Wisconsin Carry, Inc fast-tracking lawsuit against Madison Police Department - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Wisconsin Carry, Inc fast-tracking lawsuit against Madison Police Department

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bighouse Doc View Post
    "When police break the law, there is no law. Just a fight for survival."-Billy Jack

    -Doc
    That's a big 10-4!!!

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Missouri Blue Springs
    Posts
    151
    I was getting ready to post this when I saw it was already here.

    The thing that hits me the hardest is the person who called was not being mean or totally freaking out. She was just telling the dispatcher and asking what was up. She was asking if they were police. Once the dispatcher told her it was now legal to open carry she was sorry she called. She never wanted to get them in trouble. She said they were not threatening.

    I think her phone number and license plate should have been bleeped out. She does not need to be called and harassed by some over zealous person. She did not intend to cause trouble and if she had known it was legal she would not have even called. It was the POLICE who got carried away. And we do not know what happened after they got there either.

    Most LEO's are pro CCW. and pro Carry. So maybe the guys got righteous and snotty with the LEO's? We just do not know the details, jumping on our high horses without knowing the details makes us look like bad guys if we are wrong. I mean come on, if they got snotty with the cops and then we all jump behind them we look bad. Yes they had the right to carry. But we just do not know the details. We were not there. The citations did not reflect gun carry as much as it did, maybe getting snotty with the cops....??? If they refused to present ID then they were egging the cops on. What were they doing running around with guns and not carrying their ID? Why did they want to be ******** and not present ID. Sure they had the right not too, but why stir the pot? If they got snotty and refused to present ID then they were asking for trouble. We have to give our ID when pulled over in a car. So what is the big deal. Chances are if they had been nice they would have just looked at the ID's and let them go, possibably not even running the numbers. I mean really if your ID is expired or whatever U should get that taken care of before you go around Open carrying.

    It just seems odd to me that LEO's would do that, I guess it could be like some Illinois State Police, they have big chips on their shoulders about CC holders driving through their state.. And Wisconsin is a black state, the only other black state beside Illinois.

    Allowing open carry and denying CC. just seems silly. Open carry is just going to scare the Non gun people. I saw a holster clip on a guy on Undercover Boss last night. I was trying to decide if it was a MIC clip or a gun clip, but it was wide SOB, and metal. Sure looked like a nicely made gun belt clip. And it was in Florida. Do not think they would have let him be on TV with open carry.

    So do I think they should fight the citations? YES. A prescient needs to be set so other Open carry people do not get stopped for nothing. could it have been handled better? No doubt about that or we would not be here.
    CrowSnake
    CCW Holder Mo. - NRA - USCCA - HOG
    .45 Taurus Millennium Pro PT 145 - Ruger LCP .380

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by crowsnake View Post
    Allowing open carry and denying CC. just seems silly. Open carry is just going to scare the Non gun people. I saw a holster clip on a guy on Undercover Boss last night. I was trying to decide if it was a MIC clip or a gun clip, but it was wide SOB, and metal. Sure looked like a nicely made gun belt clip. And it was in Florida. Do not think they would have let him be on TV with open carry.
    You know I got unessesarily flamed repeatedly by clking9mm on another thread for stating that the Glock does not use clips to feed ammo, they all use magazines. That being said you can use a clip with a Glock. it's called the clipdraw.

    Order Clipdraw - The Original Clipdraw for Glocks

    That's what a Glock clip looks like. I guess you could consider it to be a semi-auto shooters answer to the Barami Hip Grip revolver grip.

  5. #14
    Dont you know that alot of police think they are above the law? How many times have you seen a LEO scream past you on the expressway, no lights or sirens, probably on his way home?

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Missouri Blue Springs
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    You know I got unessesarily flamed repeatedly by clking9mm on another thread for stating that the Glock does not use clips to feed ammo, they all use magazines. That being said you can use a clip with a Glock. it's called the clipdraw.

