WCI v. Madison: was Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin - Page 3

**Aguila Blanca** · September 30, 2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thereldeal

I am definately on the side of the madison 5, but its common practice to ask for identification when responding to a call.

So you're saying that in Wisconsin it is standard police practice to violate the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A few posts up reference was made to Hiibel. That was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. It goes hand-in-hand with Terry. It is VERY clear: unless there is a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed, what a police officer can do is very limited. They can ask who you are, but they canNOT demand a document to prove it.

therealdeal · September 30, 2010, 02:16 PM

THIS ALL CAPS PORTION ADDED TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION-THIS POST RESPONDS TO POST#47

Aguila, I saw post 16 earlier when you were speaking to and from conntrooper. to answer your question, WHY?:

its their job, thats why. until a police officer emerges on a scene to determine if something is lawful or not, he doesn't know that its legal. now depending on the circumstances if someone calls the police about why someone is OC'ing its not unheard of for the authorities to say, "Nothing illegal is occuring, so we can't do anything." I can't decide what or why every seperate agency/dept is going to do on any given occaison. the bottom line is that they were sent to investigate the situation. WI is a more unfriendly state w/regards to firearms. The caller of the 911 call said she felt uncomfortable with the situation and all the guns. Also, I should note that almost every 911 call is responded to in some form or another. It is different if you call the direct police station line. The 911's are all usually responded to, and the dispatcher contacted the authorities and they were sent. Thats all they knew at the time on the way: what the dispatcher was able to relay.

DiscoRacing · September 30, 2010, 02:20 PM

I can handle the fact that the police were called..and did respond..but..that should have been all that happened then..nothing more. Asking for ID shouldnt have been a factor... Im in Wisc. open carrying a gun,,which I can legally do... they should have been satisfied on that alone.

therealdeal · September 30, 2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Ohio Precedent?

Aguilar, I noticed you never responded to all the evidence agnst you on the above THREAD, but I will respond to you briefly again:

I already explained why I think its common practice for police to ID people on calls to duty during their shift.

BlueTrain · September 30, 2010, 02:30 PM

My experience with police has been limited but I did call them once to report an abandoned motor scooter in the woods next to the house. A motor scooter (moped, more correctly I think) not requiring a license is therefore merely property as opposed to a motor vehicle, by the way. But at any rate, the responding officer requested my identification, which is something I do not carry with me unless I'm actually driving. After all, it is a driver's license but also a generally acceptable form of identification. So I had to go get it. That was not a problem for me since I'm not sure that I can be all that anonomous standing in front of my own house.

It makes me wonder, though, when all this business of licensces, documentation, permits and so on started to become common?

Al Norris · September 30, 2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

It makes me wonder, though, when all this business of licensces, documentation, permits and so on started to become common?

While a timetable would show some variance, this started when legislatures began to notice that it brought in revenue. Most all the public safety regulations generally happened after the licensing was in place, usually as an excuse to raise the fees.

Remember, licensing and permits are nothing more than another form of taxation. “A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” (Littleton v Burgess, 82 P 864, 866, 14 Wyo 173) “A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license,would be illegal.” (Beard v City of Atlanta 86 SE 2nd 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584) “The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment..." (Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 262).

BlueTrain · September 30, 2010, 03:23 PM

You are probably right as far as governments go (it is probably wrong to say "The government," there being so many) but it happens non-governmentally as well, after a fashion. In fact, that goes back a long ways.

Oddly enough, it happens in the firearms training field, the same way it seems to in many fields where training is involved. In the beginning, someone does something. Then others get involved. Pretty soon it is a popular thing to do. But it is a slightly dangerous thing, like hang gliding, for instance, or shooting a firearm. So someone, usually the first ones that came around, become the elect and take it upon themselves to properly educate the unwashed. They furthermore take it upon themselves to identify themselves as certificated and are thusly annointed as the chosen few. Woe be unto any who stray from the straight and narrow path laid down by the few and the mighty, who shall also spread the gospel by lengthy and wandering epistles published at the ends of the magazines devoted to the one true sport.

No money is necessarily involved unless the true believer chooses to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of the one worthy of worship.

Wait now, I'm about to go off the deep end here. But you get my drift.

maestro pistolero · September 30, 2010, 04:15 PM

One huge problem is that DP is a law that depends entirely on the state of mind of another in order to run afoul of it. What's disturbing to one person may be pleasant or just neutral to another. It it entirely subjective. I would even say inherently arbitrary and capricious.

