Posted on 09/23/2010 5:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
A 62-year-old woman visiting a local Culver's sees several restaurant patrons with guns on holsters in plain view.
She doesn't know that Wisconsin law allows people to openly carry a firearm, so she notifies authorities, later telling them, "I didn't want to be that one person that saw guns and didn't call and something horrible happens."
Officers arrive to find five armed men at the restaurant near East Towne Mall. In an effort to determine whether there is any threat to public safety, they ask to see the men's identification to make sure they're not felons, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.
To some, the actions by Madison police Saturday evening are reasonable. But members of gun rights organizations say police had no reason to suspect the men were felons. And what happened next, they say, amounted to the illegal search and detention of two of the men when they refused to provide their IDs.
Shawn M. Winrich, 33, of Madison, said he remained silent when police asked if he would provide his ID. Police then told him he was being placed under arrest, and he was handcuffed, disarmed, searched and held until police determined he was not a felon, Winrich said.
Winrich and Frank R. Hannan-Rock, 53, of Racine, were then given municipal citations for obstructing an officer, Madison police spokesman Joel DeSpain said.
But Auric Gold, secretary of Wisconsin Carry, and Mike Stollenwerk, cofounder of OpenCarry.org, said police do not have the right to demand that people identify themselves without probable cause to believe they've committed or are about to commit a crime.
That was not the case with the five Wisconsin Carry members who had simply gotten together to meet and have a meal, Winrich said.
Winrich said he began carrying a gun about four months ago for personal safety and routinely takes it anywhere it is lawfully permitted without incident.
"People know it is legal and it's not something to be concerned about," he said. "Most people really don't have much of a problem with it. They're just kind of curious."
But Winrich, who made an audio recording of the encounter with Madison police, said he carries a recorder in case a problem arises. He said he chose not to give his ID to Madison police because of "the attitude and the overstepping of authority that they had."
Wisconsin Carry won a $10,000 judgement against the city of Racine and its police department after Hannan-Rock was involved in a similar incident there, Gold said.
Openly carrying a firearm is "just like anybody else carrying a carrot down the street, or a cell phone," Stollenwerk said, adding that police in the 43 states that allow some form of open carry have become accustomed to people's right to have a firearm. "This stuff doesn't happen in the rest of the country anymore."
Madison Police North District Capt. Cameron McLay said he believes officers acted appropriately in responding to a report of armed men in a public place in an urban setting, and the caller's concern that something might happen.
McLay said police were going into "a highly ambiguous situation" and had to determine if a crime had been or was about to be committed and preserve public safety, while assuring the rights of all involved. "This is what the officers did in this case to the best of their ability."
But McLay questioned whether obstruction was the correct citation given the circumstances. On Monday, detectives were sent to Culver's for further investigation to determine if another criminal charge, such as disorderly conduct, is warranted, McLay said.
Based on initial police reports, he acknowledged, "There is no indication that a disturbance had taken place."
McLay declined to comment on the legality of searching and detaining Winrich and Hannan-Rock until the police investigation is completed.
If King George the 3rd had required a "rider's license" lamp; a license plate on the back of every horse's ass, I think the colonists would have started shooting a lot sooner :-)
had to post that from a comment on the Constitutional carry in ky thread...
As I understand the incident, it did NOT rise to the level of the above. Five guys sitting around a table peacefully eating a meal is NOT such a situation, whether 911 was called or not. There appears to be a need for more training on the part of the cops.
The open carrying of arms? That isn't enough. No more so than wearing a red shirt and blue jeans.
Well put...
They are prevented from asking a couple of quick questions to ascertain the situation?
More proof of why the “reasonable man standard” no longer works. There are so few of us “reasonable men” left...
okay, so i dont like your use of the 1A here, i think I'll call the po-po and have you investigated...you MUST comply with their illegal demands because i required them to 'investigate'...
But your understanding is irrelevant.
The police only need a reasonable suspicion, and a frightened woman calling 911 about you is quite enough to investigate you.
It matters not a bit if the woman was completely wrong about you and frightened over nothing.
Also, stop using the driver's license analogy. It doesn't fit. Driving is not a Constitutionally protected Right. That is a separate argument.
If it violates my Rights, damn straight it matters. It matters a LOT.
What I seem to think is irrelevant.
A frightened woman called 911 about some guys with guns.
Case closed. That is well and truly enough to investigate and ask for ID in WI.
You may think the law is bad, but that’s a different argument.
No. It isn't. Sorry.
plenty of reason to continue, since you believe a legit 'investigation' arises from a single phone call from an ill-informed nervous nelly...
Sorry, but no. There have already been cases lost by the cops for exactly the same behavior.
"It matters not a bit if the woman was completely wrong about you and frightened over nothing."
When the cops showed up and saw five guys sitting around a table, they HAD "investigated";, their reasons for FURTHER investigation disappeared. "Asking for ID"; was and is simply harassment.
