Open Carry In Wisconsin
Dad29 highlights the issue with open carry.
In Pennsylvania, it is not illegal to carry a weapon openly. (Same here in Wisconsin, by the way.)
So a few folks in Pennsylvania took their families out to dinner at the Old Country Buffet. They were all carrying, openly.
And they all got arrested. The usual stuff: Disorderly Conduct, yada yada yada.
Now, they are all suing the authorities...
As Dad29 points out, open carry is also legal in Wisconsin. If I want to put my .357 into a holster and strap it to my belt, it is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. The problem is that some law enforcement agencies tend to arrest people who are carrying openly for “disorderly conduct.” In the eyes of some folks, the mere act of peacefully carrying a gun is considered “disorderly.”
The other problem with open carry is that the line between open carry and concealed carry is sometimes a matter of opinion. If I have a .45 in a holster on my belt and then I get in my car to drive somewhere, is the pistol being carried openly or concealed? According to Wisconsin’s unconstitutional concealed carry ban, it is considered concealed.
The good news is that there is a movement afoot in Wisconsin to protect citizens who choose to exercise their right to carry a weapon openly. Wisconsin Patriots are pushing for people to petition their counties to affirm the citizens right to openly carry a gun. They say:
No one would allow the police to harass or threaten you with a Disorderly Conduct charge just for waiting in line to vote, or for entering a church, or arrest you for writing a letter to the editor, or for speaking your mind. It should not be tolerated that police harass or threaten your civil right to be safe for no other reason than you are lawfully armed.
Indeed.
Whatever county you live in, I would contact your County Board and District Attorney and get them on record on this issue. That way, even if some law enforcement officer gets out of line, you know that the D.A. will not prosecute.
I find the behavior of these Pennsylvanians to be absolutely outrageous! Eating at Old Country Buffet should be illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia!
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1012 hrs
You can have a gun or knife on the dash board and be in compliance with open carry but then the DNR can give you a ticket. That would make a great court challenge. Once I was confronted, out west, by a rancher in the national forest to see if I was the guy that shot an arrow into one of his cows. He had a pistol on the dash. Legal. In many western states you can have gun in rack in truck without bullet in chamber. Here you would be in violation of DNR rules. I don
‘t know if they could seize your gun along with the ticket.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1015 hrs
Okay, now that’s funny, scott! Well done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1020 hrs
Here is a ongoing event in Milwaukee:
http://irradiatedcat.blogspot.com/2008/06/open-carry-arrest.html
Also know that Gene German has been pushing this issue with County boards for some time.
Owen when are we going to approach the Washington County board?
Jeff
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1049 hrs
Disorderly Conduct is one of those catch all things that the police love to use when you do something that’s no illegal, but they don’t like anyway.
Of course, I always laugh when people blog and complain about someone else getting arrested for it, because a week later they’ll applaud the police for arresting someone on the same charge over something completely different.
Posted by Nick on June 12, 2008 at 1100 hrs
Eating at Old Country Buffet should be illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia!
I agree, I just threw up a little bit in my mouth thinking about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1205 hrs
I’m not in the mood to get into a lengthy debate about open carry laws, but I do want to point this out: the people in Pennsylvania were in a restaurant. That’s not “in public” - that’s in a privately owned establishment that is allowed to set their own rules for who they will and will not provide service to. I sincerely doubt Old Country Buffet, classy a joint as it is, allows people to waltz in carrying weapons, regardless of whether or not they have a permit for it. And that, frankly, is absolutely their right. Just like any church, private school, business, or home.
Posted by Emily on June 12, 2008 at 1206 hrs
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth
I think they have that in one of the buffet table warmers, actually.
On further reflection, the only way you’d get me into one is at gunpoint. So maybe OCB should start allowing firearms. Might be good for business!
Seriously, though: Good point Emily.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1208 hrs
Indeed, Emily. OCB is a private place. As such, if they choose not to serve people who are legally carrying weapons, then their recourse is to ask them to leave. If they don’t leave, then they can call the cops and charge them with trespassing. Nowhere in that scenario does disorderly conduct come into play unless the patrons cause a ruckus at some point.