There is another reason why this case is so egregious. Apparently, the 911 call was essentially an inquiry as to the legality of open carry, much more than report of a disturbance.

The caller repeatedly insisted they subjects were not causing any disturbance or threatening anyone. So here we don't even have a subjective disturbance of the peace in the mind of the reporting party.

It was only the police who insisted there was a disturbance. Perhaps the charge should have been disturbing the police.

DiscoRacing · September 30, 2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

disturbing the police

Thats a good one!!

... Well put.
... I like it

**tyme** · September 30, 2010, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

There is another reason why this case is so egregious. Apparently, the 911 call was essentially an inquiry as to the legality of open carry, much more than report of a disturbance.

Isn't calling 911 for non-emergency reasons technically a crime? If the caller didn't know whether open carry was a crime, the proper course of action would have been to use google or call the non-emergency police number.

I consider that serious. We have someone who doesn't know the law, can't use google, and is wasting taxpayer dollars by calling 911 to inquire about legality, and THEN the police waste further taxpayer dollars and commit civil liberties infringements as a result.

What do people like the 911 caller think the interweb is for, if not this? "Oh, search engines are fine for getting a recipe for Duck Confit, but if I need a legal primer on firearms laws it's time to call 911!"

Conn. Trooper · September 30, 2010, 07:22 PM

Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests

Wrong statute, breach of peace, nor creating a public disturbance.

I ask for id, or at least name and date of birth because I will need it for any report I have to write. Does that mean that I have to see your id on every call? No.

langenc · September 30, 2010, 07:48 PM

No offense.... but... I AM from Wisc. originally..and... you CAN legally open carry there..yes...but,,why would anyone do it??? You can legally carry in public... from first couple of posts..

What ever happened to "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"??????

Tell em you havent done anything wrong and get the tape running. You may retire sooner than you think. We get the same thing in MI-some thugs think they can get ID. Do they stop MV and ask for drivers license?? just cause someone calls in and says they are speeding on your street. I cant even get em out to my street.

The MWAG needs to be handled differently by 911...many cops will call in MWAG (from MI open carry literature).

As far as 'disturbing the peace'-that is waht the LEOs are doing.

physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. License is US Constitution ands MI constitution in MI.

DiscoRacing · September 30, 2010, 07:51 PM

My point was.... that everytime you step into your vehicle you would have to unload and case the weapon... for you would not be legal once in a motor vehicle. Seems it wouldnt be worth the hassle to me. I tried it there last spring.

**Aguila Blanca** · September 30, 2010, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests

Wrong statute, breach of peace, nor creating a public disturbance.

I ask for id, or at least name and date of birth because I will need it for any report I have to write. Does that mean that I have to see your id on every call? No.

Okay, I had the wrong statute ... but you highlighted the wrong part. The statute you cited begins the same way as the one I cited -- in order for the charge to have merit, the actor must be acting with the intention of disturbing the peace, or recklessly creating the risk of doing so. Unless the action meets one of those two very specific tests ... none of the types of "disturbing" actions described thereafter amount to beans. If there is no intent or recklessness -- you don't even get to start reading the list of offenses.

Further, if you DO read the list -- which item on the list is satisfied by wearing a licensed handgun on your belt?

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; nope. No fighting involved

(2) assaults or strikes another; nope. No assault involved

(3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; nope, no threats involved

(4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; nope, no abusive posters involved

(5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; nope, no obscene language or gestures involved

(6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. This might be the only item out the list that could apply. But ... even if someone considers carrying a handgun "offensive" ... in Connecticut you can't carry one without a permit. So, if the actor has the required permit or license, he is "licensed or privileged to do so."

So how do you figure this statute in any way allows for charging an open carrier with "Breach of the peace in the second degree"?

Conn. Trooper · October 1, 2010, 07:06 AM

That's not the meaning of licensed or privileged. You can be a licensed arborist, should you bring your chainsaw into 7-11? You can be a licensed driver, doesn't mean you can rev your car up and honk your horn at 3 a.m.

This subject has been beat to death in other threads. There is established case law of OC rising to the level of a breach. Way higher than me on the food chain have reviewed these cases and held them to be valid. Do I agree with it? No, I would rather have a specific statute that spells it out in black and white. The rumor is floating around that there is pending legislation coming down the pike that would make OC illegal. I don't know how true that is, but it may change a few things if it happens.

