckily for us as taxpayers they got the paperwork in on time, or this could have cost us allot more if it were to go in front of a judge.

  36. Well stated Anon 2:38

  37. Ok, Anon 3:23, tell us what Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) is, says, or means. Don't give us your interpretation of Racine's actions. Explain what Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) is and the consequences that follow.

  38. Here you go,

    Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (a)

    More than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 10 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.

    Shall I break out Websters for the big words next?

  39. If you would like free legal advice, possibly go online. Shapiro and Judge Joe might be able to break it down for you, sorry for not citing "Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure" prior to Rule 68 section a.

  40. "If the court had thought this was a set-up that would have been brought out and this trial would still be going on."

    Not really. Cheaper to settle than go through the process, especially when the cops were tricked into making a mistake. Settle also doesn't imply guilt.

    The officers probably did take it too far and this guy antagonzing them doesn't help. Remember the police are responding to an incident of shots fired near an area where children were present. They show up and this guy isn't cooperating. Our cops don't need this stuff. I would have been really pissed off too if I were them. It is hard enough doing their job without guys like this busting their balls.

    So instead of just helping this guy obstructs. The question is whether it was all setup. There is a good case to be made for yes.

    The org that represents this guy (Wisconsin Carry, Inc) has a stated interest of repealing and challenging the law that prohibits guns in a school zone. This was a perfect case for them to set up to prove their point and get a court ruling they could continue to work from. Open carry proponents are known for testing the waters to see how deep they can go. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy was a member prior to the lawsuit and actively worked with them to make this happen as part of a politial agenda. The proof is that is worked!

    This whole thing smells funny. The guy happened to go through all of this and live in the school zone that Wisconsin Carry is targeting. Where I come from 2+2=4.

    Problem is the taxpayers get the shaft for it. Not only that, the bar has been set for antagonizing police officers in hopes of winning a lawsuit. Their hope is to get the cops to do just enough wrong to enable them to sue.

    This anti-cop tactic by Wisconsin Carry, Inc is truly stunning. Provoking police officers into an incident for political and financial gain is just plain wrong.

    If this organization and guy in the lawsuit had any honor at all they will give the money from the suit to the city and not make the taxpayers pick up the tab for their irresponsible behavior against our police officers.

  41. It's one thing to follow the law, but this guy taunted the law. I know he did not break the law, but he sure wasted a lot of people's time.

  42. 4:16

    Time and money actually. We just paid this guy $10,000 to mess with cops.

    Taxpayers also just funded Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Who knows what this militia will do next. If you're a cop - watch out for this group. They have you targeted. They want you to question them so that they can obstruct and provoke you to respond.

    I know it is really immature and spineless, but they will do it anyway so be careful. Racine citizens have your back and thank you for keep us safe and all the hard work you do....unlike open carry supporters that are trying to get paid via lawsuits.

  43. To all who think this was a stunt or taunting, here is something to ponder..

    "When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong --
    is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth,
    then all Americans are in peril."
    -- Harry S. Truman

  44. 5:04

    Yeah, except that this guy did do something wrong. Targeting police so that you can sue them is wrong. This guy couldn't wait for the chance to provoke these cops into making a mistake. He probably had dreams about the day it would happen.

    Why do I say that? Well, because he had a voice recorder ready and purposefully sat outside in full sight of the cops. This guy WANTED a confrontation.

    And now he has been rewarded for it. $10,000 in his pocket and a smile on his face. Wisconsin Carry, Inc gets what they wanted - a chance to embarass their arch enemy - police.

  45. Anon 5:13,

    If that was the case, and could be proven do you believe that they would have settled or, do you think they simply settled to resolve the issue due to Atty fees which, can be recovered if they had one the case?

    By law, he was within his right to remain silent. Whether or not the call was made by him or this whole thing was a conspiracy by, is pure speculation.

    So, I pose the question stated above to you.

    If the Atty fees would be recoverable in a settlement if the City went to court, why then not move forward and not just settle?

  46. Heck yes, they would settle. They probably saw that there was enough stuff to be in the gray area on the police side and thus not recover the fees if they were to win, not to mention the costs associated with the investigation of Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

    Cost/Benefit said settle now. The fact that they settled doesn't mean that this was not all set up. It just means they didn't want to spend the money to prove it. Is it speculation? Yes, of course but there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence to point towards motive.

