WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape


PDA






Dean Weingarten
September 10, 2013, 10:08 AM
http://i.imgur.com/1BLxOod.jpg
Open Carrier with slung rifle in Phoenix

Last Saturday, the seventh of September, Charles and Ross were exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms under both the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin state Constitution. Neither had been involved in this sort of activism before, but from reading open carry forums had decided that carrying a video camera as well as their firearms, would be a prudent precaution.

They did not expect trouble. Open carry has been well established in Wisconsin. Open carry has always been legal, and in 1998, after a long and difficult amendment process, Wisconsin citizens cemented this long standing right into the State Constitution with 74 percent of the votes cast in the referendum.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose


Over the last 5 years, open carry has been tested in the courts. Several lawsuits have ended in settlements to open carriers including cases in Wisconsin. The State Attorney General issued an opinion that open carry did not constitute disorderly conduct, because police were abusing the disorderly conduct law in order to arrest open carriers.

Considerable numbers of newspaper, broadcast, and Internet articles were devoted to the issue, which became one of statewide interest in the 2010 elections. After the elections, in 2011, the Wisconsin government clarified the law to insure that the Constitutional rights would be protected.

Included in the reforms was a section that specifically excluded open carry as disorderly conduct, and provided for a $500 fine and or a month in jail for officials that used excessive force based solely on the persons status as a concealed weapon licensee.

In spite of the statewide debate, several court settlements, the AG opinion, and the shall issue law with special provisions protecting open carry, the most charitable thing that can be said of some officers in Appleton, is that they were not paying attention.

As Charles and Ross were walking down the street with slung rifles and holstered pistols, some of Appleton's finest approached them, pointed at least one loaded rifle at them, and demanded that they move up against a wall. Ironically, it is likely that the rifle pointed at them was an AR-15 clone. (about :35 seconds into the video)

Note that at this point there is no reasonable suspicion of any law being broken. There is no probable cause. No gun (other than the officers) has been pointed at anyone. The audio and video recorder is running. Open carry has been specifically defined by law in Wisconsin as not being disorderly conduct.

Charles and Ross cooperate with the police, though they have little choice with loaded guns pointed at them. They answer questions. They have, but do not require concealed carry permits, because they are not concealing any weapons.

The officers handcuff them and place them in the back seat of one of the squad cars. One of the officers takes the video camera and turns off the video while allegedly attempting to erase the recording. This in itself is a violation of the open carriers First Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit has ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to record police in the performance of their public duties.

While the officer turned off the video recording, he did not find the right sequence to turn off the audio recording. The camera was then taken to another police car where the police discussed possible charges against the open carriers.

It is clear that they do not like the idea of people carrying rifles openly, though why is not so clear. At about 6:52, one officer mentions that they have Charles and Ross' wallets and CCW permits, removing any doubt that they realize that Charles and Ross are not breaking any laws.

It appears that there are at least four officers involved. At 12:28, one officer, who appears to be the one who impounded the camera, says, "This ain't going on on YouTube" making clear the intent to violate the First Amendment.

At about 14:05 on the recording, the officers mention the Madison case, showing that they know about the settlement favorable to open carry reached in that case, which occurred even before the protections of open carry in act 35 went into effect.

The officers consider checking the serial numbers on the firearms. They have no probable cause to do so, but one of them says its "Worth a try" (20:10).

At 21:10, one officer mentions "Those are Sig Sauers" "Those are good firearms."

At 34:30, an officer decides to run the CCW permits again, to see if they are still valid. Note that this is over half an hour after Charles and Ross were handcuffed without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It is clear that the officers are fishing for something to arrest them on, but they cannot find anything. There is no reason to run the permits, because Charles and Ross were not concealing any weapons.

At about 41:00, the permits come back valid.

At about 42:40, one of the officers says that they are all right to go.

There are some apologies, and Charles and Ross are released after 45 minutes in detention, most of the time in handcuffs.

How many of the Bill of Rights were violated in this incident?

First Amendment: already covered, the police had no right to stop the video or impound the video camera. The intent to prevent publishing of the recording was itself recorded.

Second Amendment: They had guns pointed at them, were handcuffed and held, and their other rights violated because they were exercising their Second Amendment rights. A clear desire to chill the exercise of those rights was expressed by the officers and recorded.

Fourth Amendment: They were detained without reasonable suspicion of a crime, there was no probable cause to hold them, the serial numbers of their guns were entered into national databases without any probable cause to do so.

Other cases where people had police point loaded guns at them without cause have resulted in settlements of $15,000 or more.

Perhaps the Appleton P.D. will learn from others mistakes, settle quickly, and offer much needed remedial training for its officers as part of the settlement.

Link to YouTube video, about 5 minutes

Link to full audio recording, 46 minutes

2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/09/wiappleton-officers-violate-rights-of.html

Several embeded links at the original article.

If you enjoyed reading about "WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mainsail
September 10, 2013, 10:25 AM
It might take a year or so, but those guys will have a few buck$ coming their way.

we are not amused
September 10, 2013, 10:50 AM
Rather scary that police are so contemptuous of the law, and the citizens they are supposed to serve, not intimidate!

I hope they sue, and win big time!

horsemen61
September 10, 2013, 10:53 AM
Wow that's crazy scary crazy

Willie Sutton
September 10, 2013, 11:58 AM
Well done. Now sue 'em.


Willie (50 miles south)

.

Ryanxia
September 10, 2013, 12:50 PM
I hope they don't let this go. Whether they actually sue or not is their choice (and I hope they do) but I hope they use this to raise awareness. Sounds like that town needs an OC trash pickup day like they did in NH. :)

armoredman
September 10, 2013, 01:04 PM
Sue for two things - monetary damages AND the termination of the involved officers. Tie them together, as people who KNOW they are violating the laws they are sworn to serve need to be booted out. Then file individual suit against the former officers, as publicly as possible, until LEOs understand that this conduct is not going to "chill" any rights, but will chill paychecks for quite some time.

feedthehogs
September 10, 2013, 01:08 PM
with zero punishment coming, the cops have no incentive to obey the law. to them any settlement comes from an insurance policy paid for by the tax payers.

if anyone was seriously interested in stopping these abuses, you hold the perpetrators responsible both criminally and financially. as long as there are blanket protections in place, this will not stop.

wisconsin
September 10, 2013, 02:05 PM
Being from the Oshkosh area (20 minutes south of Appleton) this suprises me. I open carried in the area many times and even had a few inquiries from local LEOs, none involving handcuffs. I really think the nail in the coffin for this was the rifles, given the way people have been seeing things lately.
How hard would have it been to simply ask why they were carrying? Thats all the LEOs ever did to me, and honestly, thats expected. The only time I had any harassment was Madison... shocker...
I hope these guys get something out of this, if I still lived up there I think it'd be time for an open carry picnic in Appleton...

buck460XVR
September 10, 2013, 02:19 PM
I too am from Wisconsin and find it hard to believe as much as OC has been publicized in the state, that any LEO would be that uninformed or ignorant. Still one has to wonder if the reason they had the video camera with them and recording was that they were hoping to have an incident to record. Either way, they were completely within their rights and the cops were wrong. There needs to be some disciplinary action shown. The violation of their 1st Amendment rights concerns me as much as the lack of respect for their 2nd Amendment rights.

Queen_of_Thunder
September 10, 2013, 02:33 PM
"This ain't going on on YouTube"

Just tell them its too late. The recording is already on a number of servers "live".

SilentStalker
September 10, 2013, 02:52 PM
So, at what point has it become illegal to carry a rifle around openly? As long as you are not brandishing it and waving it around how is it illegal? Has something changed in the last 40 years or so?

Dean Weingarten
September 10, 2013, 05:43 PM
There are very few places where it is illegal. California recently passed a ban on long gun open carry/

http://www.opencarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/opencarrymap-Nov1-2012.png

Texas law does not ban long gun open carry.

What has happened is the anti-freedom statists in the MSM have pushed the idea that long gun open carry is unacceptable, and are tryng to leverage that into an actual ban on some long guns, especially those with magazines of more than 10 rounds.

Sapper771
September 10, 2013, 06:10 PM
Still one has to wonder if the reason they had the video camera with them and recording was that they were hoping to have an incident to record.

This is was one of my first thoughts.

I see wrong on both sides of this situation.

welldoya
September 10, 2013, 06:22 PM
I too see wrongs on both sides. They obviously had the camera hoping the cops would stop them and they got their wish.
I don't care if open carry is legal or not, you should be selective in doing it.
I don't care to see guys walking down a downtown street carrying rifles. There's no reason for it. I don't care if it's legal or not. I can certainly see why it would set off alarms in people's heads, cops or not.
I mean come on, use your head. This is not helping the 2nd amendment cause.

fanchisimo
September 10, 2013, 08:06 PM
Those men being prepared to record could either be them looking for an incident OR it could be them wanting proof, just in case. I don't know if the goal is to open carry for the sake of it, but it's their right. If I was to have to open carry in public where I'm at, I may not record full time, but I would certainly be ready to start the recorder on my phone, just in case.

GEM
September 10, 2013, 08:29 PM
Heads up on TX. I always say this. Some cities (like San Antonio) have local ordinances against long arm open carry. This may not be state constitutional but hasn't been challenged to my knowledge. The law was designed to bust gang members with cheap SKS rifles when they flooded the market years ago.

When I asked the SAPD info officer several years ago, he seemed to think that they will enforce it.

Yes, you can probably beat it after taking the ride. Also, you never know when carrying a gun and talking to the law in a confrontational manner will go badly.

Open carry of handguns is not legal except in certain circumstances. NOT Starbucks or the mall.

HOOfan_1
September 10, 2013, 08:40 PM
Still one has to wonder if the reason they had the video camera with them and recording was that they were hoping to have an incident to record.

Bet the cops have a dash camera in their cruiser...in this day and age...it seems like most people have some sort of recording device with them.

orionengnr
September 10, 2013, 08:48 PM
I don't care if open carry is legal or not, you should be selective in doing it.
I don't care to see guys walking down a downtown street carrying rifles. There's no reason for it.
I don't care if free speech is legal or not...you should be selective in doing it.
I don't care to see people walking down a downtown street protesting, carrying signs, etc. There's no reason for it.