1776 Patriat · October 1, 2010, 09:09 AM

Just wondering, what will change if they 'outlaw' OC in CT?? Most states are going to open carry, not 'outlawing' it. The way I see it, you will still be open to a BOP charge if your (god forbid) printed while legally CC and some anti see's you and calls 911. We don't need to 'outlaw' OC, but we do need to change our state statutes so that it outlines in detail that OC'ing in CT is perfectly legal, and take out some of the confusing language in the statutes. The problem in CT is our legislators are way to liberal/anti gun and our current AG, well lets just say he's about as far to the left as you can get. BUT, all that being said, hopefully Martha Dean will win in November and get some common sense legislation and clarification on current statutes. Time will tell I guess.

Steve

Conn. Trooper · October 1, 2010, 10:10 AM

Sadly, the legislature is the problem. When the federal assault weapons ban expired our SLFU went to the legislature and suggested that the state ban be repealed. They wouldn't do it. Were not even open to considering it. I don't see OC becoming legal anytime soon. I can see it becoming illegal however, and then the problem will be what happens when you don't realize your firearm is exposed? Going to be left open to prosecution. We will see if anything changes I guess.

And as you said, our state is sometimes very anti-gun. Possibly all it takes is a legislator catching wind of an OC incident and asking themselves "Whoa, wait a minute, why isn't this illegal already." And here comes a new law.

4thPointofContact · October 1, 2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

That's not the meaning of licensed or privileged. You can be a licensed arborist, should you bring your chainsaw into 7-11? You can be a licensed driver, doesn't mean you can rev your car up and honk your horn at 3 a.m. [snip]

A licensed arborist may bring a chainsaw into a 7-11, and so could anyone else. Carrying a chainsaw is not a licensed activity. On the other hand, using a chainsaw to cut down a tree of historical significance on 7-11's property because you as an unlicensed arborist determined it had oak rot could well be a violation of the law.

Driving a car with a license is perfectly legal, driving one on public roads without a license isn't. Neither is related to creating a disturbance otherwise.

Your choice of examples as illustration is abysmally poor.

Conn. Trooper · October 1, 2010, 10:32 AM

Ok, and your counter argument is? Opinions can fly around the internet and people can cut and paste state laws, thoughts, etc. If you know more about how things are done here in CT than I do, feel free to post up your background, legal education, case law, whatever. Opinions are worth exactly what you pay for them, nothing.

Are you an attorney, superior court judge, state legislator, police officer? What do you base your "my opinion is right and you are wrong" on? I might sound sarcastic but I am serious as a heart attack, what do you know that I don't? The last time this topic came up I again spoke to the supervisory state's attorney at my GA and he was still of the opinion that OC equals a breach. That was less than a few months ago. I am not aware of any changes in state law since then. They change every October when new public acts come out and I didn't see any change that would impact OC. Why are you right and I am wrong?

zukiphile · October 1, 2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests

Conn Trooper, if open carry were the basis for a charge of breach of the peace, wouldn't you be subject to the charge every time you OCed?

I have no doubt that your state may have decided as a matter of policy that OC will be charged as a breach of the peace, but there can be some distance between state policy, case law, and what the code actually states.

In Ohio, where OC was legal, we had case law in which a PO merely needed to testify that as he approached a defendant the PO could not see the weapon in order to sustain a charge of concealed carry. That was good case law (good in the sense it was not overturned on appeal) but it isn't consistent with what you and I would ordinarily call "concealed" carry.

I note this Ohio facet just to illustrate that code, policy and case law are not always entirely consistent.

Al Norris · October 1, 2010, 10:20 PM

Today, Wisconsin Carry Inc. and the people in the OP, filed a federal suit against the City of Madison and it's Police Dept.

The attorney John Monroe, of Georgia Carry, is also the attorney for Gray Peterson (v. LaCabe) in Denver. Goto the OP of the Current 2A Cases thread for a link to the complaint (This makes 23 cases filed).

therealdeal · October 2, 2010, 12:57 AM

I am glad they filed a lawsuit in WI. It will probably be settled beforehand, But I could be wrong about that.

CONNTROOPER,

ok @ the moment OpenCarry in CT can be seen as breach of the peace(I can't see how because I usually see disturbing the peace as individuals fighting, cussing at women in stores, etc but it is). I believe this is a low misdemeanor causing a fine, and please forgive me because I donot know all the laws.

You aren't required to arrest an OC where you are at, right?

