Though I didn’t blog about it at the time, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued an advisory memorandum a few weeks ago that opined that the open carrying of firearms by citizens in Wisconsin is in fact perfectly legal, so long as those pistol-packing individuals don’t bark at a passerby or brandish a handgun in public. As the Illusory Tenant pointed out, AG Van Hollen’s advisory memorandum did little to clarify the debate about the legality of open carry in Wisconsin; in fact, iT opines, the AG he may have succeeded only in further unclarifying it.
Shortly after the Attorney General shared his thoughts in his advisory memo, Governor Doyle issued a statement indicating Wisconsin communities should again have the right to ban the open carrying of guns. Here in the South Shore suburbs, Alderman Ted Jarosh of St. Francis seems to agree with Governor Doyle, as Jarosh has indicated he plans to seek an ordinance to limit the open carrying of firearms in St. Francis:
Ted Jarosh, who describes himself as a strong defender of the right to own and legally carry guns, said last week he will ask the city attorney Tuesday whether the city could classify certain acts of so-called open carry as disturbing the peace.
Jarosh cited a case from earlier this year in which a West Allis man was ticketed for carrying a gun in a holster while working in his yard. Police issued a ticket, but a judge dismissed it.
“I think that if you carry a firearm to mow your lawn – unless you fear polar bears or pterodactyls are going to attack you – you’re disturbing the peace,” Jarosh said.
I’m not sure how many people here in Wisconsin fear being attacked by polar bears or pterodactyls, but I’m willing to bet the number is pretty small. Putting aside polar bear and pterodactyl attacks, I really don’t see a valid reason for an individual to pack heat while they’re mowing their lawn, trimming their hedges, sunbathing on the beach, or taking in a ballgame at the stadium. I fully support our Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, but I also think there should be reasonable limits on when and where individuals can bear arms.
Alderman Jarosh should be applauded for taking a principled stand against open carry, and it’s nice to see a defender of gun rights call for reasonable limits on when and where individuals can carry guns.
I’ve heard the argument that allowing individuals to carry firearms – whether openly or concealed – will result in lower crime, but as I’ve noted previously, Wisconsin’s crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants is actually lower than a number of states that allow open or concealed carrying of firearms.
Capper at Cognitive Dissidence has more.
Mr. Jarosh supports the right to legally carry a pistol, but opposes open carry. Since open carry is the only legal way to carry in Wisconsin, Mr. Jarosh appears unable to reason.
I carry all the time, sometimes openly, sometimes concealed, because I have the right and there is a possibility, however small, that I could be attacked by a criminal (not a dinosaur or bear). If a violent felon kicks in your door, feel free to defend yourself with a cell phone.
Bill, you say Mr. Jarosh appears unable to reason, but what about you? What does open carry have to do with possessing a firearm in one’s residence for the purposes of home protection?
Van Hollen’s legal opinion does help clarify an idiotic policy that Wisconsin has. Since we do not like the option of concealed carry in Wisconsin, what choice does Van Hollen have if he is still looking to work in accordance with the state and United States constitutions?
Illinois is the only other state that does not have conceal carry (although I now have a nagging feeling that there may be one other state). If open carry is illegal and conceal carry is illegal, where is someone allowed to keep a gun if they have one? Van Hollen’s opinion is simply following logic and highlighting the idiocy of current Wisconsin public policy regarding guns.