Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Sussex Sun, WI: Sussex incident triggers gun protest; WCO president Nik Clark quoted

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.livinglakecountry.com/sus.../85063567.html

    Posted: Feb. 23, 2010 12:52 p.m.

    Between 50 and 75 gun owner's rights advocates demonstrated in front of a state police district headquarters in Waukesha Sunday protesting because two state troopers ordered a Lisbon man to return his gun to his car after he walked into a Sussex restaurant with the loaded weapon last week.

    "Open Carry is completely legal and they had no reason to believe I had committed a crime or I was about to commit a crime," said Joseph Schneider, 27, of the Town of Lisbon.

    "If he would have walked into that restaurant and shot someone we would have had egg on our face," Trooper Sgt. Nathan Clark observed earlier.

    Clark, the supervisor of the two troopers involved in the Feb. 15 incident at the China Wok restaurant, said the troopers acted properly but he was "disappointed" that Schneider was not questioned before he walked into the restaurant with the .45 caliber pistol in a holster on his hip.

    However, Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry Inc., who organized the demonstration, said the troopers were not entitled to question Schneider, or order him to take the gun back to his car, because he had not violated any laws and carrying an unconcealed weapon is permitted in Wisconsin.

    Last summer, the Wisconsin Attorney General confirmed that residents of the state, with some exceptions, may carry unconcealed weapons.

    Sgt. Clark said the troopers were entitled to question Schneider after one of them observed him removing the gun from the trunk of his car, inserting a magazine, and placing a round in the firing chamber of the weapon before walking into the restaurant.

    In addition, the troopers observed police scanners, a police style radar gun, and a device that the troopers initially believed was for mounting an emergency flashing light in the interior of the car.

    Schneider's car was also equipped with tinted glass windows and three antennae; one for a cb radio and one for each police scanner.

    The troopers questioned Schneider because they had reason to believe he was impersonating a police officer, said Clark who added the case was later referred to the Waukesha County Sheriff's office for further investigation.

    According to Schneider, the mounting device holds a pocket-sized video camera. He said he used the video camera, the scanners, and the radar gun, which he said is similar to one used to measure the speed of a baseball pitch, for "recreational" purposes and to monitor the speed and flow of traffic while he is driving.

    Schneider said he routinely carries guns into restaurants and emphasized that he did not place a round in the firing chamber of the gun.

    He pointed out that state law does not permit him to carry a gun while in an automobile and therefore he has to remove the gun from the trunk of the car before carrying it into the restaurant.

    Asked why it would be necessary to carry a gun into a restaurant in Sussex, he responded by referring to recent news accounts of stolen weapons and gang activities in Waukesha.

    "Waukesha isn't that far from Sussex," he observed.

    But, both Sheriff Dan Trawicki and Village Administrator Evan Teich said it would be unusual for someone to carry a gun in a Sussex restaurant considering the low crime rate in the community.

    Trawicki said his deputies later questioned Schneider but no charges were filed.

    Sgt. Clark said he expects state police policies to be revised to more clearly define when and how troopers will question individuals carrying weapons.

    He said the trooper who first spotted Schneider should have questioned him immediately in the parking lot rather than waiting for the arrival of another trooper and permitting Schneider to enter the restaurant with the gun, unchallenged.

    The Waukesha County Sheriff's office provides contractual police services to the Village of Sussex and Town of Lisbon.

    According to department policy, deputies will not detain or arrest individuals carrying weapons unless law enforcement authorities believe the individual has, or is about to, commit a crime or is carrying the weapon in an area where it is not permitted.

    Weapons are not permitted in government buildings and facilities and or in businesses, institutions or other facilities where a policy prohibiting weapons has been posted.

    Deputies, however, if they believe the circumstances merit, may question individuals about their side arms, according to Trawicki, who said he supports the attorney general's opinion.

    In a video tape of the incident, taken by Schneider, it is apparent that the troopers, not the restaurant's owner or employees, told him to return the gun to his car. The restaurant's policy pertaining to weapons was not clearly established in the video.
    Sorry I haven't been more involved today but I'm cleaning up and packing for a very looong night, to arrive 1700 local tomorrow.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post



  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    "Excuse me, Officer, am I free to go?" "I do not wish to converse with you. Good day!"