Jesus wept because Martha’s brother had died, not because your post was unclear. ;-)
You have now made your point clear.
These guys were wrong in your point of view to have exercised their rights, presuming it was likely to lead to a confrontation with authorities. They were also wrong to have prepared ahead for said confrontation. It would have been smarter for them to have not forced the issue. That seems to be the position you have made clear.
Just so you know, I do not open carry, but rather practice concealed carry (enabled by permit and professional training). I believe it is far more socially prudent to do so than ‘brandishing’. There is also logic in self-defense theory that openly carrying identifies you to assailants and prepares them before you can possibly be prepared. If they know you are carrying, they can control the order of battle.
Now, I ask you to dispassionately ask yourself — would you have said that John Lewis and Ralph Abernathy were wrong to march for their rights, *knowing* they would be set upon by fire hoses and police dogs? What they fought for was a just cause. These guys obviously believe their cause is just and worthy of a public fight.
Oh, and don’t try to offer up red herrings like “feel safe as a man”. This is not about virility or any insecurities about it. This is about law, social mores and principles of Liberty.
Not angry, just throwing it back to you.
They were responding to a 911 call.
See the WI stop and ID statute which has already been posted and linked.
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.
Harry Reid is forcing a vote on the DISCLOSE Act TODAY.
Please call your Senators right now and demand they vote against the DISCLOSE Act today!
Your phone calls right now could be the difference between victory and defeat.
For freedom,
The free-speech shredding DISCLOSE Act is back.
Using procedural tricks, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is planning on bringing the DISCLOSE Act up for a vote on Thursday.
Call your Senators! Demand that they vote against any version of the DISCLOSE Act.
In the name of “openness” Reid and arch-gun hater Chuck Schumer (D-NY) want to silence grassroots activists like you and me.
They say they want to “shine light” on our “dealings” in order to restrain our “undue” influence on politics.
In reality, they’re only interested in protecting their reelections and hiding their anti-freedom voting records.
You and I cannot let them succeed in these dirty tricks.
In the past, the hard work and thousands of emails and phone calls from National Association for Gun Rights members like you stalled the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act.
Harry Reid’s shady, backroom dealings may have sealed the passage of the DISCLOSE ACT.
You and I both saw what happened during the health care debate — you can be sure the same kind of underhanded, backroom deals have been going on in D.C.
With their reelections on the line, you can be certain the so-called “moderates” from both parties will be looking to cash in their vote.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you what’s at stake.
The DISCLOSE Act was written to silence YOU...
...and the National Association for Gun Rights.
The truth is this legislation was written to silence any group — from the National Association for Gun Rights to your local state group to your gun club — that talks about the voting records of politicians.
The DISCLOSE Act would be more rightly named the “Incumbent Protection Act.”
To make matters worse, while you and I are silenced, liberal special interests, labor unions and the National Rifle Association have gotten themselves an insidious special exemption from this outrageous bill.
You and I might expect this sort of election year payoff from labor unions and the liberal special interest groups, but not the supposedly “pro-freedom” NRA. Because of the special exemption they negotiated with President Obama’s White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the NRA is sitting on the side lines.
They’re sitting out this important battle to protect our Constitutional right to expose how members of Congress vote on our gun rights, because they’ve worked out a backroom deal with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other anti-gun enemies.
While we’ve successfully slowed momentum behind the DISCLOSE Act, Harry Reid thinks he’s found the perfect time to bring the DISCLOSE Act up for another vote…
I’m asking you to stand with me again, we need all hands on deck to defeat the DISCLOSE Act.
Here’s what you can do to help fight the DISCLOSE Act:
Please contact both Senators in your state, and demand that they oppose the DISCLOSE Act, tell them that as a member of the National Association for Gun Rights you’re carefully watching what becomes of the DISCLOSE Act.
* Forward this to all of your freedom-loving, pro-gun family and friends and ask them to call their Senators and demand they oppose the DISCLOSE Act.
* Chip in or to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to keep the fight up in the Senate.
The only way to stop the DISCLOSE Act is to continue to put pressure of your Senators.
Your help has been indispensable, but our work isn’t finished.
Your continued grassroots pressure is what’s holding up the DISCLOSE Act.
P.S. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is planning on bringing the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act up for a vote on Thursday.
Call both your U.S. Senators right now! Demand that they vote against any version of the DISCLOSE Act.
Your grassroots activism may be the only thing standing between us and the passage of this outrageous piece of legislation.
Carrying a weapon if you are a felon, is a crime. How would the police know you were not a felon, unless he checked?
2. Please state the basis the officers had for suspecting that such crime had been committed or was about to be committed.
ltc — you are on the right point here. The law here seems to specifically grant the WI police permission to ask for/ demand ID.
Might be bad law, but it sure seems to be the law, supported in case law/ court decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.