Nut jobs in Madison..

[Neal Steffek]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/103242194.html?page=1

WTF!?! What in the world would make you think it is ok to bring a gun into a Culvers? These nut jobs need to have the book thrown at them to send a message.

[-stew-]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/103242194.html?page=1

WTF!?! What in the world would make you think it is ok to bring a gun into a Culvers? These nut jobs need to have the book thrown at them to send a message.

Fuck you. What laws were they breaking?

[Silver350]

Because the state of Wisconsin and the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

[PureSound15]

What in the world would make you think it is ok to bring a gun into a Culvers?


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

[Holeshot]

Open Carry FTMFW. When will Wisconsin law enforcement realize its not up to them.

[Want_Notch]

So they were issued citations for obsruction......what a croc of shit.

Peoples Republic of Madison strikes again!

[Silver350]

Open Carry FTMFW. When will Wisconsin law enforcement realize its not up to them.

I dont think they will.

[Neal Steffek]

Not going to get into it that people who feel they can takes guns to a Culvers becasue they feel they "can", and they have the "right" to. What the people are posting on JSonline seem to be about 70% for the fact that these guns nut jobs have to get with the times. It's a good read.

[ND4SPD]

They have the right to open carry, and Culvers has the right to ask them to leave if they don't like it. End of story.

[-stew-]

Not going to get into it that people who feel they can takes guns to a Culvers becasue they feel they "can", and they have the "right" to. What the people are posting on JSonline seem to be about 70% for the fact that these guns nut jobs have to get with the times. It's a good read.


It's not a "feeling." It's a constitutional right! What part of that do you not understand? You can't "throw the book at" people who are doing nothing wrong.

Also, I like how you start a thread about something and right away you bust out with "not going to get into it." It cements the fact that you are a dolt who has no valid input on the subject, but you feel since guns scare you no one should be able to have them.

[LIL EVO]

Exactly. What people fail to realize is that this is LEGAL!

Convert this to a different scenario.

Dozens of people are lined up on HWY100 with half aborted baby posters and body parts. "Well, shit!" you think, "that's fucking disgusting, I don't want to see that and I'm scared".

You call the cops, cops come, the people holding the posters are given forfeitures after deciding on what area their "negative" behavior might fall under.

Really?

No different than scenario A

[Car Guy]

They have the right to open carry, and Culvers has the right to ask them to leave if they don't like it. End of story.

:thumbsup

[Silver350]

Not going to get into it that people who feel they can takes guns to a Culvers becasue they feel they "can", and they have the "right" to. What the people are posting on JSonline seem to be about 70% for the fact that these guns nut jobs have to get with the times. It's a good read.

So do you freak out when ever you see someone at Walmart, Culvers, ect that have a knife on their hips or you see the clip of a knife sticking out of their pockets? I bet you never notice this.

Some nut job with a knife can do the same damage with a knife as some with a firearm that is inflict grave bodily harm. Do you really think majority of people could defend themselves against that?

And Wisconsin does need to get with the times and allow Conceal Carry like 48 other states have and we dont.

[0TransAm0]

They have the right to open carry, and Culvers has the right to ask them to leave if they don't like it. End of story.

agreed.

[Neal Steffek]

Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, Inc., said in an e-mail that five members of the organization were "dining peaceably" at Culver's when eight officers arrived about 7:30 p.m. While no one was charged with disorderly conduct -- a common reaction from police to mere gun-wearing until an Attorney General's advisory last year -- two of the members "politely declined" to provide identification and were arrested and issued citations for obstruction of justice, Clark wrote.

Eight cops came, sounds to me like they were NOT wanted there. Plus, they may want to reread the laws.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

[Silver350]

Eight cops came, sounds to me like they were NOT wanted there. Plus, they may want to reread the laws.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.


They were not commiting a Crime. There for they were not breaking the law. Reason why there was 8 cops was because PD over reacted to the situation. Imagine you are outside wearing shorts with no shirt washing your car and a cop pulls up to you and demands ID. You do not need to present an ID to them. They cannot arrest you for that.

[Silver350]

Maybe you should do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Arrest
Of course, when a person is arrested and taken into police custody, they have been seized (e.g., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a Terry stop than to a formal arrest.[31] A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime.[32] A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, if the arresting officer has probable cause.[33][34]

[Neal Steffek]

Maybe you should do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Arrest
Of course, when a person is arrested and taken into police custody, they have been seized (e.g., a reasonable person who is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car would not think they were free to leave). A person subjected to a routine traffic stop on the other hand, has been seized, but is not "arrested" because traffic stops are a relatively brief encounter and are more analogous to a Terry stop than to a formal arrest.[31] A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime.[32] A search incidental to an arrest that is not permissible under state law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, if the arresting officer has probable cause.[33][34]

Awesome, now go read some Wisconsin laws.

[GTSLOW]

Eight cops came, sounds to me like they were NOT wanted there. Plus, they may want to reread the laws.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

:rolf what crime were the committing? Madison PD is a joke at best. There's shit going down on Badger Dr, Allied Dr, etc.. every fucking day and here their harassing people abiding to the law. :wtf What better way to stick it to them then sue (or whatever they're doing) the MADISON police department.

[Silver350]

I do read Laws. I read quiet a bit of them actually.

And I dont remember any of them that stated it is a crime to enjoy a Culvers burger with a gun on your hip.

[Holeshot]

As always I'm sure there are two sides to the story. I would be damn sure I would have my ID and be ready to present it if asked if I am going to open carry. It just makes sense really. Think about it. You know damn well your going to offend someone by open carrying and you need to be prepared to be confronted. Yes a business has the right to refuse service to anyone. I know in my store we are required to ask anyone with a firearm to leave and refuse service. Personally I think its a judgement call. I would be more intimidated by someone carrying in a jewelry store or bank vs a grocery or auto parts store.

[michelle]

Haha, one of those 5 guys is a friend of mine (he didn't get a citation - he showed ID). He posted on Facebook he was going for an OC meeting and then when he got home he emailed his story of the situation.

[emptypockets]

No laws were broken and the police were out of line, stand by for another lawsuit against the police department.

Soon enough we will have our CC permits......

[wrath]

Why doesn't Neal live in Madison? He'd fit in there better with all the other lumber licking granola eaters.

[Neal Steffek]

No laws were broken and the police were out of line, stand by for another lawsuit against the police department.

Soon enough we will have our CC permits......

the law that was broken was refuseing to show their ID. Those were the only two arrests.

[Silver350]

the law that was broken was refuseing to show their ID. Those were the only two arrests.

Maybe you should read the law you posted.

They didnt Rob culvers and if they did they wouldnt of been around for the cops to show up so what laws did they break that would require them to provide ID.

[LIL EVO]

the law that was broken was refuseing to show their ID. Those were the only two arrests.

Ok..

The police were called because someone thought something was wrong. This doesn't mean there was any type of crime in progress. They are now en route to investigate.

So then the police show up. At that point, everyone is still free to leave Culver's since they didn't do anything wrong. The Officer's can approach and talk to the men casually. At this point, no one has been "seized" yet therefore no one has to show anyone ID.

So far so good?

Who knows what happened after this point, but let's assume the police then "seized" all of the Subjects. At this point, they would not be free to leave and a reasonable, innocent person would feel like they were "detained". This could be through a combination of multiple officers, maybe they had them all sit down in a booth and surrounded them, had them all sit on the curb, or whatever the case may have been. A reasonable person would assume that they cannot just get up and leave.

Now the police just seized these men for no reason AND they can now request ID even though the "seize" was illegal. Because it was an illegal seize in the first place, they whole thing will be thrown out regardless.

[Neal Steffek]

Maybe you should read the law you posted.

They didnt Rob culvers and if they did they wouldnt of been around for the cops to show up so what laws did they break that would require them to provide ID.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

5 guys have a gun on them in a restraunt, you damn well better show your ID when asked by the cops. If the two wack jobs think they are above the law I hope the judge locks them up with bubba.

[-stew-]

Edit: Ohh yeah.. Forgot.. Per case law (don't ask me which one) a cop can order you out of the vehicle. It's not to treat you like a thug or what ever you called it but is legal.. Something I often do.. Not always but sometimes.. And if you had then not given consent for him to search your vehicle then he would not have been able to.. He can also request your passengers IDs.. If there was a violation of law (not wearing a seatbelt) then he can demand your passengers IDs.. If there was no violation the passengers are not required to show ID for the sake of them being in the car.. Again, he can 'request' but if they refused and there is no violation then there is nothing the cop can do..



While not exactly apples to apples, I think a reasonable person would agree the law cited by Neal (blatantly copy pasta'd from the comments of the article he originally linked to) is congruent with Mr. Twigberts statements quoted above. (Taken from the Guteman vs. MPD thread.)

[Silver350]

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

5 guys have a gun on them in a restraunt, you damn well better show your ID when asked by the cops. If the two wack jobs think they are above the law I hope the judge locks them up with bubba.

You still are not seeing what I am saying so I am done. I have better things to do then to argue with someone about this. Just wait till all the WCI Lawsuit starts and who wins any you will see that you dont know what you are talking about.

[Neal Steffek]

You still are not seeing what I am saying so I am done. I have better things to do then to argue with someone about this. Just wait till all the WCI Lawsuit starts and who wins any you will see that you dont know what you are talking about.

No one was given a ticket for having a gun on them. No DC tickets were handed out, thus no lawsuit. The ticket/arrest was for not showing the police your ID. I am sure you can agree with everyone that if you have a firearm on you, you better be able to show the police your ID.

[-stew-]

No one was given a ticket for having a gun on them. No DC tickets were handed out, thus no lawsuit. The ticket/arrest was for not showing the police your ID. I am sure you can agree with everyone that if you have a firearm on you, you better be able to show the police your ID.


What cause did the cops have to request ID?

[emptypockets]

What cause did the cops have to request ID?

No reason whatsoever as no laws were being violated. :thumbsup

I smell a harassment and wrongful arrest lawsuit brewing!

[Silver03SRT]

I dont see why they were arrested. No laws were broken.

[team beater]

968.24 After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct.



Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, Inc., said in an e-mail that five members of the organization were "dining peaceably" at Culver's when eight officers arrived about 7:30 p.m. While no one was charged with disorderly conduct -- a common reaction from police to mere gun-wearing until an Attorney General's advisory last year -- two of the members "politely declined" to provide identification and were arrested and issued citations for obstruction of justice, Clark wrote
Just saying, these 5 people were served and eating. Apparently the employees felt comfortable enough to serve them. I wonder what CRIME the officer suspected these individuals were going to commit???????? Eating while possibly offending someone in the restaurant............ maybe that's it. Fact is the ONLY two who received citations were the ones who refused ID.
In the above law it states is acceptable to demand ID and explanation of the person's conduct when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime. None of the 5 persons were ticketed with disorderly conduct, does that mean that their conduct was LAWFUL?????? Refusing to present ID seems to me like a legal option these people have, based on the law you posted. Maybe the police were simply pissy and ass-hurt that 2 of the 5 stood by THEIR RIGHTS and refused to present ID, maybe without thinking clearly the police allowed their personal EMOTIONS get in the way of the LAW, deciding to issued tickets for obstruction of justice. Yet I wonder what justice these people are obstructing.........HMMMM...... Just cause you have a badge does not mean YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW or can make up new ones on the fly to make you or your actions right.



