Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Open carry legal here - but no matter, you'll get arrested anyway

I have not gone through the 20 pages, however. When driving a car I am required to produce a license (id) to demonstrate that I am licensed to drive. When hunting I must show my hunting license. When engaged in an activity that requires a license or permit a person must show that license or permit to an officer when asked. You may note that they were asked for Id and not just cuffed.

I'll be as G.D.! difficult as I choose to be, if some thugs for the State are violating my rights. And, I am pretty pragmatic by nature and don't stir chit. These guys violated no laws, and there was not a shred of probable cause they had or were about to.

That won't stick. That explanation makes as much sense as citing someone driving the speed limit on a street next to a crowded sidewalk with disorderly conduct because someone on the sidewalk got apprehensive that the car "might" veer off the street and harm people on the sidewalk.

Calhoun I am not against open carry or concealled carry. I think everyone that wants to carry a pistol should be able to. If you carry your pistol out in the open in a city that is anti-gun expect to be contacted by the police. When contacted by the police if want to be difficult by not stating your name you get treated like a azz you deserve it.

VAnimrod where did you see that they did verbally tell them who they were? The only part I read was that they declined to say who they were.

For everyone that wants to believe that those guys were safe to carry in good quality holsters there is just a good of chance they were Hi-Points in uncle mikes holsters.

Redneck WI not having a ccw law is entirely the fault of the state. If they wanted a ccw law they would vote out the people that are against it. Missouri did it.

Dink

Neither hunting nor driving are "rights" and therefore the same standard of scrutiny to state interference with said activities. And for the record, they were not engaged in an activity that requires a license or permit.

+1

Well, there you have it - it's systemic.



I see the liability lawyers have spoken. TPTB have been told that they must justify the arrest with a prior crime - even if that "crime" is trumped-up.


If I was living in or near Wisconson, the Open-Carry movement would have just gained another member.

Just hundreds? I wish that were the case.

Maybe if you would have spent more time raising your family instead of bitching and moaning maybe you would not have gotten arrested. Just a thought.

Dink

Exactly this. People tend to forget that cars are *extremely* dangerous in the wrong hands, just like guns. Almost every argument condoning the "just to be sure" id check could be made about drivers. Do we really want enviro-wackos to be able to call the police and get us pulled over for an id-check just because we're driving?

DINK,
You just hit the ball out-of-bounds.

To clarify WI has no permit process but open carry is simply allowed. There is no permit required to OC in WI.

Eating peaceably at a restaurant doesn't require a special license. In that state, neither did open carrying. What activity do you suggest required proof of a license to engage in it in this situation?

I'd be surprised if this ordinance could stand a serious legal challenge. This tool may have just set up the loss of his tool.

You've just perfectly described a textbook example of tyranny, which hinges on the arbitrary power of agents of state to impose their will on others under the color of law.

Yes - and that is the kind of talk that convinces us that DINK will be in lock-step when they tell him to confiscate guns from the peaceable public.

redneck to answer some of your other thoughts. Yes I have seen MOST cops and MOST civilians carry a handgun in what I consider a chitty a holster. Even the best duty holsters can and have been torn, broken and guns taken from them. This makes open carry that much more dangerous.

The FBI that had the full auto's stolen were all a bunch of dumbazzes.

Dink

Trust me. It'll never get that far.. Their legal council will be contacting the State's AG (Van Hollen - a republican who knows the gun laws) who will be contacting that particular PD along with the district's DA.. He'll be telling them to drop the charges unless they wanna pay out large sums of money to those five men and their attorneys.

Here's his memo dated 4/20/09 regarding this exact scenario.. To wit:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

In brief:

Wisconsin District Attorneys, Deputy District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys
April 20, 2009
Page 2
�3. As amended in 1998, the Wisconsin Constitution provides that �[t]he people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.� Wis. Const. art. I, � 25. A Wisconsin citizen has a constitutionally protected right to openly carry a firearm for any of the enumerated purposes, absent the application of a reasonable regulation properly imposed as an exercise of police power. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. � 941.29 (preventing certain classes of persons from possessing firearms); State v. Thomas, 2004 WI App 115, � 16, 274 Wis. 2d 513, 683 N.W.2d 497 (�[T]he right to bear arms is a qualified right, subject to reasonable restrictions under the state�s police power�). 3
�4. In State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, � 24, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666 (footnote omitted), the Wisconsin Supreme Court established the contours of Wisconsin�s disorderly conduct statute:
Wisconsin Stat. � 947.01 . . . states as follows: �Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.� The State must prove two elements to convict a defendant under this statute. State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, � 15, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725. �First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct.� Id. �Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.� Id. An objective analysis of the conduct and circumstances of each particular case must be undertaken because what may constitute disorderly conduct under some circumstances may not under others. See State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, � 33, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712.
See also State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 616, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970) (footnote omitted):


(bold is mine)

Oh he can take shots about how cops are like me. When he has no idea about anything but I am not supposed to take shots at him. Sorry I did not those were the rules.

Dink

A thought? You sure you're capable of having one of those?