WCI v. Madison: was Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin - Page 4

**Aguila Blanca** · October 2, 2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

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.

Of course it is not a license to violate any laws, and I did not even suggest that it is.

As to the breach of peace law ... the one you cited ... if the license to carry is what it is and what you just said it is ... a license to carry ... then the law you cited DOES void your breach of peace argument. I analyzed it thoroughly in my post. I am not a lawyer, but I can read English, and I presume judges in Connecticut can, as well. The statute YOU cited lists six different things that constitute breach of peace. The only one that would potentially apply to a person sitting in Starbucks and reading the newspaper while wearing a pistol on his hip, or browsing the hardware department in Wal-Mart with a pistol on his hip, is the last one ... which specifically says "unless licensed or privileged to do so." If the "to do so" refers to the wearing of the pistol, and if the person is not wearing it with any intention of causing a disturbance, then he most certainly IS licensed and privileged to wear the pistol.

That you would try to argue the opposite is incomprehensible. You are creating a circular argument. You are saying he is licensed to carry unless he is disturbing the peace, but he can't be guilty of disturbing the peace if he is licensed to carry, so since I think he is disturbing the peace then his license to carry is not a license to carry when I think he's disturbing the peace.

Oh, and my source of information regarding the firearms board was links from a discussion about an arrest (and subsequent dismissal of charges) for open carry in Glastonbury, CT, awhile back. The discussion was on The High Road (.us) forum if you care to chase it down. Probably in legal.

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread...tonbury+arrest

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread...tonbury+arrest

Conn. Trooper · October 2, 2010, 03:07 PM

That thread is three years old and there is no metion of a dismissal. Where is the lawsuit for false arrest if the arrest was unlawful? Even if the charges were dismissed, so what? Charges get dismissed every single day, doesn't mean it was a bad arrest. The lawsuit is focued on the delay in restoring his permit. That I happen to agree with, the board needs to get things done much quicker, no doubt.

I have spoken to the supervisory prosecutor in my GA, he says OC is a breach. Thats his legal opinion, not something he read off the internet. Take that for what it is worth. The firearms permit board doesn't decide whats legal or illegal.

Al Norris · October 2, 2010, 04:58 PM

Aguila, I don't think it is Troopers circular argument as much as it is the argument of the courts in Connecticut. How the courts have interpreted that law, is how Trooper is required to enforce it.

This is not going to change until someone files suit in federal court. It will have to be for an injunction, as applied. A facial challenge will fail.

Conn. Trooper · October 2, 2010, 05:09 PM

And I hope that day comes, I would love to have it be a black and white issue. Sadly, with the way this state can be anti-gun sometimes, I think it will go towards concealed only carry. The problem will then become does accidental exposure become brandishing? Could be.

4thPointofContact · October 6, 2010, 12:08 PM

Really? So, just what does the Connecticut law say about brandishing a firearm?

As a Connecticut Trooper, we can assume you have ready access to the Connecticut General Statues, yes?

Heck, for that matter what does the Wisconsin Statute say in regards to brandishing a firearm?

maestro pistolero · October 6, 2010, 02:09 PM

A right as fundamental and relevant to public safety really deserves it's own specific law. Relying on a breach of peace law to prosecute someone who is engaged in constitutionally protected behavior is way too arbitrary. The legislature needs to clean up the statutes so that it's perfectly clear how (not if) one may carry.

zukiphile · October 6, 2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thpoint

Really? So, just what does the Connecticut law say about brandishing a firearm?

As a Connecticut Trooper, we can assume you have ready access to the Connecticut General Statues, yes?

With the internet, we all have access to the code. That isn't really the question though.

If CT's department instructs its people to cite and arrest for brandishing when they see open carry, CT's personal interpretation of the code may not matter much.

Conn. Trooper · October 6, 2010, 03:19 PM

My point was that if the law is changed to concealed only carry, what happens if an exposure is accidental? Would that now be a new charge? How serious a charge? Revocation of psitol permit? Thats the issue that I see, things going the other way and losing more than will be gained. I can't see our state lawmakers saying that it's ok to walk around with exposed firearms. I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening.

zukiphile · October 6, 2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CT

I can't see our state lawmakers saying that it's ok to walk around with exposed firearms.