    I totally understand the cops state of mind here. They are trying to deal with a serious issue of shots fired in a location with children nearby. They try doing their job and then run across this guy who decides to make a scene and not be cooperative.

    Instead of handling this whole thing like a man and just working it out with the cops on the side, this guy decides to file a lawsuit. Face it - he was trying to get paid and he did. Congrats.

    Obstruction is no longer a crime, it is a source of income apparantly.

  47. And The Mayor wants to prevent the NAACP event to go on air and nothing about that then too most of you would not care what rights you lose

  48. Whatever you idiot, the mayor wasn't even at the event.

  49. More comments from uneducated people. So, here are the FACTS of the case as admitted to by the Racine Police in a statement released to the press.

    You live in a neighborhood consisting of duplexes, but they are one-up/one-down instead of side-by-side.

    One of your neighbors who lives across the street and down several houses comes out with a pellet gun and shoots a raccoon. Another of your neighbors calls the police and reports this. The police respond with two cars and seal off the street at each end of the block. You see the lights, and head out onto you porch, armed as you always are.

    The officers then approach the neighboring house from each end. As they pass your house they tell you to stay put and continue on. They get to the duplex and talk with the neighbors there. The neighbors give a description of the "suspect" to the police, inform them that "he" lived upstairs and that he has left. The police take their statements and start to return to their vehicles. Now this was all in a statement released to the press by the Racine police. THESE ARE THE FACTS as admitted by the police.

  50. Here is where it gets interesting…..

    As the police come back past your house (according to the statement from the police) they notice an individual standing NEXT TO YOU, who matches the general description of the suspect. I will repeat, standing NEXT TO YOU.

    The police come to your porch, but instead of talking to the guy NEXT TO YOU, they immediately fixate on your firearm. What kind is it? You answer. Is it loaded? You answer. The police then become belligerent and inform you that you cannot have a loaded gun in "their town." At this point you exercise your right to freely "shut up." You DO NOT match the description, the guy NEXT TO YOU, who the police NEVER TALK WITH, does. Even the ACLU recommends you not to talk to the police. Every attorney I have ever talked with says, "don't talk to the police, that's my job."

    Now, they really get on your case demanding you answer their questions including giving your name. You are NOT required by law to give your name in Wisconsin; you are NOT! The police then decide to arrest, again YOU DO NOT MATCH the description of the suspect. They arrest you for EXERCISING YOUR FREEDOM.

    Now, everybody I have talked with, including law enforcement, tells me that once they handcuff you, they pat you down and empty your pockets. If you are armed, they disarm you.

  51. BUT

    In the statement released to the police, the officers tried to place Hannon-Rock in the car while still armed! Why? Why would the police try to put you/him in the car while still armed? Could it be they know that when they get you to the curb, they can get the felony arrest? Can it be that if you get in the car, they can get you for illegal transportation of a firearm?

    This was all in the statement released to the press by the police, so these are the UNDISPUTED FACTS.

    So, go stand on your porch, because you are curious about why the police are in your neighborhood. Then have them DEMAND your name (even though you are NOT a suspect) simply because you are wearing an "inanimate" object.

    The big issue here is are we a police state or a free state.

  52. As posted above, the Racine Police department admitted to all these FACTS and knew they had no defense. It was the Racine Police department that offered a judgment, not settlement.

    For those of you who want to know more about Wisconsin Carry, Inc., visit their web site:

    From the web site:

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and reclamation of the basic rights critical to a free society. Our organization believes in the founding principles of our country and our constitution: That all are created equal, that governments exist to protect the rights of individuals, and that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. The Second Amendment of our Federal constitution explicitly affirms one of the limitless numbers of rights we enjoy as human beings. The right to keep and bear arms. In 1998 79% of the voters in the great state of Wisconsin voted Article 1 Section 25 into our state constitution. "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". We believe that "Open-Carry" and "Conceal Carry" are choices to be made by law-abiding citizens based on what suits their needs best. Our mission is to preserve, advance and expand these basic rights which law-abiding citizens are entitled to have a practical ability to exercise.

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is the only Wisconsin gun rights organization actively supporting Open Carry as a means to exercise ones right to self-defense.

