Interesting story from madison.com
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.”
Since this is an opinion site, I will give mine. I do not want these yahoos anywhere near me and my family when we are out in public. I have eaten at different Culver’s for years and have not needed a gun yet to “protect myself”. I think you should be able to have all of the guns you want at home, hunt every animal everyday if you want. But when it comes to the public leave them at home.
There is no law that says you can only wear your gun when you are in a bad neighborhood nor is there a requirement that you must be hunting. There is a difference between a right and a privilege and this exemplifies it.
Based upon what occurred they were not yahoos by definition but respectful and courteous.
Thank goodness that one’s rights extend beyond the home or else churches and newspapers would be under government controls. Imagine if your freedom of speech and freedom of worship was only available in your own home.
Partially Blue…looks can be deceiving. If someone wants to carrying a gun they need to be prepared to produce identification when the police ask for it. It’s really that simple.
Why should they show ID? Is there a suspicion they are doing something more than eating a ButterBurger?
There needs to be a reason and the state of Wisconsin has said that carrying holstered guns is in accordance with the Constitution and is not a criminal act.
I just don’t see a problem with adults openly carrying guns; unless they make themselves the problem, of course.
I’m assuming someone had to have called the police to Culver’s…so based on the citizen’s complaint I think the cops had a right to ask for identification. Aside from that…everyone is within the law until they act criminally…and I rather have people being cautious and safe than hesitate when it comes to people carrying guns. Hesitation can cost you your life.
They were not respectful and courteous because they were ticketed. Its not just in their homes where they can use their guns, they can go many places with and use their guns. They do not need to be in a Culvers with their guns. It wasn’t a bad idea in 1855 maybe.
I would bet that the two who refused to show ID, LOVE the new AZ law.
“They were not respectful and courteous because they were ticketed.”
Perhaps all other issued tickets are also valid (using your logic) and there is no reason to go before a judge, ever.
The police chose to issue tickets and take their firearms to make a point: they have power over you even if you are not breaking the law.
I support law enforcement and law enforcement should support the law. That is my point.
They were not respectful and courteous because they were ticketed.
Will you please – please stop to consider what you’re saying there. You really have to be able to see what circular logic it is.
Racist cop pulls over a black guy & gives him a disorderly conduct just because. He broke the law because the cop says he did. That’s all that matters, right?
I would bet the other patrons there were not so excited or thought about how well behaved they were. I know I have no interest in eating with my family somewhere with a table of 5 yahoos with guns. While its “technically” legal to open carry a firearm, I believe there is also precedence to write a disorderly conduct ticket.
If your looking for analogies, what would happen if it was 5 black guys walk in openly carrying guns? Think we would have the same result?
That’s not an analogy. That’s race baiting.
Its not race baiting, you and I both know the reaction by the patrons, workers and police would be completely different.
I have no clue what the reaction of the patrons would be if the circumstances were different.
But I know for certain calling a group of people you know nothing about – except that they like Culvers – racists is pretty sad.
It would’ve been real confusing if they’d been Hispanic… half the conservatives would be cheering the “papers, please” and the other half would be stunned into confusion.
Careful what you wish for – such an event could cause a paradox that destroys the space-time continuum. 🙂
Or maybe just heads to explode.
Let us hope that sensible businesses tell their customers that they are expected not to bring their weapons into the store. I will prefer those that do.
Auric Gold, real name?
I thought the exact same thing, it just can’t possibly be true, can it? Wondering – a Bond fan, he’s got a brother named Blofeld? Or maybe a sister named Argentum Silver?
I agree with Partially Blue. The Culver’s customer called the police because she (erroneously) assumed it must be illegal to wear guns in public. The police asked for identification in order to demonstrate that they were doing something. Some of the men declined because they have been coached in our Attorney General’s published opinion that openly carrying a firearm is not in itself illegal nor grounds for a disorderly conduct citation.
We need to save our jumpiness for people who are actually misbehaving with their guns. Freedom carries a certain amount of risk. Yes, guns can exacerbate violent situations, and guns can be carelessly handled and cause needless tragedy. So can cars. So can alcohol. I am not willing to outlaw or needlessly restrict both of those in order to remove all risk from my life.
Thanks for the support, Jill.
There is a crazy book out there called “You and the Police” which does a poor job explaining what you can and ought not to do when stopped by the police. However, it is the only source material I could find that describes the confrontations that can occur. The author recounts several personal stories that play with fire IMO but at the time I could not locate any other guide books on detentions, questioning, and arrests. If any one knows a good source of information (outside the jail house, please) let me know.
