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

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

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

I ask for id, or at least name and date of birth because I will need it for any report I have to write. Does that mean that I have to see your id on every call? No.
 
No offense.... but... I AM from Wisc. originally..and... you CAN legally open carry there..yes...but,,why would anyone do it??? You can legally carry in public... from first couple of posts..

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

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

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

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


physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. License is US Constitution ands MI constitution in MI.
 
My point was.... that everytime you step into your vehicle you would have to unload and case the weapon... for you would not be legal once in a motor vehicle. Seems it wouldnt be worth the hassle to me. I tried it there last spring.
 
Conn. Trooper said:
Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests

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

I ask for id, or at least name and date of birth because I will need it for any report I have to write. Does that mean that I have to see your id on every call? No.
Click to expand...
Okay, I had the wrong statute ... but you highlighted the wrong part. The statute you cited begins the same way as the one I cited -- in order for the charge to have merit, the actor must be acting with the intention of disturbing the peace, or recklessly creating the risk of doing so. Unless the action meets one of those two very specific tests ... none of the types of "disturbing" actions described thereafter amount to beans. If there is no intent or recklessness -- you don't even get to start reading the list of offenses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how do you figure this statute in any way allows for charging an open carrier with "Breach of the peace in the second degree"?
 
Last edited:
That's not the meaning of licensed or privileged. You can be a licensed arborist, should you bring your chainsaw into 7-11? You can be a licensed driver, doesn't mean you can rev your car up and honk your horn at 3 a.m.

This subject has been beat to death in other threads. There is established case law of OC rising to the level of a breach. Way higher than me on the food chain have reviewed these cases and held them to be valid. Do I agree with it? No, I would rather have a specific statute that spells it out in black and white. The rumor is floating around that there is pending legislation coming down the pike that would make OC illegal. I don't know how true that is, but it may change a few things if it happens.
 
Just wondering, what will change if they 'outlaw' OC in CT?? Most states are going to open carry, not 'outlawing' it. The way I see it, you will still be open to a BOP charge if your (god forbid) printed while legally CC and some anti see's you and calls 911. We don't need to 'outlaw' OC, but we do need to change our state statutes so that it outlines in detail that OC'ing in CT is perfectly legal, and take out some of the confusing language in the statutes. The problem in CT is our legislators are way to liberal/anti gun and our current AG, well lets just say he's about as far to the left as you can get. BUT, all that being said, hopefully Martha Dean will win in November and get some common sense legislation and clarification on current statutes. Time will tell I guess.

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

And as you said, our state is sometimes very anti-gun. Possibly all it takes is a legislator catching wind of an OC incident and asking themselves "Whoa, wait a minute, why isn't this illegal already." And here comes a new law.
 
Conn. Trooper said:
That's not the meaning of licensed or privileged. You can be a licensed arborist, should you bring your chainsaw into 7-11? You can be a licensed driver, doesn't mean you can rev your car up and honk your horn at 3 a.m. [snip]
Click to expand...


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

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

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

Are you an attorney, superior court judge, state legislator, police officer? What do you base your "my opinion is right and you are wrong" on? I might sound sarcastic but I am serious as a heart attack, what do you know that I don't? The last time this topic came up I again spoke to the supervisory state's attorney at my GA and he was still of the opinion that OC equals a breach. That was less than a few months ago. I am not aware of any changes in state law since then. They change every October when new public acts come out and I didn't see any change that would impact OC. Why are you right and I am wrong?
 
Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests
Click to expand...

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

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

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

I note this Ohio facet just to illustrate that code, policy and case law are not always entirely consistent.
 
Today, Wisconsin Carry Inc. and the people in the OP, filed a federal suit against the City of Madison and it's Police Dept.

The attorney John Monroe, of Georgia Carry, is also the attorney for Gray Peterson (v. LaCabe) in Denver. Goto the OP of the Current 2A Cases thread for a link to the complaint (This makes 23 cases filed).
 
I am glad they filed a lawsuit in WI. It will probably be settled beforehand, But I could be wrong about that.

CONNTROOPER,

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

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

I pose this as a question Sir because I donot know the answer unless you respond. I am assuming its at your discression, but we all know what "ass-u-me" can mean. If the incident occurs and OC is legal, do you give the guy the benefit of the doubt? I am now understanding why many CT Officers are saying it is illegal(referring to other posts by people who are claiming this)- it seems they might not be in the 'wrong'(that might be the wrong choice of wording- no pun intended), but basically in CT it is seen as not legal.
 
Recent cases in Connecticut have clarified that open carry IS legal in Connecticut, and the Firearms License Review Board has reportedly been promulgating that position for several months. It appears that Conn. Trooper is a ways behind the curve.

CT, if a 'Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver" is not a license to carry a pistol or a revolver, what is it? (Referring to point #6 in the statute quoted above, the one that you say doesn't mean what it plainly says.)
 
I give everybody the benefit of the doubt. Like I posted earlier, I would speak to them and advise them of the breach of peace statute and the possible consequences. If I was forced by a formal complaint to pursue charges, I would do so by arrest warrant and leave it up to the prosecutors ( and ultimately a superior court judge, both have to sign an arrest warrant).
 
Recent cases in Connecticut have clarified that open carry IS legal in Connecticut, and the Firearms License Review Board has reportedly been promulgating that position for several months. It appears that Conn. Trooper is a ways behind the curve.

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

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

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

A license to carry a pistol is not a carte blanche license to do whatever you want with it. Never has been. Still can't carry it into a school, federal building, bank, etc. Even with your license. Still can't carry those handguns that are banned by state law. A license to carry is just that, a license to carry your firearm within the other state laws. Including breach of peace laws.
 
Conn. Trooper said:
A license to carry a pistol is not a carte blanche license to do whatever you want with it. Never has been. Still can't carry it into a school, federal building, bank, etc. Even with your license. Still can't carry those handguns that are banned by state law. A license to carry is just that, a license to carry your firearm within the other state laws. Including breach of peace laws.
Click to expand...
Of course it is not a license to violate any laws, and I did not even suggest that it is.

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

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

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

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=307891&highlight=glastonbury+arrest

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=308110&highlight=glastonbury+arrest
 
Last edited:
That thread is three years old and there is no metion of a dismissal. Where is the lawsuit for false arrest if the arrest was unlawful? Even if the charges were dismissed, so what? Charges get dismissed every single day, doesn't mean it was a bad arrest. The lawsuit is focued on the delay in restoring his permit. That I happen to agree with, the board needs to get things done much quicker, no doubt.

I have spoken to the supervisory prosecutor in my GA, he says OC is a breach. Thats his legal opinion, not something he read off the internet. Take that for what it is worth. The firearms permit board doesn't decide whats legal or illegal.
 
Aguila, I don't think it is Troopers circular argument as much as it is the argument of the courts in Connecticut. How the courts have interpreted that law, is how Trooper is required to enforce it.

This is not going to change until someone files suit in federal court. It will have to be for an injunction, as applied. A facial challenge will fail.
 
And I hope that day comes, I would love to have it be a black and white issue. Sadly, with the way this state can be anti-gun sometimes, I think it will go towards concealed only carry. The problem will then become does accidental exposure become brandishing? Could be.
 
Really? So, just what does the Connecticut law say about brandishing a firearm?

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



Heck, for that matter what does the Wisconsin Statute say in regards to brandishing a firearm?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top