  53. Anonymous said 3/08/2010 5:44 PM

    "Heck yes, they would settle. They probably saw that there was enough stuff to be in the gray area on the police side and thus not recover the fees if they were to win, not to mention the costs associated with the investigation of Wisconsin Carry, Inc."

    WOW, news FLASH!!!

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc is being investigated? Please cite your source. Who is investigating them?

  54. Maybe its a bit out of place, but I'd like to point out the fact that the right to carry a weapon is a highly controversial issue within the constitution and should hardly be afforded the same weight as say the right to free speech.

    taking the wording of the amendment itself, a very popular argument is that the phrase "a well regulated militia" is often given relatively small weight. People emphasize "the right of the people to bear arms" without considering the syntax and context of the statement. If history tells us anything, its that when the amendments to the constituion were proposed, the country had no armed services - no Army, no Marines, etc. The resources for defending ourselves came from state militia's which were men who provided their own weapons to defend our country. Further compounded with the fact that the constitutional document itself sets out parameters of our government - things it could and could not do. It seems highly logical that the founding father's created this right to bear arms out of the reality that this new country would need to defend itself from foreign invasion and even from tyranny by the powerful within its own borders. Its highly illogical that the founding fathers intended this right to extend to the right for individuals to carry weapons against each other. If that was the case, what purpose does the phrase "a well regulated militia" serve? Surely our founding fathers would not have included a purposeless phrase in such an important document. Rather I believe this amendment has exceeded its original intent. The reality is that the constitution is a fluid document whos meanings and parameters change with history, societal need. Just as the language about slavery has become outdated, I believe the 2nd amendment also is.

    Second the positioning of the amendment is also important and also indicates that it was not intended to provide the meaning it has been construed to mean. The constitution as whole has two parts. The Constitution itself which creates the government and things it can and cannot do. Then there are the amendments which are limitations on the government. Common interpretation leads us to believe that the amendments afford us rights that is grant citizens with rights. This is a bit misleading. In reality the constituional amendments describe things the government CANNOT do. The amendments do not afford rights but rather limit the powers of government. The government shall not limit free speech, endorse religion, etc. The rights that most people claim the constitution provides are actually based in common law. That is our right to speech, freedom of religion, due process and own weapons is based in basic human rights.

    So what does this mean? To set the record straight, I am not anti-gun. What I am against is a misinterpretation and misapplication of our constitution. The appropriate way to handle the issue of the 2nd amendment is to interpret it as it means literally. The right to bear weapons in self defense is a human right that should be interpreted by the level of government best suited to handle the needs of its constituency - the local governments. This is a status quo argument. except for gun industry regulations, the issue of ownership should be left up to the people via their elected officials in their respective local communities.

  55. 10:26

    And why not? Mayor too busy getting jobs for his pals?
    And why is the meeting that was taped not on CAR 25?
    What is City Hall afraid of?

  56. 10:41 aka paid rep of Wisonsin Carry, Inc

    You fail to mention that this guy decides to go get a voice recorder. Yep, just an innocent Joe hanging out on the porch! Could it be that you instructed him to act like provoke a conflict in the hopes of filing a lawsuit? Given the fact you are trying to get rid of the law that makes gun carrying ilegal in school zones.....quite possibly.

    Don't pretend your organization doesn't have a stated goal in all of this. Where that becomes a problem is when you set up our hard workung police officers to do it.

    If I'm a cop, you know what I want? I want to go home alive that day. It would get me on edge when someone near me has a firearm on them. And don't give me this bs that he's just a law abiding citizen doing nothing wrong. That's ceap. He's an armed law abiding citizen that poses a threat to our police. They are thrown into difficult and dangerous situations all the time. They don't need people packing heat and showing up at a crime scene.

    NEWSFLASH - it makes their jobs more difficult and unsafe. Tell Dirty Harry to sit the next one out and let the professionals do their work without the added duress of worrying about being shot.

    Everyday folks understand that and would give the cops some cooperation and slack.

    But did he, oh no. He decided to use this as an opportunity to throw his gun rights into the cops faces and dare them to do something about it. He knew full well what that might lead to? Proof? He was trained to act that way by Wisconsin Carry Inc. In fact, he went to go get a voice recorder (instead of just going inside and leaving the cops to do their work)

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc has no respect for law enforcement or what they do. If this out if town organization had any dignity at all, they would admit the cops were in a tough spot, and return the lawsuit money back to the Racine taxpayers where it belongs. We can't aford your entrapment schemes.