Posted by Owen on June 12, 2008 at 1209 hrs
I just read the police report from this incident. It seemed pretty clear that the officers acted appropriately. The officers had probable cause to question the guy carrying two guns and two knives. (He made a comment to a patron of the OCB that made her uncomfortable, and more than one patron complained to the management about this persons presence). When he did not comply with their request he was arrested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1241 hrs
People with deadly weapons can be dangerous, the police should question them if they have reason to. People that dress like gangsters can be dangerous, the police should question them if they have reason to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1246 hrs
3rd way I skimmed through the report. I never saw cause that allowed them to arrest the man. The officer spoke the an ADA on the phone before making the arrests and confiscating the guns/knives, illegaly according to the report. And if you are calling registration as cause, you are mistaken, PA has already had a court ruling that says PA cannot require registration. The arrest in my reading was based on an opinion of a mistaken ADA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1256 hrs
Here is a ongoing event in Milwaukee:
http://irradiatedcat.blogspot.com/2008/06/open-carry-ar rest.html
Here is a link to the full thread on opencarry.org
What a fascinating story. I strongly support the guy… what a patriot…
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/10543.htmlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1257 hrs
Just keep in mind that AG Goodhair has decided that prank email can be elevated to the level of an actionable threat. I wouldn’t look to him for any consistency.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1302 hrs
Although I basically agree with what Owen is saying here, isn’t it funny how the word “patriot” has become synonymous with douchebag? The stereotypes in this article are fantastic. OCB? Really?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on June 12, 2008 at 1311 hrs
I have no problem with cops questioning people walking down the street openly carrying weapons. Think for a moment what sort of person you’d expect to see walking down the street holding a gun in Milwaukee.
I don’t think innocent people should be arrested for disorderly conduct but it’s reasonable to expect to be detained and identify yourself so the cops can find out if you have a warrant or criminal history or are even legally allowed to possess a firearm (felon).
Now, how does open carry work for a sword? if it’s in a sheath is that considered ‘concealed’?
Posted by Matt on June 12, 2008 at 1313 hrs
I don’t think innocent people should be arrested for disorderly conduct but it’s reasonable to expect to be detained and identify yourself so the cops can find out if you have a warrant or criminal history or are even legally allowed to possess a firearm (felon).
Why?
Why not randomly pull over anyone driving a car then? They could be drunk?
Why not ask everyone who walks down the street for identification. They could be an illegal alien.
See not living in a police state we have this thing called freedom, and that means that you don’t get harrassed by the police OR detained when you are doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Open carry is perfectly legal. Why should anyone be detained or harrassed by the police at all for doing so?
Why is that different than someone walking down the road with a cell phone strapped to their side? They could be a drug dealer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1330 hrs
I think In Pennsylvanian government should change these rule cause it is not fair to carry a weapon openly.
Posted by Kredit ohne Schufa on June 12, 2008 at 1352 hrs
See not living in a police state we have this thing called freedom, and that means that you don’t get harrassed by the police OR detained when you are doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Well said. It’s just mind-numbing how many people are so willing to give up their rights.
Matt, how do you feel about the Patriot Act? Good or Bad?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1358 hrs
I think In Pennsylvanian government should change these rule cause it is not fair to carry a weapon openly.
It is fair, and it is a right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1404 hrs
Merely having a gun should not rise to the level of a “Terry Stop” and more than reading a book on a park bench should. Both are legal activities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1456 hrs
Joe,
Books are not designed for the sole purpose of killing or practicing killing. That’s the difference, even if they are both legal. I’m NOT saying that having a gun justifies a Terry Stop or a disorderly contact. I’m not saying that we don’t or shouldn’t have the right to carry guns, concealed or otherwise. I just think you’re being dishonest if you think guns are the same as books.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on June 12, 2008 at 1520 hrs
One could argue that books have killed far more people in the history of mankind than guns.