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/103242194.html?page=1

WTF!?! What in the world would make you think it is NOT ok to bring a gun into a Culvers? These nut jobs need to have the book thrown at them to send a message.


PS
I fixed your post.
Just cause it isn't seen much, doesn't mean it is illegal. The people of Madison should clearly understand this with all of the exposure this topic is getting there.


PSS
I'm pretty sure if someone is intending to commit a crime the are not going to openly display their weapon, draw attention to themselves, sit and eat dinner, allow everyone to obtain detailed description of themselves and then commit the intended crime.

PPS
Reality is, if you dont like it too bad. This is a RIGHT of an AMERICAN citizen. I might not like the fact that people allow their children to be obese by the age of 3, but its not my choice. Deal with it.

Just Saying...........

[GTSLOW]

No reason whatsoever as no laws were being violated. :thumbsup

I smell a harassment and wrongful arrest lawsuit brewing!

And I sure as hell hope there is one!

[Neal Steffek]

Fact is the ONLY two who received citations were the ones who refused ID.
In the above law it states is acceptable to demand ID and explanation of the person's conduct when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime. None of the 5 persons were ticketed with disorderly conduct, does that mean that their conduct was LAWFUL?????? Refusing to present ID seems to me like a legal option these people have, based on the law you posted.

They have to show their ID's by law. No way around that. Someone obviously felt something was wrong that they called the police and EIGHT cops showed up. Thus you HAVE TO BY LAW show an ID. Trust me, I deal with this every weekend. If you do not show the police your ID, the police can take you down to the station until they figure out who you are.

[Silver350]

I am currious, You an attoney, District Attorney, Cop what?

[ND4SPD]

It's not unusual to see a huge number of Madison cops at -ANY- incident. I'm surprised MPD didn't call their SWAT team together for this incident. I went on a call a couple of days ago for a man down in his apartment and there were SEVEN cops there including one Sargeant (that's more cops than Fire/EMS... there were six of us).

[That_Guy]

the law that was broken was refuseing to show their ID. Those were the only two arrests.

My god are you fucking thick.....its not illegal to refuse id.. specially when they where not doing anything wrong inthe first place. Ask sheriff clarke in milwaukee his department was just sued for 10000 because of the same situation. Just say it you are scare of law abiding citizens.

[-stew-]

They have to show their ID's by law. No way around that. Someone obviously felt something was wrong that they called the police and EIGHT cops showed up. Thus you HAVE TO BY LAW show an ID. Trust me, I deal with this every weekend. If you do not show the police your ID, the police can take you down to the station until they figure out who you are.



Wat law states a LEO can roll up on a person minding their own business, not comiting a crime, not causing a disturbance, and demand they provide ID or face arrest!?!?!??!?!?

[Dasred]

Next thing you know, we're in Arizona and they can just demand to see our Papers!
Whoa!

[team beater]

They have to show their ID's by law. No way around that. Someone obviously felt something was wrong that they called the police and EIGHT cops showed up. Thus you HAVE TO BY LAW show an ID. Trust me, I deal with this every weekend. If you do not show the police your ID, the police can take you down to the station until they figure out who you are.

The reason there was eight cops is because the lady across the street called them because her cat was stuck in the tree..............duh its Madison......... Well since you deal with it everyday I am sorry to say I feel your conduct is questionable and I now assume you are going to commit a crime. I am afraid that I am going to have to call the police........ Pretty ridiculous don't you think?

[Rocket Power]

CCW FTW. Open carry causes more problems than its worth.
Between the hoplophobes who call the police and the "in your face" troublemaker open carriers, it just isn't worth it.

[Silver03SRT]

Eight cops came, sounds to me like they were NOT wanted there. Plus, they may want to reread the laws.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.


They have to show their ID's by law. No way around that. Someone obviously felt something was wrong that they called the police and EIGHT cops showed up. Thus you HAVE TO BY LAW show an ID. Trust me, I deal with this every weekend. If you do not show the police your ID, the police can take you down to the station until they figure out who you are.

Are you really that ignorant to ignore what the law states? Show me in the statute where it says they had to show their IDs based on the information given! The cops didnt think they were doing anything wrong therefore no one needed to show their ID. I agree yes to avoid confrontation show the ID but legally they didnt have to.

[Silver03SRT]

Oh and I'd like you to explain how they are nut jobs or were you talking about the cops?

[JaMichaels]

I always love the, "It's our constitutional right!" rebuttal. That was written over 200 years ago in a whole different world and era, back before their was a major police force dedicated to protect and serve. We no longer have the dying need to always keep ourselves armed people. If you have to take a gun into Culvers to protect yourself then I don't know what to tell you, enjoy your legal troubles I guess.

[STANMAN]

I always love the, "It's our constitutional right!" rebuttal. That was written over 200 years ago in a whole different world and era, back before their was a major police force dedicated to protect and serve. We no longer have the dying need to always keep ourselves armed people. If you have to take a gun into Culvers to protect yourself then I don't know what to tell you, enjoy your legal troubles I guess.

I think we should also get rid of the 1st Amendment so people who aren't educated on a subject don't have the right to talk about it. I mean 200 years have gone by since then, do you think the founding fathers would have included the right to free speech if they would have known everyone would be this fing stupid in the year 2010? Just sayin........

[Neal Steffek]

I always love the, "It's our constitutional right!" rebuttal. That was written over 200 years ago in a whole different world and era, back before their was a major police force dedicated to protect and serve. We no longer have the dying need to always keep ourselves armed people. If you have to take a gun into Culvers to protect yourself then I don't know what to tell you, enjoy your legal troubles I guess.

Becasue the king of england may bust down your door. Those damn red coats. :thumbsup

[lordairgtar]

If I was open carrying, I certainly would present my ID when asked by law enforcement. Only to prove perhaps I am not a felon who cannot possess a weapon legally. FWIW, the persons did seem to know the laws about showing ID and could refuse because there was no OBVIOUS reason to suspect a crime might be committed...it would be like being under suspicion of speeding just because you own a car.

[STANMAN]

Becasue the king of england may bust down your door. Those damn red coats. :thumbsup

Perhaps the founding fathers should have just kept their mouths shut and we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. You know, a free society, the best country on earth, constitutional RIGHTS, ect, ect, ect:rolleyes:

[wrath]

I think we should legislate those who are allowed to reproduce.

If you look at any people (nation, whatnot) who have reached 50% taxation, shit has hit the fan for them. If you look at any people (nation, whatnot) who has disarmed their people, they have faltered. History doesn't lie, people just misinterpret it.

The government can have my guns when the government are the people with the guns.

[Neal Steffek]

If you look at any people (nation, whatnot) who has disarmed their people, they have faltered.

Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.

I just want to go on record I have no problem with people having guns, it is hand guns I don't like. With hand guns you have no idea who has one, and that is the scary part.

[wrath]

Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.

I just want to go on record I have no problem with people having guns, it is hand guns I don't like. With hand guns you have no idea who has one, and that is the scary part.

Did they glass over Colombia and I missed it? Like .01% of the population is murdered there every year.

And more important than murder by firearm is violent crime altogether. At which our good friend the United Kingdom beats the United States by a long margin.

Where violent crime is lowest are places where everyone is armed. In Israel, damn near everyone has a shotgun at home. There are no robberies in Israel.

Remember kids, if you outlaw weapons it's only the outlaws that will have weapons.

Watch out for the bears when you're busy trying to see the forest through the trees.

[Rocket Power]

Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.

I just want to go on record I have no problem with people having guns, it is hand guns I don't like. With hand guns you have no idea who has one, and that is the scary part.
By that reasoning we should ban alcohol because of all the problems drunks cause, killing people with their vehicle, beating their spouse,bar fights,etc. And you never know if people in the car next to you have been drinking. :rolleyes:

[HP ADDICT]

CCW FTW. Open carry causes more problems than its worth.
Between the hoplophobes who call the police and the "in your face" troublemaker open carriers, it just isn't worth it.
:thumbsup smartest thing posted in this thread.

[Silver350]

Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.

I just want to go on record I have no problem with people having guns, it is hand guns I don't like. With hand guns you have no idea who has one, and that is the scary part.

Me I am more worried about the thug with the AK 47 that doesnt have a care in the world than a person with a handgun.

[70 cutlass 442]

Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.

I just want to go on record I have no problem with people having guns, it is hand guns I don't like. With hand guns you have no idea who has one, and that is the scary part.

your a moron, of all the murders that are committed in this country. How many are commited by law abiding citizens who fall into the category of being able to even own a firearm?

[lordairgtar]

Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.

I just want to go on record I have no problem with people having guns, it is hand guns I don't like. With hand guns you have no idea who has one, and that is the scary part.
But yet you glorify a gang movie in your sig.

[70 cutlass 442]

Eight cops came, sounds to me like they were NOT wanted there. Plus, they may want to reread the laws.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

and now why you are a moron x2,

first, that statue you just sited is not even found on the legislatures website. second... you are 100 % right on your find... but only if someone is suspected of commiting a crime... which means reasonable suspicion needs to be obtained by a LEO before requesting ID, Terry Vs. Ohio 1968... search that and you will see all sorts of supreme court rulings that favor the person in question, not the LEO.... Personally, If i were being questioned while OC, I would have my ID ready to go just to eliminate any hassle.

[70 cutlass 442]

I always love the, "It's our constitutional right!" rebuttal. That was written over 200 years ago in a whole different world and era, back before their was a major police force dedicated to protect and serve. We no longer have the dying need to always keep ourselves armed people. If you have to take a gun into Culvers to protect yourself then I don't know what to tell you, enjoy your legal troubles I guess.

How well is that major police force doing? Have you ever seen the work load of the MPD on a saturday night? how about just in the past 9 minutes:
http://itmdapps.milwaukee.gov/MPDCallData/currentCADCalls/callsService.faces

If someone strong arm robs you, or clubs your wife over the head to take her purse, or worse... are you going to rely on these already overloaded police forces to come to the rescue? Better yet, lets take a suburb, now you seem almost as naive as mr. high speed rail himself (neal steffek) So im willing to bet you really have no clue what its like in the city.... so lets talk Waukesha county... now, lets say its a slow night, plenty of sheriff officers are just running radar and doing the usual traffic citation routine. You call 911 because your getting mugged off of 164 and ES in the mc donalds parking lot.. but wait, its after 11pm, so the Big Bend cop is off duty, so now a Sherif deputy must respond from somewhere else in the county... do you have any idea how long that could take? what if there was a felony traffic stop several minutes prior on 83 and I94... now how much of the counties resources are tied up at that location, a good 15 minutes away. You really are out of touch, these LEO do a great job at what they do, but you ask any one of them and they will agree there are more needed... Should we all go vigilante like in GTA? not at all, but there is no reason a qualified, mentally stable, no violent history, educated person shouldn't be able to carry a gun to defend them selves while police are en route.

