Restaurant incident reveals confusion over open carry(WI)

I wasn’t aware of a Right to vote.......

Then let me make you aware.

14th Amendment Section 2. ...when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime...

15th Amendment Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

There you have it, the right to vote is spelled out in the constitution, in exactly that language at least 5 times.

SCOTUS has ruled that asking a felon if he is a felon, with regard to gun possession, is a violation of his 5th Amendment rights.

Citation please. That doesn't pass the smell test. The police are authorized to ask you anything they want. You can simply refuse to answer by invoking your 5th Amendment rights, but there is no prohibition against them asking you damned near anything up until the point you ask for a lawyer to be present or take the 5th.

That’s because I believe they need very little to be “reasonably suspicious” under the law.

Permit me to ask you a question.

What if the amendment in question had been the First, and not the Second? Would your opinion on showing ID be the same?

In other words, five men are in Culvers (great restaurant, btw) discussing politics. Someone sitting near them overhears the conversation and calls 911 because they dislike the conversation. The police arrive while the conversation is still ongoing, and determine that it is simply protected political speech. Would you still feel that the police should have demanded to see ID, or should they simply recognize that no crime was taking place, or about to take place, and been on their way?

That’s because I believe they need very little to be “reasonably suspicious” under the law.

Permit me to ask you a question.

What if the amendment in question had been the First, and not the Second? Would your opinion on showing ID be the same?

In other words, five men are in Culvers (great restaurant, btw) discussing politics. Someone sitting near them overhears the conversation and calls 911 because they dislike the conversation. The police arrive while the conversation is still ongoing, and determine that it is simply protected political speech. Would you still feel that the police should have demanded to see ID, or should they simply recognize that no crime was taking place, or about to take place, and been on their way?

That’s because I believe they need very little to be “reasonably suspicious” under the law.

Permit me to ask you a question.

What if the amendment in question had been the First, and not the Second? Would your opinion on showing ID be the same?

In other words, five men are in Culvers (great restaurant, btw) discussing politics. Someone sitting near them overhears the conversation and calls 911 because they dislike the conversation. The police arrive while the conversation is still ongoing, and determine that it is simply protected political speech. Would you still feel that the police should have demanded to see ID, or should they simply recognize that no crime was taking place, or about to take place, and been on their way?

This discussion became moot with the release of the 911 recordings.

Haynes v. US

And I didn't say they couldn't ask, just that I'd bet any answer he gave would not be allowed as evidence.

To be precise, my reference to "asking" in my initial post was specifically directed at Haynes v. US, which ruled that the govt cannot require a felon to register a firearm he possesses, because such a requirement would amount to self-incrimination, violating his 5th amendment rights.

Sure any cop on the street can ask anyone anything, but like I said, I bet any admission would be tossed.

But I ain't a lawyer.