Posted by Owen on June 12, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Again, I was talking about purpose not effect. Also, I was talking about the United states, which never existed in a pre-gun era. That said, anyone who would make that argument would be an idiot. That person could say that the ideas that are found in some book or another led to bloodshed, but that’s not the same as the book itself. Books are just tools to carry ideas. Books don’t kill people, people kill people.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on June 12, 2008 at 1546 hrs
Joe,
Books are not designed for the sole purpose of killing or practicing killing. That’s the difference, even if they are both legal. I’m NOT saying that having a gun justifies a Terry Stop or a disorderly contact. I’m not saying that we don’t or shouldn’t have the right to carry guns, concealed or otherwise. I just think you’re being dishonest if you think guns are the same as books.Noone is trying to say that a gun is the same as a book.
But I do believe the opinion we are making is that the act of walking down the street with a gun in a holster at your side is NO different in the eyes of the law than than walking down the street with a book in your pocket or driving down the road in a car.
As a matter of law, they are identical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1552 hrs
I like you guys. On the one hand, some guy walking up to a bus stop with a .45 on his hip should not—must not—attract unwanted law enforcement attention. At the same time, it’s perfectly okay to cavity search someone wearing a headscarf trying to board a plan to Chicago.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1556 hrs
Straw-man arguement Scott.
Noone is saying:
someone wearing a headscarf trying to board a plan to Chicago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1600 hrs
Yeah? Raise your hand if you have no problem with racial profiling.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1601 hrs
That should read “noone is saying we should cavity search”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1602 hrs
Yeah? Raise your hand if you have no problem with racial profiling.
I’ve never heard anyone who’s commented in this thread advocating racial profiling.
I’m quite against that or any other form of government tyranny.
In fact, I believe there have been discussions on here about consent searches in “the ghetto” which I commented were completely wrong of police and usurping power and taking advantage of people who didn’t know their rights.
But you’re hell bent to find a finger to point even when there is one, so I don’t want to steal the thunder from your inculpation
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1607 hrs
Re: #25, Gun, book, car—the ideas are identical, but it’s deadly weapons that make the public—including law enforcement—nervous. So until openly carrying firearms becomes commonplace, those who carry are going to draw attention to themselves, and they should be prepared to deal with it until then. If the public and law enforcement were accustomed to seeing properly holstered firearms on average-looking citizens, openly carrying wouldn’t raise any eyebrows or elicit charges of disorderly conduct, and any such charges would be even more incorrect and ridiculous.
Just as it is sad that someone wearing a headscarf or hip hop gear raises suspicions for some, it is also sad that open carry advocates have to go out of their way to educate and assuage the public—and some in law enforcement—that they are abiding by our state’s law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1608 hrs
xxpilot, let’s cut the bullshit. I’m not accusing you personally of anything. But let’s be real for a minute. I’ve debated a half a dozen vocal commenters on local conservative blogs who have vociferously defended the principle of racial and ethnic profiling. Please don’t act like you’re unaware of the fact that conservatives are much more likely to be comfortable with it than liberals are.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1615 hrs
Help me understand how the position a person takes regarding racial/ethnic profiling has a bearing on the validity of their stance regarding open carry. Or don’t you want to argue that stance on its merits?
Posted by Tony Turner on June 12, 2008 at 1643 hrs
I’ve debated a half a dozen vocal commenters on local conservative blogs who have vociferously defended the principle of racial and ethnic profiling.
Please, you don’t debate, you stick your fingers in your ears, say what you want to say, then “unlink” and walk away. That isn’t anything close to debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1649 hrs
xxpilot, cops can’t randomly pull over cars because the driver might be drunk, but they can pull over cars if they think the driver might be drunk. Even if the driver isn’t drunk or doing anything illegal, they can still pull you over.
The same applies to people walking around with firearms (especially in cities where it’s illegal to fire such weapons). They aren’t randomly stopping just anyone on the street, only those with guns!
The driver of the car did nothing wrong, yet they were pulled over and detained by the cops (and probably had their license run to see if there were any warrants etc.), should they be allowed to sue the state for that?
Do you believe that the job of the police to prevent crime or just arrest people after crimes have been committed?
It’s not illegal to carry a gun, but I think it is prudent of police to at least make note of those who do so. Walking around a city with a firearm should raise suspicions. It’s extremely easy to commit a crime with a gun, with a cellphone, not so much.
Posted by Matt on June 12, 2008 at 1900 hrs
JJARWM…you did NOT read the story correctly.