[JaMichaels]

You're right, I'm going to carry a loaded firearm at all times in case on the third Tuesday of February during a rainstorm my car could break down outside of a drug peddlers house, in turn that drug peddler could come out and club my wife for principle because she's bitching at me about my jalopy at 11:01pm.

Yes, there's a difference between carrying a firearm in the ghetto during dangerous times and walking into a Culvers armed.


I wonder what the statistics are for someone being attacked by someone that is armed, in return diffusing the situation by having a gun. Bet they just end up dead faster.

[Z28Envy]

*edit------Do you need a permit in WI to buy a handgun?


I didn't read through this entire thread so sorry if this has been brought up but I have a questions and it seems like there are a few in here that may know what they are talking about.

In order to carry a handgun or own one you have to have a permit correct? So if you are OC your hand gun doesn't an officer have a right to check your permit and identify that the name on the permit is you by asking for a photo ID? If the person refuses wouldn't that be obstruction in some form because the officer cannot verify that you can legally carry a gun? I don't know if its the same as the DNR asking to see your fishing license if your fishing but would seem to be about the same thing. I know DNR have some different rules so that is why I am asking.

[-stew-]

I always love the, "It's our constitutional right!" rebuttal. That was written over 200 years ago in a whole different world and era, back before their was a major police force dedicated to protect and serve. We no longer have the dying need to always keep ourselves armed people. If you have to take a gun into Culvers to protect yourself then I don't know what to tell you, enjoy your legal troubles I guess.


When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.


Pretty sure we have one of the highest murders from fire arms in the world, if not he highest. So to say we are safe because we all have guns is pure false.


I would bet 90% of the firearm murders are committed by people who cannot legally posses a firearm.


*edit------Do you need a permit in WI to buy a handgun?



No.

[Rocket Power]

*edit------Do you need a permit in WI to buy a handgun?


No.

In order to buy one from an FFL (.ie gunstore)you have to go through a NICS check and wait 48 hours. Private purchases you don't have to have a background check.

[Rocket Power]

You're right, I'm going to carry a loaded firearm at all times in case on the third Tuesday of February during a rainstorm my car could break down outside of a drug peddlers house, in turn that drug peddler could come out and club my wife for principle because she's bitching at me about my jalopy at 11:01pm.


Do you have auto insurance? Because once in 20 years you may bump into someone in a parking lot?

[-stew-]

You're right, I'm going to carry a loaded firearm at all times in case on the third Tuesday of February during a rainstorm my car could break down outside of a drug peddlers house, in turn that drug peddler could come out and club my wife for principle because she's bitching at me about my jalopy at 11:01pm.

Yes, there's a difference between carrying a firearm in the ghetto during dangerous times and walking into a Culvers armed.


I wonder what the statistics are for someone being attacked by someone that is armed, in return diffusing the situation by having a gun. Bet they just end up dead faster.


Forgot about this gem of wisdom. Some of us work second shift. In the ghetto. I would enjoy the option of being armed.

And I would also like that option on a Sunday afternoon in McNtyre, Iowa while standing next to my motorcycle drinking a Pepsi.

[HITMAN]

This thread is full of win.

Neal Steffek and JaRuleMicheals...
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/743/alfrankencopyem2.jpg

[Mudd Runner]

I don't own a gun to kill people.
I own a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't own a gun because I'm paranoid.
I own a gun because there are real threats in the world..

I don't own a gun because I'm evil.
I own a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't own a gun because I hate the government.
I own a gun because I understand the limitations of government..

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and
not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven,
I want to be a cowboy.

I don't own a gun to make me feel like a man.
I own a gun because men know how to take care
of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and
facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and
the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime,
they usually just investigate the crime
after it happens and
then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to
take an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

*************************


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938
and from 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others
who were unable to defend themselves
were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952,
20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect
only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message
to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win.

There is no possible victory in defense.

The sword is more important than the shield, and
skill is more important than either.

The final weapon is the brain.

All else is supplemental.


SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY
IN THE WORLD!!

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

If you are too, please forward.

[Z28Envy]

No.

In order to buy one from an FFL (.ie gunstore)you have to go through a NICS check and wait 48 hours. Private purchases you don't have to have a background check.

Ok thanks for the info on that. I lived most of my life in MN and if I am remembering correctly you have to have a permit to own a gun. Maybe I'm wrong on that or maybe it changed.

Anyone know if I would get a permit in WI can I take a handgun to MN?

[-stew-]

Gun ownership permit:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/nigelum/Hodge-Podge/Billofrights.gif

(Good in all 50 states.)


You can buy a handgun in any state and take it into any state, weather or not you can carry it concealed, is another matter. Concealed carry is a right that requires a permit, not ownership.

[TheRX7Project]

Mudd Runner your post above is completely full of win. I can't believe Neal wants to "throw the book at" someone who did nothing illegal. Throw what book at him? The book of Police State?

EDIT: For the record, I think our government needs to read Article X a few times, maybe memorize it, and hope it sinks in.

EDIT AGAIN: JaMicheals- is police response fast enough to stop someone who breaks into your home, or is mugging you, from shooting, stabbing, or beating you or your loved ones to death?

[Silver03SRT]

The bad guys will always be carrying guns. They dont care if its legal or not.

[cletus]

Eight cops came, sounds to me like they were NOT wanted there. Plus, they may want to reread the laws.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.


As a US citizen we all have the right to say nothing other than...... "where is my lawyer you can ask him."

[JaMichaels]

I'm all for protecting your home. But to carry your weapon into common public places like Culvers just because you can is unnecessary. That's all I am saying. If you're in a bad part of town and feel like your in danger then I would probably carry also. We just don't need people thinking they can play God in Culvers.

[-stew-]

I'm all for protecting your home. But to carry your weapon into common public places like Culvers just because you can is unnecessary. That's all I am saying. If you're in a bad part of town and feel like your in danger then I would probably carry also. We just don't need people thinking they can play God in Culvers.


Who said this Culvers is in a good part of town? Some of my favorite places to eat are in shit hole neighborhoods.

Under your line of thought no one should be able to drive their cars around without a destination. We just don't need people out there playing God on the roads.


And why is it ok to protect your home, but not ok to protect yourself outside of your home?

[Windsors 03 Cobra]

Why not make it easy and just give the cops your ID ?

[DRK]

Why not make it easy and just give the cops your ID ?

Because one of the men ticketed was just in a winning lawsuit for $10k against Racine co. for the exact same thing.

[Windsors 03 Cobra]

Because one of the men ticketed was just in a winning lawsuit for $10k against Racine co. for the exact same thing.


Right Frank Rock, so he's gonna get another ten grand and maybe the other fellows can get some cash too, sounds really nice.

[deuceWI]

The police definitely over-reacted, and yes they screwed up, but I wouldn't necessarily call them 'nut jobs'.

The worst part is this will likely disappear from the public eye, there will be a lawsuit, lawyers will make a bunch of money, and no one will really learn anything from it.

[STANMAN]

The police definitely over-reacted, and yes they screwed up, but I wouldn't necessarily call them 'nut jobs'.

The worst part is this will likely disappear from the public eye, there will be a lawsuit, lawyers will make a bunch of money, and no one will really learn anything from it.



WRONG, I bet if there's a lawsuit the Madison Police Department will learn something.

[deuceWI]

I sure hope so.

Rather than awarding some guy another 10k and some lawyers a pile of cash, I'd rather see the Madison Police Dept. spend 10k on gun safety and public awareness of citizen's rights.

[JaMichaels]

This is why you can't just give anyone the right to carry a weapon in public. He's abusing his constitutional right for profit, not to defend himself.

That's it, I'm buying body armor and toteing 2 .357 magnums and taking the kids to Chuck E. Cheese.

[PureSound15]

This is why you can't just give anyone the right to carry a weapon in public. He's abusing his constitutional right for profit, not to defend himself.

That's it, I'm buying body armor and toteing 2 .357 magnums and taking the kids to Chuck E. Cheese.

I'm not sure that I agree with "abusing" it as much as he is using it. If it takes another law suit to draw the needed attention to the subject, so be it.

[WI_Dave]

No laws were broken and the police were out of line, stand by for another lawsuit against the police department.

Soon enough we will have our CC permits......


:headbang


I seriously would like to check the records and see how many real crimes were commited while these 8 officers were "protecting the people at culver's" from law abiding citizens that were minding their own business.

[WI_Dave]

Open Carry BCM event FTW

[Silver350]

Well Now there will Probably be a lawsuit now. Way to go MPD your going to lose your ass.

http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231##

[JaMichaels]

Find a loop hole and exploit it..

If you guys think it's a good idea to not allow police to question a group of 5 armed men walking around in public, think of what will be next. Now those "Bad" people you are defending yourself from, that ARE felons or worse, can now peacefully carry a gun without police having the right to question their identification or if they legally can carry. These people exploiting this loophole, is only going to damage the idea of open carry, and eventually the right will have to be taken away.

[pOrk]

Find a loop hole and exploit it..

If you guys think it's a good idea to not allow police to question a group of 5 armed men walking around in public, think of what will be next. Now those "Bad" people you are defending yourself from, that ARE felons or worse, can now peacefully carry a gun without police having the right to question their identification or if they legally can carry. These people exploiting this loophole, is only going to damage the idea of open carry, and eventually the right will have to be taken away.

Yea, felons and criminals usually advertise the fact that they are carrying a firearm before committing crimes. You are totally correct :loser

Thats like the jackass's at kmart / walmart / target / wherever asking to see my receipt as I go out the door. Hey shit-4-brains, no you can't see my god damned reciept. Everything inside this bag is my personal property, you don't need to know that I buy regular sized condoms, love captain crunch ceral, or the fact that I just bought the rest of walmarts supply of 9mm ammo. Got a problem? Call the real police and give them my lisc plate number.

All 5 members are now receiving disorderly conduct tickets, what a crock of shit. I am interested to see this one through. Going to email Scott Walker and get his opinion on this.

[pOrk]

Email Madison PD and share your opinion on the matter :) https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/forms/feedback.cfm

"I am both up-hauled and concerned with the way MPD has controlled this recent event regarding those 5 law-abiding citizens that decided to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms LEGALLY in a public a establishment that did NOT ban such activities. I am a tax paying citizen of Milwaukee County and understand these gentleman are being unfairly treated, and I wanted to share my disgust with your department. Not only are the tickets that were recently given wrong, but you have one hell of a media storm following these charges if they are indeed made as indicated in the News Release. Good luck winning that one, maybe spend more time trying to solve murders then harassing law abiding citizens? This entire story is absurd, looking forward to watching your losing battle unfold."

