Posted on 09/13/2013 5:17:26 AM PDT by rellimpank
Two men heading to Appleton's downtown farmers market with AR-15 rifles slung over their shoulders and handguns in holsters swiftly attracted the attention of police officers last weekend.
Now, they're attracting attention across the Internet, with some gun rights advocates expressing outrage that the pair were held at gunpoint and handcuffed, while others voice frustration at what they consider a foolish and dangerous stunt.
The men, Charles Branstrom, 27, and Ross Bauman, 22, ultimately were released without tickets or charges.
Branstrom recorded the confrontation with Appleton Police. About six minutes into the recording, one officer sees Branstrom's camera, confiscates it and attempts to turn it off — but stops only the video. The device continues recording audio for about 45 minutes.
Gun rights advocates think the police acted inappropriately.
"I would never blame police for following up on 'man with a gun' calls, but they still have to behave within the limits of the law and abide by people's constitutional rights," said Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, Inc., a gun rights group. "I believe the police were acting outside of their legal authority when they pointed guns at the individuals and involuntarily detained them."
Milwaukee's police chief ridiculed the pair.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
I witnessed a couple shopping in a book store in Reno. Both had visible sidearms. Not one person in the store cared. No one freaked out.
/johnny
The children going to school in Israel get a sense of greater security from their teachers openly carrying their rifles and side arms. Here in America we have a media that wants the sheeple to be government dependents in all things, so only the government authorities are not seen as dangerous when they openly carry. You’re right, it is a matter of education. Sadly, our society is the product of the enemy, the media, and it is foolish to butt against those pricks at this time. In England, even the police do not carry openly, so ANY gun seen there is assumed not for show except when in the hands of SWAT dressing. I carry every day, everywhere I go, and the sheeple around me have no idea what I stand ready to do for them and myself. I prefer it that way, until the sheeple cease to be sheeple on a grand scale, not in foolish acts of showoffery.
The people will only become desensitized to open carry by people carrying openly. And this is working all over America. This isn't the only instance of open carry teething problems.
Face it, the queers now have queer marriage because they were in-your-face about their activities.
Open carry can do the same, and is a much more honorable goal.
/johnny
These guys were looking for trouble, and they found it.
As was pointed out on another thread about this incident, the queers have been so in-your-face about their activities, that they have won queer marriage in many places.
Gun owners need to be in-your-face about open carry, until it becomes normal and un-remarkable.
If you’re a police officer and you draw on me while I’m acting within my rights and in a completely lawful manner, I’m going to make your life as miserable as I possibly can from that moment going forward.
Them City Slickers want Us`n Country Boys to be disarmed n` helpless against the bad guys like they are in their miserable lives.
If they have the right, they have the right.
It might be a bad idea for me to drive my convertable in the rain with the top down, but I shouldn’t get stopped by the police for doing it.
But this is different? How? Because people felt threatened?
Why did they feel threatened? Because its not normal for people to carry guns in public? OK, so let them get used to it, then it will be normal behavior, and the people calling the police about it will be dismissed out of hand, just the same as I would be ignored if I called 911 and said, “A big bald guy wearing leather and covered in tatoos just walked into McDonalds!”
Guns are everywhere, it is not reasonable for people to be frightened just because they see them.
I'm sure they understood that the likelihood of dealing with the police was high, but I disagree that they were looking for trouble. I'm sure they would have been much, much happier if the police had simply responded to the caller by telling them to call back if they saw anything that was actually against the law.
As you finish with, society didn't used to be so hyper about seeing firearms in the public square. So how do we get back to that point? There is only one way and that is conditioning. These men had their weapons slung, and were not doing anything threatening, which is exactly the correct way to introduce people to seeing firearms in the public square.
These guys were looking for trouble, and they found it.
We hear from the left about how mild government action has a “chilling effect” and “suppresses” the exercise of rights.
I wonder if we handcuffed and held at gunpoint a few voters exercising their right, without any added cause for suspicion, whether the left might understand why this is so offensive.
Right now, those who support gun liberty need to start effectively lobbying state governments to “reform police training”.
Starting in the early 1970s, with several things, including several police assassinations, and the 1972 SCOTUS decision that outlawed the death penalty, which before then had been regarded as “swift and certain” for those who murdered LEOs; at a national level, police were encouraged to adopt new, “SWAT-style” tactics.
The idea was that if police immediately moved to control all situations, and frequently brandished their guns, it would lead to fewer police assassinations.
This idea was incorrect. Much as with the gun control measures begun in 1968, their assumptions were incorrect. In fact, *more* police were dying, and often by their own gun, having lost control of them after brandishing them. Likewise, the three modes of guns: holstered, brandished and firing, were inappropriate for most situations.
More often than not, situations that could have been settled down by other means were aggravated by police gun brandish and use. This is why today many police just adore Tasers, because they give them more alternatives than do guns.
But they still use SWAT-style tactics, because that is what they have been trained to use. And this needs reform at the state level, if the public is to enjoy its gun liberty without police interference.
As an example, a failure of SWAT-style tactics is when an armed officer meets an armed civilian. SWAT tactics say that in many circumstances, the officer should brandish their gun at the civilian, “to establish control over the situation.”
This ignores probable cause completely, because establishing control is regarded as a social action, not a legal one. SWAT tells the officer they must intimidate and dominate, and over the years, especially with widespread steroid abuse among officers (according to the FBI and DEA), this has in many cases turned into unneeded aggression.
For instance, police department “dog killing” policies. Absolutely unnecessary in most cases, but effective if they want to intimidate and dominate, are pure SWAT tactics.
So what reforms are needed. As with gun policy, states should look to Arizona, where there is such a surfeit of open and concealed carry that the police, while being aware of it, are generally indifferent to it.
This also implies a very potent tactic from the past, that if an LEO draws his gun in Arizona, he is very likely to use it, and with lethal intent. So if he does brandish, he means it, no kidding around. And anyone stupid or insane enough to draw down on an Arizona cop is most likely about to die.
Thus gun rights are ensured, order is maintained, police need to use far less violence, and violent crime is minimal. Arizona did it, so other states should follow suit if they want the benefits.
Get rid of SWAT training, except for a small SWAT organization for when you have to have a SWAT team.
By doing what?
/johnny
Lighten up, dudes. I thought we could vent here without fear of reprisal...
All kidding aside, I thought my humor was more obvious. Didn't mean to alarm the prostrate "Please don't step too hard on my neck..." crowd.
8^)
AAAaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
6^)
“Didn’t the Wisconsin rule that open carry of firearms was constitutional?”
The had trouble with police misconduct before, so they wrote in the shall issue bill that open carry was *defined* not to be disorderly conduct. The police “knew* about one of the court settlements for open carry that occured *before* the shall issue law.
It is all on the tape. The police messed up big time. Expect a settlement and training.
“Turning off the recording device = “we’re going to do something we know is wrong”.
Exactly. Except they muffed it, then bragged about violating the First Amendment, which was recorded.
The Seventh circuit has ruled that recording police in the public performance of their duties is a First Amendment right.
and my effort at “levity” went un-noticed.
Seriously, the best thing we can do in that situation is to ask LEO, privately and one-on-one, “Say I was in military BDU. What would you have done to me if I approached you out-of-the-blue with my gun in-hand inquiring of YOUR intent?”
You might get some interesting answers.
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.