    And next time stick to the JT, because when you come to RacinePost with half truths you get PWNED. You may not respect the cops, but you will respect this house.

  57. If any of you are unhappy with the decision of the federal court,you should be unhappy with your Racine government, District Attorney and Racine Police Dept. They all violated this mans constitutional rights. Their actions are the reason the money is being paid. I am a supporter of ALL of the Bill of Rights. If you are not there is always China to move to. If they would have you?

  58. Anon 1:19 you cite the Second Amendment as saying we need to protect ourselves “…from tyranny by the powerful within its own borders,” so answer this: how can we do that if individual citizens are denied the right to own and bear arms?

    You say, “…the constitution is a fluid document whose meanings and parameters change with history.” That is simply not true. They are the principle in which this country are founded on. Foundations are solid structures to be maintained, not altered at whim just because YOU don’t like them.

    You say, “…the issue of ownership should be left up to the people via their elected officials in their respective local communities,” wrong again. If that was the case it would not be a federal amendment. If noted at all, it would specify it as a “states right,” which it doesn’t.

    Anon 7:40, I keep a portable tape recorder within arms reach of my front door. I use it to record conversations with political promoters and solicitors to accurately retain their responses to questions, etc. You can bet that if the police came to my door or were out in front of my house I would grab it and record everything. I even have a video camera nearby for just such an instance. Does this make me a conspirator? Does it mean someone is behind me pulling my strings? I think not.

    There are two axioms that can not be disputed, and shouldn’t:

    “Fear the government that fears your gun.” And we have that right now. Every previous dictator in history has a record of disarming the people and making them defenseless (i.e. Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, etc., etc.).

    “When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” The facts of this are already evident as is proven by Australia’s increase in crime after convincing the law abiding citizens to turn in their guns. Crime of all sorts have increased by the hundreds of percents.

    The real reason the liberal left, the national socialists, and the commies in this country want to deprive the rest of us of our guns is to make it easier for them to take over. Well, I offer this to you… come and get them.

  59. Cry me a river. We have been ripped off 100 times harder from all the welfare fraud babysitting for cash.

  60. Graham - response to your claims.

    My perspective on the issue is exactly what you're failing to realize.

    I believe there is a right to defend oneself and a right to own and bear arms its just not a federal issue. You've ignored the exact wording of the constitution. Can you counter the argument I've made? You have not.

    To protect ourselves from tyranny within our borders we do have a right to carry weapons but that right is grounded in the common law and governed by local rules. It is not granted by the 2nd Amendment as it explicitly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State". That provision states nothing about an individual right to carry a concealed weapon for purposes other than the security of a free state in a milita.

    And you must not be an expert in Constitutional law if you fail to see the ways in which the legislature and courts have altered its meanings. The document itself has been changed through amendments. The very right you have inferred is actually an addition to the original text of the Constitution. That in and of itself proves the document has and will change based on current interpretation. If the constitution and its amendments were immovable, we'd still be a society that recognizes the slave states and 3/4th human beings.But if I must include further discussion, how about the right to privacy and sexual intimacy which many presume is in the constituion. In fact this right (just like your beloved 2nd amendment) is based in common law principles and NOT the constitution. Yet interpreters of the constitution in the past have expanded the meaning of freedom of speech to include freedom of expression. The constituion is SILENT on the right of a woman to abort a fetus or the right of consenting adults to have intercourse. Yet there is no mistake that state governments are precluded from harassing interested individuals because modern interpreters have associated freedom of expression as one and the same as freedom of speech. If the constitution was stagnant as constructed strictly as you say it doesn't change, how would the argument for abortions and sexual expression be an asserted right the way it is?

    Finally, as I've said before the right to bear weapons is a common law right recognized since before the constitution existed. Therefore it is a right that not even the constitution can alter. Citizens confer the right to be regulated upon their governments. The government that is most suited to regulate is those closest to the people - the local government. They are in a better position to evaluate the changing social attitudes towards weapons on a regional local level. The beauty of the democracy is that power is in the people. If a majority of the people feel that weapons are unneeded in modern society they should be able to create policies that limit. If a majority of the people in a community feel that weapons are necessary, they should have more power to create laws that provide rights. Since the country is pretty well divided on this issue based on geographic location, I am in favor of the people voting with their feet or with their voices and using their democratic right to influence local policy.

