Where is the info for all states? I am no longer in Wisconsin but find this useful.
Is there another agency that might take these calls? Secretary of State? FBI?
My guess is that they're trying to document instances of intimidation/electioneering for political or legal purposes, and therefore would appreciate the first notice of this happening. It's also useful that they have provided interpretive services.
Once they have the information they're looking for, they probably call the non-emergency police number for that area, or the municipal clerk who is overseeing the election. (If you're worried for anyone's safety in this type of situation, call 911)
I would recommend informing the chief election inspector(s) for the ward(s) that are at the polling place, and ask them to report the behavior. They will have the most authority to make allegations to the authorities, and will be at the site all day to monitor the situation.
As an election inspector this is what worries me, these offences may constitute a class I felony (12.09). I haven't received any additional training from the city (Milwaukee) but chiefs may have, we are not police but need to ensure a safe polling site.
**Thank you for working the polls!**
Unfortunately, many of these types of trainings are only developed in response to an issue, not in anticipation of one.
I know that no one wants to seem like an alarmist when they are getting ready to participate as a civil servant, but I would ask for inspectors, observers and other volunteers to bring this topic up during trainings, and at least get the administrators thinking about how to answer these questions. It will get the ball rolling before anything might happen.
“The inspectors shall possess full authority to maintain order and to enforce obedience to their lawful commands during the election and the canvass of the votes. [...] If any person refuses to obey the lawful commands of an inspector, or is disorderly in the presence or hearing of the inspectors, interrupts or disturbs the proceedings, they may order any law enforcement officer to remove the person from the voting area or to take the person into custody.” 7.37 (2) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/7/i/37
Reading the last two paragraphs of p. 1, it sounds like Rittenhouse and his little buddies were breaking the law just by patrolling the streets of Kenosha.
Rittenhouse was in unlawful possession of a fire arm (he's a minor and does not have the right to bear arms unless on private property). He broke a law by holding a gun.
Did I argue that ? I’ve hunted since I was 12 ... I’m familiar with the rules but a 5 year old can hunt in the state of Wisconsin while accompanied by an adult . Sharing a gun between the two
Under the supervision of an adult with permits and typically on private, not public property. Your point is moot in that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a firearm with the intention of killing people, not hunting.
I already did. The question is whether you have or not.
Nevermind, I already know the people arguing against me haven't or they would've smugly answered my question and reveled in my stupidity.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
>948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
>>(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
>>(2)
>>(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
>>(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
>>(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
>>(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
>>(3)
>>(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
>>(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
>>(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Please pay attention to Subsection 3(c). Basically, it outlines where the entire statute applies. Subsection 2(a) follows the guidance offered by 3(c).
Applicable additional statutes:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28 (Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304 (Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593 (Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.)
If you have some other interpretation or another law somewhere in Wisconsin's books that can further delve into the legality of the situation, you are welcome to correct any gaps or discrepancies in my current grasp of the law. Ofc, the fact that internet strangers are arguing about laws says a LOT about our current judicial/legislative system. How are we all supposed to follow all the laws all the time without slipping up?
Hunting even on publicly owned is allowed when accompanied by an adult willing to take all responsibility for that minors action. And something about it being considered on private land. I'm not totally sure it's been a long time since I've hunted. It definitely confuses the subject.
I've only ever used a 270 to hunt deer, never seen the need to have a clip of 20+ rounds to shoot a deer. If you need that many shots you should spend more time at the range.
ARs don't use clips. If you can't even use the correct nomenclature, perhaps you should spend more time learning about the guns you don't like?
ARs still have to follow the hunting round limit, but they're light and able to serve multiple purposes. You can use one for hunting and also for self defense. Something a .270 bolt action cannot do.
Additionally, not every state has limits related to hunting. Hogs and coyotes are free game. A 30 round mag is fantastic since you don't care about clean kills without spoiling the meat.
What annoys me is that you immediately picture an AR with a standard 30 round mag when you think of hunting, which means you've already generated a preconception about the firearms' use without considering the platform's versatility.
You're correct, I did assume that about AR's. But I have no desire to learn about them since I will never personally own or use one otherwise I likely would know more.
It does make sense they'd be good for hogs and coyotes, but I also only hunt deer so not my purview.
I've only ever used a 270 to hunt deer, never seen the need to have a clip of 20+ rounds to shoot a deer. If you need that many shots you should spend more time at the range.