I pose this as a question Sir because I donot know the answer unless you respond. I am assuming its at your discression, but we all know what "ass-u-me" can mean. If the incident occurs and OC is legal, do you give the guy the benefit of the doubt? I am now understanding why many CT Officers are saying it is illegal(referring to other posts by people who are claiming this)- it seems they might not be in the 'wrong'(that might be the wrong choice of wording- no pun intended), but basically in CT it is seen as not legal.

**Aguila Blanca** · October 2, 2010, 01:13 AM

Recent cases in Connecticut have clarified that open carry IS legal in Connecticut, and the Firearms License Review Board has reportedly been promulgating that position for several months. It appears that Conn. Trooper is a ways behind the curve.

CT, if a 'Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver" is not a license to carry a pistol or a revolver, what is it? (Referring to point #6 in the statute quoted above, the one that you say doesn't mean what it plainly says.)

Conn. Trooper · October 2, 2010, 07:10 AM

I give everybody the benefit of the doubt. Like I posted earlier, I would speak to them and advise them of the breach of peace statute and the possible consequences. If I was forced by a formal complaint to pursue charges, I would do so by arrest warrant and leave it up to the prosecutors ( and ultimately a superior court judge, both have to sign an arrest warrant).

Conn. Trooper · October 2, 2010, 07:13 AM

Recent cases in Connecticut have clarified that open carry IS legal in Connecticut, and the Firearms License Review Board has reportedly been promulgating that position for several months. It appears that Conn. Trooper is a ways behind the curve.

CT, if a 'Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver" is not a license to carry a pistol or a revolver, what is it? (Referring to point #6 in the statute quoted above, the one that you say doesn't mean what it plainly says.)

And you know this how? Links? Your legal background? You never answered what you know that I don't, and how you know that. Please explain.

The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners don't make state laws and decide what is a crime. That's not their function. They can make suggestions to the state legislature, and possibly they can make their position known to the courts, but they don't decide whats legal and illegal. Try again.

A license to carry a pistol is not a carte blanche license to do whatever you want with it. Never has been. Still can't carry it into a school, federal building, bank, etc. Even with your license. Still can't carry those handguns that are banned by state law. A license to carry is just that, a license to carry your firearm within the other state laws. Including breach of peace laws.

September 30, 2010, 02:16 PM	#52
therealdeal Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 627	THIS ALL CAPS PORTION ADDED TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION-THIS POST RESPONDS TO POST#47 Aguila, I saw post 16 earlier when you were speaking to and from conntrooper. to answer your question, WHY?: its their job, thats why. until a police officer emerges on a scene to determine if something is lawful or not, he doesn't know that its legal. now depending on the circumstances if someone calls the police about why someone is OC'ing its not unheard of for the authorities to say, "Nothing illegal is occuring, so we can't do anything." I can't decide what or why every seperate agency/dept is going to do on any given occaison. the bottom line is that they were sent to investigate the situation. WI is a more unfriendly state w/regards to firearms. The caller of the 911 call said she felt uncomfortable with the situation and all the guns. Also, I should note that almost every 911 call is responded to in some form or another. It is different if you call the direct police station line. The 911's are all usually responded to, and the dispatcher contacted the authorities and they were sent. Thats all they knew at the time on the way: what the dispatcher was able to relay. __________________ NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan) Last edited by therealdeal; September 30, 2010 at 02:33 PM.

September 30, 2010, 02:20 PM	#53
DiscoRacing Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 2008 Location: milton, wv Posts: 3,640	I can handle the fact that the police were called..and did respond..but..that should have been all that happened then..nothing more. Asking for ID shouldnt have been a factor... Im in Wisc. open carrying a gun,,which I can legally do... they should have been satisfied on that alone. __________________ Desert Eagle Alliance Group Launcher Extraordinaire ______ ----Get Busy Live'n.....Or....Get Busy Die'n......Red -------They call me Dr. Bob,,,, I have a PhD in S&W

September 30, 2010, 02:30 PM	#55
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	My experience with police has been limited but I did call them once to report an abandoned motor scooter in the woods next to the house. A motor scooter (moped, more correctly I think) not requiring a license is therefore merely property as opposed to a motor vehicle, by the way. But at any rate, the responding officer requested my identification, which is something I do not carry with me unless I'm actually driving. After all, it is a driver's license but also a generally acceptable form of identification. So I had to go get it. That was not a problem for me since I'm not sure that I can be all that anonomous standing in front of my own house. It makes me wonder, though, when all this business of licensces, documentation, permits and so on started to become common? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

