'Firearms welcomed at park event', Brian D. Bridgeford, Baraboo News Republic

http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonews...cle_ceb53c5e-a681-11df-bf8a-001cc4c002e0.html

Baraboo News Republic said:

According to a Baraboo police report, officers were called to the Walmart store in West Baraboo at about 12:30 a.m. on March 18 after employees saw a man with a holstered gun on his hip. They found Marso preparing to leave in his car after he encased his gun - as required by law in a vehicle.

Marso said he was exercising his right of "open carry," according to the report. After officers investigated, they determined Marso never concealed his weapon and acted within the law.

The officers advised Marso if he continued to carry a gun in public, he will be contacted by law enforcement frequently. Police also told the store's management the business can forbid people to wear guns in the store and suggested placing "no guns allowed" signs out front.

Click to expand...

.
http://www.vimeo.com/6115265

what is it with these civil authorities?! every time they stop an open carrier, they find he is legal, in all the forum threads on here i have yet to see one instance of a criminal mimicking an open carrier. these police time and time again see, and have contact with open carriers, and yet they still continue with; carry that and you'll be seeing alot more of us. i'm realy beginning to wonder if there isn't some kind of brain drain going on that seems to effect everyone, including the civil authorities, but doesn't seem to affect the open carrier. he's the only one who knows his rights, and the laws, and obeys.
another rant; they need to change this man with a gun terminology, with all the rights, and political correct crap, it to me says bad intent even by the phrase. it should be changed to citizen with a gun, or something, to denote less a threat until an actual, verifiable threat is determined. man with a gun to me means citizen exercising his rights- until otherwise detrmined.

were still all wondering who that phantom carrier is here in town. haven't heard of any further sightings. heck even my youngest kid has seen him. i never get so lucky. handing out alot of flyers to customers at the shop lately, many have questions, many are concerned enough to ask- can i legally carry a gun for my protection. seems the populace knows how it is out there in the real world.

WOW did the reporter Brian bait me on this one... Unbelievable... I'll be placing a call to the newspaper for a clarification.

edit: placed a call to the editor. The online article has been corrected.

My, what a difference five months makes. From the threat of law enforcement harassment to law enforcement acceptance. I sure hope we can keep the momentum going. A favorable opinion in the GFSZ would be immense. Then the serious infringements of vehicle carry and concealment are left to contend with. They also appear to be within reach during the next legislative session. Bar carry and carry in government buildings would be relegated to nuisances, albeit they will need our attention as they in themselves are infringments. A year and a half ago there were nay-sayers on this very forum that felt we woud never be at the point we are today. With the help of pioneers with guts, such as Dave Krause, Nik, Hubert, Jesus, MCX, Shotgun, certainly J.B. Vanhollen, many more (you know who you are) and a growing cadre of new followers we have shown we can "get 'er done". To his credit even ccwinstructor has seen the fundamental ideology behind our mission. A mission that promotes constitutional carry. Carry in the manner that fits the circumstances and comfort of the carrier. A mission that recognizes the empowerment Artilcle I section 25 of the state constitution has given us, not a mission that copy cats 40 some other states with a personal protection privlege that comes with high cost, political permission and restrictive regulations.

In regards to the article itself, I would like to make the following constuctive criticism. I suggest that when we are asked why we carry a firearm that we respond with "for personal protection" the phrase "self defense" has some ominous connotation in the Wisconsin legal system. Self defense implies we carry because we are in fear of imminent harm, that is true, but it is only part of the formula. There is another part called security. As the WSC defined; security implies a condition of perceived danger. The phrase 'personal protection' would encompass both.

Way to go Don!