open carry in Wisconsin

[vantec08]

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_793a554e-c462-11df-91dd-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story

A Wisconsin group that promotes "open carry" of firearms says it will take action against Madison police after two of its members were issued citations for obstruction Saturday night when they refused to identify themselves at a restaurant.

The incident occurred while five members of Wisconsin Carry met and ate at a Culver's restaurant near East Towne Mall, said Auric Gold, the group's secretary.

Gold said each of the five men was "wearing a holstered firearm, a legal and constitutionally protected activity in Wisconsin."

Eight officers came to the restaurant and demanded identification from the five men, Gold said, adding that when two of them refused, they were handcuffed, disarmed and searched for identification, then given municipal citations for obstruction and released. Wisconsin Carry won a $10,000 settlement for a Racine man in a similar situation.

Gold said police cannot arrest anyone for obstruction simply for refusal to provide identification. But Madison Sgt. Shawn Engel said police can cite individuals for refusing to identify themselves depending on "the totality of what goes on ... in the event that we're investigating."

Engel was unable to provide any details Sunday about the incident or who had contacted police Saturday.

"The concern we would have, if any business calls, is that we don't know the persons' intent, who they are or what their intentions are," he said. "Whether they have a legal right to carry, we are certainly not going to infringe on those rights, but we have to insure the safety of the community as a whole."

[Gray Peterson]

The statute used:

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

[choprzrul]

...when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime...

I don't think this incident will pass the above scrutiny. Something tells me that the dept will paying out some $$$.

How often would these types of incidents happen if the offending officers, in civil rights violation incidents, had to pay the settlement out of their retirement funds? I would think that civil rights violations would drop significantly.

.

[vantec08]

I don't think this incident will pass the above scrutiny. Something tells me that the dept will paying out some $$$.

How often would these types of incidents happen if the offending officers, in civil rights violation incidents, had to pay the settlement out of their retirement funds? I would think that civil rights violations would drop significantly.

.

The same logic could be applied to pulling out a pen and pad while at a Starbucks (1st amend.). If anyone says guns are more dangerous than a pen and pad, I will remind them that DISinformation, MISinformation, and spin are doing far more damage than guns. As long as LEOs are indemnified to infinity by taxpayer largesse, it will continue.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I don't think this incident will pass the above scrutiny. Something tells me that the dept will paying out some $$$.

Yup.

How often would these types of incidents happen if the offending officers, in civil rights violation incidents, had to pay the settlement out of their retirement funds? I would think that civil rights violations would drop significantly.

.

Yup again.


The Raisuli

[cineski]

Wisconsin sure has Chicago shoved right up it's butt.

[N6ATF]

When will they learn...

[Liberty1]

This will hing on if the caller described a crime even if the info. was false which is something the OCers don't know at the time of contact.

[Untamed1972]

This will hing on if the caller described a crime even if the info. was false which is something the OCers don't know at the time of contact.

Then perhaps the LEOs need to communicate such at the time of contact if that is indeed the case.

That Fed Judge ruled in that case in NM that presence of a legally carried gun in and of itself was not RS/PC for a detention.

I think it's time for the LEO attitude of "I/We ask the questions and you do as your told."

If I am sitting in a resturant having a meal with my friends and minding my own business and not doing anything wrong and LEOs come in and start demanding info and ID with no explanation as to why then I am likely to not be very cooperative. If they would take a second and explain: "We are here because someone called in a report of men with guns, blah, blah, blah." That might change the tone of the interaction. But just showing up with a badge-heavy attitude asserting your right to jack with anyone you want to or else is not very professional. There MUST be something other than the presence of the guns to justify further contact.