How ya like them apples? :rolleyes:

Your Constitutional Rights either exist or they do not....and if we don't exercise them, they will not.
Your feelings do not enter into it.

oldcelt
September 10, 2013, 09:34 PM
the bottom line is:These guys violated no laws so THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO BE TREATED LIKE CRIMMINAL SUPECTS

larryh1108
September 10, 2013, 09:45 PM
Lawsuit against the city.
Lawsuit against the PD.
Push for dismissal against the offending officers.
Lawsuit against the individual officers.

Send notice that these types of acts will not be tolerated and there will
be consequences. That's the only way to stop this type of harassment.

For the record, I feel that doing these types of things in this day and age is
not the smartest thing to do, although legal. If you do it just for the money because
you want to sue some deep pockets then you are equally as wrong as the officers
involved in their illegal acts. It does nothing to help our cause in the minds of the
fence-sitters. The only thing gained is self-satisfaction and sometimes that undermines
what is best for all of us. I see no other reason to do it other than you can. It seems
like another attention-getting youtube wannabe to me.

Dean Weingarten
September 10, 2013, 10:02 PM
If you do not use your rights you lose them. These guys did us all a favor. Just a few years ago, we heard all the same arguments against the open carry of pistols. Now most seem to think open carry of pistols is just fine. There are vanishingly small numbers of crimes committed with rifles compared to pistols. Even hands and feet, knives, and blunt instruments are used in crime far more than rifles are.

So, why all the hoopla? Because rifles have been demonized by the anti-Second Amendment types in a full out campaign in the old media.

The effect of this exposure of the police conspiring to nullify these guys Constitutional rights is pretty chilling. Their loyalty to each other seems to completely override their oath of office.

The punishment, when it comes, will make all Wisconsin officers sit up and take notice. Once pro-Second Amendment activists see that their rights are protected instead of under attack, they will not need to exercise them as much.

zxcvbob
September 10, 2013, 10:16 PM
Rather scary that police are so contemptuous of the law, and the citizens they are supposed to serve, not intimidate!


This surprises you? Where have you been for the past 10 years or so?

jdub3
September 11, 2013, 12:34 AM
The camera is there for protection against abuses, such as those that occurred. Saying that they went out looking for trouble because they had a camera makes as much sense as saying they were looking for trouble because they were carrying guns.

Fault on both sides, because they chose to exercise their constitutional rights?

Dean Weingarten
September 11, 2013, 01:13 AM
If the camera had not been there, we would never have head the police conspiring to deprive these men of their rights.

They would have gotten away with their conspiracy, and would have been able to hide behind the "blue wall of silence."

Good thing they had the camera. Transparancy is betginning to work both ways.

TonyDedo
September 11, 2013, 01:58 AM
The graphic is technically correct in that MA does not have a law against open carry. However, in MA a license is required to possess a firearm, and MA is a "shall issue" state, meaning licensure is up to the discretion of the issuing authority (in this case, the local Chief of Police). The CoP can revoke licensure at their discretion if s/he believes the licensee to be "unsuitable" to possess a firearm, and it's widely believed that if a MA licensee ever opened carried, it would result in an immediate revocation under this policy.

I've always wondered how many other states' gun owners have this anvil hanging over their heads.

NavyLCDR
September 11, 2013, 02:23 AM
The only thing gained is self-satisfaction and sometimes that undermines what is best for all of us. I see no other reason to do it other than you can. It seems like another attention-getting youtube wannabe to me.

So, if the officers are reprimanded for their unlawful violation of citizens' rights with the goal of deterring them from violating other citizens' rights, you don't see that as a benefit to be gained? Shoud the officers just be allowed to continue to violate citizens rights because to take action to record their behavior "undermines what is best for all of us?" It's easy to claim that so long as it isn't your rights that are being violated, isn't it?

stressed
September 11, 2013, 02:26 AM
hmm

powder
September 11, 2013, 02:40 AM
Interesting audio yakkin.....unfortunately, relatively clueless PD. "Walking towards a crowded farmer's market..."? Good god...

NavyLCDR
September 11, 2013, 03:20 AM
Wait.. guys, would I have a case?

A couple of weeks ago I was pulled over. (pulled me over for "suspicious driving" I'm not even sure what that is, I was following all road laws.

Anyway, came up, asked if there was any weapons. "I say ".22 rifle cased in back." He says I'm gonna have to seach your vehicle, check if that rifle is cased, do you mind?

Depends a lot on the state it occurred in.

Davek1977
September 11, 2013, 08:02 AM
Whether or not these guys went out hoping for a reaction or not, their behavior in absolutely no way qualifies the officers' behavior. When no laws are broken, common citizens shouldn't be treated as criminals. This "investigation" is the very definition of the term "fishing expedition" and their behavior should bring disgrace to their dept

HOOfan_1
September 11, 2013, 09:08 AM
I wait about half an hour to 45 min. Guy comes up to me and asks "If i'm paranoid and think someone is out to get me"

I would likely have responded...yes. Someone is out to get me.....YOU!!!!

HexHead
September 11, 2013, 09:27 AM
Just as long as those officers go home safe at night, right? Isn't that the usual excuse?

Dean Weingarten
September 11, 2013, 12:08 PM
So, if the officers are reprimanded for their unlawful violation of citizens' rights with the goal of deterring them from violating other citizens' rights, you don't see that as a benefit to be gained? Shoud the officers just be allowed to continue to violate citizens rights because to take action to record their behavior "undermines what is best for all of us?" It's easy to claim that so long as it isn't your rights that are being violated, isn't it?

That is the enourmous benefit of these "citizen sting" operations, isn't it? The biggest structural problem of any police department is figuring out a way to keep a check on their power. This is one of the best ways to enforce the Constitution. Notice that there is *no* coverage of this event in the old media. The First Amendment and the Second Amendment, working together, provide a powerful check on government abuses.

Ryanxia
September 11, 2013, 12:18 PM
To those who feel people should not be open carrying rifles:

"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Was that word pistols? No. Handguns? No. Arms. Don't like it or think it's not necessary? I hear Australia's nice this time of year.. :D

armoredman
September 11, 2013, 03:31 PM
Seek a lawyers professional advice, not the internet. You might have a case.

we are not amused
September 11, 2013, 04:08 PM
This surprises you? Where have you been for the past 10 years or so?

Surprised? No! Not even shocked, just disgusted!

I didn't indicate surprise, because this type of intimidation by goons wearing law enforcement uniforms is so common as to be unremarkable.

Don't get me wrong, there are good, even great cops out there, I have even known a few of them. But their numbers are shrinking as the twin evils of the militarization of the police continue, and the increasing meme of "compliance" continues to gain acceptance in our culture.

Both are an anathema to a society that once valued individuality and independence.

I have suffered at the hands of Jack Booted Thugs that didn't like my "Attitude", so this incident is not unexpected, but still scary and disgusting!

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 05:01 PM
As someone else stated, I can see wrong on both sides.

While I understand that these gentlemen were fully within their rights, I can't help but think of the phrase "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

I think most folks realize that carrying long guns around town is probably going to do little more than attract negative attention to both yourself and other gun owners. What exactly were these guys trying to accomplish, besides recording a good video?

I've seen more than a few YouTube videos of fellas who open carry seemingly for the single purpose of baiting a cop into saying or doing something stupid. There's no other reason I can think of for walking around with a gun and a camera rolling.

I guess I feel as if a person goes out and looks hard enough, they'll find it. In this case these fellas seemed to want attention and a police encounter. Well, they got it.

If these guys simply wanted to carry a gun for protection and go about their business, conceal it and move on.

Like I said before, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

HOOfan_1
September 11, 2013, 05:11 PM
Like I said before, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Still beside the point.

Now laws were being broken (except perhaps by the cops). So the cops shouldn't have gotten involved.

HexHead
September 11, 2013, 05:18 PM
While I understand that these gentlemen were fully within their rights, I can't help but think of the phrase "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."



What's next, "just because you can criticize the government, doesn't mean you should"? Or "just because you can refuse to a search without a warrant, doesn't mean you should"?

alsaqr
September 11, 2013, 05:23 PM
There are very few places where it is illegal.

Yep, the map has OK as open carry with a concealed carry permit. i can guarntee that a person who openly carries a rifle on the street in Oklahoma City, Lawton or Tulsa will be stopped by the police.

Some those who openly carry rifles are trolling for a reaction by the local police. They do our cause no good.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 06:05 PM
What's next, "just because you can criticize the government, doesn't mean you should"? Or "just because you can refuse to a search without a warrant, doesn't mean you should"?

Sure.

I don't see the need to resist any and everything simply because I can. If I'm driving and get pulled over and the cop asks to look in my trunk, have at it. I'm not concerned about some dude checking out my tire iron and jack. I'm a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide.

Same goes for criticizing the government. I see no real point in wasting my breath most of the time.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 06:11 PM
Still beside the point.

Now laws were being broken (accept perhaps by the cops). So the cops shouldn't have gotten involved.

Never said laws were broken or that cops should have gotten involved, but I think the plethora of videos on YouTube showing pretty much this exact scenario would indicate that there was a pretty high chance this would happen.

Bottom line, at least for me, is that these guys were attention seeking and pretty much trying to bait a cop into doing something they shouldn't have. I'm all for guns and carry and such, obviously, but, to me, this is pushing the limits of what most folks would call sensible.

From a 'tactical' standpoint, I can't see one positive other than to paint a giant bullseye on yourself for any and all to see.

tomrkba
September 11, 2013, 06:29 PM
As someone else stated, I can see wrong on both sides.

While I understand that these gentlemen were fully within their rights, I can't help but think of the phrase "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Argue about "cop baiting" and so forth while your rights are legislated away. We're in this situation because we have allowed government to abuse the Constitution. They're abusing the Commerce Clause to justify the Gun Control Act of 1968. We wouldn't have to "cop bait" if the police were staying within the limits of their authority and the legislature weren't setting citizens at odds with the police.