September 30, 2010, 03:23 PM	#57
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	You are probably right as far as governments go (it is probably wrong to say "The government," there being so many) but it happens non-governmentally as well, after a fashion. In fact, that goes back a long ways. Oddly enough, it happens in the firearms training field, the same way it seems to in many fields where training is involved. In the beginning, someone does something. Then others get involved. Pretty soon it is a popular thing to do. But it is a slightly dangerous thing, like hang gliding, for instance, or shooting a firearm. So someone, usually the first ones that came around, become the elect and take it upon themselves to properly educate the unwashed. They furthermore take it upon themselves to identify themselves as certificated and are thusly annointed as the chosen few. Woe be unto any who stray from the straight and narrow path laid down by the few and the mighty, who shall also spread the gospel by lengthy and wandering epistles published at the ends of the magazines devoted to the one true sport. No money is necessarily involved unless the true believer chooses to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of the one worthy of worship. Wait now, I'm about to go off the deep end here. But you get my drift. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

September 30, 2010, 07:51 PM	#63
DiscoRacing Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 2008 Location: milton, wv Posts: 3,640	My point was.... that everytime you step into your vehicle you would have to unload and case the weapon... for you would not be legal once in a motor vehicle. Seems it wouldnt be worth the hassle to me. I tried it there last spring. __________________ Desert Eagle Alliance Group Launcher Extraordinaire ______ ----Get Busy Live'n.....Or....Get Busy Die'n......Red -------They call me Dr. Bob,,,, I have a PhD in S&W

September 30, 2010, 04:15 PM	#58
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	One huge problem is that DP is a law that depends entirely on the state of mind of another in order to run afoul of it. What's disturbing to one person may be pleasant or just neutral to another. It it entirely subjective. I would even say inherently arbitrary and capricious. There is another reason why this case is so egregious. Apparently, the 911 call was essentially an inquiry as to the legality of open carry, much more than report of a disturbance. The caller repeatedly insisted they subjects were not causing any disturbance or threatening anyone. So here we don't even have a subjective disturbance of the peace in the mind of the reporting party. It was only the police who insisted there was a disturbance. Perhaps the charge should have been disturbing the police.

September 30, 2010, 07:22 PM	#61
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests Wrong statute, breach of peace, nor creating a public disturbance. I ask for id, or at least name and date of birth because I will need it for any report I have to write. Does that mean that I have to see your id on every call? No.

September 30, 2010, 07:48 PM	#62
langenc Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2007 Location: Montmorency Co, MI Posts: 1,551	No offense.... but... I AM from Wisc. originally..and... you CAN legally open carry there..yes...but,,why would anyone do it??? You can legally carry in public... from first couple of posts.. What ever happened to "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?????? Tell em you havent done anything wrong and get the tape running. You may retire sooner than you think. We get the same thing in MI-some thugs think they can get ID. Do they stop MV and ask for drivers license?? just cause someone calls in and says they are speeding on your street. I cant even get em out to my street. The MWAG needs to be handled differently by 911...many cops will call in MWAG (from MI open carry literature). As far as 'disturbing the peace'-that is waht the LEOs are doing. physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. License is US Constitution ands MI constitution in MI.

October 1, 2010, 07:06 AM	#65
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	That's not the meaning of licensed or privileged. You can be a licensed arborist, should you bring your chainsaw into 7-11? You can be a licensed driver, doesn't mean you can rev your car up and honk your horn at 3 a.m. This subject has been beat to death in other threads. There is established case law of OC rising to the level of a breach. Way higher than me on the food chain have reviewed these cases and held them to be valid. Do I agree with it? No, I would rather have a specific statute that spells it out in black and white. The rumor is floating around that there is pending legislation coming down the pike that would make OC illegal. I don't know how true that is, but it may change a few things if it happens.

October 1, 2010, 09:09 AM	#66
1776 Patriat Member Join Date: August 24, 2010 Location: Ga Posts: 41	Just wondering, what will change if they 'outlaw' OC in CT?? Most states are going to open carry, not 'outlawing' it. The way I see it, you will still be open to a BOP charge if your (god forbid) printed while legally CC and some anti see's you and calls 911. We don't need to 'outlaw' OC, but we do need to change our state statutes so that it outlines in detail that OC'ing in CT is perfectly legal, and take out some of the confusing language in the statutes. The problem in CT is our legislators are way to liberal/anti gun and our current AG, well lets just say he's about as far to the left as you can get. BUT, all that being said, hopefully Martha Dean will win in November and get some common sense legislation and clarification on current statutes. Time will tell I guess. Steve Last edited by 1776 Patriat; October 1, 2010 at 09:25 AM.

