Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« IG report critical of "Operation Gunrunner" | Main | Handy calendar of post-McDonald events »

Madison WI proclaims peaceful open carry is disorderly conduct

Posted by David Hardy · 24 September 2010 08:43 AM

Press release here.

Five open carriers went into a restaurant. One patron called police to check them out, stating she "felt uneasy" despite their calm behavior. The city is classifying it as disorderly conduct (disturbing the peace), noting "The DC statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance."

The relevance of that is unknown. The city's position must boil down to -- conduct that is both legal and peaceful becomes a misdemeanor if it upsets someone to where they call police. And that, even if it is constitutionally protected. It seems like a 2A version of the 1A "hecklers' veto" -- we will ban your speech, the content of which is permissible, because your opponents might become violent if you gave it.

UPDATE: the point about respondeat superior raises an interesting issue. In a §1983 civil rights action, there is no respondeat superior liability (as I recall, because a violation of constitutional rights cannot be within the scope of duty of a government employee). To make a governmental unit liable, you have to prove that its organizational actions were wrong -- one approach being to argue that the unit gave insufficient training to its agents. Usually, though, this is more easily claimed, than proven.

But the City has just officially determined, as an entity, that disorderly conduct charges should be issued. It's no longer a decision by officers on the scene, but an official determination by the City through its highest decisionmakers. I think the City is on the hook.
Hat tip to reader Chris...

17 Comments | Leave a comment

Brian | September 24, 2010 9:33 AM | Reply

So, if 5 black men went into a restaurant and someone "felt uneasy" and called the cops, the black men would be arrested.

5thofNov | September 24, 2010 10:32 AM | Reply

Can you say easy money?

Ed | September 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Reply

So... the process will be the punishment!

Mayor Joel Stoner | September 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Reply

And what if i do not wish to release possession of my firearm, during this encounter? What if i do not consent to be searched, or to have my firearms checked for ownership? We need to write this police chief, the Mayor, and the city council, and remind them, it is not legal to stop someone for simply carrying a firearm. It is actually rather illegal.

John | September 24, 2010 12:39 PM | Reply

This press release would establish that any officer improperly arresting someone for "Disorderly Conduct" when openly carrying consistent with state law was acting within department policy.

How could the City escape respondeat superior liability?

Wes | September 24, 2010 1:59 PM | Reply

The woman who called 911 told 911 the men were not creating a disturbance. The police sent eight cops there anyway, and now charged the five with disorderly. All this after the WI Attorney General specifically told police departments to stop hassling open-carry citizens. Either these eight members of the Madison police department don't know the law, or they purposely refuse to follow the law. Either way, they probably shouldn't be wearing badges.

John | September 24, 2010 3:08 PM | Reply

I didn't realize that RS applied differently to governmental units, since that's not my area. However, I suppose it figures that it would. That said, it is nice to see that in this era of budget cuts, some cities still have plenty set aside for fools' errands...

All I can say is that I wish I practiced law in Wisconsin today.

Critic | September 24, 2010 4:12 PM | Reply

If I was in a restaurant in Madison and five armed cops in uniform came in, I would "feel uneasy" that they were about to commit a crime. Therefore I guess the FBI should be called and the cops should be arrested for disorderly conduct. This is especially the case since the chief has issued a press release warning that cops are going to engage in illegal conduct.

Jeff Dege | September 24, 2010 6:37 PM | Reply

The AG's opinion quotes a WI SC opinion:

¶4. In State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, ¶ 24, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666 (footnote omitted), the Wisconsin Supreme Court established the contours of Wisconsin’s disorderly conduct statute:

Wisconsin Stat. § 947.01 . . . states as follows: “Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.” The State must prove two elements to convict a defendant under this statute. State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, ¶ 15, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725. “First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct.” Id. “Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.” Id. An objective analysis of the conduct and circumstances of each particular case must be undertaken because what may constitute disorderly conduct under some circumstances may not under others. See State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, ¶ 33, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712.

I don't see how either element could be proved, here.

Critic | September 24, 2010 7:31 PM | Reply

The first element merely requires that the state prove that those particular individuals were actually at that location carrying guns openly. Since they won't deny it, it will be very easy to prove. The second element may be harder to prove, but even the second element isn't the key issue here. The question is not whether these guys did or could have caused a disturbance, the question is whether the 911 caller or a more fearful person would be justified in being disturbed by this non-threatening arms bearing. If twenty mean looking bikers with Nazi tattoos and metal studded black jackets came in the restaurant, a lot of people, especially blacks and jews, would be genuinely disturbed, but the cops wouldn't claim the law was being broken.

Jim D. | September 24, 2010 8:03 PM | Reply

I think Madison, Wisconsin sounds like a great place for the annual NRA convention!

denton | September 24, 2010 8:38 PM | Reply

The audio for the 911 call has been released and is posted here:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-washington-dc/madison-five-911-call-video

The caller is clearly not distressed and specifically states there is no disturbance. I think this is going to be a huge problem for the Madison PD.

It seems to me that the PD is going to be writing a large settlement check. I also wonder if the individual police officers are on the hook under 42 USC 1983.

Jim | September 25, 2010 11:18 AM | Reply

Why would you think that madison is a good place for the NRA convention? The NRA won't let people carry guns at their annual convention.

Jim D. | September 25, 2010 2:03 PM | Reply

I'm thinking of a couple hundred thousand people walking around town, going to dinner, shopping -- all open carrying.

You want to go IN TO THE CONVENTION, fine. No guns.

You want to walk around town with all the rest of the 2nd Amendment activists and lawyers, peaceably going on about your business exercising your Constitutional rights (like not stepping to the back of the bus or drinking only from the segregated water fountain), how better to affect a change in perception?

I can see 911 FLOODED with calls for the first day until it trickles off to harassment level. Even cops with bad attitudes will get tired of the calls when they see nothing come of the demonstration.

Make it last 10 days. The first weekend are all the activists prepped with legal briefs willing to risk arrest and benefit from the subsequent lawsuits.

The next wave is the "we'll fill up every jail you can find and still keep coming" wave. Everybody pleads not guilty, refuses to waive their right to a speedy trial, trial by jury.

That's why I think it would be a good place for an NRA convention.

Jim | September 25, 2010 3:05 PM | Reply

The NRA would HATE that! Not that it matters I guess.

Jim D. | September 25, 2010 6:12 PM | Reply

I've hoped for years that someone would start a Provisional wing of the NRA. You know, someone brave enough to exercise their civil rights whether it was welcome or not.

Critic | September 26, 2010 12:01 AM | Reply

There is a complete transcript of the 911 call at calguns.net
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=346229

Leave a comment