The real problem with Americans is that we're judgmental <removed> who demand others behave as we think best. You would do well to relearn what a right is.

silicosys4
September 11, 2013, 06:33 PM
Bottom line, at least for me, is that these guys were attention seeking and pretty much trying to bait a cop into doing something they shouldn't have. I'm all for guns and carry and such, obviously, but, to me, this is pushing the limits of what most folks would call sensible.

I am concerned with the Police recognizing and following the laws, not with who is concerned with whatever legal activities that I am involved in. "Baiting" does not apply to public servants that don't like to recognize legal activities.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 06:33 PM
Argue about "cop baiting" and so forth while your rights are legislated away. We're in this situation because we have allowed government to abuse the Constitution. They're abusing the Commerce Clause to justify the Gun Control Act of 1968. We wouldn't have to "cop bait" if the police were staying within the limits of their authority and the legislature weren't setting citizens at odds with the police.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

zxcvbob
September 11, 2013, 06:39 PM
From a 'tactical' standpoint, I can't see one positive other than to paint a giant bullseye on yourself for any and all to see.


Kinda like how that white stripe down a skunk's back draws attention.

tomrkba
September 11, 2013, 06:39 PM
Well, S&W620, you demand others not express their rights in the same way that you do.

I am not crazy about rifle open carry either, but I will not use the law, advocate for a law, or use social pressure to stop it. It is not my business and despite these people are engaging in what I believe to be a mistake, it is their right. I don't like it, but I will defend their right to do it. That is the difference between us, S&W620. I understand and defend rights even if I don't like it.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 07:01 PM
Well, S&W620, you demand others not express their rights in the same way that you do.

I am not crazy about rifle open carry either, but I will not use the law, advocate for a law, or use social pressure to stop it. It is not my business and despite these people are engaging in what I believe to be a mistake, it is their right. I don't like it, but I will defend their right to do it. That is the difference between us, S&W620. I understand and defend rights even if I don't like it.

Pump the brakes pal, I haven't demanded a thing, simply stated my opinion, which is pretty much the point of these discussions, right?

As far as it being their right, I believe that was pretty much my first comment on the subject.

Finally, you know nothing about me based on 4 posts on THR, other than I think carrying a rifle around town is dumb, but I appreciate your attempt.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 07:15 PM
Kinda like how that white stripe down a skunk's back draws attention.
That stripe doesn't seem to bother many owls.

I do like the wildlife references though.

Just so I'm clear here, how many of you folks open carry a long gun around town?

rooter
September 11, 2013, 07:27 PM
These activities are more aptly titled: "What to do when you have no life, couldn't get laid if you paid for it, and didn't get enough attention growing up."

These activities do nothing but make gun owners appear to be attention seeking idiots!

PavePusher
September 11, 2013, 08:39 PM
I too see wrongs on both sides. They obviously had the camera hoping the cops would stop them and they got their wish.
I don't care if open carry is legal or not, you should be selective in doing it.
I don't care to see guys walking down a downtown street carrying rifles. There's no reason for it. I don't care if it's legal or not. I can certainly see why it would set off alarms in people's heads, cops or not.
I mean come on, use your head. This is not helping the 2nd amendment cause.
No reason for you to be speaking in public or voting either, amIright?

HOOfan_1
September 11, 2013, 08:43 PM
These activities are more aptly titled: "What to do when you have no life, couldn't get laid if you paid for it, and didn't get enough attention growing up."

These activities do nothing but make gun owners appear to be attention seeking idiots!

The Sons of Liberty made American Colonists look like whiny attention seeking zealots...

Don't all protestors and lobbyists seek attention???

Would I do it myself? Nope, not yet, I live in a fairly firearm friendly state...but if I were in a place like Colorado or New York and the government kept pushing and pushing....maybe some display of resolve would be necessary.

Can what they are doing negatively effect gun rights? Sure....if we allow it.
If we sit back and do nothing, and shake our finger at the way other people choose to express their freedoms, those freedoms can be eroded just as easily.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 08:57 PM
No reason for you to be speaking in public or voting either, amIright?
Speaking eloquently an voting will actually do positive things for gun owners and our rights.

Carrying a rifle around waiting for cops to show up doesn't.

powder
September 11, 2013, 09:06 PM
Carrying a rifle around waiting for cops to show up doesn't.

Wrong.

The Appleton P.D. had a positive scenario with these guys, though the P.D. was uneducated overall on policy/procedure/2A. Now, there are probably 10-20 Officers there who NOW know that there was nothing illegal going on, AND a D.C. ticket WILL yield a lawsuit. THAT is much more powerful than WAITING for November or sending another hopeful check to the NRA. IMHO...

Bubba613
September 11, 2013, 09:18 PM
Cops had probable cause. Possible active shooter scenario/terrorism. These guys will get nothing.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

PavePusher
September 11, 2013, 09:19 PM
As someone else stated, I can see wrong on both sides.

While I understand that these gentlemen were fully within their rights, I can't help but think of the phrase "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

I think most folks realize that carrying long guns around town is probably going to do little more than attract negative attention to both yourself and other gun owners. What exactly were these guys trying to accomplish, besides recording a good video?

I've seen more than a few YouTube videos of fellas who open carry seemingly for the single purpose of baiting a cop into saying or doing something stupid. There's no other reason I can think of for walking around with a gun and a camera rolling.

I guess I feel as if a person goes out and looks hard enough, they'll find it. In this case these fellas seemed to want attention and a police encounter. Well, they got it.

If these guys simply wanted to carry a gun for protection and go about their business, conceal it and move on.

Like I said before, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Just because you can sit at a lunch counter if your skin is dark, doesn't mean you should, amIright?

I trust the parallels are obvious....

PavePusher
September 11, 2013, 09:22 PM
These activities are more aptly titled: "What to do when you have no life, couldn't get laid if you paid for it, and didn't get enough attention growing up."

These activities do nothing but make gun owners appear to be attention seeking idiots!
Exactly the 'arguments' the Anti's use. Interesting tactic.....

Bubba613
September 11, 2013, 09:23 PM
Those are nothing like arguments anti's use.

Warp
September 11, 2013, 09:23 PM
I too see wrongs on both sides. They obviously had the camera hoping the cops would stop them and they got their wish.
I don't care if open carry is legal or not, you should be selective in doing it.
I don't care to see guys walking down a downtown street carrying rifles. There's no reason for it. I don't care if it's legal or not. I can certainly see why it would set off alarms in people's heads, cops or not.
I mean come on, use your head. This is not helping the 2nd amendment cause.

Fortunately nobody else needs to give you a reason for why they choose to do something that is perfectly lawful.

PavePusher
September 11, 2013, 09:24 PM
Cops had probable cause. Possible active shooter scenario/terrorism. These guys will get nothing.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Huh? Who was shooting?

Warp
September 11, 2013, 09:24 PM
Cops had probable cause. Possible active shooter scenario/terrorism. These guys will get nothing.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

No, they did not have probable cause.

mgkdrgn
September 11, 2013, 09:38 PM
This surprises you? Where have you been for the past 10 years or so?
just 10???

HOOfan_1
September 11, 2013, 09:47 PM
Cops had probable cause. Possible active shooter scenario/terrorism. These guys will get nothing.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Probable cause to check them out...sure.

Probable cause to handcuff and detain...NOPE!!

zxcvbob
September 11, 2013, 09:47 PM
I think the bar is only "reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts"
...but they didn't have that either.

(that's as hard to say as "indubitably")

Warp
September 11, 2013, 09:54 PM
Some of you guys need to look up these two things:

RAS (reasonable articuable suspicion)

PC (probable cause)

They are very different things.

And I fail to see how LE had either.

Remember the part that comes after RAS or PC is 'that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed'

And no, that asinine "we don't know they aren't breaking the law" crap doesn't fly. LE doesn't get to so much as stop and detain somebody just to see if maybe they are breaking a law. Kinda like they can't pull you over just to see if you have a driver license, and kinda like how they can't just search your residence to make sure you aren't hiding a random dead body.

Jackal
September 11, 2013, 10:03 PM
On one hand I can sort of see the police viewpoint on this, they dont want the hassle of taking all the calls they WILL get over something like this. However, they are there to enforce the law. Period. If what they were doing was lawful (which it was), the police have no business even stopping them. These two fellows did not even legally need to present their ID or answer any questions. The old standby "Have I broken the law?" & "Am I free to go?"

orionengnr
September 11, 2013, 10:25 PM
On one hand I can sort of see the police viewpoint on this, they dont want the hassle of taking all the calls they WILL get over something like this.
Then the police need to help educate the public.

"Officer, there's a man with a gun!"
"What is he doing, ma'am?"
"He's walking down the street...but he has a gun!"
"That is perfectly legal, ma'am. Have a nice day."
Click.

zorro45
September 11, 2013, 10:33 PM
I can foresee two really bad cases of PTSD coming on.
Being confronted at gunpoint, handcuffed and being put in the back
of a hot and smelly police car,.......
Also there are some places where motorists routine put dashcams in their vehicles to document "fake automobile accidents" it is actually pretty inexpensive to cover your vehicle from inside going around 360degrees with these. Might be helpful if you are a committed "long gun open carry activist."

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 10:44 PM
Just because you can sit at a lunch counter if your skin is dark, doesn't mean you should, amIright?

I trust the parallels are obvious....

Not really.

Black folks were sitting for rights they didn't have.

We have the right to walk around with a rifle. I'm debating the purpose, intent and need for such a show.

Not remotely close to the same situation.

Sam1911
September 11, 2013, 10:58 PM
We have the right to walk around with a rifle.As these folks showed. What difference does it make if they have to spend 45 minutes in handcuffs if they exercise that right? I mean, they're free to do it...if they don't mind being detained in cuffs. Sounds like freedom to me!

Warp
September 11, 2013, 11:05 PM
As these folks showed. What difference does it make if they have to spend 45 minutes in handcuffs if they exercise that right? I mean, they're free to do it...if they don't mind being detained in cuffs. Sounds like freedom to me!

Amen, Sam.