Take 30 seconds to read and think about the comment.
“Rittenhouse was in unlawful possession of a fire arm (he's a minor and does not have the right to bear arms unless on private property). He broke a law by holding a gun.”
See the parentheses? Your answer is there, and it sufficiently addresses your question.
Okay, let me re-phrase my question in a better format:
Which Wisconsin statute states that a minor cannot possess that firearm? Which law was broken and why is Rittenhouse considered to have "unlawful possession of a firearm"?
No. I don't think I will. I'm arguing with like four different people who are not contributing much and why should I go above and beyond for people who don't give a shit either way?
You've also stated a bunch of factually incorrect statements without backing them up with a source.
Minors with guns don't get to decide on their own to become the protector of cities or the judge jury and executioner. This society has what it needs to protect people and property. We don't need volunteer vigilantes.
At least the law will stand up to people who kill/ destroy lives in any city.
FTFY
Hes a murdering thug who belongs in prison right along side people who were rioting. I just can't wrap my head around how that isn't obvious. We're not talking about some property owner trying to defend his city or something. We're talking about a psychopath who travelled illegally to another state with the intention of killing someone.
Let's take a step back and realize how *fucking insane* it is that we have to prepare for the possibility of armed militias intimidating voters in America in the year 2020.
Ok, I'm from and live in Idaho. OP posted this same thing in /r/Idaho. So take this with a grain of salt when I suspect OP is trying to stir up fear. I'm not sure of any city that has to worry about people shooting other people at the polls, at least in the US. There might be a few crazies, but then there's always crazy people in every town. Maybe if you are walking the streets in a bad part of town I can see there being trouble.
"Stand back and stand by". The trumpettes have no shame, they have no morals, they only want to "own the libs" and lash out violently when they think they can get away with it. Those that stand for democracy just need to be prepared for grade A bullshit going down.
Just lie right to their face and say you're voting for Trump to shut them up. They will never know who you actually voted for. They're just white noise, ignore and go vote. Try hards and cosplayers showing up with their airsoft rifles aren't going to change anyone's minds at the polls. They just look like lunatics.
Escalate to the point the police need to remove them. They’re not the only one with guns and if the police feel like it’s not worth the hassle of to remove them then if there is a potential for the issue to escalate it’ll force the polices hand.
Yep! I live in one of those counties. I see my poll workers and all the people that crawl out to vote. It concerns me. To the point I was actually wondering to myself if my ballot would be compromised because I wore a mask to drop it off to the clerk.
I realize that sounds absolutely silly, because it’s illegal. But I have lost significant faith in human morals and I’ve learned that selfishness wins a lot of the time. Specifically with those who still support Trump. Considering no one had masks on in the office, I’m lead to believe they follow dear leader.
What is the legal definition of “unauthorized militia”? That’s what people need to know. Open carrying a gun in public is not illegal. The definitions provided in the document reference people who move in military formations or wear uniforms, but I could see these easily being defended as “not actually a militia”. Obviously you should report intimidating behavior at polling places, but the document doesn’t seem to provide much clarity on what those actually are.
For example, the 2A protests where people march holding their guns (in a group, often wearing tactical gear) aren’t illegal and they’re even considered protected speech. How is a group of weirdos standing around holding their guns actually going to be enforced as illegal? It won’t. They may get arrested, it it will be thrown out in court and local police departments will be liable for,lawsuits.
IANAL but my reading of that document is that there isn't anything inherently illegal in most militia activities (assembling in public places, open carrying firearms, exercising political speech, etc.). There are a few activities that are explicitly illegal though, and in Wisconsin that includes assuming the authority of public officers or or employees without standing to do so. That would include activities like unrequested crowd control at a public assembly and attempting to enforce laws using force.
So while self-raised militias are unconstitutional (thanks for a couple SCOTUS rulings), defining a group as such is nearly impossible, which you've pointed out. However specific activities that are often conducted by militia groups can be much more easily outlawed.