Ellen, neither did you,.
The restaurant did not complain, some other patrons did—and all they could say was that ‘there were people with guns.’
The lawsuit is not frivolous, Ellen and JJAW. The cops and the ADA were wrong, wrong, wrong, in their actions.
Posted by dad29 on June 12, 2008 at 2137 hrs
Matt you don’t have a right to drive a car, its a privilege granted to you buy the state for which you were licensed in. Now the 2nd amendment gives us a certain right to “bear” arms right? No where in the constitution are you granted the right to drive a car/truck/atv/snowmoblie/moped…
From my training as a PO/DS I was only allowed to stop someone if they had made a moving volition. I couldn’t just pull them over because I thought they were under the influence I had to find something illegal on the car or an action legal before I could stop them. Now things may have changed since I was a DS but thats how I was trained.
I couldn’t just stop and detain someone walking down the street because I thought they were carrying something illegal I needed probable cause before I could take that action and search the individual. However, I was allowed to start up conversation to maybe obtain said cause as needed.
I am no longer an officer, I got out after I encountered a few problems with subjects I worked with but its training you never forget…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 2208 hrs
Matt.
You are entitled to your opinion… as grossly anti-freedom and pro-police-state as it is.
Its not what the great men who founded this country had in mind, but carry on…
Walking around a city with a firearm should raise suspicions. It’s extremely easy to commit a crime with a gun,
Its extremely easy to crash a car into someone else.
Shall we assume than anyone driving one may be drunk and give the police the right to pull them over any time they want.
Look Matt. Cops can look at whatever they want. But if they drive by a guy with a gun in a holster on his hip, who is causing no trouble, going about his daily business, they have no business stopping him and asking questions. No probable cause, no justifiable reason to stop, detain or otherwise interfere with his or her going about their business. No sooner than they have the right to pull over someone driving down the road in a 4000 pound deadly weapon who has done nothing wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 2248 hrs
However, I was allowed to start up conversation to maybe obtain said cause as needed.
And if you had no probable cause to stop someone why would you feel it necessary to go harrassing a (by your own admission) innocent person who was just going about their business?
Matt you don’t have a right to drive a car, its a privilege granted to you buy the state for which you were licensed in. Now the 2nd amendment gives us a certain right to “bear” arms right? No where in the constitution are you granted the right to drive a car/truck/atv/snowmoblie/moped…
You are categorically wrong.
The 2nd amendment doesnt grant a right. It was simply an extrodinary measure to clearly state that a right already existed and shouldn’t be infringed.
And you are further categorically wrong that driving is a privilege. It is a right. I know police and law enforcement and those who like to control people would like to say it isn’t a right, but it is. The courts have found it to be so many times, and you should really read the constitution and bill of rights before you go making statements that are false and perpetuating misinformation about freedom.
The ninth amendment to the bill of rights states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.What that means is that JUST because it doesn’t SAY its a right in the constitution does NOT mean its not a right.
If you study constitutional history you’d understand that there was a great concern about having a bill of rights because future generations might think that was ALL the rights people had. Thats the reason for the 9th and 10th amendments.
So please stop perpetuating misconceptions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 2257 hrs
xxpilot, cops can’t randomly pull over cars because the driver might be drunk
I have news for you. Random DUI checkpoints ARE Constitutional, and are regularly used all over the US.
I think that it sucks—but it’s legal.
Posted by dad29 on June 13, 2008 at 0720 hrs
And if you had no probable cause to stop someone why would you feel it necessary to go harrassing a (by your own admission) innocent person who was just going about their business?
How is asking someone what they think of the weather or what they think about the Redwings, harassment?
The courts have found it to be so many times
Interesting can you cite a couple for me? I only know of a few that dealt with the right to travel freely, none of which stated that you may travel freely by vehicle of your choice.
Driving in the US is a regulated activity and requires a person to pass a strict test to obtain a permit/license to do. Revocation of said permit/license however does need to follow due process of the law.
you should really read the constitution and bill of rights before you go making statements that are false and perpetuating misinformation about freedom.
