• 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.

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

Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

http://www.livinglakecountry.com/sussexsun/news/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.
 

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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?
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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.:D
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/sussexsun/news/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. :banghead:

Dave
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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
[font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Terry [/font][/font]stop) if he has "reasonable suspicion," based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Illinois v. Wardlow, [/font][/font]528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]United States v. Sokolow, [/font][/font]490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Terry v. Ohio, [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]United States v. Arvizu, [/font][/font]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. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See State v. Anderson, [/font][/font]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.
 

BerettaFS92Custom

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
232
Location
mid south but not madison , , USA
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/sussexsun/news/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 :)
 

Cobbersmom

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
179
Location
Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
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?
 

Griffin1340

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
23
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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
 

Lurchiron

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
Shawano,WI.
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?
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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....



[align=left][/align]
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
Top