Maybe the customer called the police because they were worried for their family. Maybe they called the police because they were worried that there was going to be a problem. How would anyone in the restaurant know that they were not “misbehaving” with their guns? Why should an innocent family dining at culvers be subjected to the risk of being accidentally shot? Is that what freedom means to you?
Yes, actually, it does. Freedom means that you are free to choose the risks you face. Freedom means that there are risks and you as a citizen are free to run for shelter, challenge the risk, or find an alternative.
It is not freedom FROM risk, FROM pain, or FROM bad things happening to you. It is freedom to experience the world around you as you see fit so long as it does not impinge upon another person’s freedom to do the same.
I would much rather have law abiding people carrying concealed guns than open carry. Guns make me nervous…and I’ve been trained in firing weapons of all sorts…which is probably why they make me nervous. I feel people who open carrying are doing it for many reason…one being – intimidation. I don’t like that. I don’t like that a gun toting jerk off can walk around with his chest puffed out making other people nervous and fearful.
Why do people need guns everywhere they go? what is wrong with our current laws?
You do realize, the current law says they can do exactly what they did?
There has been a follow up to this story as the Madison police have now charged all of the men with disorderly conduct.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_70c6b4d6-c668-11df-8aa6-001cc4c03286.html
The complaint about the armed men sitting at Culver’s was made by a 62-year-old Madison woman who called 911, saying she didn’t know what the law was but wanted police to check out the situation because she didn’t want to be “that one person who saw guns and didn’t call and something terrible happens.”
“The complaint clearly reveals she recognized the potential for violence from these armed men and it was this fear that motivated her call to police,” said police spokesman Joel DeSpain.
According to the release, the city’s disorderly conduct statute does not require an actual disturbance to take place, only that the conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
Wray sent out an internal memo to officers following the incident on Saturday, reiterating the disorderly conduct statute, saying “officers should investigate to determine whether the suspect’s actions caused or were likely to cause a disturbance.”
“It is my expectation that MPD officers encountering individuals who are armed with firearms in public places will take a pro-enforcement approach,” Wray said in the memo.
“If the investigation shows probable cause for a violation, the suspect should be arrested or cited,” Wray said.
Pretty funny, but I guess, what else could you expect from Madison.
In other news:
A man was ticketed for speeding while driving under the posted speed limit. “He was driving a bright red Porche and we all know they ‘tend to speed,'” officer Smith said.
All the dancers at Visions were arrested for prostitution. While none were actually witnessed to have done so, we all know that exotic dancers “tend to do more than dance” for money.
People’s Republic of Madison indeed.
I have to say, Jill expressed my views on this pretty spot-on.
Who knew the true power of ButterBurgers in Madison?
John Peterson at Democurmudgeon had a good take on this. You carry a gun, you threaten my family!
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/09/you-carry-gun-you-threaten-my-family.html
Are you including the 400 Madison law enforcement people who carry guns as threats to your family or are they exempt for some reason?
How about the state troopers? County? How about the 800,000 people in Wisconsin who hunt each year?
At what point are you afraid of five men at Culvers but not the rest?
I neglected to mention the several thousand National Guard troops in the state as well as the private eyes and security guards.
Are they all threats to your family, too?
I know the intentions of the local police force, county sheriff’s dept, state patrol, and National Guard troops. I don’t know the intentions of a complete stranger.
I also know the training and experience of the aforementioned law enforcement officers but have no idea of five strangers even know how to correctly holster their weapons…they don’t even have to be menacing to accidently hurt or kill someone.
Not a very good analogy at all. Law enforcement officers have extensive training and part of their job. 5 off -duty police officers have no business open carrying into the restaurant.
I am 100% behind the hunting community, hunt all you want anything you want in the season. If I have a picnic with my family deep in the woods in the middle of deer season then its my fault.
Last I checked there was not a thing on the Culver’s menu that needed “hunting” no need to shoot the butterburger before you can eat it. The concrete shakes dont need to gunned down and skinned before you can drink it!
So the difference is training? And Culver’s?
You would trade your right to bear arms for a ButterBurger?
I said that wrong. You would trade my rights for a ButterBurger. You gave yours away for nothing. Rights just don’t mean much anymore do they?
Are there any other weapons that people should not carry in public? How about knives? Box cutters? Sharp pencils? Aren’t you afraid of them, too?