Likewise…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0741 hrs
TomInGrMi,
With regards to the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints:
On June 14, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court finally handed down its long-awaited decision on the constitutionality of DUI roadblocks. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Court reversed the state appellate court and held that the checkpoint operation in question did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.In a predictable 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Rehnquest, the Court acknowledged that roadblocks do constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. However, the Chief Justice wrote, this must be viewed in the context of weighing the need and effectiveness of the roadblock against minimal intrusion on individual liberties. With demonstrated need and effectiveness, and minimal intrusion, sobriety checkpoints are constitutionally acceptable.
Respondents in Sitz had argued that any balancing tests were inappropriate: The sole question was whether the police had probable cause to stop any individual drivers. There must be a special governmental need beyond the normal need,’’ respondents argued, before a balancing test is appropriate. Oddly, however, Rehnquist quickly dismissed this rather obvious point with almost no comment
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0931 hrs
oops, wrong person to reply to, sorry. Anyhow, that’s the USSC decision on checkpoints.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0932 hrs
Likewise…
Tom…
Its pretty silly to make a comment like that when you demonstrated your lack of basic knowledge of rights in your first post.
“The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocate//o, 416 P. 2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights.” Teche Lines v. Dan forth, 12 So. 2d 784, 787 (Miss.—1943). See also: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1002 hrs
A privilege—etymologically “private law” or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth. Miscellaneous privileges, e.g. the old common law privilege to title deeds, may still exist, though of little relevance today.
Can you explain to me why you must OBTAIN a drivers license before you can drive a car on a public motor way when you say its a right?
Why are we arguing about Driving as a right vs a privilege anyway? its been argued for YEARS and I am sure we won’t settle it here…
I hope you guys in Wisconsin can get your personal protection laws passed so I can carry there on reciprocity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1014 hrs
xxpilot, you never answered my question, do you believe it is the job of the police to try to prevent crime?
Posted by Matt on June 13, 2008 at 1133 hrs
Can you explain to me why you must OBTAIN a drivers license before you can drive a car on a public motor way when you say its a right?
Many rights have restrictions. No rights are absolute.
I could, of course, argue that there should be less restrictions but that’s not the issue.
We have a right to own private property, but we are often required to register title to it, etc.
A drivers license is simply a restriction put on a right.
If a person demostrates the capacity to drive by passing the test, following rules of the road so they don’t injure someone etc, the government cannot deny you a license. (if it was a priviledge they could)
In theory ‘licensing’ a driver is a way to protect the rights of other people on the road to be safe. (relatively)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1134 hrs
xxpilot, you never answered my question, do you believe it is the job of the police to try to prevent crime?
Good question. Its philosophical I suppose.
You’d have to define ‘prevent’.
Catching and prosecuting criminals serving as a deterent could “prevent” crime.
So in that respect, yes, I think inherently cops do prevent crime.
But for the most part, I think there job is enforcement, not prevention.
Whenever I hear people on tv blame the chief of police for crime going up I want kick the TV.
Its not the Police to blame when joe-criminal decides to get drunk, beat up his wife or something.
Its not the Police to blame when joe-criminal decides to go steal a car.
Criminals will be criminals.
And its not the police to blame when someone who does commit a crime wasn’t caught before they did.
Until the act of committing a crime occurs, you are a law abiding citizen and you should be treated as such.
If you start treating everyone like a criminal you are going to interfere with the law abiding persons going about their right to life, liberty and the pursuit with no reason.
I recognize that this means that you must err on the side of someone probably then committing a crime that freedom-raping tactics might have prevented, but we should not encumber the law abiding with harrassment or obstacles when they are doing nothing wrong.
Laws are enforced to protect individuals rights…
If you are going to infringe on my rights just to protect my rights… That defeats the purpose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1147 hrs
That seems reasonable, I guess I agree with you then. However I’d say it’s probably stupid to not expect some police ‘harassment’ if you do decide to walk around a city openly carrying a firearm.
Posted by Matt on June 13, 2008 at 1329 hrs
However I’d say it’s probably stupid to not expect some police ‘harassment’ if you do decide to walk around a city openly carrying a firearm.
Actually I think its stupid not to expect PEOPLE to “freak out” and get their panties in a bunch.