[LIL EVO]

947.01 Disorderly conduct. Whoever, in a public or private
place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous,
unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances
in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance
is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.


I fail to see how one old woman calling the police constitutes a disturbance OR how their ACTIONS constituted any type of disturbance. They were ordering/eating for christ sake. Unbelievable. I can't believe they were all issued DC after the fact. I'm at a loss of words.

[wrath]

Jesus, is every single official in Wisconsin fscking retarded? I think they should be like CEOs... tie their salary to their performance. If some stupid fsck wants to roll the dice let it come out of their pocket. Stupid decisions made by officials need to have similar repercussions that constituents face when they make a stupid decision.

Disorderly Conduct would be waving a weapon around in a menacing way or being belligerent, not eating some gutrot at your local chain shithole. The cops can go ask them what they want, charging them is farkin' retarded.

Do people who steal cars wear T-shirts that say "I stole your Mom's Civic and cut it up on the southside"? Is a criminal going to walk around with a .45 on their hip?


I think that if we should harass people wandering around with a weapon then we should have police officers sit outside of bars. It's funny how drunk drivers (127 legally intoxicated driving-related deaths in 2008) kill around as many people as there are total murders (147 in 2008). So, even if every single murder involved a firearm... one could say it'd be as effective to ban establishments that involve alcohol and/or ban alcohol.

Seems pretty ridiculous, eh?

Did everyone go to MPS or something?

[pOrk]

Email / Call the MPD and give them a piece

[JaMichaels]

What a brilliant point..

"Yea, felons and criminals usually advertise the fact that they are carrying a firearm before committing crimes. You are totally correct"

Felons and Criminals don't want to draw attention to themselves, so yes, RIGHT NOW, they won't display their weapon for fear of being harassed and questioned. But with morons like the guys in Culvers, now creating all this media attention, the cat will be out of the bag. Now Police will be faced with scrutiny and legal problems every if they have to question someones right to carry openly.

So great, you guys have taught the police a lesson. Good job, now a convicted felon can walk around openly carrying a handgun and the police can't do a damn thing because the gun toting Second Amendment exploiting morons are trying to win another lawsuit.

[Lash]

lol... are you from Madison?

[Silver03SRT]

Didn't Obama say that its against the law for AZ to question people and ask for their ids. Its no different than these guys refusing to show theirs. I'm pretty sure wisconsin wanted to boycott AZ too.

[Rocket Power]

That's it, I'm buying body armor and toteing 2 .357 magnums and taking the kids to Chuck E. Cheese.You probably should. Have you been to one lately? :goof

[70 cutlass 442]

You're right, I'm going to carry a loaded firearm at all times in case on the third Tuesday of February during a rainstorm my car could break down outside of a drug peddlers house, in turn that drug peddler could come out and club my wife for principle because she's bitching at me about my jalopy at 11:01pm.

Yes, there's a difference between carrying a firearm in the ghetto during dangerous times and walking into a Culvers armed.


I wonder what the statistics are for someone being attacked by someone that is armed, in return diffusing the situation by having a gun. Bet they just end up dead faster.

I forgot, Crimes violent crimes against innocent law abiding citizens only happen in the ghetto :rolf get a clue.


This is why you can't just give anyone the right to carry a weapon in public. He's abusing his constitutional right for profit, not to defend himself.

That's it, I'm buying body armor and toteing 2 .357 magnums and taking the kids to Chuck E. Cheese.


1. Chuck E cheese's sells alchoal if i remember correctly, OC laws dont allow you to go there.
2. I agree with the "not giving anybody the right to carry in public" some people are there strictly to get a reaction of people, good for them... but if these people are seriously trying to make their world a "safer" place by OC, then I think they should have worked WITH the cops... give them your ID, be polite, ect... That is what I would have done personally, but the reality of it was two of the dbags did not violate the law.
3. Have you been to a chucke cheese lately? I can guarantee you wont be the only one strapped.


Find a loop hole and exploit it..

If you guys think it's a good idea to not allow police to question a group of 5 armed men walking around in public, think of what will be next. Now those "Bad" people you are defending yourself from, that ARE felons or worse, can now peacefully carry a gun without police having the right to question their identification or if they legally can carry. These people exploiting this loophole, is only going to damage the idea of open carry, and eventually the right will have to be taken away.

I slightly agree with parts of this... but there is no loop whole... its cut in stone and these LEOs acted out of their scope.

[Rocket Power]

This is why I don’t like OC. Instead of being a normal person some people have to be d-bags and refuse to show an id just to" make a point". Which I think harms the cause more than helps.

The last thing gun people need is more d-bags amongst the ranks.

[70 cutlass 442]

/\/\ yep, CC will be here soon enough I think.

[TheRX7Project]

Didn't Obama say that its against the law for AZ to question people and ask for their ids. Its no different than these guys refusing to show theirs. I'm pretty sure wisconsin wanted to boycott AZ too.

Yeah, but those illegal immigrants don't have guns :rolf yeah right.

[Sprayaway Fox]

If I saw a guy with a holstered gun at My local Culvers it would suprise me but I wouldnt get my panies twisted in it.

If he came in with it unholstered and a bandana on then I would. Otherwise leave the guy alone. He aint hurting anybody....Its not a big deal, until YOU make it a big deal.

[fivonut]

I always love the, "It's our constitutional right!" rebuttal. That was written over 200 years ago in a whole different world and era, back before their was a major police force dedicated to protect and serve. We no longer have the dying need to always keep ourselves armed people. If you have to take a gun into Culvers to protect yourself then I don't know what to tell you, enjoy your legal troubles I guess.

You really need to understand constitutional laws before you go spouting crap.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/04wb1.pdf

1998 (not even remotely 200 years old) Wisconsin voters ratified the states constitution to read, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose."

ANY Wisconsin resident has the constitutional RIGHT to openly carry a firearm, anytime, anywhere, and for ANY reason. While businesses currently have the right to request no guns, I would find it difficult to patronize a business who obviously lacks any concern for my safety and well being.

There's a some new info floating around slightly related to this event. A member of the Wisconsin Carry sent an email to a member of Madison city council and this was her response.

"Have a good time staying at home. While legal, it's inappropriate and
aggressive to pack your little pistols in public places. We won't miss
you or the childish displays of constitutional freedoms.

Lauren Cnare
......
District 3 Alder"

I find some of the comments in this thread to be "childish displays of your constitutional freedom" of speach. Cut it out, it's offensive:flipoff2:

[fivonut]

This is why you can't just give anyone the right to carry a weapon in public. He's abusing his constitutional right for profit, not to defend himself.

That's it, I'm buying body armor and toteing 2 .357 magnums and taking the kids to Chuck E. Cheese.

He didn't abuse anything. The abuse is coming from the MPD who think they make their own laws. If it takes a lawsuit to force them to pull their heads out of their asses then so be it.

[JaMichaels]

Identify yourself, prove you are legal to carry, move on with your day. Don't try create yourself another lawsuit for a quick buck.


Had this case turned out in the complete opposite.. ALTHOUGH I KNOW IT DIDN'T, play my what if..

5 armed men walk into Culvers, sit down and are eating.. 8 Madison police walk in to respond to the disturbance and the 5 men open fire killing all 8 police officers.. Now what? Should Police just always respond to armed groups forming in public without suspicion?

I think they were right in requesting identification and when the 2 didn't provide their ID, they should be cited. I don't find it that big of a deal to cooperate with police, and if you have a problem with working and helping police do their job, then you aren't a 100% law abiding citizen. The police aren't the enemy.

I am honestly just discussing my opinion on this topic, not trying to start a war.

[team beater]

open carry bcm event ftw
x2

[pOrk]

Lol at your fire fight story, seriously dude wi and illinois are the only 2 states filled with idiots like you that are afraid of guns. Time to grow up and be a big boy, this isn't the wild west where the only rich guys are bank robbers and you have to shoot anybody that crosses your path.

[TheRX7Project]

Identify yourself, prove you are legal to carry, move on with your day. Don't try create yourself another lawsuit for a quick buck.
While I agree this is probably what I would've done just to avoid the hassle...


I think they were right in requesting identification and when the 2 didn't provide their ID, they should be cited.
they were fully within their rights to NOT provide ID, and cannot be cited for anything because of this. The police have the right to ask, and you have the right to refuse.

Why is it some people have trouble understanding that you don't always have to cooperate with police- sometimes they ARE wrong, sometimes they DO overstep THEIR rights, sometimes you DO have to "fight the power" to put them back in their place.

The government, police, and yourself need to remember that they cannot just do whatever and arrest people for anything. There is nothing wrong with exercising your rights as an American. Anyone who believes there is doesn't deserve to have those rights afforded to them. People like that are ruining America, taking away the few freedoms this country has that few others do.

[JaMichaels]

You're right Pork this isn't the wild west lol. Yet you claim being grown up and being a big boy means carrying a gun because your clearly not afraid of others with guns.

[TheRX7Project]

You're right Pork this isn't the wild west lol. Yet you claim being grown up and being a big boy means carrying a gun because your clearly not afraid of others with guns.

No, it means having guns because the criminals have guns. I own guns because I AM rightfully afraid of others who have guns. If you honestly feel you don't need a gun... DON'T OWN ONE. However I know the police are not able to respond quick enough to protect myself, my loved ones, and my property.

Just because you think Lindsay Lohan is hot doesn't mean I can't think she's a cracked-out whore. Just because you don't feel the need to carry a gun doesn't mean I don't. Keep your retarded opinions to yourself when it comes to LEGAL matters.

There is only 1 thing in this thread that truly matters- A person was wrongfully arrested for exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. No different than if they were arrested for saying Obama is a shitty president.

[outlawgibbs]

The only reason the 2 guys did not show there id when the police came was because they did not like how they were being bullied around and treated like shit by the police. If the officers did there job as they were trained and kept a level head instead of being dicks and proving they are law and you better respect that or else this would have never happened.

[lilws6]

i heard this on the radio cops were called and the person calling didn't know if it was legal so 8 cops show up and talk to everyone 2 people didn't show the id's because they don't have to if there not in the wrong. and were arrested. sounds stupid to me its the law you can carry the gun "Anywhere" except where posted. i dont' see signs on culvers doors saying you can't have a gun on your hip? what iff some deranged maniac come in and started blasting at least some one else there would have a gun :)

[outlawgibbs]

i heard this on the radio cops were called and the person calling didn't know if it was legal so 8 cops show up and talk to everyone 2 people didn't show the id's because they don't have to if there not in the wrong. and were arrested. sounds stupid to me its the law you can carry the gun "Anywhere" except where posted. i dont' see signs on culvers doors saying you can't have a gun on your hip? what iff some deranged maniac come in and started blasting at least some one else there would have a gun :)
And you also must point out that even after all of this Culvers has acknowledged they will still continue to allow OC in there restaurants

[TheRX7Project]

Rock on, Cluvers!!^^

[pOrk]

Starbucks made a public announcement not to long ago inviting anyone to open carry in any of their establishments. Pretty knarly, this will be an interesting story to watch

[JaMichaels]

Has anyone in here, honestly ever openly carried and had to use their firearm?

