Wisconsin Open Carry

Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.

Chief Ed Flynn said officers can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it.
Click to expand...

W-T-F, over?
 
Some rights are lost if not exercised. Others are lost if they are exercises.

WI is now on the fast track towards "no open carry" legislation and it is very likely that this individual exercising the open carry right will be responsible for the statewide loss of that right.
 
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said his memo was simply intended to "clarify" the law, and he does not believe more people will start openly carrying guns because of it.

Gov. Jim Doyle hopes it won't change how police officers respond when they see weapons.

"Our advice was people are permitted to openly carry firearms -- that it wasn't in and of itself disorderly conduct. We intentionally didn't go into any factual-based scenarios because they're all different," Van Hollen said.

"I assume that local DAs and local police departments are gonna continue to act as they already have," Doyle said.
Click to expand...

The whole point of this memo was to get local PDs from harassing "activists OCrs" and here that tool of a cheesehead is saying that the locals should not change. What an idiot.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Some rights are lost if not exercised. Others are lost if they are exercises.

WI is now on the fast track towards "no open carry" legislation and it is very likely that this individual exercising the open carry right will be responsible for the statewide loss of that right.
Click to expand...

Im confused here, so should he have not exercised the right in order to preserve it? What is the point of having the right if he cannot exercise it?
 
Im confused here, so should he have not exercised the right in order to preserve it? What is the point of having the right if he cannot exercise it?
Click to expand...
I was not making a statement of what he should have been done; just making an observation of the reality of exercising open carry in an area where the right exists but there is little to no cultural acceptance of said right.
 
Oh wait, it gets better...

http://www.wisn.com/news/19245377/detail.html

He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it.
Click to expand...

This should go over like a fart in church. I hope/can't wait till someone sues that prick Chief into the next century for violating their civil rights. Hell, I'd even make a very loud and very public appeal to the ACLU to help fight a violation of my Civil Rights if it were me. Either you're fighting for Civil Liberties across the board or you're going to have to admit to being hypocrites in the public eye of the whole state; two birds, one stone if you will.

And please spare the Obama comments here. This type of behavior by police is several presidents old now. Not defending him by ANY means, just hoping to keep things on topic for a change.
 
RG617 said:
Oh wait, it gets better...

http://www.wisn.com/news/19245377/detail.html



This should go over like a fart in church. I hope/can't wait till someone sues that prick Chief into the next century for violating their civil rights.
Click to expand...

+1

Right off the Wisconsin Constitution:
Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
[1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]
Click to expand...

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that our state constitution guarantees the right to go about armed in public, though that right does not include concealment (which is legal through statutory law). Several PDs in Ohio have been legally smacked by doing what this dipshit in Milawukee wants to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chief Flynn

I`m pretty sure this is the former Springfield, Ma. chief who resigned last year to take over the Top Cop job in Milwaukee.
 
Says WI DOJ http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

While: "The Department believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge."

... they go on to say:
"Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or Terry stop) if he has “reasonable suspicion,” based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming “totality of the circumstances” test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop)."

Open Carry appears to be an act that constitutes "reasonable suspicion". So criminals should probably persist in illegal concealed carry to avoid suspicion.
 
This is nonsense. Why would anybody in their right mind carry a gun openly if they had the option to carry it concealed. It makes police officers nervous and I try to never make armed people nervous. It makes people who don't like guns, angry and frightened but the primary reason it's a dumb idea is that it gives away your greatest advantage in a gun fight. You give away the element of surprise. The first time I want a bad guy to know I have a gun is when he's looking at the wrong end of it. If dumbness were an olympic event, they'd have to award a platinum medal for the idea of open carry because gold wouldn't be high enough. Feel free to rebut. I'll be shutting my computer off for a couple of days and I won't be opening any suspicious mail.
 
gerrycaruso said:
This is nonsense. Why would anybody in their right mind carry a gun openly if they had the option to carry it concealed. It makes police officers nervous and I try to never make armed people nervous. It makes people who don't like guns, angry and frightened but the primary reason it's a dumb idea is that it gives away your greatest advantage in a gun fight. You give away the element of surprise. The first time I want a bad guy to know I have a gun is when he's looking at the wrong end of it. If dumbness were an olympic event, they'd have to award a platinum medal for the idea of open carry because gold wouldn't be high enough. Feel free to rebut. I'll be shutting my computer off for a couple of days and I won't be opening any suspicious mail.
Click to expand...

I believe, if I read the articles correctly, that he was carrying openly on his own property. I, personally, don't care what my neighbors say(or think) about me carrying openly. Ever since I started carrying openly while doing yard work, retrieving the mail, taking out the trash, and such, I haven't heard a negative peep outta them.[smile]
 
Hopefully, our side will have any legislation that bans open carry immediately amended to add "shall issue" CCW permits - they can tell the banners that it's a compromise :).
 
Rob, I'm REALLY disturbed by your propensity to want to [strike]give in[/strike] compromise even before any such legislation is proposed. [thinking]
 
any legislation that bans open carry immediately amended to add "shall issue" CCW permits - they can tell the banners that it's a compromise
Click to expand...

Wisconsin anti-gunners have a problem here.

The Wisconsin Constituion says that they have a right to guns. A statute can't be passed that abrogates that right. They'd have to ammend their constitution first.

Many other states claim that their required license for concealled carry passes state constitutionality because the people can always carry openly.

It'd be strange if Wisconsin tries to make the case that having a required license to only carry concealled means that open carry can be banned..
 
Last edited:
I've actually been looking into OCing in Wisconsin when I'm in the area in 2 weeks. So far my best chance has failed (finding someone to loan me a pistol and holster if it doesn't fit mine).
 

Similar threads

Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Migrants can carry guns
Replies
23
Views
727
KBCraig
KBCraig
State Sen. Pushes Campus Carry for AZ College Students with Concealed Carry Permits
Replies
0
Views
56
Reptile
Reptile
6 shot, including 2 children, after gunmen open fire in Washington DC neighborhood
Replies
1
Views
67
Uzi2
U
LEO Carry Ammo
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
PappyM3
PappyM3
Back
Top Bottom