    Order Clipdraw - The Original Clipdraw for Glocks

    That's what a Glock clip looks like. I guess you could consider it to be a semi-auto shooters answer to the Barami Hip Grip revolver grip.
    I was not talking about magazines at all. I was talking about the metal CLIP that goes around your BELT to hold your holster on. Surely that is still called a CLIP?
    Or it could have been a clip to hold their TV Mic on but it looked too wide and heavy for that, and it looked Metal. It looked like the metal part of a SOB holster.
    CrowSnake
    CCW Holder Mo. - NRA - USCCA - HOG
    .45 Taurus Millennium Pro PT 145 - Ruger LCP .380

  7. #16

    Lightbulb Clips and Magazines are two entirely different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by crowsnake View Post
    I was not talking about magazines at all.
    I know that, you were talking about clips which are entirely different from magazines.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by crowsnake View Post
    So maybe the guys got righteous and snotty with the LEO's? We just do not know the details, jumping on our high horses without knowing the details makes us look like bad guys if we are wrong. I mean come on, if they got snotty with the cops and then we all jump behind them we look bad. Yes they had the right to carry. But we just do not know the details. We were not there. The citations did not reflect gun carry as much as it did, maybe getting snotty with the cops....??? If they refused to present ID then they were egging the cops on. What were they doing running around with guns and not carrying their ID? Why did they want to be ******** and not present ID. Sure they had the right not too, but why stir the pot? If they got snotty and refused to present ID then they were asking for trouble. We have to give our ID when pulled over in a car. So what is the big deal. Chances are if they had been nice they would have just looked at the ID's and let them go, possibably not even running the numbers. I mean really if your ID is expired or whatever U should get that taken care of before you go around Open carrying.
    Excuse me?!?

    1. The police had no reports from the 911 caller to indicate any illegal activity was occurring.
    2. When the police arrived, they saw no indication that any illegal activity was occurring.
    3. In response to, "Why did they want to be ******** and not present ID" I would counter with why did the ******** wearing the uniforms detain law abiding citizens in the first place?!? And I only use that derogatory word to show that the initiators of the confrontation were not the people who were abiding by the law. They were the people wearing the uniforms who were not abiding by the law. Absent of any suspicion of a crime being committed, the officers had no reason to even approach the subjects, let alone detain them.
    4. There is no law in Wisconsin that requires a person to carry ID because they are also carrying a gun.

    5. Then we come to this whole idea of the cops "checking them out" which a lot of people don't seem to have a problem with. They say felons can't carry guns and how were the cops to know these guys weren't felons? Let me put it to you this way: Kidnapping is a crime. What if you were sitting at McDonald's eating lunch with one or more children, who just happened to be yours. A lady calls 911 and says, "There is a guy eating in McDonald's with 2 kids and I don't know if that is legal." Multiple cops show up at McDonald's and demand to see your identification and proof the kids are yours or they are going to charge you with kidnapping. AND, on top of that, if the woman says she is afraid for her child's safety because you MIGHT be a kidnapper, they write you a citation for disturbing the peace! There is nothing less legal about wearing a gun while eating at McDonald's then eating at McDonald's with kids.

    Chances are if they had been nice they would have just looked at the ID's and let them go, possibably not even running the numbers.
    Nope. The Chief of Police and the alderpersons of Madison have already said that WON'T happen. They won't let law abiding citizens carrying guns run free Madison.

    Do you even know the Wisconsin law regarding "Stop and ID?"

    968.24
    968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

    So I ask, at what time did the officer have reasonable suspicion that the subjects were committing, about to commit or has committed a crime? A lawfully worn gun in a holster is no more suspicion of a crime than eating at a table with kids at McDonald's would be suspicious of kidnapping.

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Excuse me?!?

    1. The police had no reports from the 911 caller to indicate any illegal activity was occurring.
    2. When the police arrived, they saw no indication that any illegal activity was occurring.
    3. In response to, "Why did they want to be ******** and not present ID" I would counter with why did the ******** wearing the uniforms detain law abiding citizens in the first place?!? And I only use that derogatory word to show that the initiators of the confrontation were not the people who were abiding by the law. They were the people wearing the uniforms who were not abiding by the law. Absent of any suspicion of a crime being committed, the officers had no reason to even approach the subjects, let alone detain them.
    4. There is no law in Wisconsin that requires a person to carry ID because they are also carrying a gun.

    5. Then we come to this whole idea of the cops "checking them out" which a lot of people don't seem to have a problem with. They say felons can't carry guns and how were the cops to know these guys weren't felons? Let me put it to you this way: Kidnapping is a crime. What if you were sitting at McDonald's eating lunch with one or more children, who just happened to be yours. A lady calls 911 and says, "There is a guy eating in McDonald's with 2 kids and I don't know if that is legal." Multiple cops show up at McDonald's and demand to see your identification and proof the kids are yours or they are going to charge you with kidnapping. AND, on top of that, if the woman says she is afraid for her child's safety because you MIGHT be a kidnapper, they write you a citation for disturbing the peace! There is nothing less legal about wearing a gun while eating at McDonald's then eating at McDonald's with kids.