    Otherwise, hook me up. Take no half-measures.

  4. #4
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.livinglakecountry.com/sus.../85063567.html

    The restaurant's policy pertaining to weapons was not clearly established in the video.
    I believe it was clearly established on Sunday however!
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Excuse me, Officer, am I free to go?" "I do not wish to converse with you. Good day!"

    Otherwise, hook me up. Take no half-measures.
    I have to agree. It has been thus with my interactions with LEO's.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    ...and the radar gun, which he said is similar to one used to measure the speed of a baseball pitch, for "recreational" purposes and to monitor the speed and flow of traffic while he is driving.
    I said no such thing. I do not measure the traffic flow with the radar gun. I only use it when friends ask me to see how fast they are going (running, biking, etc) or baseball games. There is no way you can measure how fast traffic is going if you are driving with a handheld radar gun because you are measuring speed from another moving object. There would be no way to do it unless the radar gun was tied to the speedometer, which you need police radar units.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  7. #7
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    ...and the radar gun, which he said is similar to one used to measure the speed of a baseball pitch, for "recreational" purposes and to monitor the speed and flow of traffic while he is driving.
    I said no such thing. I do not measure the traffic flow with the radar gun. I only use it when friends ask me to see how fast they are going (running, biking, etc) or baseball games. There is no way you can measure how fast traffic is going if you are driving with a handheld radar gun because you are measuring speed from another moving object. There would be no way to do it unless the radar gun was tied to the speedometer, which you need police radar units.
    Just to set the facts straight, would you please tell us what you did have in and on your car that day?

    Dave

    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    davegran wrote:
    protias wrote:
    ...and the radar gun, which he said is similar to one used to measure the speed of a baseball pitch, for "recreational" purposes and to monitor the speed and flow of traffic while he is driving.
    I said no such thing. I do not measure the traffic flow with the radar gun. I only use it when friends ask me to see how fast they are going (running, biking, etc) or baseball games. There is no way you can measure how fast traffic is going if you are driving with a handheld radar gun because you are measuring speed from another moving object. There would be no way to do it unless the radar gun was tied to the speedometer, which you need police radar units.
    Just to set the facts straight, would you please tell us what you did have in and on your car that day?

    Dave
    CB radio, BCT8, BCT15, BCD996T, GPS, Bushnell radar gun.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    Seems like there's a LOT of retro-active butt-covering on behalf of the Troopers.

    Seems to me the officers can't grasp that open-carry is legal...

    Their story "now" doesn't make sense.

    The video speaks for itself. No talk of radar guns or impersonating a police officer. Just an officer that was on a mission to get Joseoph kicked out.

    Its all on the video for the world to see. The explanation the troopers NOW come up with doesn't make any sense when the video is viewed.

    No sense at all.

    Whether they admit it or not, the troopers have learned from this.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    I agree Nik. There was still no reasonable suspicion to make a stop. I broke no laws and yet there is this concern that I "might shoot up the place?" Come on, what criminal open carries?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    at least this is now, causing the Troopers, to change their policy regarding people that OC.:? I do not think they like the negative media attention they are getting from this.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  12. #12
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.livinglakecountry.com/sus.../85063567.html

    Posted: Feb. 23, 2010 12:52 p.m.

    "If he would have walked into that restaurant and shot someone we would have had egg on our face," Trooper Sgt. Nathan Clark observed earlier.

    Clark, the supervisor of the two troopers involved in the Feb. 15 incident at the China Wok restaurant, said the troopers acted properly but he was "disappointed" that Schneider was not questioned before he walked into the restaurant with the .45 caliber pistol in a holster on his hip.

    Sgt. Clark said the troopers were entitled to question Schneider after one of them observed him removing the gun from the trunk of his car, inserting a magazine, and placing a round in the firing chamber of the weapon before walking into the restaurant.
    No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
    1. if he exited the car already armed
    2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
    3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
    4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
    5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
    It's pretty obvious that the State Patrol is not following the intent of the State AG's memo.

    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Davegran:

    From the Attorney General's memorandum of April 20, 2009.

    ¶8. Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or
    Terry stop) if he has "reasonable suspicion," based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming "totality of the circumstances" test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop).