I'm tired of hearing...and from regulars on gun forums no less!...that we have a "right" to X example of RKBA...but we should expect to be disarmed and detained (if not arrested) by armed government agents if we do it...and just shouldn't do it.

This "you have a right to do it, but you can't do it" thing is just, uh...

I mean...WHAT? :confused:

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 11:07 PM
As these folks showed. What difference does it make if they have to spend 45 minutes in handcuffs if they exercise that right? I mean, they're free to do it...if they don't mind being detained in cuffs. Sounds like freedom to me!
Are we free to do so? Sure.

Does that mean it'll be easy? No.

Were they looking for such a confrontation? You decide.

Most states offer a CCW program that would afford the individual similar protection while virtually eliminating these encounters.

Open carrying a rifle, while lawful, is nothing more than an invitation to harassment from local PD's, whether right or wrong.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 11:10 PM
Amen, Sam.

I'm tired of hearing...and from regulars on gun forums no less!...that we have a "right" to X example of RKBA...but we should expect to be disarmed and detained (if not arrested) by armed government agents if we do it...and just shouldn't do it.

This "you have a right to do it, but you can't do it" thing is just, uh...

I mean...WHAT? :confused:

So..as pro 2A folks we should simply agree with you to make things easier for you to debate?

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 11:11 PM
So..as pro 2A folks we should simply agree with you to make things easier for you to debate?

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.

All due respect.

Bubba613
September 11, 2013, 11:14 PM
Who was shooting? No one. Yet. But you don't wait for shooting to start before intervening. Perhaps they over-reacted. Maybe they didnt. But I wouldn't want to be standing in front of a judge trying to explain that I was "exercising my rights" on 9/11, scaring a bunch of people to death. It's possible a judge will be sympathetic to that. But I doubt it.
Police would be derelict in their duty not to at least check out thoroughly a situation like that.

Warp
September 11, 2013, 11:14 PM
So..as pro 2A folks we should simply agree with you to make things easier for you to debate?

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.

Reality is that you do not have the Right to do something if you get disarmed, cuffed, and detained by LE from doing it.

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the problem.

The problem is LE not following the law. And that, by its very nature, is a very serious problem

Warp
September 11, 2013, 11:15 PM
Who was shooting? No one. Yet. But you don't wait for shooting to start before intervening.

:banghead:

Bubba613
September 11, 2013, 11:15 PM
Are you charged with a crime, tried and jailed/fined? No. Then you have a right to do it. You want to exercise your right and be hassled? Go right ahead. But no one said it was supposed to be easy.

Warp
September 11, 2013, 11:20 PM
Are you charged with a crime, tried and jailed/fined? No. Then you have a right to do it. You want to exercise your right and be hassled? Go right ahead. But no one said it was supposed to be easy.

The biggest problem here is that you seem to support detaining people simply because it is theoretically possible that they could commit a crime at some point in the future.

This is mind boggling.

Though a very close second is being okay with disarming, cuffing, and detaining people for exercising a supposed Right.

Actually, I may have that backwards...I'm not sure which one is worse.

Bubba613
September 11, 2013, 11:23 PM
It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable. Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes. Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe. That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 11:23 PM
Reality is that you do not have the Right to do something if you get disarmed, cuffed, and detained by LE from doing it.

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the problem.

The problem is LE not following the law. And that, by its very nature, is a very serious problem

Would it be ideal if all LEO knew the laws where they worked? Sure. Will these goofs see disciplinary action? Probably. Of course that's simply not the reality.

While these folks are free to do as they please, they may have to deal with uniformed LEO's. Just part of the game IMO. Not saying I am OK with it, but it is what i is.

I'm just saying there are easier ways to 'skin the cat' in regards to personal self protection.

Sam1911
September 11, 2013, 11:24 PM
Are we free to do so? Sure.

Does that mean it'll be easy? No.
You have a right to do a great number of things that might end badly for you.

However, one of the goals and principles of a free society is that the government does not harass you if you do not violate the law. Your fellow citizens may do whatever they choose, within the law, but the agents of the government should not act against you unless you are BREAKING the law.

Detaining someone (in cuffs no less) for no reason other than doing something they clearly have a right to do is harassment.

Were they looking for such a confrontation? You decide.I'd say they were prepared to face it, but the real goal is to act as they did WITHOUT harassment. One way to pursue that goal is to act and then punish those agents of the government who react in ways they should not.

This time they got harassed. Next year, they won't. (If the example of states like VA is anything to go by.) It is not just the non-sworn citizen who learns through the unpleasant results of his/her poorly chosen actions. Police officers and departments do, too. (Again, ask the VCDL about that.)

Most states offer a CCW program that would afford the individual similar protection while virtually eliminating these encounters.Of course. But that would miss the point entirely. Again, the object here is not to go armed and hiding, but to be free to go armed without the subterfuge.

Open carrying a rifle, while lawful, is nothing more than an invitation to harassment from local PD's, whether right or wrong.I'd take that a step further. Open carrying a rifle is an expression of a right. Being harassed and taking firm action in reply may be part of establishing that such a right does indeed exist. Open carrying a rifle next time -- absent the harassment -- will be "nothing more" than a demonstration that the right is fully recognized.

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.I rather like the way that "reality" has been playing out in recent years. Plenty of great examples around of agencies and local governments doing a crisp about-face when a few citizens bring their attorneys to bear.

Sam1911
September 11, 2013, 11:30 PM
Then you have a right to do it. You want to exercise your right and be hassled? I think that black people should have the right to be served in any restaurant in town. But I think it would be ok if the police handcuffed them and checked their identity cards to "just check" that they don't have any outstanding wants or warrants first.

No body said it was supposed to be easy. You with me, Bubba?

Bubba613
September 11, 2013, 11:32 PM
No, Sam, I fail to see any form of comparison whatsoever. Black people eating at a counter do not present a threat to the public. People carrying loaded rifles might. They are like chalk and cheese.

Sam1911
September 11, 2013, 11:38 PM
It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable.

Armed men walking in public means it is PROBABLE they're in the act of, or about to commit a crime? :scrutiny: ... :D

Ok, so you're obviously kidding about that. Please?

Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes. Wait...WHAT? Did you just say they have a MOTIVE? For a crime? How in the blazes would you possibly establish a MOTIVE for a crime in this case? That would be the grossest, most absurd speculation imaginable! You might as well pick someone off the street who looks well-off and detain them because they clearly have the MOTIVE to embezzle from someone.

Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe. Now you're just goofin'. A demonstrated intent to WHAT? Walk down the street?

Do we need to identify some special definitions of the words, "motive," "demonstrated," and "intent," so that this statement makes sense?

That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.And that's the sort of thinking guys like this are helping to drum out of our police corps.

S&W620
September 11, 2013, 11:39 PM
You have a right to do a great number of things that might end badly for you.

However, one of the goals and principles of a free society is that the government does not harass you if you do not violate the law. Your fellow citizens may do whatever they choose, within the law, but the agents of the government should not act against you unless you are BREAKING the law.

Detaining someone (in cuffs no less) for no reason other than doing something they clearly have a right to do is harassment.

I'd say they were prepared to face it, but the real goal is to act as they did WITHOUT harassment. One way to pursue that goal is to act and then punish those agents of the government who react in ways they should not.

This time they got harassed. Next year, they won't. (If the example of states like VA is anything to go by.) It is not just the non-sworn citizen who learns through the unpleasant results of his/her poorly chosen actions. Police officers and departments to do. (Again, ask the VCDL about that.)

Of course. But that would miss the point entirely. Again, the object here is not to go armed and hiding, but to be free to go armed without the subterfuge.

I'd take that a step further. Open carrying a rifle is an expression of a right. Being harassed and taking firm action in reply may be part of establishing that such a right does indeed exist. Open carrying a rifle next time -- absent the harassment -- will be "nothing more" than a demonstration that the right is fully recognized.

Very good post Sam.

I agree that the 'Gov't agents" should be punished as they showed they cannot follow simple laws/rules. This is not up for debate IMO. They were wrong, plain and simple.

That said, to view this as a surprise is asinine. This is par for the course, so to speak.

As others have stated, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Sam1911
September 11, 2013, 11:41 PM
No, Sam, I fail to see any form of comparison whatsoever. Black people eating at a counter do not present a threat to the public. People carrying loaded rifles might. They are like chalk and cheese.Oh really? What if those black people are armed? They might be you know! Could be some of those concealed weapons. Really best to check, don't you think?

What is it we like about hidden weapons that we can't stand about plain-view weapons?

People who are hiding guns are presumed GOOD folks. People who don't hide are probably BAD folks. Sounds like probable cause to me! :D

Sam1911
September 11, 2013, 11:43 PM
That said, to view this as a surprise is asinine. This is par for the course, so to speak.Oh, I don't think anyone's surprised, exactly. Frustrated and angry, but not surprised.

If these dudes were really SURPRISED, well...they weren't.

As others have stated, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.But it isn't at all a "stupid" game. It is a tactic, and kind of a SMART one that has proven to work across the country.

FROGO207
September 12, 2013, 12:06 AM
If these two guys were in the act of walking across town from one guys house to a shooting spot and did it this way because neither of them had a means of transportation and this happened-----would you guys that are complaining still be OK with the result shown?? Or OC on a motorcycle because that was all you had to get to the range/gun store/home?? Would that be a problem to you also?? OC is OC and if it is legal, good on those two for standing up to what appears to be blatant disregard of the LAW AS WRITTEN. Make a poor choice and you get the reward you deserve. As the officers involved should soon learn.;) IMHO you have to train others how to treat you. Oh I OC rifle or hand gun around here at times and now few seem notice, but that was not always the case.:banghead:

arizona98tj
September 12, 2013, 12:13 AM
For those participating in this thread who believe it is OK for someone to get stopped and hassled for exercising their 2A rights.....bear with me for a bit as I reflect on what has changed in the past 4 decades.

During my last year of high school (1972-73), I took multiple long guns to school, throughout the year, to blue in the hot metals shop and refinish the stocks. I carried them to and from school via the public school bus. The only "attention" I got was a question from the bus driver ensuring the firearm was not loaded.