    Nope. The Chief of Police and the alderpersons of Madison have already said that WON'T happen. They won't let law abiding citizens carrying guns run free Madison.

    Do you even know the Wisconsin law regarding "Stop and ID?"

    968.24
    968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

    So I ask, at what time did the officer have reasonable suspicion that the subjects were committing, about to commit or has committed a crime? A lawfully worn gun in a holster is no more suspicion of a crime than eating at a table with kids at McDonald's would be suspicious of kidnapping.
    Got your back on this one 110%! We can't lay down for the Police as it will only fuel thier harrasment of legal citizens do what they are allowed to do within the law. A few lawsuits would help fix the problem and make the Police get additional training about OC or CC. If money is won then donate it to a good cause. The Cops that break the law can be beat but we have to make sure we do it the right way and win. It shouldnt be that way but thats the reality of it all.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    US Army Retired
    Prior Federal Police Officer Instructor

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Excuse me?!?

    1. The police had no reports from the 911 caller to indicate any illegal activity was occurring.
    2. When the police arrived, they saw no indication that any illegal activity was occurring.
    3. In response to, "Why did they want to be ******** and not present ID" I would counter with why did the ******** wearing the uniforms detain law abiding citizens in the first place?!? And I only use that derogatory word to show that the initiators of the confrontation were not the people who were abiding by the law. They were the people wearing the uniforms who were not abiding by the law. Absent of any suspicion of a crime being committed, the officers had no reason to even approach the subjects, let alone detain them.
    4. There is no law in Wisconsin that requires a person to carry ID because they are also carrying a gun.

    5. Then we come to this whole idea of the cops "checking them out" which a lot of people don't seem to have a problem with. They say felons can't carry guns and how were the cops to know these guys weren't felons? Let me put it to you this way: Kidnapping is a crime. What if you were sitting at McDonald's eating lunch with one or more children, who just happened to be yours. A lady calls 911 and says, "There is a guy eating in McDonald's with 2 kids and I don't know if that is legal." Multiple cops show up at McDonald's and demand to see your identification and proof the kids are yours or they are going to charge you with kidnapping. AND, on top of that, if the woman says she is afraid for her child's safety because you MIGHT be a kidnapper, they write you a citation for disturbing the peace! There is nothing less legal about wearing a gun while eating at McDonald's then eating at McDonald's with kids.



    Nope. The Chief of Police and the alderpersons of Madison have already said that WON'T happen. They won't let law abiding citizens carrying guns run free Madison.

    Do you even know the Wisconsin law regarding "Stop and ID?"

    968.24
    968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

    So I ask, at what time did the officer have reasonable suspicion that the subjects were committing, about to commit or has committed a crime? A lawfully worn gun in a holster is no more suspicion of a crime than eating at a table with kids at McDonald's would be suspicious of kidnapping.
    NOTE: I don't see any statement of commiting a crime if you do not answer the police when they "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct".

  11. It happens in Washington too:

    Man Who Police Questioned About Gun In Starbucks Says His Rights Were Violated - News Story - KIRO Seattle

    Want to hear what REALLY happened? Here's the audio recording of the 8 minute detainment by 4 Sheriff's deputies:

    http://tijil.org/PCS_harrassment_28SEP2010.mp3

    And yet some on here would say we are the "**********" for not offering blind and dumb compliance...

    This started when Tom Brewer was standing in line in Starbucks and 1 Sheriff deputy there on break - NOT in response to a 911 call (not that that matters) started questioning. When Tom asked if he was being detained and the deputy said no, Tom said, "Then this conversation is over with." The Sheriff goes out and calls three of his budies and the recorded interaction started.

    Harrassed by 4 sheriffs in STARBUCKS!!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2 Arkansas Police Officers Fatally Shot, 2 Suspects Killed
    By HK4U in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 12:01 PM
  2. Pentagon gun was from Tenn. police
    By theicemanmpls in forum LEO Encounters
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 09:33 PM
  3. Chicago At It Again!!!
    By rabywk in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 04:35 PM
  4. Armed citizen stories
    By ishi in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 12:17 PM
  5. Open Carry Meeting and Training
    By 45acpman in forum Wisconsin Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 09:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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