What happens when regular ol' citizens, who generally are not legal scholars, carry firearms in a manner based on an incorrect understanding of an AG's interpretation of gun laws?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think there's more than a little ambiguity in Wisconsin at the moment. Here's an excerpt from the AG's advisory memo on the issue of open carry:
The state constitutional right to bear arms extends to openly carrying a handgun for lawful purposes. As illustrated by a recent municipal court case in West Allis, a person openly carrying a holstered handgun on his own property while doing lawn work should not face a disorderly conduct charge. If, however, a person brandishes a handgun in public, the conduct may lose its constitutional protection. Again, “t is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the [disorderly conduct] statute to a particular situation.” Maker, 48 Wis. 2d at 616.
-
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf
In my view, this portion of the memo is certain to create ambiguity, confusion, and uneven enforcement. I'd prefer to live in a state where there's an unambiguous right to OC or CC without restriction, but most states with OC laws have at least addressed the issue of whether the right to carry extends to private premises not owned by the armed individual. As far as I can tell, that hasn't been addressed in Wisconsin. So, if a business owner posts a sign prohibiting weapons, does carrying then constitute disorderly conduct?
Going further, is it possible that a business owner or manager might feel so intimidated by an individual carrying a gun openly that he might be afraid to speak? If so, might a cop, acting out of sensitivity to that person's rights, ask if he's okay with it? After ascertaining that the owner/manager doesn't like it, is the cop protecting the owner/manager's rights or trampling on the OCer's rights if he asked the armed individual to leave?
I don't know the answers to these questions. They're left unanswered by the AG's memo. I'm afraid that there will be many more unfavorable conflicts between OCers and cops who are trying to balance according people their rights against the interests of others who might have the bejabbers scared out them, but who are unwilling to confront the gun carrier.
This sort of situation is not unknown to the law, but it leads to a period of uncertainty for OCers. I am in full agreement with those who want to push for an expansive definition of the right to OC and CC, but the sort of confrontation seen in the video is guaranteed to happen when the state of the law is as undefined as unsettled as it appears to be in Wisconsin.