Fast forward to today.....my grandson can get suspended from kindergarten if he draws a picture of a gun.....or maybe nibbling his Poptart into the shape of a gun like another child recently did (yeah, it was in the news). This zero tolerance policy concept is way off the deep end, IMO.

The way I see if....this country has gone down the tubes FAR too much in the past 4 decades in regards to gun rights. If I follow your way of thinking which will result in my rights being further trampled by LEOs that "don't like" something I might be legally doing, in another 4 decades, we won't be having this discussion because we won't have any guns to carry.

PedalBiker
September 12, 2013, 12:15 AM
Who was shooting? No one. Yet. But you don't wait for shooting to start before intervening. Perhaps they over-reacted. Maybe they didnt. But I wouldn't want to be standing in front of a judge trying to explain that I was "exercising my rights" on 9/11, scaring a bunch of people to death. It's possible a judge will be sympathetic to that. But I doubt it.
Police would be derelict in their duty not to at least check out thoroughly a situation like that.

Perhaps I'm scared by the way you drive.

NavyLCDR
September 12, 2013, 12:58 AM
Kinda like how that white stripe down a skunk's back draws attention.
Oh man, I love that! That is PERFECT! Can I use that one in the future, please?!?

JTHunter
September 12, 2013, 12:59 AM
As everybody here knows, Illinois just passed a CC law. However, the State Police have yet to even certify any instructors AND they can delay the start of the application process until Jan. 2014. :scrutiny:
When all is said and done, the soonest the first CC permits could be issued would probably be April 2014. :eek:
And we STILL cannot OC!! :cuss:

Considering the OP's problem, think of how much fun we are going to have here considering how long our rights have been strangled! Then, we have idiots like this LEO in Shicago shooting off his mouth about having his officers react negatively to anybody found carrying in "his" town. :what: :banghead:

NavyLCDR
September 12, 2013, 01:07 AM
Sure.

I don't see the need to resist any and everything simply because I can. If I'm driving and get pulled over and the cop asks to look in my trunk, have at it. I'm not concerned about some dude checking out my tire iron and jack. I'm a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide.

Same goes for criticizing the government. I see no real point in wasting my breath most of the time.

People claim that the "open carry activists" are doing more harm than good. But, I've got to ask, are the people who will submit just because they think there is no reason not to hurting "the cause" as well? If a police officer stops 5 people and they all let him look in the trunk just because he asks, what happens with the 6th person stopped who says no? Do the actions of the 5 previous people who willingly waive their rights to officers at their first request affect the reaction of the officer to the 6th person who refuses to waive his rights?

Just because I have nothing to hide is not a legitimate reason for me to waive my rights. Just because I have nothing to hide is no guarantee that they won't find something.

NavyLCDR
September 12, 2013, 01:25 AM
No, Sam, I fail to see any form of comparison whatsoever. Black people eating at a counter do not present a threat to the public. People carrying loaded rifles might. They are like chalk and cheese.

How about people carrying loaded guns in holsters? Might they present a threat to the public as well? Seems to me like most of the people on this forum carry handguns in holsters in normal life. So why does that not make all of us an equal "possible" threat to public, and...therefore... we should be treated equally by the police according to your standards then, right? Only a small percentage of murders in this country are committed using rifles compared to those committed using a handgun. Seems like it is the people who carry handguns are the ones who are more likely to be the criminals, according to the statistics, so shouldn't it be the people carrying handguns that actually fall under more suspicion?

It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable. Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes. Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe. That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.

Since the majority of murders in this country that are committed with firearms are committed using handguns, does that mean that those people carrying handguns have motive and possible demonstrated intent? And, heck, the act of concealing that handgun should even be more indication of motive and intent then, right? After all, as S&W620 likes to say, "If you are a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide....."

denton
September 12, 2013, 01:46 AM
I must be getting old.

I distinctly remember when a group of teenage boys, with 22 rifles over their shoulders and a sack of empty cans, walking out to the gravel pit on the edge of town, were regarded as fine upstanding youth, on their way to engage in a worthwhile, responsible pastime. If the police intervened at all, it would be to wave hello and remind them to follow the safety rules.

Dear Lord, what has happened to us?

As to the legal issues, regardless of how rude or polite, sensibly or irrationally you are acting, the police have the right to detain or arrest you only if they have reason to believe that you have, are, or are about to break the law. Until and unless they legally detain or arrest you, they have no right to search you and definitely no right to seize your property. Like anyone else, a police officer can ask anyone any question. You are under no obligation to reply. Those officers who abuse their authority do run the risk of getting up close and personal with 42 USC 1983. These undoubtedly will.

powder
September 12, 2013, 02:00 AM
Were they looking for such a confrontation? You decide.

No, they were examplifying dissent, acting with civil disobedience, and they got documentation as to their own civility.

If YOU want to stand on the sidelines and referee, don't be complaining later when you cannot find your spine/rifle/pistol.

The APPs (Armed Prohibited Persons) are having their doors kicked in, in CA right now, by local LE paid with Federal monies to confiscate now and ask questions later. Now is NOT the time to be playing devil's advocate and manipulative troll, unless...

Coop45
September 12, 2013, 03:19 AM
People like S&W620 are the problem. Afraid to exercise a constitutional right because it's not easy.

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 04:41 AM
People like S&W620 are the problem. Afraid to exercise a constitutional right because it's not easy.
So you're saying you open carry a rifle through town?

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 04:48 AM
No, they were examplifying dissent, acting with civil disobedience, and they got documentation as to their own civility.

If YOU want to stand on the sidelines and referee, don't be complaining later when you cannot find your spine/rifle/pistol.

The APPs (Armed Prohibited Persons) are having their doors kicked in, in CA right now, by local LE paid with Federal monies to confiscate now and ask questions later. Now is NOT the time to be playing devil's advocate and manipulative troll, unless...
Again, I'm assuming YOU regularly open carry long guns, right? If not, YOU are pretty much sitting on the sidelines right beside me (apparently).

Oh, and my spine is in just the right place. A fact you'd have likely found out in short order if you weren't simply talking BS on the internet. Don't confuse a difference of opinion with being a bitch.

frankenstein406
September 12, 2013, 04:51 AM
Again, I'm assuming YOU regularly open carry long guns, right? If not, YOU are pretty much sitting on the sidelines right beside me (apparently).

Oh, and my spine is in just the right place. A fact you'd have likely found out in short order if you weren't simply talking BS on the internet. Don't confuse a difference of opinion with being a bitch.
Was there really a need for swearing?

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 04:54 AM
Was there really a need for swearing?
There was probably as much need for swearing as there was for calling me spineless (essentially) for having a difference of opinion.

Bobson
September 12, 2013, 06:23 AM
Thanks for the intermission, guys.

Some of you guys need to look up these two things:

RAS (reasonable articuable suspicion)

PC (probable cause)

They are very different things.

And I fail to see how LE had either.

Remember the part that comes after RAS or PC is 'that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed'

And no, that asinine "we don't know they aren't breaking the law" crap doesn't fly. LE doesn't get to so much as stop and detain somebody just to see if maybe they are breaking a law. Kinda like they can't pull you over just to see if you have a driver license, and kinda like how they can't just search your residence to make sure you aren't hiding a random dead body.
You're exactly right, Warp. There certainly wasn't any PC - that's not even worthy of being debated. As far as reasonable suspicion, even that is quite a stretch. The mere fact that people call 911 complaining about anything doesn't create reasonable suspicion. If there's nothing that can be corroborated, there's no RS. "Yep they're walking down the street carrying firearms openly and legally, just like the guy on the phone said." There's no RS here. And let's say for a minute that there was RS, just for the sake of argument. The only thing that would give the officers legal right to do is stop and frisk - 3 to 4 minutes to do a welfare check, max. A 45-minute detention is completely uncalled for, and absolutely constitutes unlawful detention.

You can hear the cops trying to rationalize the detention around the 14:10 mark: "Well open carry with a pistol is one thing but these guys had AR15s strapped to their backs..."
"Right, right."

Then again at 26 mins, one cop seems like he's trying to convince the others that these guys were violating the rights of the people at the farmers market. Pretty ridiculous.

Here's Wisconsin's statutory code for Disorderly Conduct:
947.01  Disorderly conduct.
(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.
I think they have a solid case, given the second point in the law.

Deanimator
September 12, 2013, 06:34 AM
They obviously had the camera hoping the cops would stop them and they got their wish.

I don't open carry.
I don't carry a video camera.
I NEVER leave the house armed without an audio recorder RUNNING.

I've seen and experienced enough things to NEVER trust strangers to tell the truth. That includes cops.

Just about EVERY recent high profile police misconduct case I can think of would NEVER have come to light without audio and or video recording.

grter
September 12, 2013, 06:59 AM
I hate to break the news to some of you but some of the popular type of gun control laws resulted from fear of black people owning and carrying firearms. Some of them happen to pertain to open carry and brought to light during protests if I am not mistaken.

NavyLCDR
September 12, 2013, 07:36 AM
People like S&W620 are the problem. Afraid to exercise a constitutional right because it's not easy.So you're saying you open carry a rifle through town?
I'm willing to bet a paycheck that Coop45 wouldn't pop his trunk open during a traffic stop just because "I'm driving and get pulled over and the cop asks to look in my trunk, have at it. I'm not concerned about some dude checking out my tire iron and jack. I'm a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide."

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 08:16 AM
I'm willing to bet a paycheck that Coop45 wouldn't pop his trunk open during a traffic stop just because "I'm driving and get pulled over and the cop asks to look in my trunk, have at it. I'm not concerned about some dude checking out my tire iron and jack. I'm a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide."

I'm also willing to bet a paycheck that folks usually talk much more on the internet than they actually do in real life.

Allowing a cop to look in my trunk isn't giving up any right at all, it's simply allowing a cop to look in my trunk, don't confuse the two. Again, just because I can prohibit it doesn't mean I have to. Personally I'd rather save myself the 45 min these schmucks wasted and go on about my day than debate laws with cops.