Pencils should only be allowed in schools where students are taught to use them and we know the intent of students. This is sound logic. Box cutters should only be allowed in the hands of warehouse workers. Knives belong in kitchens under the supervision of chefs and cooks. (No more mumbly peg for junior!)
When rights are permitted for convenience, soon it will never be convenient to utlize that right.
We are on opposite sides of this issue and more conversation is fruitless. Thanks for the argument. -PB
comparing an open carried holstered gun, to a pencil is as ridiculous as comparing gay marriage to bestiality. Maybe you can show me the deaths by pencil in the United States and compare that to death by gun.
I am not trading anyone’s rights, I say you can have all the guns you want at home. Yo ucan also use them for the right purposes. eating at Culvers is not the right purpose. As I explained before none of the amendments are a “no exception” amendment and openly carrying in a Culvers is not following our Founders vision. How in the world would we know who meant well and who did not? SHould we just assume that everyone means well, until someone gets shot then we can just say sorry to the family.
We have freedom of speech also guaranteed us, but if we sat next to a family and swore like crazy they would probably also call the police. Would that be losing a right?
Visit http://www.wisconsincarry.org
Read the synopsis of what REALLY happened. You can even here the 911 call where the caller is actually “sorry” she called. She states they aren’t doing anything, I just wasn’t sure it was legal.
The myths that make it into the press are numerous.
The FACTS are somehow always lost…
Chris Rickert has a very good take on this in the Wisconsin State Journal.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/chris_rickert/article_9db9e5d6-c838-11df-be29-001cc4c03286.html
“But a good right does not necessarily make a good cause, and seeing as how the proliferation of guns has been repeatedly associated with a proliferation of violence — whether you’re talking about a home, a neighborhood or an entire country — it seems like a right that might need a little less exercising.”
I think the caller had every right to call 911 and she did the right thing. I believe I would do that also if 5 people openly carried into a restaurant I was in eating with my family.
It sounds like a bad setup to a joke- “So five guys walk into a Culver’s with guns at their sides….”
Does that sound remotely like acceptable behavior? What a bunch of attention-seeking children. Legal or not, it’s a very lame act.
I don’t know that I’d disagree with this. But as is often the case, the discussion is largely tangential. While it’s certainly open to debate whether it should be legal to do this, that doesn’t change the fact that it currently is legal.
When we talk about the rule of law being ignored, this is yet another example. When police start arresting people for exercising a right they have, for doing something legal, we’re headed for trouble.
There is NO DEBATE about whether open carry SHOULD be legal. It is a constitutionally protected right.
Attorney General James Doyle office argued that exact point twice in 2002 before the state supreme court. Doyle’s office was specifically asked by the chief justice, “Is it the states position that anyone who isn’t a felon could walk up and down state street with a loaded shot gun?” Doyle’s office responded, “YES.” The chief justice asked in the other case the same question but used the term “holstered pistol?” Again, Doyle’s office stated, “YES.” The justices even asked about a “disorderly conduct charge” and Doyle’s office stated “shouldn’t be.”
If “open carry” == Disorder Conduct, then “concealed carry” is must be immediately legal because in the word of the state supreme court, “there MUST be a way to exercise the right.”
——————————
Now, as to a “bad joke,” “five black guys walk into a Culvers,” or “five Jews,” or “five Hispanics.”
The same people who stand against the AZ demand ID law, MUST stand against the Madison PD.
——————————
“proliferation of guns has been repeatedly associated with a proliferation of violence” Is a FALSE statement. 48 other states allow for concealed carry, open carry, or both. There is no evidence to support this FALSE statement.
As I posted, actually listen to the call. They WEREN’T causing a disturbance at all. Some lady just happened to notice and let the police know. How the police handled it, is where the problem is.
Police have to respond to 911 calls…and in most cases they will respond to most non-emergency calls as well. But did they need 8 officers? Probably not…did they handle it well…maybe not but it is hard to tell from the brief article attached. Should the individuals involved expect some reaction to their activities? I would be surprised if they didn’t anticipate drawing attention to themselves and actually were interested in a certain amount of provocation to garner exactly the press coverage they got. And they certainly shouldn’t have been surprised by the police response when they refused to provide identification. Whether engaged in a legal activity or not it is seldom advisable to refuse to provide identification to a police officer. So are open carry proponents law abiding when they don’t respond to requests from police?
Ed, you couldn’t be more incorrect. The ACLU consistently advises against providing ID to police.
To answer your question, YES, in WI it is LAWFUL TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE ID to police when there is no suggestion of a crime. Open carry is constitutionally protected and is NOT evidence or suggestion of a crime.