[Silver03SRT]

Has anyone in here, honestly ever openly carried and had to use their firearm?

Thats besides the point. Someone said it before but incase your decided not to read it. How often do you use your car, home owners, renters, boat insurance? Probably not often if at all but you still have it.

[TheRX7Project]

"I'd rather carry the heat and not need it than need one and not have it." -Dr. Dre

[fivonut]

Starbucks made a public announcement not to long ago inviting anyone to open carry in any of their establishments. Pretty knarly, this will be an interesting story to watch

This Sunday, open carry meet and greet at Starbucks in West Bend!!

[emptypockets]

Ive been watching this case pretty closely, MPD is going to get burned at the stake by the court system when those gentlemen file a lawsuit. The attorney general already stated that open carrying is totally within your legal right in this state, the police have no grounds to issue those citations or detain/arrest anyone. There issuing of the disorderly conduct citations and arrests is ludicrous.

[JaMichaels]

I am beginning to see beyond the whole openly carrying in Culvers thing.. Ok, so point made.. Duh it's legal, and the police probably rode in on their high horses acting like idiots and didn't like the fact that the 2 men were deciding to exercise their rights.

Were just lucky that 97% of legal WI residents don't openly carry. It would cause more problems and danger then what it would save..

Can someone find me a case in WI, where someone that was openly carrying, (in public, not a home case) where it saved the day? I just want to read about what all happened.

[70 cutlass 442]

ever think about crime it could prevent?

[Silver03SRT]

I am beginning to see beyond the whole openly carrying in Culvers thing.. Ok, so point made.. Duh it's legal, and the police probably rode in on their high horses acting like idiots and didn't like the fact that the 2 men were deciding to exercise their rights.

Were just lucky that 97% of legal WI residents don't openly carry. It would cause more problems and danger then what it would save..

Can someone find me a case in WI, where someone that was openly carrying, (in public, not a home case) where it saved the day? I just want to read about what all happened.

What does that mean? You admit your wrong yet still want to be proved wrong. Take the flip side seeing you like to play the "what ifs" what if all the people that were robbed, raped ect had open carried. How many wouldve been prevented? After all you know only 3% open carry and they don't get messed with. "What if" 100% open carried does that mean all those crimes wouldve been prevented?

[michelle]

Now a group of 25 OC guys went to the same Culver's tonight. (:

[Silver03SRT]

Now a group of 25 OC guys went to the same Culver's tonight. (:

Did 40 cops show up with SWAT this time?

[LIL EVO]

Now a group of 25 OC guys went to the same Culver's tonight. (:


Wow. Can't wait to hear what happened.

[1320PNY]

I'm Pro-Choice for Democrats.

[HP ADDICT]

I am not for or against open carrying but believe CC is the way to go for reasons like this. I also feel that if you are open carrying and a police officer requests your ID you should give it to him in order to establish you are eligable to legally carry the firearm as you are not a felon. Why aggrivate a situation?
I can see both sides of the story here. If a police officer spots a child drive by in a car but is not breaking any laws can he pull them over to verify they possess a drivers liscense? Can the child refuse legally? What if a 16 year old has a handgun openly displayed? A police officer can ID you if they suspect your below the legal drinking age but not a handgun? Point being there are plenty of reasons to ask for an ID that are legal even if your not breaking a law. Hell if you buy cigs at a gas station they ID you if you appear under what 40? Why applaud this asshat for not showing his ID? Open carry a firearm sure...but why be a dick about verifying your not a felon or that your are 21?
If you are for open carry then carry but why bring attention to it. If your doing it legally just show you are and be done with it. Its legal so why give the liberals a reason to try and change that?

[michelle]

Wow. Can't wait to hear what happened.

No issues, from what I hear. Half the group walked around State Street (bought hot chocolate) and no issues there either.

[fivonut]

I am not for or against open carrying but believe CC is the way to go for reasons like this. I also feel that if you are open carrying and a police officer requests your ID you should give it to him in order to establish you are eligable to legally carry the firearm as you are not a felon. Why aggrivate a situation?
I can see both sides of the story here. If a police officer spots a child drive by in a car but is not breaking any laws can he pull them over to verify they possess a drivers liscense? Can the child refuse legally? What if a 16 year old has a handgun openly displayed? A police officer can ID you if they suspect your below the legal drinking age but not a handgun? Point being there are plenty of reasons to ask for an ID that are legal even if your not breaking a law. Hell if you buy cigs at a gas station they ID you if you appear under what 40? Why applaud this asshat for not showing his ID? Open carry a firearm sure...but why be a dick about verifying your not a felon or that your are 21?
If you are for open carry then carry but why bring attention to it. If your doing it legally just show you are and be done with it. Its legal so why give the liberals a reason to try and change that?

Because I'm innocent until proven guilty. I don't need to prove I can legally carry. If the officer honestly believes I have or am about to commit a crime then they are justified in demanding an ID but they should also inform me of what crime they believe I am guilty of. Carrying a weapon in itself is not a crime.

In every one of your examples the officer has legitimate reason to belive you're commiting a crime. A person who appears to be under the age of 16 and is driving is commiting a crime, an officer is justified. If a person who appears to be under the age of 21 and is in posession of a handgun then the officer has ligitimate reason to request proof of age. Same thing for suspicion of being to young to drink.

If you fit the description of a known felon then the officer is justified in requesting an ID. But, the officer would have to inform you that he believes you are a felon.

The 2 guys were justified in what they did and I hope every OCer follows their example. Police are responsible for upholding the law, not twisting it to suit their demented superiority complex. There's no danger from the liberals here. The law and states constitution are on our side. These officers are playing right into the trap. If they keep this up, we'll have CC in no time!!

[Rocket Power]

If they keep this up, we'll have CC in no time!!

How so? People who are freaked out by OC don't think people should be carrying at all, they certainly aren't going to support CC.

[Silver350]

How so? People who are freaked out by OC don't think people should be carrying at all, they certainly aren't going to support CC.

People want C.C. Jim Dolye does not. I thought I read somewhere that 70% were in favor of it. I would have to think that number has increased since then.

[HP ADDICT]

So now open carrying is not about protection it's about setting a trap and the whole look at us effect? It's legal! I hope the police officers swear up and down that they felt he appeared under 21. Just my opinion but if it's legal and you know it could cause a little discomfort to others why not just show a ID.

[HP ADDICT]

People want C.C. Jim Dolye does not. I thought I read somewhere that 70% were in favor of it. I would have to think that number has increased since then.

I want CC mainly to eliminate this whole look at me shit!

[Rocket Power]

People want C.C. Jim Dolye does not. I thought I read somewhere that 70% were in favor of it. I would have to think that number has increased since then.

That may be, but I don't see those that oppose people carrying guns suddenly supporting CCW.

I am all for CCW, I just don't see OC being any kind of path to get there. To those who aren't gun people, they just see a bunch of gun nuts making a scene.

[Silver350]

I want CC mainly to eliminate this whole look at me shit!

I completely agree with you. I want it for the same reason plus I want to carry a firearm when I take my dog on a walk when it is dark out. Or if I go somewhere where I would feel safer to have one on me then not to have one at all. It doesnt meant I would carry all the time. Reason why I dont open carry is because I dont want to deal with a neighbor or another person calling the police on me for doing so.



That may be, but I don't see those that oppose people carrying guns suddenly supporting CCW.

I am all for CCW, I just don't see OC being any kind of path to get there. To those who aren't gun people, they just see a bunch of gun nuts making a scene.

Some of the open carriers want CCW But they do not want to lose their rights to open carry either or have restrictions on Open carrying like having to take a course or have a permit to open carry even though I would have to think people who do carry have some sort of firearms training.

as for your second statement I completly agree with you there.

[JaMichaels]

Because I'm innocent until proven guilty. I don't need to prove I can legally carry. If the officer honestly believes I have or am about to commit a crime then they are justified in demanding an ID but they should also inform me of what crime they believe I am guilty of. Carrying a weapon in itself is not a crime.

In every one of your examples the officer has legitimate reason to belive you're commiting a crime. A person who appears to be under the age of 16 and is driving is commiting a crime, an officer is justified. If a person who appears to be under the age of 21 and is in posession of a handgun then the officer has ligitimate reason to request proof of age. Same thing for suspicion of being to young to drink.

If you fit the description of a known felon then the officer is justified in requesting an ID. But, the officer would have to inform you that he believes you are a felon.

The 2 guys were justified in what they did and I hope every OCer follows their example. Police are responsible for upholding the law, not twisting it to suit their demented superiority complex. There's no danger from the liberals here. The law and states constitution are on our side. These officers are playing right into the trap. If they keep this up, we'll have CC in no time!!


So if some kid is 17 but looks 15 and is driving, a police officer should be able to pull to identify they are legal? Because he appears to be committing a crime?


But 5 armed men shouldn't have to identify themselves in a fast food restaurant.. I get it now.

[DRK]

So if some kid is 17 but looks 15 and is driving, a police officer should be able to pull to identify they are legal? Because he appears to be committing a crime?


But 5 armed men shouldn't have to identify themselves in a fast food restaurant.. I get it now.




you have no understanding of the law, popular opinion, or common sense. you should move to madison, with your kind of logic you would be a good fit

[Silver03SRT]

So if some kid is 17 but looks 15 and is driving, a police officer should be able to pull to identify they are legal? Because he appears to be committing a crime?


But 5 armed men shouldn't have to identify themselves in a fast food restaurant.. I get it now.

You sure like to play the "what if" game dont you? Why not step into reality and accept the law for what it is. I dont think "what if" in life, that will get you no where. Open up your eyes and look at the facts not what you want to make up in your head. What the 5 men did was completly legal. If the police thought they were commiting a crime they would have been told what crime they commited.

[fivonut]

So if some kid is 17 but looks 15 and is driving, a police officer should be able to pull to identify they are legal? Because he appears to be committing a crime?


But 5 armed men shouldn't have to identify themselves in a fast food restaurant.. I get it now.

Yup!!!

If an officer has legitimate reason to believe a 17 year old kid is too young to drive then he is within reason to say a crime is or may be comitted and can reasonably request that proof of age be shown.

If 5 men are exercising LEGAL right to carry a side arm in the open, in a public resturant, which has made it known that their policy is to allow it where it's legal, then there is no crime being committed and there is no reasonable expectation that one will be committed. Therefore, an officer has no right to expect an ID be shown.

I met one of the two men who refused to show ID today. It turns out they were going to be cited for obstruction, but when the officers found out they had no grounds and were risking facing the same lawsuit Racine lost, they dropped the obstruction charges and issued disorderly conduct charges, which they will also lose.

