• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Appleton open carry detainment at gun point

chuckley

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
2
Location
appleton
so me and ross were open carry ar's in Appleton and got detained at rifle point for roughly an hour. we where threatened with charges and they tried to make some. got the whole thing on auto and the actions of the police are appalling at best. first one is bad video but it stops when the cop turns the camera off. the second is audio. Wisconsin law does not differentiate between open carry of pistols and rifles. everything i read say "firearm" i know it isnt most peoples preferred carry method but it is important we don't let to go away and we use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2yZrJX3fw&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS&index=2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_QzxXDps&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Thanks for not sitting in the back of the bus.

The fact that they took so long and they there were so many questions proves to me they didn't have anything to stand on.

Fishing expedition they were trying very hard.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
so me and ross were open carry ar's in Appleton and got detained at rifle point for roughly an hour. we where threatened with charges and they tried to make some. got the whole thing on auto and the actions of the police are appalling at best. first one is bad video but it stops when the cop turns the camera off. the second is audio. Wisconsin law does not differentiate between open carry of pistols and rifles. everything i read say "firearm" i know it isnt most peoples preferred carry method but it is important we don't let to go away and we use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2yZrJX3fw&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS&index=2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_QzxXDps&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS

I suppose it was the long gun issue and not your handgun. I haven't carried a long gun yet but that may change. Chuckley, now are you going to pursue this or do nothing and embolden the cops?
 
Last edited:

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Wisconsin Law is clear, They messed up. Settlement should include training

It appears that they made several mistakes and violated at least three amendments in the Bill of Rights.

First; (turning off video recorder, video recording of officers during their public duties has been ruled a First Amendment Right.

Second: Stoped without probable cause based on exercise of Second Amendment rights. Clearly aimed at chilling the exercise of the Second Amendment.

Fourth: Detained people for nearly an hour without probably cause or RAS.

Weren't there some criminal penalties put in Act 35, just for such situations?
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
It appears that they made several mistakes and violated at least three amendments in the Bill of Rights.

First; (turning off video recorder, video recording of officers during their public duties has been ruled a First Amendment Right.

Second: Stoped without probable cause based on exercise of Second Amendment rights. Clearly aimed at chilling the exercise of the Second Amendment.

Fourth: Detained people for nearly an hour without probably cause or RAS.

Weren't there some criminal penalties put in Act 35, just for such situations?

Yes there are as Protias pointed out in another thread:
Any law enforcement officer who uses excessive
force based solely on an individual’s status as a licensee
may be fined not more than $500 or sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both. The
application of the criminal penalty under this paragraph
does not preclude the application of any other civil or
criminal remedy.
(b) Any person who violates sub. (16) may be fined
not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 30
days or both.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Did this Happen Yesterday? I do not see a date for the event.

so me and ross were open carry ar's in Appleton and got detained at rifle point for roughly an hour. we where threatened with charges and they tried to make some. got the whole thing on auto and the actions of the police are appalling at best. first one is bad video but it stops when the cop turns the camera off. the second is audio. Wisconsin law does not differentiate between open carry of pistols and rifles. everything i read say "firearm" i know it isnt most peoples preferred carry method but it is important we don't let to go away and we use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2yZrJX3fw&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS&index=2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_QzxXDps&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS

Did this happen yesterday?

How many police officers were at the scene? 4? 5?
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
Re: open carry detainment at gun point

It happened Sat. 9/7/2013



I personally believe the officers who were there and pointing loaded guns at these guys should be charged with assault with deadly weapon.

You're right, they should be charged. Getting a prosecutor to do it is nearly impossible. Cops know this and that's why they continue to dole out lessons in what they feel proper behavior is to legal OCers. "Do as I say, damn the law!" Seem to be the credo of many in LE. :(
 
Last edited:

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Perhaps AG Van Hollen Could Carge them under Act 35

You're right, they should be charged. Getting a prosecutor to do it is nearly impossible. Cops know this and that's why they continue to dole out lessons in what they feel proper behavior is to legal OCers. "Do as I say, damn the law!" Seem to be the credo of many in LE. :(

Handcuffing them and holding them in a squad car for 45 minutes while desperately trying to come up with some sort of charges... is pretty flagrant.

I have been told that *any* use of force, when there is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause is considered excessive use of force. I do not have a cite for that.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2yZrJX3fw&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY_QzxXDps&list=PLYpDZkbeRZEny6k1QFbkszUW8pEmr_lMS

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

Any help on making the links work would be appreciated.

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

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
One of the victims in this case already started his own thread, (08SEP 10:39pm)
and would probably be willing to answer some questions (pending talking with a lawyer).
I know he did invite media to the SBX OC event the next day, but other than calling police to tell them what we were planning they have had little involvement so far.
There may be a story coming up.

Grapeshot, maybe you could merge these 2 threads? --Done--

At about 1:00 the officer who says "I'll cover them both" is holding a rifle pointed at the 2 victims.

1:45 victim 1 tells an officer he has a "permit".

2:50 "put 'em in handcuffs, guys!"
This despite having no indication of illegal activity.

5:18 (over the radio) "no wants, valid ccp"
So the next 40 minutes or so were all opinion enforcement.

7:33 "it's takin' the Second Amendment a little bit far
8:29 "you have a right to carry but I said however I said you cross the line to disorderly conduct when you're walking toward a busy farmer's market"
8:38 "there's a fine line … between Second Amendment rights and disorderly conduct"
8:42 "crossed the line"

8:48 "who wants to interview my burglary suspect?"
[So they have actual crime to deal with, & by now they know the victims have valid cc licenses.]