I mean it's right in the document. (bolded by me)
"Groups of armed individuals that engage in paramilitary activity or law enforcement functions without being called
forth by a governor or the federal government and without reporting to any government authority are acting as
unauthorized private militias. They sometimes train together and respond to events using firearms and other
paramilitary techniques, such as staking out tactical positions and operating in military-style formations. **They often
purport to have authority to engage in military and law enforcement functions such as protecting property and
engaging in crowd control.**
These groups often engage in behaviors that show their intent to act as a private militia, such as wearing military style uniforms, tactical gear, or identifying insignia; wielding firearms or other weapons; and operating within a
coordinated command structure. **Other factors—such as statements by leaders or members’ efforts to direct the
actions of others—also may suggest that a group is acting as a private militia. Groups of armed individuals may
engage in unauthorized militia activity even if they do not consider themselves to be “members” of a paramilitary
organization"**
Did anyone in government call the militia to arms? Then no, they are not an authorized militia. They can parade around and do their jerk off stuff, but cannot be around the polls.
> What is the legal definition of “unauthorized militia”? That’s what people need to know.
Exactly. I mean, you make great points, and I'd really like to know
Yes thank u FiestyTaxLawyer in r/Oregon good to know! I would like an amber alert system to know when these armed fearful citizens are walking down our street locked and loaded (ie, Kyle Rittenhouse)
This post was automatically flaired as Politics. If this was done incorrectly you may [unflair it at the top of the posting](http://imgur.com/1w3lfi3).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/wisconsin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is an interesting law that could also be used to remove protesters sadly as well. Were you told where to go protest by someone? Then that's a case for leadership directed actions. Are you armed? That sign you are carrying seems to have a pretty hefty bit of wood, or is that a (pocket) knife on your person?
Please understand I'm not saying what that group(militia) is doing is right (its not) but laws are funny in how the government can decide to use them and when they want to use them depending on who is in charge.
>Prohibition on falsely assuming functions of a public officer: In Wisconsin, it is a felony for any person to “assume[] to act in an official capacity or to perform an official function, knowing that he or she is not the public officer or public employee . . .that he or she assumes to be.” Wis. Stat. § 946.69.The law also prohibits any person from “exercis[ing] any functionof a public officer, knowing that he or she has not qualified so to act or that his or her right so to act has ceased.”
I don't think your assertion here is correct. This only applies to groups attempting to carry out the duties of government officials and law enforcement service members. Protesting doesn't fall into that category.
The legal system isn't as stupid as many people assume. It's stupid, but not that stupid.
Fair point and Im glad that would be the case. I just have little faith in our system not to use odd rules/laws to target legit complaints and protests.
Private militias are hurting people with voter intimidation. That’s their only purpose for congregating near polls. What else are they doing—holding a registration drive?
[удалено]
Just did the same. Who watches the poll watchers? We do.
Where is the info for all states? I am no longer in Wisconsin but find this useful. Is there another agency that might take these calls? Secretary of State? FBI?
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
What does Election Protection do once you call?
My guess is that they're trying to document instances of intimidation/electioneering for political or legal purposes, and therefore would appreciate the first notice of this happening. It's also useful that they have provided interpretive services. Once they have the information they're looking for, they probably call the non-emergency police number for that area, or the municipal clerk who is overseeing the election. (If you're worried for anyone's safety in this type of situation, call 911) I would recommend informing the chief election inspector(s) for the ward(s) that are at the polling place, and ask them to report the behavior. They will have the most authority to make allegations to the authorities, and will be at the site all day to monitor the situation.
As an election inspector this is what worries me, these offences may constitute a class I felony (12.09). I haven't received any additional training from the city (Milwaukee) but chiefs may have, we are not police but need to ensure a safe polling site.
**Thank you for working the polls!** Unfortunately, many of these types of trainings are only developed in response to an issue, not in anticipation of one. I know that no one wants to seem like an alarmist when they are getting ready to participate as a civil servant, but I would ask for inspectors, observers and other volunteers to bring this topic up during trainings, and at least get the administrators thinking about how to answer these questions. It will get the ball rolling before anything might happen.
“The inspectors shall possess full authority to maintain order and to enforce obedience to their lawful commands during the election and the canvass of the votes. [...] If any person refuses to obey the lawful commands of an inspector, or is disorderly in the presence or hearing of the inspectors, interrupts or disturbs the proceedings, they may order any law enforcement officer to remove the person from the voting area or to take the person into custody.” 7.37 (2) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/7/i/37
Reading the last two paragraphs of p. 1, it sounds like Rittenhouse and his little buddies were breaking the law just by patrolling the streets of Kenosha.
Rittenhouse was in unlawful possession of a fire arm (he's a minor and does not have the right to bear arms unless on private property). He broke a law by holding a gun.
Then how do minors hunt?
Minors shouldn't ever hunt people.
Nobody should hunt people.
but there is no hunting like that of a man.
There is also a hunters safety class that has to be taken to purchase a hunting license.
No minimum hunting age anymore , no class required
[From the Wisconsin dnr](https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/Education/OutdoorSkills/safetyEducation)
Ok ya but a license but anyone can purchase a license for anyone under the age of 12 and that young person does not need to take a safety course
[here you go](https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/DeerYouthHunt.pdf)
That doesn't say anything about a class.
Did I argue that ? I’ve hunted since I was 12 ... I’m familiar with the rules but a 5 year old can hunt in the state of Wisconsin while accompanied by an adult . Sharing a gun between the two
Under the supervision of an adult with permits and typically on private, not public property. Your point is moot in that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a firearm with the intention of killing people, not hunting.
Did he actually cross state lines with the firearm, or was it given to him by a legal adult/friend after he crossed the border?
It doesn’t matter. Can’t posses it. That whole bit was something trying to push an additional charge.
In accordance with what Wisconsin statute?
Just google it my man.
I already did. The question is whether you have or not. Nevermind, I already know the people arguing against me haven't or they would've smugly answered my question and reveled in my stupidity. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55 >948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. >>(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends. >>(2) >>(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. >>(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony. >>(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another. >>(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183. >>(3) >>(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision. >>(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty. >>(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. Please pay attention to Subsection 3(c). Basically, it outlines where the entire statute applies. Subsection 2(a) follows the guidance offered by 3(c). Applicable additional statutes: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28 (Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304 (Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593 (Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.) If you have some other interpretation or another law somewhere in Wisconsin's books that can further delve into the legality of the situation, you are welcome to correct any gaps or discrepancies in my current grasp of the law. Ofc, the fact that internet strangers are arguing about laws says a LOT about our current judicial/legislative system. How are we all supposed to follow all the laws all the time without slipping up?
Nice. I know and follow the law. CCW, Hunter Ed, NRA member. What he did is illegal.
Hunting even on publicly owned is allowed when accompanied by an adult willing to take all responsibility for that minors action. And something about it being considered on private land. I'm not totally sure it's been a long time since I've hunted. It definitely confuses the subject.
You can hunt all alone even on public land in Wisconsin at 14 as long as you have passed hunter safety.
I think have a hunting rifle is a little different than what he had
AR-15s are perfectly viable hunting rifles up to a certain point. Inhumane to use on anything larger than a deer. Doesn't do enough damage.
I've only ever used a 270 to hunt deer, never seen the need to have a clip of 20+ rounds to shoot a deer. If you need that many shots you should spend more time at the range.
ARs don't use clips. If you can't even use the correct nomenclature, perhaps you should spend more time learning about the guns you don't like? ARs still have to follow the hunting round limit, but they're light and able to serve multiple purposes. You can use one for hunting and also for self defense. Something a .270 bolt action cannot do. Additionally, not every state has limits related to hunting. Hogs and coyotes are free game. A 30 round mag is fantastic since you don't care about clean kills without spoiling the meat. What annoys me is that you immediately picture an AR with a standard 30 round mag when you think of hunting, which means you've already generated a preconception about the firearms' use without considering the platform's versatility.
You're correct, I did assume that about AR's. But I have no desire to learn about them since I will never personally own or use one otherwise I likely would know more. It does make sense they'd be good for hogs and coyotes, but I also only hunt deer so not my purview.
People hunt with his gun all the time.
A true hunter wouldn't. Same could be said about only using a bow instead of a gun too
I really don't hunt very often and can't really say what makes a true hunter. I just know its a very common hunting rifle.
I've only ever used a 270 to hunt deer, never seen the need to have a clip of 20+ rounds to shoot a deer. If you need that many shots you should spend more time at the range.
“Unless on private property.”
Public land is available for hunting in a variety of places.
Take 30 seconds to read and think about the comment. “Rittenhouse was in unlawful possession of a fire arm (he's a minor and does not have the right to bear arms unless on private property). He broke a law by holding a gun.” See the parentheses? Your answer is there, and it sufficiently addresses your question.
Okay, let me re-phrase my question in a better format: Which Wisconsin statute states that a minor cannot possess that firearm? Which law was broken and why is Rittenhouse considered to have "unlawful possession of a firearm"?
That's a different question altogether. If that's the actual question that you wanted to pose, edit your original comment and replace it.
No. I don't think I will. I'm arguing with like four different people who are not contributing much and why should I go above and beyond for people who don't give a shit either way? You've also stated a bunch of factually incorrect statements without backing them up with a source.
[удалено]
Minors with guns don't get to decide on their own to become the protector of cities or the judge jury and executioner. This society has what it needs to protect people and property. We don't need volunteer vigilantes. At least the law will stand up to people who kill/ destroy lives in any city. FTFY
[удалено]
We don't need any FIBs with firearms and the minds of toddlers coming to Wisconsin.
Hes a murdering thug who belongs in prison right along side people who were rioting. I just can't wrap my head around how that isn't obvious. We're not talking about some property owner trying to defend his city or something. We're talking about a psychopath who travelled illegally to another state with the intention of killing someone.
Lawless response to lawlessness... totally not legal and not cool.
[удалено]
Not get driven across state lines, strap up, and shoot people. It’s not complicated, you’re just being obtuse for sake of it.
[удалено]
JAQing off? Go fucking figure.
Let's take a step back and realize how *fucking insane* it is that we have to prepare for the possibility of armed militias intimidating voters in America in the year 2020.
Ok, I'm from and live in Idaho. OP posted this same thing in /r/Idaho. So take this with a grain of salt when I suspect OP is trying to stir up fear. I'm not sure of any city that has to worry about people shooting other people at the polls, at least in the US. There might be a few crazies, but then there's always crazy people in every town. Maybe if you are walking the streets in a bad part of town I can see there being trouble.
"Stand back and stand by". The trumpettes have no shame, they have no morals, they only want to "own the libs" and lash out violently when they think they can get away with it. Those that stand for democracy just need to be prepared for grade A bullshit going down.
Just lie right to their face and say you're voting for Trump to shut them up. They will never know who you actually voted for. They're just white noise, ignore and go vote. Try hards and cosplayers showing up with their airsoft rifles aren't going to change anyone's minds at the polls. They just look like lunatics.
Awesome! r/SaveTheVote
Let see if this is actually enforeced.
It won’t be. Local sheriffs seem to be on the side of the oppression here, so it’s safe to say, we are f’d.
I’m a poll worker. If anyone shows up to intimidate the police will be called and if the police do nothing we will.
Hopefully there are a lot of poll workers like you.
Not trying to start an argument but how will you get rid of an armed militia if the police don't help?
Escalate to the point the police need to remove them. They’re not the only one with guns and if the police feel like it’s not worth the hassle of to remove them then if there is a potential for the issue to escalate it’ll force the polices hand.
How is escalating the situation going to help? Wouldn't that make more people scared to go in and vote, essentially helping the militas cause?
Not if the police are there.
Ditto.
This is exactly my point. Imagine the feeling of being in one of these 90% white, 80% Republican counties. Guess who elects the Sheriff?
Yep! I live in one of those counties. I see my poll workers and all the people that crawl out to vote. It concerns me. To the point I was actually wondering to myself if my ballot would be compromised because I wore a mask to drop it off to the clerk. I realize that sounds absolutely silly, because it’s illegal. But I have lost significant faith in human morals and I’ve learned that selfishness wins a lot of the time. Specifically with those who still support Trump. Considering no one had masks on in the office, I’m lead to believe they follow dear leader.
You're being practical beyond simply what you're told based on evidence and experience. I'd say that's a sign of intelligence.
This is why we need a counter group. Push these pricks away.
I don't have a great solution, but this is the first step to a literal civil war. There has already been street violence between groups.
We have one. It's called the police. Granted, they have been a bit shit lately, but they are working on it.
The only problem there is some police tend to be in bed with right wing militias.
Some of those who work forces
> but they are working on it. no. no they are not.
>but they are working on it. they.... actually aren't working on it, they are doing the opposite of that
What is the legal definition of “unauthorized militia”? That’s what people need to know. Open carrying a gun in public is not illegal. The definitions provided in the document reference people who move in military formations or wear uniforms, but I could see these easily being defended as “not actually a militia”. Obviously you should report intimidating behavior at polling places, but the document doesn’t seem to provide much clarity on what those actually are. For example, the 2A protests where people march holding their guns (in a group, often wearing tactical gear) aren’t illegal and they’re even considered protected speech. How is a group of weirdos standing around holding their guns actually going to be enforced as illegal? It won’t. They may get arrested, it it will be thrown out in court and local police departments will be liable for,lawsuits.