If you have to cite for brandishing or breach in cases of open carry, your state legislature has already OKed open carry by not legislating against it. Otherwise, when you saw open carry, you would cite for "open carry".

**Aguila Blanca** · October 6, 2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

With the internet, we all have access to the code. That isn't really the question though.

If CT's department instructs its people to cite and arrest for brandishing when they see open carry, CT's personal interpretation of the code may not matter much.

What about "officer discretion"?

The law says "Thou shalt not exceed the speed limit." The law (actually, regulations pursuant to law, but we'll keep it simple) also sets forth penalties for speeding. We all know that police officers exercise what they like to call "officer discretion" when they make a traffic stop. If you mouth off they give you the ticket, plus they look for burned out taillights and anything else they can find. Act polite and they might give you a warning, or enter a lower speed than they actually observed so the ticket will cost you a few bucks less. If you have a good excuse, they might just wish you a good day and wave you on.

But in all cases you were speeding.

So why is it that police (in general) don't seem to apply this magic wand of "officer discretion" to things like open carry, or accidental display due to wind? Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that if they can apply "officer discretion" to a speeding offense (or is that an "infraction"?), they could equally well apply it to an open carry or accidental display incident. That they (generally) do not tells me that they are (generally) antithetical to civilian carry of firearms.

zukiphile · October 6, 2010, 03:53 PM

Discretion in whether to issue a citation is distinguishable from statutory interpretation. A POs discretion is called upon routinely, but has little to do with the code noted above, and is more likely to be influenced by departmental instructions to POs.

If your employer instructed you to cite OC as breach, on what basis would you disregard that instruction, and what would your excuse be when your employer noted that you failed to follow explicit instruction?

brickeyee · October 6, 2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

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

How truly amusing.

"Common practice" now trumps the law of the land.

The police are ONLY entitled to ask WHO YOU ARE (under federal and state law in this case).

They are NOT entitled to ask you to produce any document to prove who you are, just to ask you to identify yourself.

The police may not do more than ask if they do not have some rational of illegal activity.

therealdeal · October 6, 2010, 04:50 PM

Quote:

"Common practice" now trumps the law of the land.

The police are ONLY entitled to ask WHO YOU ARE (under federal and state law in this case).

They are NOT entitled to ask you to produce any document to prove who you are, just to ask you to identify yourself.

The police may not do more than ask if they do not have some rational of illegal activity.

brickeye, I dont wear a uniform and I dont ask for peoples ID's so dont try to throw that in my face. My feeling would be the same either way. nothing you said above changes the fact that it happens all the time so I dont get your point. I also never said I disagreed with the 4th amendment and the federal law; I just want you to know that. Next time your 17yr old nephew, son, or cousin(I don't know your age) is approached by an officer at a party or wherever, tell him to refuse to give up his ID while telling the Officer its in his pocket and see what happens. I am just saying- not everyone in America knows their rights as much as the next guy. That doesn't take into account rookie cops, d&^%heads, what community or state you're in, and so-on. I myself don't see a problem with coughing up my license, gov't ID, vet card, NRA card, or whatever because I am proud of it. That doesn't mean I don't side w/the guyz out there fighting for their rights+the Constitution, but you know not all cops who ask for an ID are trying to abuse their authority and/or step on your rights. If you have rights then don't be afraid to stand up for them or voice them which it seems you might be. I am all for that.

Conn. Trooper · October 6, 2010, 08:17 PM

Maybe I should clarify. I have never arrested someone for OC. In my corner of the state I have actually never seen it, just doesn't happen. If it did I would try and advise the person of the possible consequences and resolve the issue. My point was that if push comes to shove, the courts will pursue breach charges.

Do I think that's the best way to handle it? Nope, but once again I don't get to make those decisions. Judges, prosecutors, legislators and ultimately the voters of the state decide. By voting. I wish I made the laws sometimes, everybody would have to wear their hats straight and pull up their pants.

Al Norris · October 6, 2010, 10:24 PM

Enough!

When members start badgering and bringing ad hominem attacks at our LEO members who are posting in good faith, we can not have any kind of adult conversation.

There are many sides to this entire discussion. In order to further the goals of obtaining/maintaining our 2A rights, we must see all sides of the equation. We cannot do that when certain members shut down the conversation, by the type of behavior that was posted today.

