Excellent open carry article

[JR180]

I hope you all know I'm not challenging anyone here, just discussing.

And here I was hoping for pistols at 30 paces…

[Sgt. Slaughter]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure. Endangerment of some sort, maybe? Violation of constitutional rights?

I mean, I can't just pull a gun on someone who isn't comitting a crime, correct? I would think police would be held to the same standard. I know there are several lawsuits going on in Wisconsin at this moment for various open carry issues. Since the Van Hollen memo, however, police have been more hesitant to draw their guns and/or disarm someone. I haven't heard of it happening yet... Well, that yahoo in Milwaukee threatened he would continue the activity but it hasn't happened as far as I'm aware.

I look at it this way... you can't pull a gun on someone for properly exercising their first amendment rights. As such, you shouldn't be able to pull a gun on someone for properly exercising their second amendment rights either. I tend to think most courts would agree with that.

I hope you all know I'm not challenging anyone here, just discussing.

It would help if you knew WHAT you were discussing. Just throwing out "you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit" and not even knowing what one could be sued for is a pretty poor tactic.

And police are different than Joe Q. Public, if you haven't noticed. Society made it that way on purpose. There are things that cops (due to the very nature of their jobs) are allowed to do which civilians can't and vice versa. It would be important for you to realize and articulate the differences.

[wisco]

It would be important for you to realize and articulate the differences.

Ok... let's try this again.

If I were standing somewhere legally permissible with a sign that says "Obama is a dismal failure" and absent any extenuating circumstances (I'm not blocking traffic, being disorderly, etc.); and you pulled a gun on me for that, would I not have grounds to sue? I would think so as you were acting under color of law, yet I am protected by the first amendment.

Now on to the second amendment. If am walking in a legally permissible area with a holstered firearm, and again absent any other circumstances, and you came at me guns drawn I would again have grounds to sue.

The scenarios, while on the surface wildly different because we're comparing a gun to a sign, have the same core principle - they are both constitutionally protected rights.

Now as far as to what you could be sued for, that's what attorneys are for. It would obviously start out as something along constitutional lines, but I'm sure you know that an attorney could delve much deeper than that - conduct unbecoming, mental duress, who knows?

That's why I said I don't know specifically what the lawsuit would charge, that's what lawyers are for. All I would know is that somewhere along the line my rights were violated and that it cannot possibly be legal to draw a gun on someone who is exercising a constitutional right, therefore I turn to a lawyer (as did Brad Krause).

As I said, there a several open carry related lawsuits going on in Wisconsin right now, but each has different reasoning.

[wisco]

And here I was hoping for pistols at 30 paces…

lol... I thought it was 10 paces?

[Norm357]

Hi Wisco!

"Hi Norm"

Let me be the voice of dissent in this thread. I'm not a police officer, but I have been carrying a gun for almost 19 years on almost a daily basis, and gasp! Sometimes I open carry.

It is not a big deal where I live and in 19 years, I have only been asked once, to show my CCW permit. And guess what, Atlanta is no small town, so I guess that if you get questiond by the police will depend on where you live.

Don't dress like a thug, use a retention holster, and most importantly, get some training.

[Samuel]

Ok... let's try this again.

If I were standing somewhere legally permissible with a sign that says "Obama is a dismal failure" and absent any extenuating circumstances (I'm not blocking traffic, being disorderly, etc.); and you pulled a gun on me for that, would I not have grounds to sue? I would think so as you were acting under color of law, yet I am protected by the first amendment.

Now on to the second amendment. If am walking in a legally permissible area with a holstered firearm, and again absent any other circumstances, and you came at me guns drawn I would again have grounds to sue.

The scenarios, while on the surface wildly different because we're comparing a gun to a sign, have the same core principle - they are both constitutionally protected rights.

Now as far as to what you could be sued for, that's what attorneys are for. It would obviously start out as something along constitutional lines, but I'm sure you know that an attorney could delve much deeper than that - conduct unbecoming, mental duress, who knows?