October 1, 2010, 10:10 AM	#67
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Sadly, the legislature is the problem. When the federal assault weapons ban expired our SLFU went to the legislature and suggested that the state ban be repealed. They wouldn't do it. Were not even open to considering it. I don't see OC becoming legal anytime soon. I can see it becoming illegal however, and then the problem will be what happens when you don't realize your firearm is exposed? Going to be left open to prosecution. We will see if anything changes I guess. And as you said, our state is sometimes very anti-gun. Possibly all it takes is a legislator catching wind of an OC incident and asking themselves "Whoa, wait a minute, why isn't this illegal already." And here comes a new law.

October 1, 2010, 10:32 AM	#69
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Ok, and your counter argument is? Opinions can fly around the internet and people can cut and paste state laws, thoughts, etc. If you know more about how things are done here in CT than I do, feel free to post up your background, legal education, case law, whatever. Opinions are worth exactly what you pay for them, nothing. Are you an attorney, superior court judge, state legislator, police officer? What do you base your "my opinion is right and you are wrong" on? I might sound sarcastic but I am serious as a heart attack, what do you know that I don't? The last time this topic came up I again spoke to the supervisory state's attorney at my GA and he was still of the opinion that OC equals a breach. That was less than a few months ago. I am not aware of any changes in state law since then. They change every October when new public acts come out and I didn't see any change that would impact OC. Why are you right and I am wrong?

October 1, 2010, 10:20 PM	#71
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Today, Wisconsin Carry Inc. and the people in the OP, filed a federal suit against the City of Madison and it's Police Dept. The attorney John Monroe, of Georgia Carry, is also the attorney for Gray Peterson (v. LaCabe) in Denver. Goto the OP of the Current 2A Cases thread for a link to the complaint (This makes 23 cases filed).

October 2, 2010, 12:57 AM	#72
therealdeal Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 627	I am glad they filed a lawsuit in WI. It will probably be settled beforehand, But I could be wrong about that. CONNTROOPER, ok @ the moment OpenCarry in CT can be seen as breach of the peace(I can't see how because I usually see disturbing the peace as individuals fighting, cussing at women in stores, etc but it is). I believe this is a low misdemeanor causing a fine, and please forgive me because I donot know all the laws. You aren't required to arrest an OC where you are at, right? I pose this as a question Sir because I donot know the answer unless you respond. I am assuming its at your discression, but we all know what "ass-u-me" can mean. If the incident occurs and OC is legal, do you give the guy the benefit of the doubt? I am now understanding why many CT Officers are saying it is illegal(referring to other posts by people who are claiming this)- it seems they might not be in the 'wrong'(that might be the wrong choice of wording- no pun intended), but basically in CT it is seen as not legal. __________________ NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)

October 2, 2010, 01:13 AM	#73
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	Recent cases in Connecticut have clarified that open carry IS legal in Connecticut, and the Firearms License Review Board has reportedly been promulgating that position for several months. It appears that Conn. Trooper is a ways behind the curve. CT, if a 'Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver" is not a license to carry a pistol or a revolver, what is it? (Referring to point #6 in the statute quoted above, the one that you say doesn't mean what it plainly says.)

October 2, 2010, 07:10 AM	#74
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	I give everybody the benefit of the doubt. Like I posted earlier, I would speak to them and advise them of the breach of peace statute and the possible consequences. If I was forced by a formal complaint to pursue charges, I would do so by arrest warrant and leave it up to the prosecutors ( and ultimately a superior court judge, both have to sign an arrest warrant).

October 2, 2010, 07:13 AM	#75
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Recent cases in Connecticut have clarified that open carry IS legal in Connecticut, and the Firearms License Review Board has reportedly been promulgating that position for several months. It appears that Conn. Trooper is a ways behind the curve. CT, if a 'Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver" is not a license to carry a pistol or a revolver, what is it? (Referring to point #6 in the statute quoted above, the one that you say doesn't mean what it plainly says.) And you know this how? Links? Your legal background? You never answered what you know that I don't, and how you know that. Please explain. The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners don't make state laws and decide what is a crime. That's not their function. They can make suggestions to the state legislature, and possibly they can make their position known to the courts, but they don't decide whats legal and illegal. Try again. A license to carry a pistol is not a carte blanche license to do whatever you want with it. Never has been. Still can't carry it into a school, federal building, bank, etc. Even with your license. Still can't carry those handguns that are banned by state law. A license to carry is just that, a license to carry your firearm within the other state laws. Including breach of peace laws.