    One Positve out of the situation is that Sgt. Clark stated that the state patrol policy concerning "stops" will be reviewed and perhaps changed. If they do the job correctly some of this confusion should be resolved.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Sounds to me like they are trying to CYA

    i would suggest that the very first interaction of the state patrolman asking the counter person if they allowed guns in there was enough for Protias to initiate a lawsuit/violation of rights.

    According to department policy, deputies will not detain or arrest individuals carrying weapons unless law enforcement authorities believe the individual has, or is about to, commit a crime or is carrying the weapon in an area where it is not permitted. << quoted >> http://www.livinglakecountry.com/sus.../85063567.html

    there is no law that states LEO hsa to go to each business and ask if guns are allowed. he was full bent on getting it his way only problem is he was not a burger king.



    as for the radar gun big deal not illegal and Protias sure as heck is not playing wanna be cop.

    Protias get a civil rights attorney and sue em





  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    davegran wrote
    No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
    1. if he exited the car already armed
    2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
    3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
    4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
    5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
    Number 2 - Where DO you come up with this?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    The whole 'Impersonating a Police Officer' is what troubles me. Granted, I am new to the forum but we should not give ANY opportunity to put OC into a bad spotlight with the media.
    I think that the radargun/scanner/CB radio antenna points the image [from our media ] that the OC is a 'nutjob wanna be cop with issues'. The media needs to be on our side as much as possible. We all have seen in the news reports the quote "Man with a gun." if followed with 'police impersonator', this ALWAYS give the impression of a 'wierdo' to the masses that watch TV.
    If we are confronted by a LEO we should be a 'clean' as we can be, no reason to be painted as the nutjob/wannabe.
    We all know how a guy wearing cammo and carrying a gun is immediately a 'militia extremest' ...it could get to the time when every OC is a 'extremist' as well.
    And right or wrong [and we are within our rights] the media can paint us into a very bad way with the unknowing sheeple out there.

    Just my .02

  17. #17
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011

    Post imported post

    Cobbersmom wrote:
    davegran wrote
    No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
    1. if he exited the car already armed
    2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
    3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
    4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
    5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
    Number 2 - Where DO you come up with this?
    Un-cased and/or loaded weapon from vehicle...no? Das iz verboten...Ja?
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Lurchiron wrote:
    Cobbersmom wrote:
    davegran wrote
    No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
    1. if he exited the car already armed
    2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
    3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
    4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
    5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
    Number 2 - Where DO you come up with this?
    Un-cased and/or loaded weapon from vehicle...no? Das iz verboten...Ja?
    #2 is in reference to the premise which claims that an encased firearm on the front seat is concealed because it is within your reach and not in plain view....




  19. #19
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Cobbersmom wrote:
    davegran wrote
    No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
    1. if he exited the car already armed
    2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
    3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
    4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
    5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
    Number 2 - Where DO you come up with this?
    Wisconsin Statute 167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.

    And case law:
    State v. Keith - Ct App. 1993 (To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of s. § 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden)


    State v. Walls - Ct App. 1994 (A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under § 941.23)


    State v. Alloy - Wis. App. 2000 (affirming concealed carry conviction of man possessing handgun in a vehicle in conformity with Wisconsin Stat. § 167.31 because “Alloy's argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. § 167.31 and Wis. Stat. § 941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with § 167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with § 941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach. See State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d 411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d 529 (1977). A person complying with § 167.31 is not required to violate § 941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach.")

    With all due respect, I hope Sgt. Clark will read this material, too.

    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    davegran wrote:
    Cobbersmom wrote:
    davegran wrote
    No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
    1. if he exited the car already armed
    2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
    3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
    4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
    5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
    Number 2 - Where DO you come up with this?
    Wisconsin Statute 167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.

    And case law:
    State v. Keith - Ct App. 1993 (To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of s. § 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden)


    State v. Walls - Ct App. 1994 (A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under § 941.23)


    State v. Alloy - Wis. App. 2000 (affirming concealed carry conviction of man possessing handgun in a vehicle in conformity with Wisconsin Stat. § 167.31 because “Alloy's argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. § 167.31 and Wis. Stat. § 941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with § 167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with § 941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach. See State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d 411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d 529 (1977). A person complying with § 167.31 is not required to violate § 941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach.")