But shouldn’t I expect that police OF ALL PEOPLE should know the law inside and out and know what is and isn’t a crime?
Therefore I think its totally FAIR to expect that police would not harass someone walking around open carrying (as long as they are not violating any other law, drunk, or whatever)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1404 hrs
What if there were six young black men walking down 49th and Hampton at 2 am, all wearing large handguns on their belts?
Posted by scott on June 13, 2008 at 1414 hrs
I almost posed the same question. I was going to go with young blackmen wearing handkerchiefs and handguns at Speed Queen Barbeque.
The point is the police had a reason to question these people (read the police report), when they didn’t comply with their questioning requests they were arrested. Carrying a weapon doesn’t make someone a member of a protected class of patriots immune from scrutiny. It makes you potentially dangerous. If the police have a reason to question someone that is potentially dangerous I hope they do it. I certainly hope they aren’t intimidated from doing it out of fear of a lawsuit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1435 hrs
The point is they did comply with the questioning requests and are in fact a protected class, namely people in the USA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1517 hrs
The guy refused to provide ID to the questioning police officer, how is that cooperation?
Lets recap… if a group of men in Speed Queen are strapped with sidearms and multiple people within the restaurant complain to the management that this group of people are making them uncomfortable, and one of the men made a comment to a woman that made her uneasy prompting the management to call the police you guys don’t believe the police have any right to question them?
The police have been given probable cause by the concerned citizens of the restaurant. The police are duty bound to question them. If the interogated do not cooperate the police are duty bound to arrest them.
I hope Owen and Daddio follow up on the conclusion of this case. I don’t see how this guys lawsuit has any merit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1546 hrs
Lets recap… if a group of men in Speed Queen are strapped with sidearms and multiple people within the restaurant complain to the management that this group of people are making them uncomfortable, and one of the men made a comment to a woman that made her uneasy prompting the management to call the police you guys don’t believe the police have any right to question them?
Lets recap… the group in the OCB were eating their dinner. The police came in asked the group to step outside. The diners had no obligation at that point to do so. That right there is illegal, and improper.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1600 hrs
What if there were six young black men walking down 49th and Hampton at 2 am, all wearing large handguns on their belts?
scott, you are repeating yourself. How is you question any different from #26.
At the same time, it’s perfectly okay to cavity search someone wearing a headscarf trying to board a plan to Chicago.
If you’re going to commit to logical fallacies, you’re going to be repeating yourself all the time. Don’t get upset with us adults when that happens. Both questions are straw men.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1603 hrs
Thankfully I can learn at the feet of my intellectual betters, Jason. Heh.
Posted by scott on June 13, 2008 at 1605 hrs
The police have been given probable cause by the concerned citizens of the restaurant. The police are duty bound to question them. If the interogated do not cooperate the police are duty bound to arrest them.
That’s just plain idiotic. What’s the probable cause? Some citizens don’t like guns? That does not give the police the right to remove them from the restaurant, ask for id’s, or ask if they are carrying concealed weapons.
Detention
“Reasonable Articulable Suspicion”To believe that:
(1) a crime has been committed
(2) a crime is being committed, or
(3) a crime is about to be committed; AND
(4) the person about to be stopped is the person who did one of the above.The Procedure:
(1) After identifying as a police officer
(2) an officer may stop a person:
_(a) in a public place
_(b) for a reasonable ____period of time
_(c) when the officer ____reasonably ____suspects that such ____person is ____committing, is about ____to commit, or has ____committed a crime.
(3) Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped2c was not met in any way shape or form. The transcripts of the 911 calls prove that without a doubt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1607 hrs
Thankfully I can learn at the feet of my intellectual betters, Jason. Heh.
Actually, you can’t because around the time you realize it, you decide to “unlink” yourself from the discussion and then look for another discussion to derail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1620 hrs
I do that after I get tired of going in the same circle with you—because you don’t argue honestly and you seemingly are impervious to logic and facts. Teaching a course in remedial politics to you isn’t my full time job, you know.
Anyway, I don’t know that I have a dog in this fight. I’m for concealed carry here in Wisconsin—but I am not particularly alarmed at the behavior of the police in the story cited above. Which makes me a friend to exactly nobody around here, I guess.