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 08:32 AM
Personally I'd rather save myself the 45 min these schmucks wasted and go on about my day than debate laws with cops.You're still framing this incident in terms of "oh, that's a hassle which disrupts my day."

That misrepresents what these guys were doing. As I pointed out before, this is a TACTIC. (And a good one, which works.) They fully understood that they might spend an hour -- or possibly even a night in jail! -- to produce the change they want to see. ...Or, that they'd spend no time at all being hassled and so determine and show that the right is honored.

You wouldn't "waste your time" like this because this particular manifestation of the right is not important to you (apparently at all). That's fine, though it would be great to hear gun rights supporters express themselves that way rather than insulting, ridiculing, and essentially DISCOURAGING, those other gun rights supporters who are willing to invest some time and trouble into furthering the right.

Even if you will NEVER EVER EVER exercise your right to walk down the street with a firearm in plain sight, having that degree of freedom established and respected is a buffer between whatever it is you choose to do and encroaching oppressiveness by law enforcement. If you can visualize gun rights (or any rights, really) as a spectrum of activities that have outlying "extremes" of what is accepted as within your rights, it is always more comfortable to have someone else stand on and maintain those extremes for you. Then you can exercise whatever rights you DO care about comfortably and without worrying that you'll find your own activities on the "extreme" edge, and targeted for harassment.

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 08:50 AM
You're still framing this incident in terms of "oh, that's a hassle which disrupts my day."

That misrepresents what these guys were doing. As I pointed out before, this is a TACTIC. (And a good one, which works.) They fully understood that they might spend an hour -- or possibly even a night in jail! -- to produce the change they want to see. ...Or, that they'd spend no time at all being hassled and so determine and show that the right is honored.

You wouldn't "waste your time" like this because this particular manifestation of the right is not important to you (apparently at all). That's fine, though it would be great to hear gun rights supporters express themselves that way rather than insulting, ridiculing, and essentially DISCOURAGING, those other gun rights supporters who are willing to invest some time and trouble into furthering the right.

Even if you will NEVER EVER EVER exercise your right to walk down the street with a firearm in plain sight, having that degree of freedom established and respected is a buffer between whatever it is you choose to do and encroaching oppressiveness by law enforcement. If you can visualize gun rights (or any rights, really) as a spectrum of activities that have outlying "extremes" of what is accepted as within your rights, it is always more comfortable to have someone else stand on and maintain those extremes for you. Then you can exercise whatever rights you DO care about comfortably and without worrying that you'll find your own activities on the "extreme" edge, and targeted for harassment.

What change are they hoping to see? We already have the right to do this. They want to change people's perception of the act and I don't believe this to be a sound way to do so.

They aren't furthering any right IMO, they are making gun owners look poor.

I just find it funny that these folks seem to have so much support yet no one seems to be following their lead and taking their AR's for a walk down Main St. I guess I would have expected more action and less talk if it were truly such a great idea.

Torian
September 12, 2013, 08:55 AM
Anyway you look at it, I don't take issue with police questioning IF it is done in a lawful and professional manner.

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 09:02 AM
What change are they hoping to see?
We already went through this. They're hoping (and making an active effort) to see an end to the very police reaction that they got.

They're saying, if someone walks out their door with a rifle slung over their shoulder, my local police seem to be willing to harass them without lawful cause. I want to stop that, and I can do so by pushing that issue and then pursuing legal action against them to force them to stop.

Remember, in court a party has no standing to bring a suit unless they've been tangibly harmed by another party. So in all cases of seeking a judicial review and rectification of an issue, SOMEONE has to go out and draw fire. Then they have standing and can bring a case to court. It's called being a "test case."

A well-respected and brave thing to do.

We already have the right to do this. Yeah, again, if you really don't mind the handcuffs! A right that you spend time in irons because you exercised is not fully a right.

They want to change people's perception of the act and I don't believe this to be a sound way to do so. Maybe they do, probably they do. However, this appears to be a move to change POLICE RESPONSE which is not necessarily directly related to "people's perception." Police response can be changed through a court action as a result of a lawsuit.

They aren't furthering any right IMO, they are making gun owners look poor.Well, opinions are what they are. Sure can't change your mind about whether you like seeing guns or not, but hopefully you're starting to understand the process they're working.

I just find it funny that these folks seem to have so much support yet no one seems to be following their lead and taking their AR's for a walk down Main St. REALLY? This is happening all over the country! Heck, we had people show up at presidential election rallies with slung AR-15s last time around! There are tons of stories of open carrying as a show of solidarity, of political expression, as a means to change police departmental policy, and just as a matter of daily life for some.

I guess I would have expected more action and less talk if it were truly such a great idea.Hey, the web (and THR) is full of these accounts. I'm not sure why you haven't seen them, but do some looking and you'll find they're a lot more common that (apparently) you think.

we are not amused
September 12, 2013, 09:05 AM
Cops had probable cause. Possible active shooter scenario/terrorism. These guys will get nothing.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


Possible active shooter scenario/terrorism?:banghead::banghead:

Jeeze! Some people will do anything to defend a bunch of thugs!

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 09:05 AM
No Sam, I don't mean other folks on the internet, I mean you, and folks who share your view here on THR. You know, the folks telling me I'm wrong.

I've yet to hear a first person account of such an incident.

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 09:18 AM
Wait, you're asking if I have open carried a rifle to challenge my local police's policy? No, I haven't. I live in an extremely gun-friendly township in an extremely gun-friendly county, in one of the most gun-friendly states in the country. I don't need to test this because it isn't an issue here. Folks carry firearms all the time, openly or not, without being hassled, so there is no need I've perceived to mount an effort to change police policy.

I don't have anywhere I routinely go with a long gun where it would be convenient to transport it slung, (hard to sit in a car that way and I'm not walking 20 miles to the range!) so I don't. If I did have some place to go that I could get to on foot or by bicycle and wanted a rifle with me, I would without any concern at all. Heck, some of the TEA party folks carried loaded ARs at their political rallies here -- I don't think I'm gonna get bothered. :)

As a mathematician once said, "You don't have to be boiled in soup to understand soup."

For what it's worth, I don't participate in sit-ins with black folks trying to establish their right to patronize businesses here, either. That's not a problem in our area, so there are no protest movements afoot to change police policy.

If either of these things were contentious issues here, I'd honestly be quite likely to participate in either and both!

Warp
September 12, 2013, 09:30 AM
You're still framing this incident in terms of "oh, that's a hassle which disrupts my day."

That misrepresents what these guys were doing. As I pointed out before, this is a TACTIC. (And a good one, which works.) They fully understood that they might spend an hour -- or possibly even a night in jail! -- to produce the change they want to see. ...Or, that they'd spend no time at all being hassled and so determine and show that the right is honored.

You wouldn't "waste your time" like this because this particular manifestation of the right is not important to you (apparently at all). That's fine, though it would be great to hear gun rights supporters express themselves that way rather than insulting, ridiculing, and essentially DISCOURAGING, those other gun rights supporters who are willing to invest some time and trouble into furthering the right.

Even if you will NEVER EVER EVER exercise your right to walk down the street with a firearm in plain sight, having that degree of freedom established and respected is a buffer between whatever it is you choose to do and encroaching oppressiveness by law enforcement. If you can visualize gun rights (or any rights, really) as a spectrum of activities that have outlying "extremes" of what is accepted as within your rights, it is always more comfortable to have someone else stand on and maintain those extremes for you. Then you can exercise whatever rights you DO care about comfortably and without worrying that you'll find your own activities on the "extreme" edge, and targeted for harassment.

This is an excellently articulated post.

I am going to steal it (with credit) for later use, here and elsewhere. ;)

Anyway you look at it, I don't take issue with police questioning IF it is done in a lawful and professional manner.

Law enforcement detaining people requires that they articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed.

Please read the thread for some discussion on this.



No Sam, I don't mean other folks on the internet, I mean you, and folks who share your view here on THR. You know, the folks telling me I'm wrong.

I've yet to hear a first person account of such an incident.

I have open carried my rifle through town.

I wasn't going to mention it because this thread isn't supposed to be about you, or me, or Sam, but you seem to want it that way.

I have done so multiple times. AR15 slung, in the front, multiple times with a loaded magazine inserted (but with a chamber flag, for the benefit of the people at my destination who don't want loaded firearms handled in the store).

I got some interesting comments and sparked some good discussion, but nothing more.

(I also had a large Midway range bag in one hand)

So you can stop with this...whatever it is...line of insinuating insults against people ITT as if to call us out for not "putting our money where our mouth is"...or whatever it is you are going for.

What change are they hoping to see? We already have the right to do this.

No...they do NOT have the right to do that.

You don't have the Right to do something when you get disarmed, cuffed, and detained by LE for doing it.

This is a very simple concept. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, you are still wrong.

Willie Sutton
September 12, 2013, 09:32 AM
Interesting stuff.

I happen to be giving a week of training ending today to a Captain in a PD that happens to be in a town directly next to Appleton. We discussed this yesterday and I asked him what his department responce would be. The answer is two cars, one 50 yards or so away with a patrolman with a rifle ready to go, and a pair of officers in another car making a welfare-check, but nothing more. Note this though: They would have maintained visual contact with the carriers and followed them until they went home. While respecting the rights of the carriers, they also understand that this sort of behaviour is in contradiction with the general social contract between people in suburbia. You can't keep people from doing this, but you similarly can't keep the police from following you for hours.


The officers in Appleton are dead wrong for trying to drum up some idea of how they can charge these guys, and there's no doubt that the police will end up losing a court case. It's obvious misconduct. With that said, making contact with someone carrying a rifle where it's obviously not the norm makes good sense, and if this occured in my neighborhood it's exactly what I would want and expect.


Willie

.

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 09:37 AM
Making contact? Yeah, I have no problem with that.

Following for hours? Hey, if that's what they want to do! :) I'd imagine they'd get pretty tired of it after a few days, but it sure would help with that nagging, "Where's a cop when you NEED one???" question!

Heck, I keep a couple cars full of them 100 yards behind me all day long! Now THAT's serving and protecting! :D

we are not amused
September 12, 2013, 09:41 AM
I learned the hard way not to allow the cops to search my vehicle without a warrant!