That's why I said I don't know specifically what the lawsuit would charge, that's what lawyers are for. All I would know is that somewhere along the line my rights were violated and that it cannot possibly be legal to draw a gun on someone who is exercising a constitutional right, therefore I turn to a lawyer (as did Brad Krause).

As I said, there a several open carry related lawsuits going on in Wisconsin right now, but each has different reasoning.

You still don't know what you're talking about. I think you should stop.

[wisco]

You still don't know what you're talking about. I think you should stop.

Well I'm more than willing to be educated, so do you care to elaborate?

[wisco]

Don't dress like a thug, use a retention holster, and most importantly, get some training.

What sort of training are you referring to?

That's one thing I've never quite understood when people say "get training". Training on what? A firearm has very few basic controls.

Now if you are referring to some sort of training in the sense of how to keep the weapon from being taken from you, that I understand.

[Samuel]

Well I'm more than willing to be educated, so do you care to elaborate?

Would take too long. Suffice to say, you don't know enough about legalities and LE procedures to be able to absolutely state what you are saying as "true". Also, your scenarios don't make any sense and wouldn't happen and/or might happen but you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in certain places (i.e. laws vary and there is no "universal truth" such as you are suggesting). Btw, there are exceptions to amendment rights...

[wisco]

Would take too long. Suffice to say, you don't know enough about legalities and LE procedures to be able to absolutely state what you are saying as "true".

I agree. I suppose that's why I'm at this forum - to learn, that is.

Also, your scenarios don't make any sense and wouldn't happen and/or might happen but you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in certain places (i.e. laws vary and there is no "universal truth" such as you are suggesting). Btw, there are exceptions to amendment rights...

I don't know where you're located, but situations like this have happened here in WI, hence the lawsuits.

However I concur there is no "universal truth" as you put it, every case is different.

[Curt581]

The recent Brad Krause case and subsequent Van Hollen memo came as a result of this very action. That being said, any officer now who comes out "guns drawn" simply for someone (absent other obvious circumstances) who's open carrying is setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

I'm well aware of the Krause case, but you don't seem to understand the substance of it. Krause isn't suing because the cops drew down on him, he's suing because he was arrested for Disorderly Conduct. I know some cops in that area. From what I've heard, Krause is kind of a neighborhood crank, who likes to take pokes at authority, then try to sue if they misstep. Consequently, the state's pro-gun crowd has held him up as a poster child for their cause. Mistakes may have been made, but only in that the Governor issued what amounted to a legal opinion which was bolstered by the AG's memo... with zero legal guidance given to law enforcement on how to handle cases like this. Krause deliberately created an incident to provoke the police. He was far from an innocent citizen minding his own business.

In Krause's case, a citizen called 911 in a panic, complaining about "a man with a gun". Of course the responding cops are going to be a little tense when they show up. Why? Because they don't know what to expect. They don't know what the man's demeanor is, or his intentions. Anyone that says they can tell you what's going on in someone else's head by looking at them is a liar. Actions speak to intentions, not words and defintely not appearance.

Let's try a little test. What can you tell me about this man?



He looks like your high school geometry teacher, or a guy in your bowling league, doesn't he? If you were a police officer, would you hesitate to draw on him if you saw he was armed? You'd be in trouble if you did. I'll tell you why at the end of this post.

I would respond to a "man with a gun" call with a drawn gun because Action beats Reaction every time. We aren't Old West quick-draw gunslingers (which is a myth in itself). If a man with a holstered gun decides to shoot me, I'll loose unless I already have my gun out. Sorry if having a gun pointed at you offends your delicate sensibilities.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure. Endangerment of some sort, maybe? Violation of constitutional rights?

Actually, neither. You aren't 'endangered' unless you reach for that gun.

Which Constitutional right prohibits the police from pointing a gun at you?

Pointing a firearm at someone by a police officer is a Use of Force. As long as I can articulate why it was reasonably justified, there is no grounds for a law suit... I don't care how offended you get.