I am not suggesting that you don’t have a right to refuse to provide ID, but my experience with police officers is that refusal to provide ID can result in a negative reaction on their part…even when they have approached you as a potential witness to an automobile accident.
e “statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that (the) conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.”
5 strangers walking into a CULVERS with loaded weapons provokes a disturbance.
hubert you keep referring to the second amendment, but the second amendment does not allow for completely unrestricted use of firearms anytime anywhere. As the “tea partiers” will no doubt point out, the founders intention was to not have a standing army and have every man up to age 40 to own guns so they could get together and fight if needed. It was not a carry any weapon anywhere anytime and answer no questions about it. Thats ridiculous.
Wisconsin courts have ruled several times, “The statute does not imply that all conduct which tends to annoy another is disorderly conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community is included. The statute does not punish a person for conduct which might possibly offend some hypercritical individual.
Given that CC was illegal when 74% of the voters approved the 1998 amendment, and 74% of the electorate would NOT approve something that “offends the sense of decency or propriety of the community,” it is obvious that 74% of the voters WANTED open carry in 1998. This was/is the “states position.” Both a Democrat and Republican AG have stated as much along with the State Supreme Court saying “there MUST be a way.”
It also appears the residents of Madison do not support the latest policy memo from the Chief of Police. 25 individuals were in that same Culvers again on 9/25/2010, nobody called the police. Almost a dozen folks walked up/down state street that same evening. Again, nobody called the police.
Open Carry isn’t going away, in fact, it is becoming more prevalent every day. Those who don’t like it will simply need to learn to practice some tolerance and acceptance.
What makes a “hypercritical individual”? someone who disagrees with your stance? With all of the crazy happenings going on, why would someone ASSUME that people walking into a restaurant with guns had no ill intentions? I think its a BIG stretch to assume that. I would say people openly carrying weapons would offend the “propriety of the community”.
When someone gets shot because of people mishandling their weapons, should we practice tolerance and acceptance then?
What makes a “hypercritical individual,” someone who disagrees with your stance? No, but someone who is paranoid and prejudice about firearms would most definitely qualify. Someone who assumes everybody has the worst intentions, would definitely qualify. Someone who assumes based on their own fear and lack of knowledge would definitely qualify.
The caller in this instance was NOT alarmed. She called to inquire about legality and then apologized for making the call. The other patrons were definitely not disturbed, as they were still there.
With all of the crazy happenings going on, why would someone ASSUME that people walking into a restaurant with guns had no ill intentions? Thank you for making the point. If there is REALLY NO NEED for these individuals to be armed, then there is nothing to FEAR. If there IS SOMETHING TO FEAR, then it demonstrates the need.
When someone gets shot because of people mishandling their weapons, should we practice tolerance and acceptance then? FEAR TACTIC, plain and simple. Something like 42 states do not prohibit open carry. Individuals have been open carrying for YEARS in WI, as open carry has been LEGAL since BEFORE WI was a state. As automobiles harm significantly more people than guns every year, using PP’s argument, everybody should FEAR every car/driver and PP should be working tirelessly to get every car off the road.
The written law and established case law couldn’t be argued, so now PP resorts to FEAR and PREJUDICE! You could just as easily asked, “what happens if someone get AIDS, should we practice tolerance and acceptance then?” I am amazed that people with this much FEAR and PREJUDICE of others in society is even able to function at all.
I would say people openly carrying weapons would offend the “propriety of the community”. Again, the people of WI knew CC was illegal in 1998 and still voted YES by a 74% majority, they voted YES to open carry. The small minority that disapprove of carrying, like PP, definitely fall into the hypercritical group.
To the other readers here, please note that there hasn’t been a single logical LEGAL argument or citation supporting a position against open carry. The court said, “There MUST be a way,” undisputed fact! Concealed Carry is illegal, undisputed fact! It is the states position that Open Carry is legal, so said Doyle, Van Hollen, and the State Supreme Court, again undisputed fact.
Walmart, Culvers, McDonalds, Menards, Best Buy, Starbucks, State Street, Shopko, Grocery Stores, Denny’s Perkins, and the list goes on and on, do not support the prejudice. Open carry is everywhere and the lack of tolerance and acceptance by the hypercritical few is simply encouraging more people to exercise their rights.
PP: the article says holstered firearm…there isn’t any evidence on whether the guns were loaded…
True Ed but I am going to assume they were or else it really eliminates the “i need to protect myself” argument