    With all due respect, I hope Sgt. Clark will read this material, too.

    Dave

    None of these directly rule on a legally encased firearm laying openly on the seat. Either the firearm was not legally encased or the encased firearm was "hidden". There is alot of fluff (even more than you quoted) which is not absolutely directly relevant.

    Is it the "safest" practice to place the encased firearm in your trunk if you do not wish to get a citation? YES.

    IF cited will you be able to beat the rap? You have a decent change.... The key point is that you must be willing to take that chance with the knowledge of the potential consequences.




  21. #21
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    I agree Nik. There was still no reasonable suspicion to make a stop. I broke no laws and yet there is this concern that I "might shoot up the place?" Come on, what criminal open carries?


    There would have been nothing wrong, illegal or improperwith the Officer discretely talking to you inside or outside of the restaurant. He definitely did not have to be ajerkand disrupt the whole restaurant when he asked the employee about their firearm policy.


    Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or
    Terry stop) if he has "reasonable suspicion," based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming "totality of the circumstances" test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop).

    ¶9. And "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification," as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory.
    Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct.


  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    There would have been nothing wrong, illegal or improper with the Officer discretely talking to you inside or outside of the restaurant. He definitely did not have to be a jerk and disrupt the whole restaurant when he asked the employee about their firearm policy.
    Precisely.

    If the trooper had approached Joseph outside, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

    If the trooper had approached Joseph outside for a voluntary conversation, we wouldn't have been at starbucks "packin heat" (insert eye roll here) and we wouldn't have been standing in front of the state patrol headquarters on Sunday either


    The trooper (or you or I, or Obama himself) is free to approach Joseph and ask him any questions they would like. And Joseph is free to have a conversation with the trooper if he wishes OR go free on his way.

    THAT ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED and thats the crux of the issue that media and the leo's who have been trolling the boards lately won't acknowledge (until Sgt. Clark did now)

    So THANK-YOU Sgt. Clark for finally admitting that your trooper acted improperly.

    The trooper had no business harassing the business owner as his method of imposing his will upon Joseph.

    The trooper had NO business of, without solicitation by the business owner or anyone else, USURPING the authority of a private business for his personal motives.

    If the trooper had a problem with Joseph going about his law-abiding business, he could have taken it up with Joseph (and Joseph could have told him to have a nice day) The trooper THEN could have decided if he had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Joseph, or probable cause to arrest him. IF NOT, he had NO other authority and CERTAINLY not the authority to go harass the staff of a private business.

    At the end of the day, this was a teachable moment for the State Patrol. I recognize that the State Patrol has little to no experience with any type of law enforcement that doesn't involve running a radar gun on interstate highways or aiding motorists with flat tires. This situation, while unfortunate for Joseph, has surely made the state patrol more aware of the rights we have, and how THEY should handle law-abiding citizens going about their lawful activities.

    Carry on...
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    You know one more thing on this, traditionally, police are not allowed to act as agents for the owner to tell people to leave even if the owner does want to eject somone from the premises - the owner needs to make the first move.

  24. #24
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    None of these directly rule on a legally encased firearm laying openly on the seat. Either the firearm was not legally encased or the encased firearm was "hidden". There is alot of fluff (even more than you quoted) which is not absolutely directly relevant.

    Is it the "safest" practice to place the encased firearm in your trunk if you do not wish to get a citation? YES.

    IF cited will you be able to beat the rap? You have a decent change.... The key point is that you must be willing to take that chance with the knowledge of the potential consequences.
    If you'll notice what I wrote:

    "or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car"

    I never mentioned a gun case; and I also hope you aren't saying that case law is "fluff".... :what:

    Anyway, I personally won't be driving my car with a gun on the front seat until either the law is changed or somebody successfully challenges it in court. You do what you think is best.

    Dave
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    Griffin1340 wrote:
    We all know how a guy wearing cammo and carrying a gun is immediately a 'militia extremest'

    aahhh see..now why you gotta single me out like that just cuz i was wearing army cammo at the rally??? i happen to like army cammo because they're cheap, warm and comfortable. plus i love having all the pockets cuz i carry alot o crap around with me.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •