Madison Settles
Good.
A group of men who drew police attention for openly carrying guns at a Far East Side restaurant last year on Tuesday accepted a $10,000 offer from the city of Madison to settle their federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and a group of police officers.
The five men, members of Wisconsin Carry Inc., were ticketed for disorderly conduct on Sept. 18, 2010, after police were called to Culver’s, 4301 East Towne Blvd., about a group of men with guns at an outdoor table. The tickets were later dismissed.
It’s just a shame that the police have to be prodded into respecting the 2nd Amendment.
Who thinks guns at Culvers is a grand idea ?
The same folks who think guns at libraries is a winner.
Why has the guy with the biggest guns been the least gifted by God in the ...genital area?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2011 at 1525 hrs
It’s a shame that city of Madison taxpayers (me) will have to pay for this nonsense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2011 at 1527 hrs
Well, Marky, since there *is* a 2nd amendment, guns at Culvers is just dandy. Unless you’re a liberal pantywaist that pisses himself at the mere thought of people being able to defend themselves…
Oops, I guess I described you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2011 at 1620 hrs
Maley’s profound debate skills amuse me. I wish he’d comment more often. “GUYS WHO LIKE GUNS HAVE SMALL DICKS!!!!!” That’s quality commentary right there, folks… right from the 7th grade.
Posted by Owen on December 21, 2011 at 1818 hrs
1.Who thinks guns at Culvers is a grand idea ?
The same folks who think guns at libraries is a winner
What always amazes me is that some people think that there are no guns in these places now. We have these people called criminals. That have been carring guns to all these places for ever. All this law does is make it legal for law abiding people to carrier guns also. How is that bad?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2011 at 0624 hrs
This is not the first judgment or settlement that Wisconsin Carry Inc. has won for law-abiding citizens. Sooner or later the message will get out to those police officers and chiefs who think they will decide which Constitutional Rights citizens will be allowed to exercise. Under Act 35 police officers who now engage in this type of harassment can be charged with a crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2011 at 0811 hrs
That’s asinine. Protesters get arrested sometimes. They should be paying fines, not getting prizes.
The whole premise is ridiculous. Open carry is legal because there’s no specific law prohibiting it? So was it legal to text message while driving before that was specifically made illegal by statute? Of course not. It was reckless driving, just like openly carrying a firearm in a fast food joint is disorderly conduct. This state is ridiculous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2011 at 1406 hrs
So was it legal to text message while driving before that was specifically made illegal by statute?
Umm…yes, it was. And it’s not “reckless driving”, but rather, “inattentive driving”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2011 at 1516 hrs
Okay, I guess I didn’t expect anyone to get that one wrong so I’ll have to slow things down.
People were frequently cited for reckless or inattentive driving (depending on whether or not an injury resulted) for texting behind the wheel prior to the adoption of the ban. Those are umbrella offenses that cover a wide array of conduct that can be deemed reckless or inattentive. Texting while driving was not legal just because there was no specific law banning it. It was covered by the reckless and inattentive driving statutes and it only became a seperate offense because state legislatures are gimmicky.
But under the “legal theory” employed by JB Van Hollen in his open carry advisory opinion the absence of a specific law prohibiting open carry means that it’s legal. Not only does that reading obviate the need for the existing umbrella disorderly conduct statute (a big no-no in statutory interpretation), it doesn’t even make sense on its own, as the texting example illustrates.
These guys got paid because prosecutors here are afraid to try difficult cases involving the constitution, even though they should be able to win those cases. Same reason all the Capitol protesters’ disorderlies got toseed. Given many of the legal minds I’ve encountered in this state I wouldn’t be suprised if they’re just plain afraid to get in over their heads. You really should have a bar exam here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2011 at 1603 hrs
the absence of a specific law prohibiting [...] means that it’s legal
EXACTLY!!! Are you really arguing otherwise?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2011 at 1821 hrs
Jason,
The legal theory is sound. Your interpretation only makes sense if open-carrying a firearm is per se disorderly conduct, which it is most definitely not.
Posted by Jed on December 22, 2011 at 2110 hrs
So was it legal to text message while driving before that was specifically made illegal by statute?
Umm…yes, it was. And it’s not “reckless driving”, but rather, “inattentive driving”.
Posted by 3rbe on December 23, 2011 at 0239 hrs
Ummm, as much as some of you leftist gun banners would like to equate texting while driving with open carry, it is just an insane argument. Driving is a privilege, therefore the government can control how you go about doing it. Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally guaranteed Right by both the Federal and State Constitutions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 0801 hrs
I disagree Jed. Per se disorderly would obviously be an issue, but declaring that open carry can never be disorderly because it’s not otherwise prohibited by law is equally problematic in the other direction. Or at least it was, until the disorderly statute was amended to specifically exclude open carry. At least there’s a statutory basis for the position now so the law is coherent.
I just don’t find the reasoning behind that change to be convincing and I don’t think it sets a good precedent (to the small degree that an advisory AG opinion can be said to set a precedent) when it comes to carving out implied exceptions to disorderly conduct simply because there’s no separate, specific statute prohibiting the conduct in question. Frankly I’m fine with the outcome, I just think it was bad law until the statute was formally amended (which was well after these protesters were arrested, so they shouldn’t have gotten off the hook).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 1023 hrs
You realize that there’s more to the constitution than just the second amendment, right 45? There’s actually an amendment right before the second one that protects personal expression like text messaging. But there are reasonable limits to the free expression protections in the first amendment, just like there are reasonable limits to the right to bear arms in the second amendment. Your selective concern for the constitution is the only thing that’s insane.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 1028 hrs
Okay Jason,
What is the liberty limiting principle that would change the lawful open carry to an illegal open carry? Is it anytime that someone is upset by the lawful act it immediately becomes unlawful?
Also, your texting analogy is correct. We stop people from texting while driving because it raises the level of inattentiveness to the point that others are placed at risk of harm. No ones’ risk has increased to the point of risk of harm because someone carries there firearm unconcealed.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 1049 hrs
Liberty limiting principle, huh? I don’t really speak talk radio but I’ll try to explain my position.
There was no brightline rule, but I wouild say the case discussed above fell clearly on the illegal side, as did a number of other activist arrests in Madison and Milwaukee. This wasn’t open carry incidental to some otherwise perfect legit activity like hunting or heading from the truck to the range, it was a protest. It was designed to draw attention and provoke a disturbance, and it had the desired effect. That’s disorderly conduct, to the letter, and it should have been prosecuted, not rewarded.
And you seem awfully cavalier about your second point. Introducing a firearm to any situation increases the risk to everyone present for a number of obvious reasons (negligent discharge, lost tempers, stolen firearms). Openly carrying that firearm arguably involves even more risk than carrying concealed because it alerts others to the existence of the weapon, which increases the likelihood that the carrier could be disarmed, even if it’s just a slight increase. Whether that increased risk rises to the level that it needs to be prohibited is debatable, but at least we’re on the same page when it comes to the legitimacy of reasonable restraints on the first and second amendments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 1227 hrs
Jason,
It is not talk radio that you do not speak. It is post high school ethics that you do not speak. To ensure that we as a society or our elected representatives do not act capriciously, we try to adhere to principles. One principle would be when we can limit another person’s liberty. With the most famous being Mill’s Harm Principle.
You say that the open carry wasn’t incidental to some legitimate activity when the carry in and of itself is a legitimate activity. Please remember that the exercising of a right is considered legitimate and the restriction of the right must be argued. You must provide the compelling reason to limit my right. I do not prove my need to carry - you must prove that my carrying infringes on another person’s rights. And you do not have a right to “feel” comfortable in public.
But the bigger question is how can a person be expected to perform under your law when you can not define when it would be lawful to openly carry?
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 1512 hrs
You really seem to want to personalize this. It wasn’t my law, it was JB Van Hollen’s law. And, of course, it wasn’t really a law at all, just an advisory opinion on the issue that got blown all out of proportion by our ignorant media. I’m of the opinion that the absence of a specific statutory prohibition does not, in itself, create affirmative law in the other direction.
There’s no specific law against me standing on the sidewalk screaming obscenties. But it would qualify as disorderly conduct and be treated as such. Screaming is expressive conduct covered by the first amendment, but it’s not protected expression so its trumped by the disorderly statute. Likewise, the right to bear arms is covered by the second amendment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that walking around with a pistol on your hip is protected.
That’s because you’re wrong that there’s no right to feel comfortable in public. The Supreme Court has held that it stems from the general welfare language in the constitution. Some people only feel comfortable when they’re carrying guns. Other people are made to feel extremely uncomfortable by people carrying guns. It’s a balancing act.
I don’t really care how it’s settled, as long as it’s settled rationally and legally. And it’s a moot point now that the disorderly statute has been amended. But that wasn’t the case back in September of 2010, so I think the prosecutor should have manned up and done his job rather than punking out and paying these clowns off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2011 at 1558 hrs
As if on cue, the Madison PD issued a press release today that contains this gem:
“A second family member, Coreatta Hill Keys arrived on scene, and refused to allow emergency medical services or Madison Police to do their jobs by continually circling and loudly swearing at them saying, “It’s not illegal to swear, freedom of speech right”?”
And she makse a good point. There is no seperate statutory prohibition on swearing, or on walking in circles, and both of those things are expressive conduct, ostensibly protected by the constitution, so based on JB Van Hollen’s reasoning they cannot be deemed disorderly conduct. I’m sure he’ll be quick to demand that Ms. Keys’ charges be dropped immediately.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2011 at 1705 hrs
Hi
You must be View all her naughty photos here. Thousands of escorts in your local area at eroticmugshots.com.If you are looking for incall or outcall escorts then you can click on the incall button in below.girls phone numbers
backpage escortsPosted by Das on January 03, 2012 at 0355 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134044
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 07:57 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 121
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 08:30 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).