Since the Van Hollen memo, however, police have been more hesitant to draw their guns and/or disarm someone.

I don't know where you're getting that idea, but that is totally false. The police are still arresting people for illegally carrying firearms and still drawing weapons on people if the circumstances demand it. In fact, I just went through Inservice training this week where I participated in several firearm scenarios which included exactly what you say we're hesitant to do.

I look at it this way... you can't pull a gun on someone for properly exercising their first amendment rights. As such, you shouldn't be able to pull a gun on someone for properly exercising their second amendment rights either. I tend to think most courts would agree with that.

I think most courts would disagree. "Pulling a gun" on someone, as you call it, is not a form of punishment. It's a Use of Force occasionally required to stabilize a situation and/or prevent a serious or deadly escalation. Most courts decide stuff like this on a case by case basis. Each situation is different. We're trained to do what is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. No court would say "It's always bad to pull a gun on someone", because there are times when it isn't bad... even when the subject is someone properly exercising his constitutional rights... because we don't know what's in your head at that moment.

Speaking of not knowing what's in someone's head... the picture above is(was) Terry Ratzmann. He's the guy that walked into the Brookfield hotel and shot up a church service. He fired 22 rounds, killing the minister and six other people and wounding four more, one critically. He shot and killed himself before police arrived. We still don't know why.

Was the Ratzmann incident a strong argument for legal concealed carry? Absolutley!

But if you had been attending that service when he walked in, and he saw you with your open carried handgun, you'd have been his first target... and you've have had no warning to draw your weapon before he fired.

Just for the record... I would like to see legal CCW in Wisconsin. However, I totally oppose open carry.

[Switchback]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure. Endangerment of some sort, maybe? Violation of constitutional rights?
...I look at it this way... you can't pull a gun on someone for properly exercising their first amendment rights. As such, you shouldn't be able to pull a gun on someone for properly exercising their second amendment rights either. I tend to think most courts would agree with that.

Officer safety covers many circumstances addressed in this situation. I don't think there is much ground to stand on if you are not arrested or injured. I can cuff someone for officer safety as I speak with them and make an assessment of a situation, only to unhook them and let them go when I am done. THIS IS LEGAL. With an obvious weapon in the mix, similarly addressing the situation is within "officer safety" guidelines. One an assessment is made, the subject can go on his way. Until then, as Curt said, action is faster than reaction... so why walk up, waiting for an action?

What sort of training are you referring to?

That's one thing I've never quite understood when people say "get training". Training on what? A firearm has very few basic controls.

Now if you are referring to some sort of training in the sense of how to keep the weapon from being taken from you, that I understand.

THIS is exactly why people get themselves in trouble. To think, "I pull trigger, gun go bang" oversimplifies things a bit. There is a lot more to having a gun on your hip than being able to shoot a piece of paper at 7 yards.

Speaking of training, THIS is my primary argument against open carry. Hell, most LEOs don't have enough training in retention (both while in the holster and out). I have taught enough courses to LEOs to know that few have retention training after they leave the academy and those that do are learning some archaic techniques.

So, with that said, does anyone actually believe that the run-of-the-mill "Joe" is going to have ANY retention training outside of watching a Jacki Chan on the FX channel? Who needs to worry about thugs carrying illegally when they can take it from you anytime they want. It sure makes life easier, just grabbing the gun when you need it.

[greg72982]

He looks like your high school geometry teacher, or a guy in your bowling league, doesn't he? If you were a police officer, would you hesitate to draw on him if you saw he was armed? You'd be in trouble if you did. I'll tell you why at the end of this post.

I don't think I would hesitate, he has that nutcase look in his eye.

[RoadKingTrooper]

Wisco, I started to read your lengthy post and then saw this shiny thing............................................. ...................

It ALMOST appears as if you are trying to teach us something

[Switchback]

Well, while his posts do seem to have a condescending feel to them, I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I am sure several here have forgotten about the law than he knows.