Restaurant incident reveals confusion over open carry(WI)

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.