Posted by scott on June 13, 2008 at 1627 hrs
You’re my friend here, Scott.
Posted by Matt on June 13, 2008 at 1632 hrs
I do that after I get tired of going in the same circle with you—because you don’t argue honestly and you seemingly are impervious to logic and facts.
Riiiiight, everyone here can see post 26 by you, and then post 51 by you, and realize that you’ve asked the same straw man question twice. And now I’m the one who doesn’t argue honestly and am impervious to logic and facts. Sure buddy.
>but I am not particularly alarmed at the behavior of the police in the story cited above
I guess as long as it doesn’t happen to you, you’re ok with it. Good for you. It’s not what this country was founded on, it’s exactly the reason this country fought for independence. You choose to spend yours on a polar opposite blog trolling, good for you, it’s your choice. But don’t start with the fingers in the ears, name calling, and schoolyard taunting when someone points it out to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1644 hrs
What if there were six young black men walking down 49th and Hampton at 2 am, all wearing large handguns on their belts?
They are not breaking any law, they are not causing any harm.
My answer can be none other than that they should be allowed to go about their law abiding business.
It can’t be any other way.
The only reason to stop them may be if they don’t look 18 (or maybe its 21 for a handgun, but that might just be a DNR rule for hunting)
I’m cautious to make that statement because then any cop could say that “they looked 17” even if they were 28 and I dont’ want to give the po po’s such an easy subjective excuse to stop law abiding citizens..
But if the cop stops them because they look young, he ought only ask for ID. I recognize this gives him the opportunity to run the DL for warrants and status as a felon and THAT would give him grounds to make an arrest.
4 white grandpas walking down the street in Elm Grove strapped should be treated just the same as 4 of age guys walking down Cherry Street strapped.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1657 hrs
3rdWay, a person in the USA is not obligated to possess any ID, much less show one to the police upon their demand, nor are you obligated to answer their questions, nor is failure to answer their questions or failure to possess and show an ID grounds for arrest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1716 hrs
I agree with everything in your last post XX. The problem starts when those grandpas does something that makes other people leery about them (like making a comment as the OCB guy did). If somebody with a deadly weapon makes someone else uncomfortable it is the duty of the police to investigate.
If there is a group of young men running down the street chanting offensive things and carrying baseball bats do the police have the right to question them? They are completely within their right to do so, but you can understand how that would make someone uncomfortable and prompt them to call the police. In a case like that I certainly want the police to investigate something that looks like it could pose danger to other people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 1726 hrs
I do that after I get tired of going in the same circle with you—because you don’t argue honestly and you seemingly are impervious to logic and facts.
scott, if your commission in #26 of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy which I called out in #33 is any indication (and to which you of course did not respond - “unlinking” as Jason would say), you are the one with logic issues.
Posted by Tony Turner on June 13, 2008 at 1846 hrs
If there is a group of young men running down the street chanting offensive things and carrying baseball bats do the police have the right to question them?
Why add the underlined part? It has no bearing on this incident, it’s yet another straw man. The people in question were sitting and eating their dinner, they weren’t chanting, they weren’t disturbing the peace, they weren’t conducting in a disorderly fashion. A single police officer should have walked in the restaurant, observed the atmosphere of the situation, and walked back out. That’s it…. case closed, game over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 2213 hrs
To all those who think this arrest was proper, you need to know a few reasons you are wrong:
1) PA, like WI, requires you to identify yourself to an officer during a Terry stop. (The burden for a Terry stop, BTW, is not Probably Cause, it is Reasonable Articuable Suspicion, a lesser burden. This DOES includes things like “he was wearing a hankerchief over his face, dressed like a thug, and acting suspicious while loitering outside the convenience store; I had reason to believe he was a lookout for a robbery in progress, and confronted him,” but does not include “he was wearing a gun on his hip and peacably walking down the street.”)
2) Identifying yourself includes your name and maybe where you live. IT DOES NOT BURDEN THE CITIZEN TO PROVIDE PROOF VIA DOCUMENTATION. THIS IS NOT A POLICE STATE (yet).
3) These men DID comply with the (unjustified) Terry stop and subsequent identification requirements, then refused to show proof of identity via documentation. This is 100% legal, and police cannot do anything about it. Instead, the police arrested them, making the arrests illegal.
4) The police used a sales database in an illegal manner (per the PA Supreme Court) as a registry, and deprived these men of their property without due process of law. Read the Constitution someday and I’m sure the part violated there will jump right out at you. Also, by extending the burden to prove ownership to the owners through this “registry,” and under color of law, the police acted illegally. The police can no more do this than ask that they prove ownership of their eyeglasses.
5) These people were eating in a restaraunt wearing guns. I mow my lawn with a gun on my hip. Their intention was to eat, mine is to make my grass shorter. THE MERE FACT WE ARE CARRYING WEAPONS AT THE TIME DOES NOT MAKE OUR CONDUCT SUSPECT OR DISORDERLY. Trying to say “these people had it coming” or “what were they trying to prove” is disingenious. They were trying to prove nothing - they were going peacably about their business while armed.
6) As stated earlier by someone else, the legal recourse that a private establishment has if they do not wish these people to wear arms openly, is tresspass. The owners/operators of the establishment did not ask these men to leave, and a patron has no legal right to do so. This means the restaraunt has LEGALLY CONDONED THIS BEHAVIOR BY NOT OBJECTING TO IT IN ANY WAY. Saying that “someone complained” does not change this.
7) Anyone saying this is a junk lawsuit has not read the caselaw. SCOTUS has ruled that LEO’s lose immunity from 42USC 1983 action for these exact situations. The citizens broke no laws, but were harassed extra-legally and under color of law by the cops. THIS PUTS THE COPS IN THE WRONG.
Let me finish by outlining how this should have happened:
Citizens and their families eating peacably. Officers called by patron. Officers respond, and observe armed citizens eating peacably. Officers ask manager if the citizens had been asked to leave. When told “no,” the officers go on their way. I would not object to the officers explaing to the manager of the business that they have the right to ask people not to openly carry there. I would not object to the police confronting the person who called them and explaining exactly why they could do nothing about the situation absent aggrevating circumstances. I do object to Cops acting under color of law to deprive people of their freedom and property. And yes, Scott, that means muslims, too.
PS - thanks for the links to my blog!
Posted by Mike Gallo on June 15, 2008 at 0834 hrs
And you silly people think you live in a free country!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2008 at 2323 hrs
Whoa, I just revisted the thread and found I have to defend my honor.
Dad29 said:
“JJARWM…you did NOT read the story correctly.
...
“The restaurant did not complain, some other patrons did—and all they could say was that ‘there were people with guns.’
“The lawsuit is not frivolous, Ellen and JJAW. The cops and the ADA were wrong, wrong, wrong, in their actions. “
Lets talk about reading things correctly Dad29. Here are all of my comments on this post:
15: “Although I basically agree with what Owen is saying here, isn’t it funny how the word “patriot” has become synonymous with douchebag? The stereotypes in this article are fantastic. OCB? Really?”
22. “Joe,
Books are not designed for the sole purpose of killing or practicing killing. That’s the difference, even if they are both legal. I’m NOT saying that having a gun justifies a Terry Stop or a disorderly contact. I’m not saying that we don’t or shouldn’t have the right to carry guns, concealed or otherwise. I just think you’re being dishonest if you think guns are the same as books.”24. “Again, I was talking about purpose not effect. Also, I was talking about the United states, which never existed in a pre-gun era. That said, anyone who would make that argument would be an idiot. That person could say that the ideas that are found in some book or another led to bloodshed, but that’s not the same as the book itself. Books are just tools to carry ideas. Books don’t kill people, people kill people.”
That’s it. So if Dad29 is still reading this, perhaps he could tell me where I said something that suggests I misread the article. I never said the restaurant complained and I never said the lawsuit was frivolous. All I said in this post is that, although I support the right to bear arms, guns, there are policy arguments for treating guns differently than other stuff (I also never said any of these policy reasons should trump the constitution), and that it’s funny when people use the term “partiot” to refer to douchebag gun-owners that eat at the OCB.Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on July 03, 2008 at 1338 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134052
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:41 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).