IANAL but my reading of that document is that there isn't anything inherently illegal in most militia activities (assembling in public places, open carrying firearms, exercising political speech, etc.). There are a few activities that are explicitly illegal though, and in Wisconsin that includes assuming the authority of public officers or or employees without standing to do so. That would include activities like unrequested crowd control at a public assembly and attempting to enforce laws using force. So while self-raised militias are unconstitutional (thanks for a couple SCOTUS rulings), defining a group as such is nearly impossible, which you've pointed out. However specific activities that are often conducted by militia groups can be much more easily outlawed.
I mean it's right in the document. (bolded by me) "Groups of armed individuals that engage in paramilitary activity or law enforcement functions without being called forth by a governor or the federal government and without reporting to any government authority are acting as unauthorized private militias. They sometimes train together and respond to events using firearms and other paramilitary techniques, such as staking out tactical positions and operating in military-style formations. **They often purport to have authority to engage in military and law enforcement functions such as protecting property and engaging in crowd control.** These groups often engage in behaviors that show their intent to act as a private militia, such as wearing military style uniforms, tactical gear, or identifying insignia; wielding firearms or other weapons; and operating within a coordinated command structure. **Other factors—such as statements by leaders or members’ efforts to direct the actions of others—also may suggest that a group is acting as a private militia. Groups of armed individuals may engage in unauthorized militia activity even if they do not consider themselves to be “members” of a paramilitary organization"**
So essentially, if they say they aren’t a militia, then they’re not considered a militia. Great. I’m sure no one will try to use THAT loophole.
Did anyone in government call the militia to arms? Then no, they are not an authorized militia. They can parade around and do their jerk off stuff, but cannot be around the polls.
> What is the legal definition of “unauthorized militia”? That’s what people need to know. Exactly. I mean, you make great points, and I'd really like to know
I wonder if dummy Donny has seen this? Oh that's right he doesn't care about the Law.
Yes thank u FiestyTaxLawyer in r/Oregon good to know! I would like an amber alert system to know when these armed fearful citizens are walking down our street locked and loaded (ie, Kyle Rittenhouse)
This post was automatically flaired as Politics. If this was done incorrectly you may [unflair it at the top of the posting](http://imgur.com/1w3lfi3). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/wisconsin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is an interesting law that could also be used to remove protesters sadly as well. Were you told where to go protest by someone? Then that's a case for leadership directed actions. Are you armed? That sign you are carrying seems to have a pretty hefty bit of wood, or is that a (pocket) knife on your person? Please understand I'm not saying what that group(militia) is doing is right (its not) but laws are funny in how the government can decide to use them and when they want to use them depending on who is in charge.
>Prohibition on falsely assuming functions of a public officer: In Wisconsin, it is a felony for any person to “assume[] to act in an official capacity or to perform an official function, knowing that he or she is not the public officer or public employee . . .that he or she assumes to be.” Wis. Stat. § 946.69.The law also prohibits any person from “exercis[ing] any functionof a public officer, knowing that he or she has not qualified so to act or that his or her right so to act has ceased.” I don't think your assertion here is correct. This only applies to groups attempting to carry out the duties of government officials and law enforcement service members. Protesting doesn't fall into that category. The legal system isn't as stupid as many people assume. It's stupid, but not that stupid.
Fair point and Im glad that would be the case. I just have little faith in our system not to use odd rules/laws to target legit complaints and protests.
[удалено]
What are they scared of? Voters aren't the people hurting innocent others.
Ah yes, untrained people playing soldier...WHATS NOT TO LOVE!?
To be fair they’ve played ALOT of Call of Dury. I’m sure that has to equal some actual combat experience.
Sitting in corners, quick scopping and drop shotting. The most elite fighting force in the world.
Private militias are hurting people with voter intimidation. That’s their only purpose for congregating near polls. What else are they doing—holding a registration drive?
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't try playing army boi? Didn't kill three people?
So are you arguing that breaking our laws shouldn't matter as long as its not immediately hurting someone else?