Open Carry detention

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
"In a post Aurora-Newtown environment, it's a reckless and irresponsible stunt to strut around in public with an assault-style weapon and think police should assume you're well-intentioned," Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn said Thursday, referring to mass shooting incidents in Colorado and Connecticut.

The men are walking down the street when they see a police car's lights go on and they see officers approaching. As the officers order the men to put their hands against the wall, the police ask why they're carrying the guns that way.

"For self-defense," Branstrom says.

"These are real AR-15s guys. I'll cover them both," says one officer, who levels his own weapon at the men as another officer begins questioning them.

Police ask if the men are headed to the farmers market.

"Yeah, we were just going to do some shopping," Branstrom says.

"Do you understand how that might create a disturbance if you're walking around with an AR-15 strapped to your back?" asks an officer.

"Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns," Branstrom replies.

Throughout the stop, both men appear polite and cooperative. Another officer orders that they be put in handcuffs and moved to separate squad cars.

Branstrom asks, "Why are we being detained? Have we broken any laws?"

An officer replies that while Wisconsin recognizes the right to openly carry guns in most public areas, "there's a point where that can be crossed and it becomes disorderly conduct" and that's what the officers are investigating.

On the audio, officers discuss the fact that the men appear to be trying to make a statement, that both have concealed-carry permits.

"It's taking the Second Amendment a little too far," one officer says.

The officers check the concealed-carry permits and run the serial numbers of the guns. One speaks with a prosecutor — most of the conversation is inaudible because of background noise — and eventually the men are released with their property.

One officer offers this parting comment: "I get what you guys are trying to do. ... But when you grow up a little bit and you're a parent and have kids at an event like this and you see someone walk through with guns strapped to their back, your first inclination is going to be, 'All right, what's this guy up to? Is my child going to be safe?'"

Men carrying rifles to farmers market draw police, debate



So far, Wisconsin has paid out in 4 different cases like this.

The City of Madison agreed to pay $10,000 to settle a claim brought by the group and five members who were cited or arrested after wearing guns to a Culver's restaurant last year.

Prosecutors in May decided to drop the charges filed in the matter.

Wisconsin Carry, represented by Georgia gun rights attorney John Monroe, filed and settled similar federal lawsuits over several other arrests of people arrested after openly carrying guns on their porch, ($10,000) a church ($7,500) and other allowable areas ($6,500).

Madison pays $10,000 to men who wore guns to restaurant - JSOnline
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"Do you understand how that might create a disturbance if you're walking around with an AR-15 strapped to your back?" asks an officer.

"Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns," Branstrom replies.

An officer replies that while Wisconsin recognizes the right to openly carry guns in most public areas, "there's a point where that can be crossed and it becomes disorderly conduct" and that's what the officers are investigating.


key points
 

Vince

......
An officer replies that while Wisconsin recognizes the right to openly carry guns in most public areas, "there's a point where that can be crossed and it becomes disorderly conduct" and that's what the officers are investigating.

On the audio, officers discuss the fact that the men appear to be trying to make a statement, that both have concealed-carry permits.

"It's taking the Second Amendment a little too far," one officer says.
:bs: to both statements. I think it's about time we start exercising our Second Amendment rights, except in Maryland we don't have any.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
:bs: to both statements. I think it's about time we start exercising our Second Amendment rights, except in Maryland we don't have any.

We can OC long guns. (Not in Leonardtown, FYI)



Outside of that, seeing these things irritates me. The cops were basically saying, "I know it's not illegal, but we can come up with something to arrest you if we want".

How many times have we heard "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" from law enforcement?
 
I'm not a big fan of using stunts to make points. Sometimes they're appropriate and effectively make the intended point, sometimes they're silly and make little more point than that you're stupid. As for what these guys in particular were doing, I don't really know... meh.

That said, the officer that commented was right, at some point it does become disorderly conduct... to keep staring at and making a big deal about someone carrying a firearm. :smile: At some point I'd have to start wondering what the gawkers' angle was. And that point has probably come when they draw their own weapons and "level" them at you, you still not having threatened them in any way (expressly or implicitly) with your own weapon.

But on a more serious note: If openly carrying a firearm makes the government, in the form of a police officer or otherwise, uncomfortable or anxious, that isn't "taking the Second Amendment a little too far". Rather, it's PRECISELY THE POINT of the Second Amendment. That amendment embodies the notion, held by some of the wary men that founded this nation, that government should spend its entire existence uncomfortable and anxious in light of an armed populace. With every consideration it engages in, with every decision it makes, with every action it takes, government should be guided by a palpable fear of what the people might do should it overstep. That individual government actors might be reminded of that from time to time, even in ways that are more theatrical than pragmatic, is probably not a bad thing.
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
Open Carry ANY Gun In Maryland; See What Happens

.....or even something as simple as a bow & arrow

"Steve" is walking in L'town square with a 12 gauge strapped to his back.

"Tim" is walking in Hollywood with a 9 mm openly holstered.

"Joe" is in California with a quiver of arrows and a bow.

