Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:30 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 More On The Madison Open Carry Incident 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:13 am 
Member

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 30
I think that if the other 2 guys would've showed their IDs, nothing would've happened.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: … And Then There Is More
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:27 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
It appears, just appears, mind you, that we have a force of large neck and small hat size muttonheads using the legal system to play "king of the hill" with these five civilians.

Let's see, a similar debacle such as this cost the public servants $10,000. I wonder how much this one will tally.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/madison-five-911-caller-told-police-there-s-no-problem

Quote:
Madison Five 911 caller told police “there’s no problem”

September 24th, 2010 12:41 am ET

Last Saturday the Madison, WI police department responded to a 911 call about five men openly carrying holstered handguns near a Culver’s restaurant. Police soon arrived, detained the men, now referred to by some as “the Madison Five,” and demanded they produce identity credentials.

The police ultimately cuffed, searched, and charged two men who refused to provide ID with “obstruction of justice.” Days later “Madison Police North District Capt. Cameron McLay said he believes officers acted appropriately in responding to . . . the [911] caller's concern that something might happen.”

However the 911 call recording obtained by the Examiner.com pursuant to an Open Records Act request from Dane County does not support Capt. McLay’s characterization. The caller, Ms. Phyllis Micke, emphasized to the 911 dispatcher that the guns were in holsters, and that “there’s no problem” . . . [the men are] “just sitting there extremely relaxed.”

After the dispatcher explained that open carry was legal unless they are threatening or disturbing people, Micke declared that “there’s no problem and it’s no emergency . . . I feel bad then, if they’re not doing anything wrong then it’s my mistake.”

Wisconsin Carry Inc. (WCO) President Nik Clark is not surprised by the tenor of the 911 call. Clark said that “every time somebody has called the police about open carriers it has essentially been to ask if open carry was legal, not to report a disturbance.”


_________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Let's Pile It On Then — Additional "Stuff"
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:57 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
You could not make this up if you wanted to.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/103624034.html

Quote:
Madison police up the ante in open carry gun incident

By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel

Sept. 23, 2010

Madison police admit they erred in issuing two men who carrying guns at a Culver's over the weekend for obstruction of justice after they refused to produce identification.

Instead, police will now cite them and their three gun-toting companions with disorderly conduct, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.

"It seems to me like (police) are just digging a deeper hole," said John R. Monroe, a Georgia attorney who specializes in open carry and firearms cases, in the State Journal story.

Monroe represents gun carriers in two different federal law suits in Wisconsin, one over a Milwaukee man's arrests at two retail stores while open carrying, and one challenging the state's law that prohibits open carry within 1,000 feet of a school zone.

Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. had said the group planned to take legal action against Madison police over the Culver's incident.

Last year, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued an advisory that merely wearing a gun is not, by itself, the basis for a disorderly conduct charge.


_________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:39 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 810
Location: Northern MN
Traveler wrote:

I guess you didn't read my entire last post to this thread, including the header.



You are correct: I didn't read the header. (I need to look closer, I guess.)

I first read the update to this story in the carryforum, and replied there. I remembered after I replied that the more complete thread was over here.

Remember, I'm not advocating for WI law enforcement; I merely pointed out a course of action available to the prosecutor. They certainly upped the ante. Putting the pressure on all 5 was an excellent move, from their standpoint.

_________________
Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY"
Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:57 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 9
In an interesting twist

http://www.wrn.com/2010/10/county-judge-rules-concealed-carry-ban-unconstitutional/

"The government has to have a compelling state interest to do so (restrict the right to carry) and they have to have the least restrictive means of doing that,” said Poss. "Public safety obviously is a state interest, but there’s all kinds of ways to do that in this regard.” In his decision, Counsell states the law forces citizens to "go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law or carry openly,” but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a "realistic alternative.”

_________________
2.1 The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and defense of the homeland shall never be infringed, limited, rescinded, interfered with or prohibited by any decree of law, decision of court or policy by the executive branch or any of its agencies. And this time we mean it. (The Road to Damascus by John Ringo)


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:00 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
I've got to disagree with this wholeheartedly.

I don't know how many depts in MN make Disorderly Conduct or Obstruction of Justice arrests, but I'd say the number of actual arrests/citations for Disorderly/Obstruct is very low.

Where I work in MN we make many of them, usually on Sunday nights when there is a lot of fighting. There is no statute for "fighting" so those that are arrested or cited for fighting are arrested/cited under Disorderly Conduct.Also, I don't know of any officers that I know waste a ton of time and effort making arrests or citations for Disorderly or Obstruct unless it really happened.[/quote]

Well, "fighting", per se, is not against the law. Neither is carrying. Some folks just don't like it. Pass a statute or leave folks alone.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:37 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 8:53 am
Posts: 239
usmarine0352 wrote:
Quote:
I've got to disagree with this wholeheartedly.

I don't know how many depts in MN make Disorderly Conduct or Obstruction of Justice arrests, but I'd say the number of actual arrests/citations for Disorderly/Obstruct is very low.

Where I work in MN we make many of them, usually on Sunday nights when there is a lot of fighting. There is no statute for "fighting" so those that are arrested or cited for fighting are arrested/cited under Disorderly Conduct.Also, I don't know of any officers that I know waste a ton of time and effort making arrests or citations for Disorderly or Obstruct unless it really happened.



Dick Unger wrote:
Well, "fighting", per se, is not against the law. Neither is carrying. Some folks just don't like it. Pass a statute or leave folks alone.




https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.72



609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1.Crime.

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
Quote:
(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.


Holly Smokes, sounds like what takes place at any Vikings - Packers game :!: :roll:

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:41 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
It's an overbroad statute. For example, Mutual Combat is OK, so is self defense. "Fighting" with you child is OK as well. Free speech upset some folks as well.

If you want to charge DC based on "fighting", then it should be charged as an assault. It's not because there are too many things to prove.

DC is so often a garbage charge that I don't hold it against anyone without a lot more facts.

Here nobody was fighting, they were simply carrying and the cop didn't like it. The arrests wouod not stand up, so they tossed in DC as kind of a defense to theitr own illegal conduct. I have no respect for these officers or prosecutors, based on the facts they've been able to put forward.....

There's a lot of this....


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More On The Madison Open Carry Incident
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:50 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 8:53 am
Posts: 239
Dick Unger wrote:
It's an overbroad statute. For example, Mutual Combat is OK, so is self defense. "Fighting" with you child is OK as well. Free speech upset some folks as well.

If you want to charge DC based on "fighting", then it should be charged as an assault. It's not because there are too many things to prove.

DC is so often a garbage charge that I don't hold it against anyone without a lot more facts.

Here nobody was fighting, they were simply carrying and the cop didn't like it. The arrests wouod not stand up, so they tossed in DC as kind of a defense to theitr own illegal conduct. I have no respect for these officers or prosecutors, based on the facts they've been able to put forward.....

There's a lot of this....




Well, like you said:


Dick Unger wrote:
Well, "fighting", per se, is not against the law. Neither is carrying. Some folks just don't like it. Pass a statute or leave folks alone.




I guess the public chose to pass a statute, and that's it.

.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group