16:20 "Wisconsin concealed carry law... little paper all highlighted [laughs]"
[Why is a citizen trying to be informed something to laugh at?]

17:52 tries to influence someone from the farmer's market into banning these guys
FYI, it's open-air on public streets, no barriers, no admission fee, so there is no legal support for this opinion of his that anyone at the event can ban these citizens

19:57 "this'll be a lawsuit"

apx. 21:40 they indicate they will find where one victim's car is parked and ticket him. They also tried to convince Walgreen's to say they ban LACs, and the manager wouldn't. He was all in support of the 2 victims.

23:26 "they weren't bein' mouthy were they?"
[And this would matter why? "Being mouthy" is not a crime.]

23:38 "should know better, he's 26"
[So none of the officers are older than 26, because they don't know any better than to try to deprive a couple citizens of their rights?]

24:16 & 24:48 they comment on the victims having contact info for a lawyer

26:40 another admission that they realize there will be a civil rights lawsuit & the city will lose

28:24 & 31:29 orders the un-handcuffing of the 2 victims

32:17 - 32:35 they talk about going to Milwaukee (a major city about 90min away) and handcuffing people

33:55 they run the cc licenses again
Why? Did they really think something would change in the last 28:27 while they were cuffed & stuffed?

36:34 why does the officer need the victims to tell him the make & caliber of firearms, the brand of camera?

38:38 "you guys both from Wisconsin?" [they already know that, as of apx. 10:00!]

"What was with the Utah ID?" [he means the UT permit, and what does it matter?]

40:09 & 40:20 pressing for a reason

41:25 once again, it is confirmed that both carry licenses are valid

41:46 asks if the victims were fingerprinted

44:43 "I just think we wanted to see if they were stolen"
[in answer to why the serial numbers were run; he goes on to claim it's "just another perspective" and gives the impression that it's standard procedure]



Why is the one officer so curious about if the guns are loaded or not?
What difference does it make?

And they are obviously not aware of the DC statute, nor the trespassing statute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Do you know if the handguns were concealed or openly carried?

It happened Sat. 9/7/2013



I personally believe the officers who were there and pointing loaded guns at these guys should be charged with assault with deadly weapon.



My first interpretation was that the handguns were openly carried, but someone showed me that it would be reasonable to believe they were concealed. I would like to know, because I wrote that they were open carried, and I need to correct that if they were concealed.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
My first interpretation was that the handguns were openly carried, but someone showed me that it would be reasonable to believe they were concealed. I would like to know, because I wrote that they were open carried, and I need to correct that if they were concealed.

If they were CCing, then the officer would be able to ask for their CCLs (doesn't sound like they did). CC is not a crime in WI, it is a forfeiture of $1000 if you do not have a CCL and not on your own property.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You're right, they should be charged. Getting a prosecutor to do it is nearly impossible. Cops know this and that's why they continue to dole out lessons in what they feel proper behavior is to legal OCers. "Do as I say, damn the law!" Seem to be the credo of many in LE. :(

Is it possible in that state for citizens to bypass the prosecutor and take the case directly to the grand jury themselves?

Once upon a time in this country, private citizens prosecuted cases themselves. The government attorney only got involved in the biggest crimes.

If one represents himself in court, he is said to be operating pro se. Compare to the first five letters of prosecute.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Technically this thread is against the forum rules, which prohibit discussion of long gun OC.

LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.

I really hate to say this, but I'm starting to agree with their logic.

When the context was, "well, I wanna OC my rifle to the range," I thought the rule was absurd. I'm starting to agree, however, that two guys OCing ARs does nothing to normalize gun rights, and may in fact be counterproductive.

That's not to defend the actions of the thugs in uniform, however.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If they were CCing, then the officer would be able to ask for their CCLs (doesn't sound like they did). CC is not a crime in WI, it is a forfeiture of $1000 if you do not have a CCL and not on your own property.

As Charles and Ross were walking down the street with slung rifles and holstered pistols,....

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.

...There is no reason to run the permits, because Charles and Ross were not concealing any weapons.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/09/wiappleton-officers-violate-rights-of.html
I don't know. It seems that OC is the mode of carry. The long gun part.....well, and I hate to say this, just cuz ya can don't mean that you should.....:uhoh:

I'm with marshaul on this one regarding the possible rule violation.

Though, keep us informed on the outcome of the citizen's quest to seek a redress of wrongs.....just point us to the news story.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
The long gun part.....well, and I hate to say this, just cuz ya can don't mean that you should.....:uhoh:

I had to remind myself that, as a libertarian, I have no problem with social censure over behavior which is non-aggressive but unworthy of approbation, even though I would oppose the legal prohibition thereof.

Again, I hate to say it, but I can't condone the OC of an AR "around town", any more than I can condone the assault on these LACs by criminal LEOs.

It's simply not prudent, and it retards the efforts which responsible OC of handguns advances.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
I had to remind myself that, as a libertarian, I have no problem with social censure over behavior which is non-aggressive but unworthy of approbation, even though I would oppose the legal prohibition thereof.

Again, I hate to say it, but I can't condone the OC of an AR "around town", any more than I can condone the assault on these LACs by criminal LEOs.

It's simply not prudent, and it retards the efforts which responsible OC of handguns advances.


The same has been said and is said about the open carry of hand guns.

Please sit in back of the bus please don't eat at the lunch counter.

As far as the law is concerned there is no different between OC of Long guns or hand guns.

You know only half blacks can vote but not full blacks.
 
Top