I stood outside Starbucks today with 15-20 other armed individuals and amazingly no one died and no blood was spilled. There are unconfirmed reports that a baby died in Africa though...

[fivonut]

How so? People who are freaked out by OC don't think people should be carrying at all, they certainly aren't going to support CC.

It's not about whether they are willing to support it or not. The states constitution is clear. Wisconsin citizens have the right to bare arms for security and defense. This means anywhere, not just at home.

No matter what they say they will never have legal grounds to take away the right to carry a firearm in this state until the states constitution is changed, and that's no easy task.

OC will lead to CC as private citizens begin to raise a stink over it. Sooner or later legislators are going to have to respond to the outcry and their ONLY legal option will be to repeal the current concealed carry law or adopt a new law with permit provisions.

The options are one or the other, there is no option for neither.

[JaMichaels]

Yup!!!

If an officer has legitimate reason to believe a 17 year old kid is too young to drive then he is within reason to say a crime is or may be comitted and can reasonably request that proof of age be shown.

If 5 men are exercising LEGAL right to carry a side arm in the open, in a public resturant, which has made it known that their policy is to allow it where it's legal, then there is no crime being committed and there is no reasonable expectation that one will be committed. Therefore, an officer has no right to expect an ID be shown.

I met one of the two men who refused to show ID today. It turns out they were going to be cited for obstruction, but when the officers found out they had no grounds and were risking facing the same lawsuit Racine lost, they dropped the obstruction charges and issued disorderly conduct charges, which they will also lose.

I stood outside Starbucks today with 15-20 other armed individuals and amazingly no one died and no blood was spilled. There are unconfirmed reports that a baby died in Africa though...


Are you serious dude? Do you even know what you are saying..

If a 17 year old kid is exercising his legal right to drive, on a public roadway, which is known for being legal, then there is no crime being committed and there is no reasonable expectation that one is being
committed. Therefore an officer has no to pull them over and expect ID.

BUT...

If an officer has a legitimate reason to believe 5 armed men are possible felons and do not have the right to carry firearms, he is within reason to say a crime is or may be committed and can reasonably request proof of ID to show he is legally possessing a sidearm.

There I just switched those around for you.

You can't say it should be legal for a cop to pull over a 17 year old just because he looks 15, if you are going to say you can't ask a man toting a hand gun in Culver's for his ID to prove he's not a felon. :chair:

[LIL EVO]

You can't be pulled over simply to check if you have a dl/reg. (sounds familiar) There has to be a valid violation. If you are driving in circles at 2am and youre from a different city then you can be pulled over to find out what is going on, then dl/insurance check. The officer would need to substantiate the stop.

[Rocket Power]

Are you serious dude? Do you even know what you are saying..

If a 17 year old kid is exercising his legal right to drive,

Do you? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Wasn't that like day one in driver's ed?

[JaMichaels]

Oh for God sakes.. It's the same thing man. But I guess you had to pick out something you thought was wrong with my statement.

If you are 17, and possess a valid drivers license, IT IS YOUR LEGAL RIGHT TO DRIVE.

[MurphysLaw88GT]

Oh for God sakes.. It's the same thing man. But I guess you had to pick out something you thought was wrong with my statement.

If you are 17, and possess a valid drivers license, IT IS YOUR LEGAL RIGHT TO DRIVE.

It is not the same thing by any means.

[JaMichaels]

Then stop just saying I am wrong and write something more than a sentence with some kind of debate..


If it's everyone's legal right to be able to bare arms, can a 4 year old walk around with a 9mm? No, it's just a legality. If you are legally able to own and carry a firearm, you have the right to bare it. No difference then if you are legally able to own a car and posses a drivers license, you have the right to drive it whenever you want.

[lordairgtar]

Then stop just saying I am wrong and write something more than a sentence with some kind of debate..


If it's everyone's legal right to be able to bare arms, can a 4 year old walk around with a 9mm? No, it's just a legality. If you are legally able to own and carry a firearm, you have the right to bare it. No difference then if you are legally able to own a car and posses a drivers license, you have the right to drive it whenever you want.
Anyone can own a car, licensed or not. And being able to drive is not a right...it is a privilege granted by the state.

[Rocket Power]

Then stop just saying I am wrong Then stop being wrong:goof

[HP ADDICT]

I just think the next time 5,15, or 20 armed men go to get a nice Sunday burger together, they should at least take the extra effort to wear matching shirts that say LOOK AT ME in colorful letters to complete the package.

[SSScottSS]

Yup!!!



I met one of the two men who refused to show ID today. It turns out they were going to be cited for obstruction, but when the officers found out they had no grounds and were risking facing the same lawsuit Racine lost, they dropped the obstruction charges and issued disorderly conduct charges, which they will also lose.



I'm not so sure he is going to beat the disorderly conduct charge....

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11406

Looks like conflicting judgments are likely headed to the US Supreme Court for clarification. I guess it will depend largely on "Who's" supreme court looks at the cases.

[Rocket Power]

I just think the next time 5,15, or 20 armed men go to get a nice Sunday burger together, they should at least take the extra effort to wear matching shirts that say LOOK AT ME in colorful letters to complete the package.

:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf:rolf

[JaMichaels]

El oh el. So one of the guys name was Jesus and is in a current court case where he alleged shot and killed one guy and wounded the other. Both guys were unarmed and one didn't need to die. But that's what happens when you let gun happy idiots carry whenever and wherever.

[WI_Dave]

I'm not so sure he is going to beat the disorderly conduct charge....

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11406

Looks like conflicting judgments are likely headed to the US Supreme Court for clarification. I guess it will depend largely on "Who's" supreme court looks at the cases.


On September 9th, 2009 Wisconsin Carry member Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was unlawfully arrested while open-carrying on the front porch of his home in Racine.
See www.journaltimes.com (http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_566b44ac-fcc0-11de-8d26-001cc4c002e0.html) .
On January 8th Wisconsin Carry filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin, City of Racine, 2 Racine Police officers, The City of Milwaukee and one Milwaukee Police Officer. In this lawsuit we challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. In this lawsuit we also brought on 2 Wisconsin Carry Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of these co-plaintiffs.
A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf
Frank was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call, observed and questioned Frank because he was open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. “Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)”
Details of Frank’s encounter can be viewed by going to our website www.wisconsincarry.org and clicking on the October 16th blog entry.
Frank was unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally siezed. He was later released without being charged.
Wisconsin Carry filed suit on Frank’s behalf for his unlawful detainment, arrest, and seizure of his firearm.
On behalf of myself, the board of Wisconsin Carry Inc. and all of our members, we are pleased to announce that The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.

[WI_Dave]

Not 1 person in 8 pages that is against OC has stated 1 FACT as to why these guys were wrong. It is your right to have an opposing opinion but your arguments sound exactly like this "A guy was killed by by a car with 400hp that lost control by being irresponsible so no one should be allowed to drive a car on the street with 400hp or more even tho its legal. You can keep it in your garage or take to the track but thats it."


As I posted above the last time a member of this group was harrassed and wrongfully ticketed it cost the dept $10,000. Now they wrongfully ticketed 5 members so this could potentially be a $50,000 mistake by the police that will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers in Madison. If you truely believe what the Madison police did was right maybe you should start a collection to help pay these potential judgements.

[JaMichaels]

"No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance," Adelman wrote in her decision. "This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both."


It's common sense, there's no NEED for you to carry your firearm into a Culvers Menards Wal-Mart anywhere inside of a store or restaurant . Leave it in the car morons, you'll be ok. The people that honestly are doing it just crave attention so bad and want that reaction from people. That is why it is treated as disorderly conduct. People are shocked and are uncomfortable with complete strangers openly walking into public places and that's what the open carriers want. So good, they deserved the tickets.


The arrest WAS lawful, the Officers found them being disorderly and decided to give them citations thus the Officers needing identification. Now you refuse to identify yourself, you are obstructing, take them into custody to find out who these guys are..
Surprise, on is facing felony charges of MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER. There is no self-defense case here, these guys weren't armed. Just because some guy punches you in the face doesn't mean you can shoot and kill him and paralyze his friend. THAT'S MURDER. Unless your life is in danger and you kill someone, and trust me they want you almost dead before you're allowed to use deadly force, you don't have any justifiable cause to kill that person.

Took 7 bullets for this open carrying moron to diffuse a pretty common situation. I can't tell you how many times I've left bars in Milwaukee and have had guys start shit with me, and never once needed to kill anyone. But I guess since its my right to open carry, I can play God whenever things get a lil' too scary for me.

[HP ADDICT]

Not 1 person in 8 pages that is against OC has stated 1 FACT as to why these guys were wrong. It is your right to have an opposing opinion but your arguments sound exactly like this "A guy was killed by by a car with 400hp that lost control by being irresponsible so no one should be allowed to drive a car on the street with 400hp or more even tho its legal. You can keep it in your garage or take to the track but thats it."


As I posted above the last time a member of this group was harrassed and wrongfully ticketed it cost the dept $10,000. Now they wrongfully ticketed 5 members so this could potentially be a $50,000 mistake by the police that will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers in Madison. If you truely believe what the Madison police did was right maybe you should start a collection to help pay these potential judgements.

I haven't heard 1 person say they should not be allowed to OC. Just that it was unnecessary given the situation. Sunday at culvers with 5 guys is a look at me statement asking for attention which they got. This made some people uneasy so to further aggravate the situation refuse to give ID.

[LIL EVO]

"No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance," Adelman wrote in her decision. "This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both."


It's common sense, there's no NEED for you to carry your firearm into a Culvers Menards Wal-Mart anywhere inside of a store or restaurant . Leave it in the car morons, you'll be ok. The people that honestly are doing it just crave attention so bad and want that reaction from people. That is why it is treated as disorderly conduct. People are shocked and are uncomfortable with complete strangers openly walking into public places and that's what the open carriers want. So good, they deserved the tickets.


The arrest WAS lawful, the Officers found them being disorderly and decided to give them citations thus the Officers needing identification. Now you refuse to identify yourself, you are obstructing, take them into custody to find out who these guys are..
Surprise, on is facing felony charges of MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER. There is no self-defense case here, these guys weren't armed. Just because some guy punches you in the face doesn't mean you can shoot and kill him and paralyze his friend. THAT'S MURDER. Unless your life is in danger and you kill someone, and trust me they want you almost dead before you're allowed to use deadly force, you don't have any justifiable cause to kill that person.

Took 7 bullets for this open carrying moron to diffuse a pretty common situation. I can't tell you how many times I've left bars in Milwaukee and have had guys start shit with me, and never once needed to kill anyone. But I guess since its my right to open carry, I can play God whenever things get a lil' too scary for me.


Let's make this a little easier to comprehend and substitute the 2nd amendment with the 1st amendment, since for all practical purposes, an openly carried weapon is the same as freedom of speech / protest, etc.


No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly DISPLAYING A SIGN OF AN ANTI GOVT SLUR is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance," Adelman wrote in her decision. "This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a A SIGN OF AN ANTI GOVT SLUR, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the SIGN OF AN ANTI GOVT SLUR is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both."


It's common sense, there's no NEED for you to carry your SIGN OF AN ANTI GOVT SLUR into a Culvers Menards Wal-Mart anywhere inside of a store or restaurant . Leave it in the car morons, you'll be ok. The people that honestly are doing it just crave attention so bad and want that reaction from people. That is why it is treated as disorderly conduct. People are shocked and are uncomfortable with complete strangers openly walking into public places and that's what the open sign carriers want. So good, they deserved the tickets.

[JaMichaels]

..Terrible example.. We are talking the difference between a loaded gun and an anti-gov't sign.. Don't think people are going to fear for their lives because of a sign.

[LIL EVO]

Legally speaking, there is no difference. They are both equally legal.

[JaMichaels]

Well actually you can't go around toting a sign with an anti-gov't slur.. Unless it is factual and true, and that will be proved if you are arrested and end up in court. That rarely ever happens though because people aren't as disturbed or worried about it. A guy with a sign protesting is a lot less intimidating then a guy with a gun.

We aren't arguing the fact that it's legal to openly carry a gun, I'm saying you'd have to be a moron to carry it into a fast food restaurant or anywhere in a public building for that matter. You're going to cause a disturbance.

Anyone want to discuss the fact that this guy killed a man and paralyzed another and then is denying identification to police while he's openly carrying a hand gun in a Culvers?

[That_Guy]

"No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance," Adelman wrote in her decision. "This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both."


It's common sense, there's no NEED for you to carry your firearm into a Culvers Menards Wal-Mart anywhere inside of a store or restaurant . Leave it in the car morons, you'll be ok. The people that honestly are doing it just crave attention so bad and want that reaction from people. That is why it is treated as disorderly conduct. People are shocked and are uncomfortable with complete strangers openly walking into public places and that's what the open carriers want. So good, they deserved the tickets.


The arrest WAS lawful, the Officers found them being disorderly and decided to give them citations thus the Officers needing identification. Now you refuse to identify yourself, you are obstructing, take them into custody to find out who these guys are..
Surprise, on is facing felony charges of MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER. There is no self-defense case here, these guys weren't armed. Just because some guy punches you in the face doesn't mean you can shoot and kill him and paralyze his friend. THAT'S MURDER. Unless your life is in danger and you kill someone, and trust me they want you almost dead before you're allowed to use deadly force, you don't have any justifiable cause to kill that person.

Took 7 bullets for this open carrying moron to diffuse a pretty common situation. I can't tell you how many times I've left bars in Milwaukee and have had guys start shit with me, and never once needed to kill anyone. But I guess since its my right to open carry, I can play God whenever things get a lil' too scary for me.
Imo it was the culling of the ignorant. He felt his life was in danger and acted as such. The judgement wasn't issued nor is he a fellon. These men in the culvers where within there legal right to carry a loaded firearm out to lunch. End of story. Whether you feel uncomfortable with the concept or not means dick because it is a constitutional right. The peace officers had no right harrasing these men. They showed no intent to harm and its very clear. They where simple enjoying lunch. They should citizens arrest the cops for disturbing the peace and harrasment. Regardless the department responsible for this debockle is most likely going to pay up the ass for this.

[Yooformula]

The arrest WAS lawful, the Officers found them being disorderly and decided to give them citations thus the Officers needing identification. Now you refuse to identify yourself, you are obstructing, take them into custody to find out who these guys are..

the call was made to confirm whether or not it was legal. the cops didnt observe an disorderly conduct. they considered not showing their id to be disorderly not the carrying of the gun....but the federal gubment just ruled that asking for id's was illegal in Arizona and a few other states that were being threatened with lawsuits.

so you dont need to show a license or id for your civic duty to vote but you are required to show proof of identification simply because your were exercising your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bear a firearm?

you posted that they should have left their guns in the car before going in right? then you commented on why would these guys have guns on them while in a restaurant in the first place... as if they all woke up and decided to get dressed just to scare people with their guns. Most likely these guys might have been at the firing range or at a trade show and decided to stop off for lunch, seems plausible to me why they would be carrying their guns. I would rather them carry the guns then leave them in a car that could be stolen or broken into.

[pOrk]

The guy facing murder charges wasn't at culvers that is an un-related case. You are all over the board on this argument dude, make up your mind. You remind me of the one obama leg_humper at my work who can't ever uphold his end of the argument with facts.

[WI_Dave]

the call was made to confirm whether or not it was legal. the cops didnt observe an disorderly conduct. they considered not showing their id to be disorderly not the carrying of the gun....but the federal gubment just ruled that asking for id's was illegal in Arizona and a few other states that were being threatened with lawsuits.

so you dont need to show a license or id for your civic duty to vote but you are required to show proof of identification simply because your were exercising your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bear a firearm?

you posted that they should have left their guns in the car before going in right? then you commented on why would these guys have guns on them while in a restaurant in the first place... as if they all woke up and decided to get dressed just to scare people with their guns. Most likely these guys might have been at the firing range or at a trade show and decided to stop off for lunch, seems plausible to me why they would be carrying their guns. I would rather them carry the guns then leave them in a car that could be stolen or broken into.



This is not true the obstruction charges were for not showing ID those were dropped and all 5 men were charged with disorderly for carrying.

[WI_Dave]

.

We aren't arguing the fact that it's legal to openly carry a gun, I'm saying you'd have to be a moron to carry it into a fast food restaurant or anywhere in a public building for that matter. You're going to cause a disturbance.



If the owners of the stores say go ahead carry in our facilities why do you think you can say no you can't? EVERY business owner in the state has the right to ask you not to OC and you HAVE to honor those requests.

If you find it uncomfortable go to a different store or try to convince the owner to request it not be done there. Meanwhile you are anti-OC's are still argueing OPINION not fact.

[WI_Dave]

If the owners of the stores say go ahead carry in our facilities why do you think you can say no you can't? EVERY business owner in the state has the right to ask you not to OC and you HAVE to honor those requests.

If you find it uncomfortable go to a different store or try to convince the owner to request it not be done there. Meanwhile you are anti-OC's are still argueing OPINION not fact.


Correction -WE HAVE TO HONOR THOSE REQUESTS


Since its your opinion we are morons for carrying in a store/restaurant it is my opinion you are a moron for thinking that your opinion over rules our LAWS.

[Yooformula]

This is not true the obstruction charges were for not showing ID those were dropped and all 5 men were charged with disorderly for carrying.

got it!

[TheRX7Project]

Whether you feel uncomfortable with the concept or not means dick because it is a constitutional right.

THIS- JaMicheals- YOU need to get it through your skull that a constitutional right is a constitutional right not "Well, in this situation I feel..."

The same reason that guy can build his Mosque in NYC, the same reason people can burn Korans, the same reason you can speak about how you don't like Obama... constitutional rights. Uphold them all!

[SSScottSS]

On September 9th, 2009 Wisconsin Carry member Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was unlawfully arrested while open-carrying on the front porch of his home in Racine.
See www.journaltimes.com (http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_566b44ac-fcc0-11de-8d26-001cc4c002e0.html) .
On January 8th Wisconsin Carry filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin, City of Racine, 2 Racine Police officers, The City of Milwaukee and one Milwaukee Police Officer. In this lawsuit we challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. In this lawsuit we also brought on 2 Wisconsin Carry Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of these co-plaintiffs.
A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf
Frank was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call, observed and questioned Frank because he was open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. “Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)”
Details of Frank’s encounter can be viewed by going to our website www.wisconsincarry.org and clicking on the October 16th blog entry.
Frank was unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally siezed. He was later released without being charged.
Wisconsin Carry filed suit on Frank’s behalf for his unlawful detainment, arrest, and seizure of his firearm.
On behalf of myself, the board of Wisconsin Carry Inc. and all of our members, we are pleased to announce that The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.

That decision has absolutely no bearing on a potential decision through the supreme court.

[WI_Dave]

That decision has absolutely no bearing on a potential decision through the supreme court.


Agreed but he won his judgement for 10k.


As of today the same WI carry organization has filed a lawsuit against Madison. I would post the link to it but I dont want to violate any site rules on links.

[PureSound15]

Agreed but he won his judgement for 10k.


As of today the same WI carry organization has filed a lawsuit against Madison. I would post the link to it but I dont want to violate any site rules on links.

You can link - post it up.

[JaMichaels]

Pork, I see you are right, and although the exact guy doesn't pertain to the Madison case, he has had 2 cases of his own. One of which he walked into a Wal-Mart armed and went to purchase ammunition.. Scary shit. But that's the kind of reaction the guy is looking for, and he's let his "right" get to his head.. And then proceeded to take away someones right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Deciding to open carry, or carry a firearm at all is a major decision that needs to be handled very carefully, and just letting anyone out there take on that responsibility is very dangerous.





This whole constitutional right thing is out of hand.. It's all in the way you interpret it.

This is the best thing I've found to explain my opinion..

"Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions. The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."


I understand the concept of needing to protect yourself, but our country is in rough shape if you have to do it inside of a Culvers.

[Rocket Power]

I understand the concept of needing to protect yourself, but our country is in rough shape if you have to do it inside of a Culvers.
Because nothing bad every happens at a fast food restaurant.:rolleyes: San Ysidro McDonalds massacre 21 killed 19 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre)

[JaMichaels]

26 years ago, 2000+ miles away.. Yea, that'll make me arm myself in McDonalds.. Got anything more relevant?

Or you could show me a case that's somewhat relevant that someone carrying a firearm diffused a potentially deadly situation.

[STANMAN]

Pork, I see you are right, and although the exact guy doesn't pertain to the Madison case, he has had 2 cases of his own. One of which he walked into a Wal-Mart armed and went to purchase ammunition.. Scary shit. But that's the kind of reaction the guy is looking for, and he's let his "right" get to his head.. And then proceeded to take away someones right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Deciding to open carry, or carry a firearm at all is a major decision that needs to be handled very carefully, and just letting anyone out there take on that responsibility is very dangerous.





This whole constitutional right thing is out of hand.. It's all in the way you interpret it.

This is the best thing I've found to explain my opinion..

"Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions. The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."


I understand the concept of needing to protect yourself, but our country is in rough shape if you have to do it inside of a Culvers.



:rolf you sir should take up residence in China, then you wouldn't have to worry about all those out of hand constitutional rights.

I state it again, people like you shouldn't be allowed to talk, but we also have that "out of hand" 1st Amendment. The way I read it, it states that people who don't have the sense that God gave a doorknob shouldn't be allowed to speak. I guess it's all in how you interpret it:rolleyes:

[That_Guy]

Somebody should limit his post on this board to show him his theories in action. Because the one thing that grants you the ability to live the way you live is "a little out of hand".