  61. Let's see... the government can wire tap your phone calls and go through suit cases and search your body at the airport. Do you rant and scream with the same anger? No. We don't like it but have decided it's in the interest of our collective safety to allow these invasions on our privacy.

    Touch your gun and you guys go nuts! You don't care that this guy is outside with his gun near a school or could be mentally unstable or might shoot a cop. His constitutional rights have been violated and it's a travesty. Why the unbalanced reaction?

    The reason in my humble opinion is like muscle cars and big engines, guns are phallic substitutes for what is physically lacking. Just a thought to consider fellas.

  62. Anon 1:21, again you fail to see. What makes the right to bear arms a federal issues is that it is and amendment to the FEDERAL constitution. DUH! You also maintain that in order to qualify as a person with a right to bear arms one MUST be a member of a state militia, yet you say, "I believe there is a right to defend oneself and a right to own and bear arms." You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Everyone law abiding citizen has a right to own and bear arms or only those enrolled in a state militia? The individual states may claim a right to control whether or not citizens can carry a concealed weapon, but not their right to own them.

    You also are obviously no expert in Constitution law. The Constitution is immovable. The articles are our ground rules for government. The Constitution can be ADDED to, but its primary rules can not, and should not, be changed.

    Cite any place in the U.S. Consitution that refers to sexual intimacy, if you can. I just read it and can't find anything pertaining to that. The same with abortion.

    I stop here, because you just are not worth arguing with.

  63. whole point is that the right is based in something that is SUPREME to the constitution - the common law. Just because the right is SUPREME to the constitution does not mean it has to exist in the constitution. Rather, it can exist outside of the constitution. I believe the forefathers did not intend to have the constitution reflect this right based on a strict interpretation of that language. You do not understand that.

    My whole argument about sexual intimacy was that IT IS NOT written in the constitution but has been inferred based on the right of expression vis a vis the first amendment. This tends to prove that constitution's meaning can and has changed.

    I'm not taking anything away from the constitution. What I am saying is that a right to bear arms cannot be created out of an amendment that is ambiguous or silent about the right to bear arms. I believe the amendment is more than silent in that it expressly limits the right to bear arms when in use by the well regulated milita for the defense of the State.

    As a matter of fact I am expert in constitutional law. I have an LLM/JD. If anyone has a problem with contextual reading, it might just be your inability to completely comprehend what I'm saying.

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Even though I think we're both advocating the right to be arms, I believe you don't understand my belief that this right is conferred by common law and not the constitution.

  64. Do a check on this guys mental state - I think you would be less supportive of him. It's scary that this guy has guns.

  65. The facts of the case cannot be disputed because the police admitted all the facts in their statement last fall. Instead many here throw insults, which is a typical blog tactic when one has no facts to support their position. The majority of individuals who carry a firearm for personal protection also carry a recorder for the same reason, personal protection.

    As to the constitution, we aren’t talking about the 2nd amendment at all. Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin State Constitution states: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.” This was added to our State Constitution in 1998 and received over a 70% YES vote.

    So in Wisconsin, there is no "militia" ambiguity, the right is expressly protected.

    Open carry is the ONLY way to exercise the right, and those who choose to exercise their rights should be able to go about their lives without harassment from overzealous police officers.

  66. Anon 7:38

    I am glad you see my point. Local government rules control this issue which is based in common law rights...not the 2nd amendment.

  67. Actually, it's based in both.

    And Anon 7:38, thank you for that insight.

  68. We will continue to have these issues as long as the police are the only ones who get to carry legal weapons. Our country made it abundantly clear that we are supposed to be able to protect ourselves. Something that was necessary then and it still necessary. Just try and get the police to respond to your emergency call. The response time would leave you dead. That is a fact.

  69. Anon 3:36, your argument is making more of an impression on me. Again, I am not an expert in Constitutional law, or law of any kind. If you are, then I must concede to your knowledge and experience with it. I agree that the Constitution does not specifically state that every law abiding citizen in the country has the right to carry a sidearm, but I believe it to be implied based on the case that every able bodied man in the country is expected to be part of the militia. But, the information provided by Anon 7:38 pretty much puts and end to our discussion.