There are consequences to such actions. If you find that your post is no longer here, it was because I had to delete the offenders posts and those who responded directly to those offending posts, to maintain continuity in the thread.

TFL maintains a very high bar. In this forum, that bar is even higher. By the same token, the exit door is closer than some think.

October 6, 2010, 12:08 PM	#80
4thPointofContact Junior member Join Date: September 22, 2007 Posts: 197	Really? So, just what does the Connecticut law say about brandishing a firearm? As a Connecticut Trooper, we can assume you have ready access to the Connecticut General Statues, yes? Heck, for that matter what does the Wisconsin Statute say in regards to brandishing a firearm? Last edited by 4thPointofContact; October 6, 2010 at 12:45 PM.

October 6, 2010, 02:09 PM	#81
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	A right as fundamental and relevant to public safety really deserves it's own specific law. Relying on a breach of peace law to prosecute someone who is engaged in constitutionally protected behavior is way too arbitrary. The legislature needs to clean up the statutes so that it's perfectly clear how (not if) one may carry. Last edited by maestro pistolero; October 6, 2010 at 03:06 PM.

October 6, 2010, 03:53 PM	#86
zukiphile Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2005 Posts: 4,457	Discretion in whether to issue a citation is distinguishable from statutory interpretation. A POs discretion is called upon routinely, but has little to do with the code noted above, and is more likely to be influenced by departmental instructions to POs. If your employer instructed you to cite OC as breach, on what basis would you disregard that instruction, and what would your excuse be when your employer noted that you failed to follow explicit instruction? __________________ http://www.npboards.com/index.php

October 2, 2010, 03:07 PM	#77
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	That thread is three years old and there is no metion of a dismissal. Where is the lawsuit for false arrest if the arrest was unlawful? Even if the charges were dismissed, so what? Charges get dismissed every single day, doesn't mean it was a bad arrest. The lawsuit is focued on the delay in restoring his permit. That I happen to agree with, the board needs to get things done much quicker, no doubt. I have spoken to the supervisory prosecutor in my GA, he says OC is a breach. Thats his legal opinion, not something he read off the internet. Take that for what it is worth. The firearms permit board doesn't decide whats legal or illegal.

October 2, 2010, 04:58 PM	#78
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Aguila, I don't think it is Troopers circular argument as much as it is the argument of the courts in Connecticut. How the courts have interpreted that law, is how Trooper is required to enforce it. This is not going to change until someone files suit in federal court. It will have to be for an injunction, as applied. A facial challenge will fail.

October 2, 2010, 05:09 PM	#79
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	And I hope that day comes, I would love to have it be a black and white issue. Sadly, with the way this state can be anti-gun sometimes, I think it will go towards concealed only carry. The problem will then become does accidental exposure become brandishing? Could be.

October 6, 2010, 03:19 PM	#83
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	My point was that if the law is changed to concealed only carry, what happens if an exposure is accidental? Would that now be a new charge? How serious a charge? Revocation of psitol permit? Thats the issue that I see, things going the other way and losing more than will be gained. I can't see our state lawmakers saying that it's ok to walk around with exposed firearms. I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening.

October 6, 2010, 08:17 PM	#89
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Maybe I should clarify. I have never arrested someone for OC. In my corner of the state I have actually never seen it, just doesn't happen. If it did I would try and advise the person of the possible consequences and resolve the issue. My point was that if push comes to shove, the courts will pursue breach charges. Do I think that's the best way to handle it? Nope, but once again I don't get to make those decisions. Judges, prosecutors, legislators and ultimately the voters of the state decide. By voting. I wish I made the laws sometimes, everybody would have to wear their hats straight and pull up their pants.

October 6, 2010, 10:24 PM	#90
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Enough! When members start badgering and bringing ad hominem attacks at our LEO members who are posting in good faith, we can not have any kind of adult conversation. There are many sides to this entire discussion. In order to further the goals of obtaining/maintaining our 2A rights, we must see all sides of the equation. We cannot do that when certain members shut down the conversation, by the type of behavior that was posted today. There are consequences to such actions. If you find that your post is no longer here, it was because I had to delete the offenders posts and those who responded directly to those offending posts, to maintain continuity in the thread. TFL maintains a very high bar. In this forum, that bar is even higher. By the same token, the exit door is closer than some think.