All three guys are minding their own business. None of them has their weapon in hand.

MASS PANIC AND CONFUSION IN ST. MARY'S ENSUES!

Who gets rousted first?

Yeah, bows & arrows vs a shotgun and a pistol.

With regard to the handguns; one can apply for and be denied a MD CCW, but I'll bet $$ to doughnuts it's all but impossible to get an open carry permit.

Check out this forum:
So is maryland Open Carry with a MD permit?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
But on a more serious note: If openly carrying a firearm makes the government, in the form of a police officer or otherwise, uncomfortable or anxious, that isn't "taking the Second Amendment a little too far". Rather, it's PRECISELY THE POINT of the Second Amendment. That amendment embodies the notion, held by some of the wary men that founded this nation, that government should spend its entire existence uncomfortable and anxious in light of an armed populace. With every consideration it engages in, with every decision it makes, with every action it takes, government should be guided by a palpable fear of what the people might do should it overstep. That individual government actors might be reminded of that from time to time, even in ways that are more theatrical than pragmatic, is probably not a bad thing.




I honestly think that is precisely why many Progressives wish to disarm us ...

so there can be no real push back to their :crazy: Statist Ideas
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I'm not a big fan of using stunts to make points. Sometimes they're appropriate and effectively make the intended point, sometimes they're silly and make little more point than that you're stupid. As for what these guys in particular were doing, I don't really know... meh.

That said, the officer that commented was right, at some point it does become disorderly conduct... to keep staring at and making a big deal about someone carrying a firearm. :smile: At some point I'd have to start wondering what the gawkers' angle was. And that point has probably come when they draw their own weapons and "level" them at you, you still not having threatened them in any way (expressly or implicitly) with your own weapon.

But on a more serious note: If openly carrying a firearm makes the government, in the form of a police officer or otherwise, uncomfortable or anxious, that isn't "taking the Second Amendment a little too far". Rather, it's PRECISELY THE POINT of the Second Amendment. That amendment embodies the notion, held by some of the wary men that founded this nation, that government should spend its entire existence uncomfortable and anxious in light of an armed populace. With every consideration it engages in, with every decision it makes, with every action it takes, government should be guided by a palpable fear of what the people might do should it overstep. That individual government actors might be reminded of that from time to time, even in ways that are more theatrical than pragmatic, is probably not a bad thing.

OK. But where do you stand? I'm not quite sure.

You say you understand "making points". In order to make points, "stunts" (your words), or acting out what is legal, is required today to make points.

Is it now a crime of disorderly conduct to merely state what is legal? To risk arrest and detainment of an act that is legal just because the LEO on scene may have their feelings hurt?

Where do you draw the line? On the side of intimidating/threatening to arrest/arresting people merely following acting out law just because somebody (including LEO's) may have different opinions?

The government must understand where everybody stands. The law defines where everybody must stand. Or else challenge it.

People must start somewhere. If it is legal, and "in their face", kudos to those that do it openly, legally, and in the face of.......

This has become complete crap in this country. Law means nothing, apparently, except to those that purportedly serve the law and the citizens rights of such.

Feelings don't matter. The law on the books does.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Is it now a crime of disorderly conduct to merely state what is legal? To risk arrest and detainment of an act that is legal just because the LEO on scene may have their feelings hurt?

Where do you draw the line? On the side of intimidating/threatening to arrest/arresting people merely following acting out law just because somebody (including LEO's) may have different opinions?


This has become complete crap in this country. Law means nothing, apparently, except to those that purportedly serve the law and the citizens rights of such.

Feelings don't matter. The law on the books does.



disorderly has become a catch all for 'we don't like you'
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
disorderly has become a catch all for 'we don't like you'

I'll, unfortunately, buy that stance, but not accept it. That blame goes to the PC hacks at the local LE agencies that put the orders out to the street to enforce that crap.

That crap must stop. That crap starts with the WH, Holder, etc.

The US is in an embarrassing position right now with the Syria situation. We deserve to be in that position. That decision is because of the voters that put into office the officials that put us in that position.

Because of those voters, just because, we are in the position of having to defend ourselves against our own laws just because of the un-leadership from those voted into office in DC.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
I'm not a big fan of using stunts to make points. Sometimes they're appropriate and effectively make the intended point, sometimes they're silly and make little more point than that you're stupid. As for what these guys in particular were doing, I don't really know... meh.

That said, the officer that commented was right, at some point it does become disorderly conduct... to keep staring at and making a big deal about someone carrying a firearm. :smile: At some point I'd have to start wondering what the gawkers' angle was. And that point has probably come when they draw their own weapons and "level" them at you, you still not having threatened them in any way (expressly or implicitly) with your own weapon.

