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

[maestro pistolero]

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

 

[zukiphile]

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

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

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

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

 

[Conn. Trooper]

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

 

[zukiphile]

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

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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

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

What about "officer discretion"?

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

But in all cases you were speeding.

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

 

[zukiphile]

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

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

 

[brickeyee]

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

How truly amusing.

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

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

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

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

 

[therealdeal]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Conn. Trooper]

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

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

 

[Al Norris]

Enough!

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

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

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

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