I have also learned over the years, that our rights are not "guaranteed"! We lose them if we don't use them.

If patriots don't stand up and fight for their rights, we won't have any!

Civil disobedience is a highly respected tactic to force change! And this wasn't even that! It was just two men, exercising their legal right!

I don't open carry, because I don't want the hassle, and I like the idea of tactical surprise if I ever need to use my weapon (Hey, I need all the advantage I can get). But the people who are willing to do so, have my respect and appreciation.

Besides, think about the practicalities of living in town. You don't have a car, or choose not to use it, how do you transport your gun to the range, the gun smith, or bring it home for that matter?

If you don't have the right to open carry the gun, then you are effectively barred from having one.

Some people have expressed disgust at the idea that these two people deliberately "baited" the cops. Well shame on the cops for taking that "bait".

Others have suggested that it is not "socially acceptable", well then, we need to make it socially acceptable. We won't change minds if we don't challenge the current mindset. The Jim Crow Laws and racism weren't overturned with out Civil Disobedience and people openly challenging what was "socially acceptable". And yeah, people bitched about people doing it at the time too, after all, all those uppity black people should just accept the status quo and quit upsetting social norms.

powder
September 12, 2013, 10:01 AM
Again, I'm assuming YOU regularly open carry long guns, right? If not, YOU are pretty much sitting on the sidelines right beside me (apparently).

Oh, and my spine is in just the right place. A fact you'd have likely found out in short order if you weren't simply talking BS on the internet. Don't confuse a difference of opinion with being a bitch.

I work in the Criminal Justice systems-nowhere NEAR your sidelines buddy, and your armchair which you quarterback 2A activism scenarios from. Actually, I open carry long guns at work, on public property, and private property so you'll draw a squib on that end of your "debate".

We have no "difference of opinion", as you want to water your end down with. "Use it, or lose it" is a term which applies to many scenarios, and parts of your anatomy.

Oh, no comment on the APP confiscation teams in CA right now, momentarily funded with $24 Million in Federal tax dollars, which is just a beta test for the rest of the country?

If you want to allow the meaning of RKBA to be watered down to....? What is allowable/acceptable to you, per the 2A? You disagree with the (2) fellows in Appleton, so what is the acceptable 2A standard to you, that none of us should step beyond in order to maintain our rights, INYHO? Seriously,please reply in a civil manner.

Bubba613
September 12, 2013, 10:09 AM
How about people carrying loaded guns in holsters? Might they present a threat to the public as well? Seems to me like most of the people on this forum carry handguns in holsters in normal life. So why does that not make all of us an equal "possible" threat to public, and...therefore... we should be treated equally by the police according to your standards then, right? Only a small percentage of murders in this country are committed using rifles compared to those committed using a handgun. Seems like it is the people who carry handguns are the ones who are more likely to be the criminals, according to the statistics, so shouldn't it be the people carrying handguns that actually fall under more suspicion?

So you're really going to compare carrying holstered handguns to open carrying rifles? Really?
It is amazing the lengths to which people here dissemble on this. So carrying a rifle is like carrying a pistol. Carrying a rifle hoping to get noticed is like black people eating in a restaurant.
Hey, change the two white guys to two Muslims and see how it works out. Change it to two Hispanics and see how it works out. Perhaps an african muslim on the street with a knife is just like black people eating in a restaurant and we shouldn't disturb him or question him. Unless he happens to be this guy of course;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWebuK_n_8o
No reason to question or detain him prior to his beheading anyone. After all, carrying a knife is like carrying a set of keys, right?

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 10:17 AM
So you're really going to compare carrying holstered handguns to open carrying rifles? Really?Yes. Holster = sling. The most convenient, safe, and accepted way to transport a firearm stored on your body.

I'm curious how you've come to fall into a perception of a difference between rifles and handguns. Why do you believe you're comfortable around someone with a holstered handgun, but not a slung rifle? Did you have a traumatic experience with a rifle once that has made you more fearful of them than of handguns? Or is it just that you aren't as familiar with slung rifles as holstered handguns?

It is amazing the lengths to which people here dissemble on this.Dissemble? "To conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs." Really? Ok...what are YOUR true motives, feelings and beliefs? Are you concealing them? I don't believe I am, nor do I see anyone else appearing to conceal theirs. Unless they are simply afraid and reluctant to admit so.

Hey, change the two white guys to two Muslims and see how it works out. Change it to two Hispanics and see how it works out. Perhaps an african muslim on the street with a knife is just like black people eating in a restaurant and we shouldn't disturb him or question him.Hey, GREAT point! Race should really play into whether someone gets "special" treatment from the police! Why should hispanics be allowed to carry weapons openly? Or black people? Can't they spend some time in cuffs if they try? That doesn't lean on their rights does it?

;)

HOOfan_1
September 12, 2013, 10:21 AM
This "you have a right to do it, but you can't do it" thing is just, uh...



We need to fight for our rights....in order not to use them :rolleyes:

HOOfan_1
September 12, 2013, 10:35 AM
I'm also willing to bet a paycheck that folks usually talk much more on the internet than they actually do in real life.

Allowing a cop to look in my trunk isn't giving up any right at all, it's simply allowing a cop to look in my trunk, don't confuse the two. Again, just because I can prohibit it doesn't mean I have to. Personally I'd rather save myself the 45 min these schmucks wasted and go on about my day than debate laws with cops.

Sure people talk bigger on the internet...but I can assure you, if a cop asked me if he could look in my trunk, my first question would be "Why?" and my response would be "I have nothing to hide...but no you may not."

"give them an inch and they will take a mile." A cop willing to search your vehicle, for no reason, even if they are asking for permission, is possibly capable of planting evidence too...

Cops are strangers. Strangers with power. How often would you trust a stranger to fumble through your personal property? Sorry, that badge doesn't make them any more trustworthy than any other stranger walking down the street.

Bubba613
September 12, 2013, 10:53 AM
Yes. Holster = sling. The most convenient, safe, and accepted way to transport a firearm stored on your body.

I'm curious how you've come to fall into a perception of a difference between rifles and handguns. Why do you believe you're comfortable around someone with a holstered handgun, but not a slung rifle? Did you have a traumatic experience with a rifle once that has made you more fearful of them than of handguns? Or is it just that you aren't as familiar with slung rifles as holstered handguns?

So in your mind there is no difference between a holstered pistol and a rifle? Interesting.

Your personal attacks on my integrity are hardly High Road. Try sticking to the topic.

These guys are attention hounds and they got the attention they sought. I dont see a problem here.

Dean Weingarten
September 12, 2013, 11:01 AM
I just find it funny that these folks seem to have so much support yet no one seems to be following their lead and taking their AR's for a walk down Main St. I guess I would have expected more action and less talk if it were truly such a great idea.
__________________

I have done it a number of times, at political rallies at the state capital (Arizona) and posted the articles here on THR.

It has been gratifying to see the attitude change, from 5 years ago when the young black man did it at an protest during the Obama campaign, as I recall, to now dozens of openly armed people protesting at the State capital. Lots of support for it, but we have AZCDL in Arizona, which is one of the finest local groups to work on restoring the right to bear arms in the nation. They were the ones mostly responsible for moving us to constitutional carry here.

I am a life member.

we are not amused
September 12, 2013, 11:09 AM
As others have stated, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

And a nice fat settlement from the City for violating their Rights!

Gee! A few thousand dollars for sitting in a police car for less than an hour in handcuffs.... Where do I sign up!

jrdolall
September 12, 2013, 11:21 AM
I absolutely believe the cops should stop the guys and ask them a question or two. No problem with that. "Hey, How are you guys?" types of questions designed to get a response that could indicate some criminal intent or lack thereof. If the guys had criminal intent then the reaction would probably have been a lot different. If they see a guy standing outside a convenience store with a gun in a holster and a ski mask in the other hand then I think "reasonable cause" comes into play. Reasonable cause here? Doesn't appear to be any.
The reactions of the guys carrying should have immediately indicated to the cops that they were not going to be a problem. Cops should have said thank you and moved on. If they were really worried about some crimes about to be committed then they are fine but going on a "fishing" expedition and trying to look for SOME reason to get these guys is my problem.
I have great respect for our LEOs and I understand the dilemma they face. Citizen A calls in a complaint and they have to investigate. That is how it should be. When they see a person that they THINK is drunk driving or drunk in public then they have a duty to look into it but, once they have determined that there is no crime, they should say thank you and move on. I was puled over once because a cop said I had crossed the center line. He was fishing for a DUI no doubt but he looked at me, asked a question and said thank you. He did his job.

In this case the cops definitely overstepped the boundaries and I really hope they are removed from their jobs. Turning off a camera SHOULD have that guy behind bars. Gaining monetarily from this event should not be the goal of the guys exercising their rights. Sending a message should be their goal and I hope they will succeed.

S&W620
September 12, 2013, 11:44 AM
I work in the Criminal Justice systems-nowhere NEAR your sidelines buddy, and your armchair which you quarterback 2A activism scenarios from. Actually, I open carry long guns at work, on public property, and private property so you'll draw a squib on that end of your "debate".

We have no "difference of opinion", as you want to water your end down with. "Use it, or lose it" is a term which applies to many scenarios, and parts of your anatomy.

Oh, no comment on the APP confiscation teams in CA right now, momentarily funded with $24 Million in Federal tax dollars, which is just a beta test for the rest of the country?

If you want to allow the meaning of RKBA to be watered down to....? What is allowable/acceptable to you, per the 2A? You disagree with the (2) fellows in Appleton, so what is the acceptable 2A standard to you, that none of us should step beyond in order to maintain our rights, INYHO? Seriously,please reply in a civil manner.

Just so I have this straight, the only thing you know about me is that I think open carrying a gun is dumb, but you seem pretty certain that I simply armchair qb gun rights, etc, etc. Fact is, you have literally no idea what you're talking about in that regard, one way or another.

You open carry long guns all the time....at work...in uniform.....uh...ok? So should I now consider all cops to be open carry activists as well?