[Mudd Runner]

26 years ago, 2000+ miles away.. Yea, that'll make me arm myself in McDonalds.. Got anything more relevant?

Or you could show me a case that's somewhat relevant that someone carrying a firearm diffused a potentially deadly situation.

:flipoff2: This good enough for you.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?67453-CC-It-worked-even-on-Day-One

http://kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=124857

http://www.oregonlive.com/clark-county/index.ssf/2010/09/would-be_robber_thwarted_by_woman_with_gun_at_vancouver_ restuarant.html

http://www.ketv.com/news/23275007/detail.html

[PureSound15]

Or you could show me a case that's somewhat relevant that someone carrying a firearm diffused a potentially deadly situation.



Sure. I have a very close personal story.

My brother and a friend of his stopped to help a stranded driver on the side of the road in Texas (a CC state). My brother moved to the back of the truck and let the man sit in the front. As soon as they started moving the man took out a knife and said if they didn't give their wallets to him and stop the car, that he would stab the driver in the throat.

My brothers .45 in the back of his head quickly dissolved the situation. I will never forget the phone call, or how proud I was that CC is legal in Texas.

[WI_Dave]

26 years ago, 2000+ miles away.. Yea, that'll make me arm myself in McDonalds.. Got anything more relevant?

Or you could show me a case that's somewhat relevant that someone carrying a firearm diffused a potentially deadly situation.


More current and revelant? How about the shooting/murder at Popeyes on 64th Sivler Spring. I work close to there and one of my employees was there right before the murder.

[JaMichaels]

Holy shat. Yea, that's how I'd picture a good time to carry.

[WI_Dave]

Here is a robbery stopped by conceal carry citizen.

Note this is the FIRST story to come up on a google search there are more.



http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-cleveland/attempted-robbery-thwarted-by-armed-citizen

[WI_Dave]

The last line in that article

This is yet the latest example of the estimated 1-2 million defensive uses of a handgun each year that end without violence, many of them unreported to police or the media. Two other robberies were recently stopped, both in Toledo, when the intended victims shot their attackers.

[WI_Dave]

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/07/14/violent-robber-stopped-by-armed-citizen/


http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/officers_peril.htm

http://gunsafe.org/The%20Armed%20Citizen/Kentucky%20robbery%20stopped.htm


I can do this all day

[WI_Dave]

This one is good cause he gave his wallet and they were going to beat him with a pipe anyway THEN drew his weapon


http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/05/17/robber-shot-in-foot-by-armed-citizen/

[WI_Dave]

You can link - post it up.



Here is the lawsuit filed against Madison

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Madison/MadisonComplaint.pdf

[Yooformula]

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/07/14/violent-robber-stopped-by-armed-citizen/


http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/officers_peril.htm

http://gunsafe.org/The%20Armed%20Citizen/Kentucky%20robbery%20stopped.htm


I can do this all day

NICE! +rep for you!:goof

[Silver03SRT]

Here is a link to the 911 call. Caller just didnt know it was legal to do so and thats why she called. She stated she didnt feel threatened and no one else there felt threatened.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/madison-five-911-call-video

[GTSLOW]

NICE! +rep for you!:goof

Bring reputation back!!!

[GTSLOW]

Dispatcher sounds like a fucking idiot. "Being armed in Madison is not a usual thing." "Them being calm is our concern."

Unreal. This video will make great evidence for a law suit against madison pd.

[fivonut]

The least you could do is is use my exact scenario. How convenient that you left out the part about the kid APPEARING TO BE 15!!!

If the kid appears to be too young to drive then I would agree that the officer has every legal right to believe a crime is being committed and every right to pull him ov er and request ID. Now, this is just a what if (because you're so fond of them) there could be caselaw saying that in this exact instance the officer has NO right to request ID even if the kid appears to be too young to drive. What I was attempting to illustrate was a scenario where there is visible evidence that a crime is being committed or may be about to be committed.

Openly carrying a gun in 100% legal in Wisconsin. Every DA and Police chief has been notified of this by the state's attorney general Van Hollen. They KNOW it's legal. Van Hollen even clarified that carrying a firearm alone IS NOT disorderly conduct. Madison's Chief has decided to take the matter into his own hands and discourage it by issuing wrongful disorderly tickets.

Being armed does not a felon make. A real felon would conceal his weapon...



Are you serious dude? Do you even know what you are saying..

If a 17 year old kid is exercising his legal right to drive, on a public roadway, which is known for being legal, then there is no crime being committed and there is no reasonable expectation that one is being
committed. Therefore an officer has no to pull them over and expect ID.

BUT...

If an officer has a legitimate reason to believe 5 armed men are possible felons and do not have the right to carry firearms, he is within reason to say a crime is or may be committed and can reasonably request proof of ID to show he is legally possessing a sidearm.

There I just switched those around for you.

You can't say it should be legal for a cop to pull over a 17 year old just because he looks 15, if you are going to say you can't ask a man toting a hand gun in Culver's for his ID to prove he's not a felon. :chair:

[fivonut]

"No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance," Adelman wrote in her decision. "This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both."


It's common sense, there's no NEED for you to carry your firearm into a Culvers Menards Wal-Mart anywhere inside of a store or restaurant . Leave it in the car morons, you'll be ok. The people that honestly are doing it just crave attention so bad and want that reaction from people. That is why it is treated as disorderly conduct. People are shocked and are uncomfortable with complete strangers openly walking into public places and that's what the open carriers want. So good, they deserved the tickets.


The arrest WAS lawful, the Officers found them being disorderly and decided to give them citations thus the Officers needing identification. Now you refuse to identify yourself, you are obstructing, take them into custody to find out who these guys are..
Surprise, on is facing felony charges of MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER. There is no self-defense case here, these guys weren't armed. Just because some guy punches you in the face doesn't mean you can shoot and kill him and paralyze his friend. THAT'S MURDER. Unless your life is in danger and you kill someone, and trust me they want you almost dead before you're allowed to use deadly force, you don't have any justifiable cause to kill that person.

Took 7 bullets for this open carrying moron to diffuse a pretty common situation. I can't tell you how many times I've left bars in Milwaukee and have had guys start shit with me, and never once needed to kill anyone. But I guess since its my right to open carry, I can play God whenever things get a lil' too scary for me.

(apparently I fail at youtube embedding)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0MRmxfLuNto&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0MRmxfLuNto&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Thanks GTSLOW

[LIL EVO]

That 911 call is gold. Literally, for the open carriers

[Silver03SRT]

Some people are just a little to ignorant to accept the fact open carry is legal. They play off "what ifs" I wish life was all about "what if" my life would be a lot different What if I bought a lottery ticket that night I picked 5 right numbers or "what if" I asked my brother to play hockey the night he and his friend were killed by a drunk driver or what if that 60"+ muskie I had up to the boat would have hit my bait instead of missing it. Instead look at the facts the caller said she didn't feel threatened but was curious as to why they had guns. Once she found out it was legal she wanted to end the convo thus no reason for a cop to show up.
JaMichaels let me ask you a question. Have you ever gone over the speed limit, have you ever done a rolling stop, or driven a vehicle after having a few beers? If so you were more of a threat to the citizens than the men that were not breaking any laws. Its a fact that there are more vehicle related deaths per year than gun related deaths.

[Silver03SRT]

Oh and the caller even said she feels bad that she called because they were not doing anything wrong.

[WI_Dave]

(apparently I fail at youtube embedding)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0MRmxfLuNto?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0MRmxfLuNto?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


:rolf

[WI_Dave]

I cant embed it either

[GTSLOW]

0MRmxfLuNto

This :confused

[Neal Steffek]

I am gone for 2 weeks and this is still going on? Wow.

[-stew-]

I am gone for 2 weeks and this is still going on? Wow.


Ten pages and you still haven't proved these men did anything wrong or illegal. And you haven't even remotely validated your stand against open carry. :rolleyes:

[Neal Steffek]

Ten pages and you still haven't proved these men did anything wrong or illegal. And you haven't even remotely validated your stand against open carry. :rolleyes:

They got DC tickets. Doesn’t really take anything to get those. "Disorderly conduct" is very vague and is what is handed out when the police either want to be nice or complete dicks depending on the situation. A good rule of thumb is if you made the paper, odds are you deserved the ticket ha-ha.

[pOrk]

A good rule of thumb is if you made the paper, odds are you deserved the ticket ha-ha.

:loser

[fivonut]

A good rule of thumb is if you made the paper, odds are you deserved the ticket ha-ha.

:punch:

[WI_Dave]

They got DC tickets. Doesn’t really take anything to get those. "Disorderly conduct" is very vague and is what is handed out when the police either want to be nice or complete dicks depending on the situation. A good rule of thumb is if you made the paper, odds are you deserved the ticket ha-ha.


Even when the our states AG issues a statement to all departments saying do not issue DC tickets for this? Maybe the chief should get an obstruction ticket for not obeying orders.

[HITMAN]

I am gone for 2 weeks and this is still going on? Wow.

That's because your fellow traveler on the Road Of Complete Idiocy, JaMichaels, decided to carry on in your stead. Maybe you two should get a couple of six-packs of Zima, some Tom Barrett TV Footage, some high-speed rail brochures, scented candles, a tube of KY and a hotel room. :loser

[Rocket Power]

That's because your fellow traveler on the Road Of Complete Idiocy, JaMichaels, decided to carry on in your stead. Maybe you two should get a couple of six-packs of Zima, some Tom Barrett TV Footage, some high-speed rail brochures, scented candles, a tube of KY and a hotel room. :loser

:rolf :rolf

[WI_Dave]

That's because your fellow traveler on the Road Of Complete Idiocy, JaMichaels, decided to carry on in your stead. Maybe you two should get a couple of six-packs of Zima, some Tom Barrett TV Footage, some high-speed rail brochures, scented candles, a tube of KY and a hotel room. :loser


:rolf

[LIL EVO]

Heyyyyoo $10k settlement

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/state-and-regional/men-who-openly-carried-guns-at-madison-culver-s-accept/article_5ac88756-2b64-11e1-aca2-0019bb2963f4.html

[GHOSST]

Cheaper to keeper, sweet.

Have the "CC prohibited in this establishment" signs been popping up like wildfire yet?

[wrencher]

Wow for those who are scared of ANY kind of firearm carry should come live in this crap state of Illinois.
Where the crooks & thieves have all the rights.
You have no rights here....

[Wagonbacker9]

This thread was a good read.

I <3 stupid liberals! (not that all liberals are stupid, just for the record) They make for awesome ego boosters!

[WI_Dave]

Wow for those who are scared of ANY kind of firearm carry should come live in this crap state of Illinois.
Where the crooks & thieves have all the rights.
You have no rights here....

Until last month it was like that here (I know its worse there) Now we have ccw and castle doctrine so its getting better.

[lordairgtar]

Wow for those who are scared of ANY kind of firearm carry should come live in this crap state of Illinois.
Where the crooks & thieves are in government and have all the rights.
You have no rights here....
Fixed