I’ve had lots of nice things to say about Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn…

April 24th, 2009

…but my opinion of him dropped precipitously after he responded to Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen’s statement that carrying a gun openly in Wisconsin is protected by the state’s constitution, tadalafil view by asserting that HE and his officers decide what is a right and what is not:

He added, viagra usa discount “I want to stress to those who would come to Milwaukee to symbolically engage in their right to openly carry a weapon?.?.?.? that they’re going to confront police attention and we intend to have that confrontation in a safe way for all involved. We’re not going to start with the assumption that you are within your rights.”

It’s not an assumption, sir, it’s a god damn fact. The right to keep and bear arms is written into both the Federal AND the Wisconsin Constitutions. Cops enforce laws, they don’t make them up. Get your head out of your ass and start respecting the law you supposedly serve.

Entry Filed under: Gun Control

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. capper  |  April 24th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Imagine that, a officer that wants to keep the peace.

  • 2. phel  |  April 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am

    Imagine that, systematically removing rights granted by the Constitutions. Ones that have served us just fine for over 200 years.

  • 3. Chris from Racine  |  April 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am

    I was so disappointed in the chief when I read this. If he continues in this vein, I can see the lawsuits coming.

  • 4. Billiam  |  April 25th, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Amen, Elliot.

  • 5. John Foust  |  April 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am

    How might Flynn be able to make a decision like this? It’s just a memo. It’s not a full-blown “OAG” opinion of the Attorney General, which would carry more weight. VH waffled to reporters on this point when he released it. He knows this. Maybe he used a memo as opposed to a full OAG because he’s not confident, but he wanted to appease a certain constituency. Or maybe he’d like a few more test cases. Read the memo’s footnote:

    “This informal Advisory Memorandum does not constitute a formal opinion of the Wisconsin Attorney General or the Wisconsin Department of Justice under Wis. Stat. § 165.015(1). The Department offers this Advisory Memorandum for educational and informational purposes only. It does not prevent the Attorney General, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, or any Wisconsin district attorney, special prosecutor or municipal prosecutor from bringing any particular charge or making any particular argument in the course of litigation. It does not create any rights beyond those established under the constitutions, statutes, regulations and administrative rules of the United States of America and the State of Wisconsin.”

    Or to steal an explanation from another VH press release:

    “Opinions of the Attorney General provide guidance about the meaning and application of Wisconsin law, and are often requested where Wisconsin appellate courts have not definitively answered a question or to address legal questions that are unlikely to be resolved in the course of judicial proceedings. Though Wisconsin courts do not have any obligation to follow an interpretation provided by a formal opinion of the Attorney General, they often will. As the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has written, “Well-reasoned attorney general’s opinions have persuasive value when a court later addresses the meaning of the same statute.””

  • 6. The Chad  |  April 25th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Well said sir, well said.

  • 7. Rustmeister  |  April 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    I hope you all like your tax dollars going to pay off lawsuits, ’cause that’s what’s gonna happen.

  • 8. capper  |  April 25th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Phel, don’t forget that the Constitution, as wonderful as it is, is a living document, and had been amended a number of times since its first creation.

  • 9. BobG  |  April 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    “On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

  • 10. grumps  |  April 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am

    We already have limits on citizens bearing “arms.” Certain types of weaponry or explosives are off limits to you and to me.

    AG Goodhair said that there is a line past which open carry becomes disorderly conduct. Flynn has explained where his department will draw the line.

  • 11. Elliot  |  April 27th, 2009 at 9:36 am

    You’re too smart to be that disingenuous, Grumps.

    Flynn’s “line” is the equivalent of a prohibition and it’s clearly unconstitutional.

  • 12. grumps  |  April 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    vH left enough wiggle-room in his memo for police departments to do what they need to do to maintain order. If that includes “Ask later,” of people openly carrying on Milwaukee’s streets blame van Hollen, not me.

    Who asked for this memo now? What burning need to did it fill? It’s just another way for Fraley’s Mistake to inject himself into the news cycle on his own terms. How many reporters have asked about the crime lab backlog or his budget requests since he issued his non-clarifying clarification?

  • 13. John Foust  |  April 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    It’s clear there are many who can ask him for a real opinion:

    Wis. Stat. 165.015
    (1) Give opinion to officers. Give his or her opinion in writing, when required, without fee, upon all questions of law submitted to him or her by the legislature, either house thereof or the senate or assembly committee on organization, or by the head of any department of state government.

    But do they actually want him to attempt to clarify?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.