If a civil response is what you seek, referring to the person you are discussing something with as an armchair qb and spineless is a damned dumb way to go about it. You can't really take the high road, so to speak, after hurling insults slick.

I never said anything about what was and was not acceptable, simply that open carrying a long gun through town is dumb, attention seeking behavior that most folks who aren't gun nuts frown upon.

With that, I think I've clearly stated my opinion and read everyone else's. Going round and round with this isn't going to change anyone's mind so I think I'll leave it at that.

JurisCani
September 12, 2013, 11:51 AM
So..as pro 2A folks we should simply agree with you to make things easier for you to debate?

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.
So we spend more time criticizing the victims rather than those who have violated their rights?

In your world, the exercise of what other right(s) should be treated in such a matter by the government?

JurisCani
September 12, 2013, 11:56 AM
THe problem is not so much that they made a "Terry" stop, but the escalation to a 45 minute handcuffed detention without probable cause. They SPENT that time trying to develope/manufacture probable cause. That the officers are ignorant of the law or opposed to open carry is beside the point. IT IS THE LAW.

JurisCani
September 12, 2013, 11:59 AM
It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable. Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes. Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe. That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.
Please tell me you are not a LEO.

JurisCani
September 12, 2013, 12:06 PM
Allowing a cop to look in my trunk isn't giving up any right at all, it's simply allowing a cop to look in my trunk, don't confuse the two.

It most certainly is giving up a right. If it wasn't a right, the officer wouldn't have asked permission. You may certainly choose to do so and consent to a search - but you are relinquishing a right by doing so.

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 12:16 PM
So in your mind there is no difference between a holstered pistol and a rifle? Interesting.That is EXACTLY right.

Your personal attacks on my integrity are hardly High Road. Try sticking to the topic.Your integrity? (Integrity: a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.) How have I impugned your integrity? And what, of all the things I've said here, was not directly on topic to this conversation?

You've made what I consider some startling and unsupportable statements, and I've asked a few questions to try and figure out why you'd make such statements, but I've not maligned your integrity at all.

These guys are attention hounds and they got the attention they sought. I dont see a problem here.They are ACTIVISTS (and I suppose an activist is a kind of attention hound, with a purpose). They got the attention they probably assumed they would get, and that will provide a perfect position of "standing" to achieve the change they're working for.

I don't see a problem with that, myself! Glad we agree on something!

Bubba613
September 12, 2013, 01:39 PM
So in your mind there is no difference between a holstered pistol and a rifle? Interesting.
That is EXACTLY right.

Quote:
Your personal attacks on my integrity are hardly High Road. Try sticking to the topic.
Your integrity? (Integrity: a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.) How have I impugned your integrity? And what, of all the things I've said here, was not directly on topic to this conversation?

You've made what I consider some startling and unsupportable statements, and I've asked a few questions to try and figure out why you'd make such statements, but I've not maligned your integrity at all.


Well, I really cannot argue with someone who cannot distinguish a handgun from a long gun. Nor someone who cannot take responsibility for his actions.
Good luck with it all.

Warp
September 12, 2013, 01:42 PM
Handguns are used for hundreds of times more crimes and murders than rifles each year in the US.

And I would wager money that concealed handguns are used thousands of times more for crimes and murders than openly carried handguns each year in the US.

Yet, people don't seem to be at all concerned with concealed handguns...while even gun forum members imply (or state outright) that merely slinging up a rifle is probable cause of a crime.

I don't even know what to say to this.

we are not amused
September 12, 2013, 02:01 PM
The problem here is that some people think gun owners should keep a low profile, never cause a fuss, and hope that no one ever knows that they are gun owners.

Sorry! We don't keep our rights by keeping quiet and hoping no one notices us.

Some people think that what ever a cop wants must be okay. They don't care if their car is searched without probable cause, they don't care if they get stopped at random on the street and get frisked, they don't care if the cops order you out of your house at gun point and then search it without probable cause or search warrant, (don't believe it happened? Boston, during the lockdown after the Boston bomber shootout. Police ordered people out of their houses at gun point, and searched them) Greensburg, Kansas, after the tornado, people were illegally ordered from undamaged houses at gun point, police later searched and confiscated guns from those undamaged houses. And of course New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.

Many, many other incidents, all of which have been defended by unthinking supporters of Law Enforcement, on the grounds, "they are just looking out for the welfare of the community", or "it's no big deal, it is in the name of public safety".

All police States justify themselves in the name of "public safety".

Look, if they had just stopped and talked to these guys, identified them, then maybe kept an eye on them... no problem! That is what I would expect.

But handcuffing them in the back of a squad car for 45 minutes, while they tried to come up with some excuse to arrest them, and attempting to erase the video, is beyond what should be accepted in civil society. The police abused their authority, and violated their civil rights.

My Father was a truck driver, who often handled wide loads, and the Highway Patrol hated trailer house drivers at the time, and would always stop them, give them an extensive "safety check", and inevitably "find" something they could write a ticket for. I remember more than once, them going over the truck and trailer several times with multiple references to their book of regulations trying to find some fault, no matter how small to write a ticket. Somehow, they always did, even if it wouldn't hold up in any court, because they knew it would cost the truck driver more to fight it in court, than pay the fine.

Like I said earlier, not all cops are thugs, but many are!

we are not amused
September 12, 2013, 02:16 PM
So you're really going to compare carrying holstered handguns to open carrying rifles? Really?
It is amazing the lengths to which people here dissemble on this. So carrying a rifle is like carrying a pistol. Carrying a rifle hoping to get noticed is like black people eating in a restaurant.
Hey, change the two white guys to two Muslims and see how it works out. Change it to two Hispanics and see how it works out. Perhaps an african muslim on the street with a knife is just like black people eating in a restaurant and we shouldn't disturb him or question him. Unless he happens to be this guy of course;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWebuK_n_8o
No reason to question or detain him prior to his beheading anyone. After all, carrying a knife is like carrying a set of keys, right?

I take it then, that you don't think black people should eat at restaurants, Muslims have guns, or Hispanics.

Your example from Great Britain, is from a place where you aren't allowed any weapon, or even to defend yourself if attacked. They are even thinking of banning kitchen knives as I understand. No one has argued that the police couldn't question or identify these two individuals, only the manner in which they did so. It was excessive to say the least, and their attempt to delete the video an obvious violation of the first amendment.

powder
September 12, 2013, 02:33 PM
I never said anything about what was and was not acceptable, simply that open carrying a long gun through town is dumb, attention seeking behavior that most folks who aren't gun nuts frown upon.

I simply asked your opinion about what is the most acceptable measure to stand for 2A rights: you stated that your belief is the Appleton scenario herein actually hurts the pro 2A movement-don't back-pedal now...

I am NOT asking you to think anything about LEOs, per their opinions on open carry: You asked about my experience(s) carrying long guns. Your response, to my well-measured and factual response, leads me to believe your tactics are manipulation and distraction. No offense, I am not personally attacking you, just an observation on how you are avoiding the actual topic. (Read your own qualifying words and the uses of absolutes and extreme measures of "all" , "everybody", etc..

So, you have somewhat stated your opinion on these (2) guys: what do you believe is the furthest 2A activist activity, that can be taken w/o harming the movement to protect our 2A rights w/o being handcuffed, detained, questioned, etc.?

Warp
September 12, 2013, 02:35 PM
I never said anything about what was and was not acceptable, simply that open carrying a long gun through town is dumb, attention seeking behavior that most folks who aren't gun nuts frown upon.


What about openly carried holstered handguns?

Will you give a stamp of acceptance on that?

whughett
September 12, 2013, 02:56 PM
WOW Six pages devoted to trolling, the only thing we are going to agree on here is to disagree.

gamestalker
September 12, 2013, 05:11 PM
Who do they think they are? I have nothing but respect for the job LE does, but when they clearly step over the line and begin harrassing, and violating law abiding citizens rights, they must be, and should be held accountable
I live in Arizona, and although I've had one or two uncomfortable situations involving LE and my firearms, I've never been treated like that. The worst situation was following a shooting that happened next door to me. LE went door to door asking questions and searching for the suspect. But when they came to my home, they climbed over my locked gate, knocked on my door and when I answered it I was wearing my sidearm. The officer reached around my partialially open screen door and grabbed my weapon and removed it from the holster, without any good cause what so ever. He then unloaded it and began inspecting it to see if it had been recently fired and then said I had just cleaned it, which was inaccurate. While all this was taking place, other officers were searching my property for a suspect. When they ask to search my home I flat out refused to allow them in my home. They handed my weapon back to me and left, and that was that.

GS

zxcvbob
September 12, 2013, 06:28 PM
Just curious why you opened the screen door?

TCB in TN
September 12, 2013, 09:37 PM
Ok, a simple thing that a couple of here seem to miss. When one talks about LEO infringing upon the rights of citizens, we are talking about a LEO "breaking the law". You do understand that right?

This idea of arrest and then hoping to pin "something" is illegal. You don't get to break the law as a LEO and still be the good guys. LEOs are supposed to enforce, not make up.

People on here who profess to be all about the Constitution and stuff and then argue that this behavior by LEOs is acceptable certainly make themselves look foolish.

Sam1911
September 12, 2013, 11:33 PM
Well, I really cannot argue with someone who cannot distinguish a handgun from a long gun.
Oh good grief. That's just silly. You're not presenting arguments at this point, nor answering questions. I'm not sure what this assertion is even supposed to suggest.

Nor someone who cannot take responsibility for his actions.You've completely lost me here. What actions?

Good luck with it all.Uh, ok! You too, I guess. :confused:

welldoya
September 12, 2013, 11:55 PM
I highly recommend that all you guys that know your rights and think this is a really cool thing to do, carry an AR everywhere you go. If its legal, do it. What could possibly go wrong? Or do you just like to give it lip service and you wouldn't really do it yourself?
Seriously, go for it and post your results. Of would you just rather watch other people do it?
You guys that had something smart to say about my post, I'll be waiting to read of your experience.

Robert
September 13, 2013, 12:07 AM
Oh for the love... Some of y'all need to take a deep breath and step away from the key board. Internet...serious business...

If you enjoyed reading about "WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!