Posted on 04/20/2009 1:43:32 PM PDT by IDRATHERNOT
Edited on 04/20/2009 2:04:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Madison - State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said openly carrying firearms is legal in a memo he sent to district attorneys Monday afternoon.
"The Department (of Justice) believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge," the Republican attorney general wrote in the memo.
Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states that have an outright ban on carrying concealed weapons. But Wisconsin's statute is silent on carrying weapons openly, such as in a clearly visible belt holster.
But people who openly carry guns often have been charged with disorderly conduct. That police practice has come under scrutiny recently.
In February, Brad Krause was acquitted after being charged in August with disorderly conduct for having a holstered handgun while he did yard work in West Allis.
Then last week, Jesus Gonzalez filed a federal lawsuit against West Milwaukee and Chilton after police officers in those communities detained him for carrying a gun in a holster in a Menards and a Wal-Mart. In both cases, he was taken to jail but not charged.
In his memo, Van Hollen noted that the state constitution protects the right to bear arms.
"A hunter openly carrying a rifle or shotgun on his property during hunting season while quietly tracking game should not face a disorderly conduct charge," Van Hollen wrote. "But if the same hunter carries the same rifle or shotgun through a crowded street while barking at a passerby, the conduct may lose its constitutional protection."
"The same concepts should apply to handguns," he added, citing the West Allis case. He noted that brandishing a gun in public is not legal, however.
Van Hollen said police retain the right to stop someone who is openly carrying a weapon to investigate possible crimes, including disorderly conduct.
"Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality," he wrote. "It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution."
I belive the consitional amendment was passed in 88 and it wasn’t even close I belived it passed by 78%.
So you’re hoping the robber makes a judgment call about the number of people openly packing before they arrive. If they made judgment calls in the first place, they wouldn’t be robbing banks.
I was born in NY and grew up as a teenager in AZ. I thought it was so cool when I saw a guy on the bus with a massive revolver strapped to his hip or a guy walking down Central Ave in Phoenix with a rifle.
Nowadays I am back in NY. I find it funny when I go back to AZ and walk into a bar. Sometimes they remind me that I can’t bring my firearm inside. There is astonishment when I tell them I don’t have one. That is until I say I’m from NY. Then it’s just understanding and sympathy.
Sure they would. Banks are currently Victim Disarmament zones. If they were Fully Armed zones, they’d go knock over something else instead.
Then my wife shoots him.
Also, I don't carry a "six shooter".
Had he been a RAT, would the paper have stated his party so early in the article?”
You still put a lot of trust in the R after their name since the last Presidential election?
As far as I’m concerned, they are all rats.
If their vocation is politician, it’s only a matter of time before they renege on any promises they made.
Excellent news. Score one for the good guys!!! I don’t know a whole lot about J.B Van Hollen - I remember only some of his campaign ads.
I’d love to hear a lot more of these announcements and I hope people will take advantage of this as I know in my area at least it won’t make the community any less safe, and other crimes will go down if criminals start to get an idea of how many armed people are around them.
“An armed society is a polite society” - Robert A. Heinlein
Actually, there are so many hunters in the Northern Part of the state that to see them ‘around’ town is really not that big of a deal. Especially during season. Mostly it’s ‘long guns’ though. The only people I’ve ever seen personally who practice Open Carry are the police officers.
I should’ve added that to be able to work with the Attorney General on a ‘shall issue’ CCW law would be nice... :) I know as a woman, CONTRARY TO WHAT MS. GESTAPOLITO thinks, I would feel very safe in my community with concealed or open carry of firearms because we have a lot of wonderful veterans who live in our area, and I would have NO PROBLEM if when they retire, or come home they carried a weapon either open or concealed as their preference.
We have nothing to fear from people having guns. What we DO have to fear are CRIMINALS having guns, and the people being UN-ARMED>
Screw them and their aneurysms. Since when in the United States of America does someone else’s aneurysm define the limits of your rights? January 20, 2009, perhaps?
..................
More accurately, it's always been legal.
But you have to love lawyers.
A hunter openly carrying a rifle or shotgun on his property during hunting season while quietly tracking game should not face a disorderly conduct chargethe same hunter carries the same rifle or shotgun through a crowded street while barking at a passerby, the conduct may lose its constitutional protection.
What if I'm walking my dog through a crowded street and my dog is barking?
There's no end to the parsing, and he does seem to leave the disturbing the peace issue at the discression of the officer.
If my officers see someone walking around the City of Milwaukee with a firearm openly displayed, it borders on irresponsible if I were to communicate to members of my community that they can carry that firearm with impunity
So how small does a town have to be for both the US and Wisconsin Constitutions to apply?
‘Wisconsin Conservative Politics Ping List’ Ping!
Which makes imposing term limits all the more critical. It has to be made impossible for anyone to be a career politician without moving to a different job every few years, to prevent the establishment of fiefdoms.
We need public servants, not masters.
I don't think there have been any cases other than the one which reached the Supreme Court, which validated concealed carry in one's place of business or residence, and which most people think extends to ones property. In a rural area it's not something I worry about much, but until it's been tested, I wouldn't assume you can assert that right for a visitor.
I used to carry a shotgun right into the little grocery store in the small town where I grew up. No case, just over my shoulder or slung over my back and no one ever raised an eyebrow.
There are still a lot of small towns wgere people walk to where they hunt or shoot. I live in town now but can be in the woods inside of 5 minutes.
Scott Walker is due to announce his candidacy this week.
If the wind blows your shirt up or you reach up to the top shelf on the grocery isle and the clerk sees your gun, you are NOT in violation of the law. The State has an extremely high burden of proof by having to prove the mental state of INTENTIONAL, so don't be too freaked out.
A change in the law to just say "license to carry handgun" would be nice though. I would at least like the option.
I suppose my real concern now is determining the point where "imperfect" concealment (i.e. choosing a thin or tight or translucent cover garment) becomes "intentional failure to conceal". (Summer is fast approaching...)
FWIW, I'm going to call our local CHL class instructors and point out 46.035(a) to them.
Thanks again!
“taken to jail but not charged.”
And that’s how we lose our liberty.
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.