But on a more serious note: If openly carrying a firearm makes the government, in the form of a police officer or otherwise, uncomfortable or anxious, that isn't "taking the Second Amendment a little too far". Rather, it's PRECISELY THE POINT of the Second Amendment. That amendment embodies the notion, held by some of the wary men that founded this nation, that government should spend its entire existence uncomfortable and anxious in light of an armed populace. With every consideration it engages in, with every decision it makes, with every action it takes, government should be guided by a palpable fear of what the people might do should it overstep. That individual government actors might be reminded of that from time to time, even in ways that are more theatrical than pragmatic, is probably not a bad thing.
Playing devils advocate on this particular point, it's not the police being uncomfortable that's the issue, it's everyone else in the community.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Playing devils advocate on this particular point, it's not the police being uncomfortable that's the issue, it's everyone else in the community.

Why isn't it the police in this example. If the other guys were doing nothing illegal, why were they stopped? There are an awful lot of police officers out there who want to turn everything into a felony stop. Why is that, improve their arrest record for promotion? Are we so afraid of ourselves that everything is illegal?
No, I'm not bashing the cops. For the most part, they have a job few others want. Being under color of authority does not guarantee a free pass.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Why isn't it the police in this example. If the other guys were doing nothing illegal, why were they stopped? There are an awful lot of police officers out there who want to turn everything into a felony stop. Why is that, improve their arrest record for promotion? Are we so afraid of ourselves that everything is illegal?
No, I'm not bashing the cops. For the most part, they have a job few others want. Being under color of authority does not guarantee a free pass.

What world do you live in, they commit a crime and have people that they work with do the investigation. We've seen some of the most egregious examples as videos here, and have had our resident LE (?) personnel tell us that what we saw was good police work. Yeah they've pretty much gotten a free pass.
 
Playing devils advocate on this particular point, it's not the police being uncomfortable that's the issue, it's everyone else in the community.

Sure, and that's a fair point. It's also part of why I'm meh with regard to what these guys in particular were doing. I don't have a good enough since of the circumstances / environment to feel strongly whether this was a jackass move or effective point making.

The sentiments I expressed were related to the officers' thoughts on and perception of the situation. That said, it may also be a fair point that communities being reminded that a number of citizens may be armed when they're in public - and that that doesn't necessarily make them bad guys or threatening - isn't a bad thing either. Society should be more comfortable with the presence of firearms. The brandishing of firearms should be the trigger for discomfort and fear; the mere presence of them (known or unknown) should not be that trigger, except in specific contexts.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The sentiments I expressed were related to the officers' thoughts on and perception of the situation. That said, it may also be a fair point that communities being reminded that a number of citizens may be armed when they're in public - and that that doesn't necessarily make them bad guys or threatening - isn't a bad thing either. Society should be more comfortable with the presence of firearms. The brandishing of firearms should be the trigger for discomfort and fear; the mere presence of them (known or unknown) should not be that trigger, except in specific contexts.


their in lies the problem, Citizens with weapons - people get all freaked out call the cops ... Mr Arrogant Cop shows up .... look at the video I posted about the 4 or 5 girls out at Wal-Mart
 
OK. But where do you stand? I'm not quite sure.

You say you understand "making points". In order to make points, "stunts" (your words), or acting out what is legal, is required today to make points.

Is it now a crime of disorderly conduct to merely state what is legal? To risk arrest and detainment of an act that is legal just because the LEO on scene may have their feelings hurt?

Where do you draw the line? On the side of intimidating/threatening to arrest/arresting people merely following acting out law just because somebody (including LEO's) may have different opinions?

The government must understand where everybody stands. The law defines where everybody must stand. Or else challenge it.

People must start somewhere. If it is legal, and "in their face", kudos to those that do it openly, legally, and in the face of.......

This has become complete crap in this country. Law means nothing, apparently, except to those that purportedly serve the law and the citizens rights of such.

Feelings don't matter. The law on the books does.

The disorderly conduct I was (jokingly) referring to was that of the officers, not that of the AR-15 carriers.

As for where I stand on these guys' actions in particular, as I suggested, I don't have a good enough sense of the situation to have a strong sense as to whether they were acting reasonably or being jackasses. Situations are different, and legal doesnt always been reasonable. Jackass-ness is something that often has to be assessed on an individual, situational basis.

I'm not against people doing things that are legal, and I think I made it clear that making a point as regards the Second Amendment makes sense sometimes. And I don't dispute that people should have the right to do things they have the right to do. It's also the case though that people can sometimes be stupid or irresponsible or unwise, or all kinds of other bad things, even while doing things they have a right to do.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The disorderly conduct I was (jokingly) referring to was that of the officers, not that of the AR-15 carriers.

:buddies:

the problem is 'DO' has been come a catch all, for I don't like what you were doing ... it must be disturbing the peace
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
What world do you live in, they commit a crime and have people that they work with do the investigation. We've seen some of the most egregious examples as videos here, and have had our resident LE (?) personnel tell us that what we saw was good police work. Yeah they've pretty much gotten a free pass.

JFC, don't answer the question. Sky pick out of my comment to get what suits your intentions. :popcorn:
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
JFC, don't answer the question. Sky pick out of my comment to get what suits your intentions. :popcorn:

How about because I'm not sure how to answer the question, so I picked the part that I knew the answer to. If you care to rephrase it I'll give it another try.
 
Top