While the state’s top attorney says it is legal for residents to carry unconcealed firearms in public, Milwaukee authorities say they won’t stand for it.
“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said.
“Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.”
"A protest of cowboys," did you get that? Mike W. referred to the police chief as a "thug." Both seem to be fairly extreme reactions. I would ask, what's a police chief in, for example, Detroit, supposed to do? Isn't his point reasonable that you can't tell the bad guys they can avoid harassment by simply displaying their guns openly and acting normal. This would present a problem for law enforcement, would it not?
What's your opinion? Is this another opportunity for gun owners to demonstrate a little common sense and not push the envelope to the point that it becomes detrimental to the cause.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(I think you got the wrong state in the subject line Mike.)
ReplyDelete"hat's your opinion? Is this another opportunity for gun owners to demonstrate a little common sense and not push the envelope to the point that it becomes detrimental to the cause."
What needs to happen is for average Joe Citizen to carry openly and frequently. They need to organize open carry marches were hundreds show up. One you scare enough of the sheep, they will get concealed carry signed into law.
Kenosha? Milwaukee?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that Wisconsin, not Michigan?
So you're saying you support cops openly treating citizens like thugs, committing numerous civil rights violations, and committing acts which are quite clearly illegal?
ReplyDeleteIf the Chief and his officers do that to even one citizen they should be prosecuted and thrown in jail.
And no, that's not the least bit extreme. We live in America MikeB, not Russia.
I suggest you do some research regarding Terry stops and police stops on people carrying firearms.
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty of case law that backs up what I'm saying.
Also, we see again your disdain for the rule of law and presumption of innocence when it comes to gun owners.
Um . . . what does Milwaukee, Wisconsin's Thug Chief, and the tyranny he imposes in Milwaukee, have to do with Michigan?
ReplyDeletePost title amended. Sorry about that and thanks for pointing it out.
ReplyDeleteMike W. calls him a thug. I call him an enemy of the state and he should be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteI think some brave person in Milwaukee with nothing to lose should put Chief Flynn on the ground and take his gun away and decide whether he has the right to carry it or not.
Thug, Enemy of The State, etc.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you call him he is telling his officers to attack citizens and break the law.
Although MikeB tries, there is simply NO defense for such actions. It's akin to telling officers to manhandle and arrest any black man they see on the street, regardless of his actions or criminality.
Such a Police Chief should not be treated as having any legitimacy under the law whatsoever. He is no better than a common violent street thug.
When it comes to citizens carrying guns, the SCOTUS has been very clear on when the police may engage in a terry stop.
It is flatly illegal and unconstitutional for an officer to "put me on the groud & take my gun away" for doing nothing more than engaging in a lawful, constitutionally protected act. If you want police to have that kind of power I suggest moving to Russia.
Here in America we still have rights, and police still need RAS of criminal activity and / or probable cause in order to search and disarm someone.
See Florida v. JL (2000) - There are other cases dealing with this as well.
Here's a short summary.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/e850484e-0f91-490a-8f93-188f225e57c6/99-01--Stop-and-Frisk---%E2%80%9CFirearm-Exception%E2%80%9D.aspx
Ohioans for concealed carry had legal open carry walks as part of their successful strategy to get concealed carry passed in Ohio.
ReplyDeleteWhile carrying a gun is not justification by itself for a police stop, neither is it a free pass--if the person carrying is doing something else suspicious, the police can still stop them. A police chief that says in effect "I'm going to tell my troops to break the law if I don't agree with it" needs a new job. How is this different than telling 'his troops' to continue to stop and search blacks in upscale neighborhoods?
FWM has it correct, I just want to expand a little.
ReplyDelete"Is this another opportunity for gun owners to demonstrate a little common sense and not push the envelope to the point that it becomes detrimental to the cause."
This is a calculated strategy Mikeb.
Some people, believe it or not, feel icky about guns and have an emotional reaction when they see people carrying them.
Open carry is an in your face demonstration for these folks specifically by the pro-gun crowd.
Virtually everyone I've spoken to would prefer to conceal carry their guns. But, when you reside in a locale that does not allow concealed carry, they're going to open carry and create pressure on the state legislature to pass concealed carry laws.
Currently, Wisconsin and Illinois are the only 2 states that have no legal way to carry concealed.
This is, in my opinion, a scare the sheeple campaign in order to get concealed carry passed.
The guns will still be there, they just won't be visible and the sheeple will "feel" safer.
Wait MikeB, so the police chief is telling his officers to rough up citizens & brazenly break the law and you're insinuating that it's the gun owners fault?!
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell?
I guess you'd say the same about those band of folks who pushed the envelope and threw off British tyranny.
If an attractive woman is dressed in a tanktop and shorts and gets raped is it her fault because she failed to "demonstrate a little common sense" and cover up?
If two gay men hold hands or kiss while walking down the street and are attacked by violent homophobes is it their fault. Is that another one of those situations where they should hide from society for fear of retribution?
Of course not. It is not "common-sense" for gun owners to refrain from exercising their rights because thugs with badges (the police) are going to "put them on the ground" and steal their guns.
Should blacks not have marched, not have spoken their mind, not engaged in sit-in's, not held up protest signs because the police were going to beat them, attack them with dogs etc?
If you have a right but you refrain from exercising it because you fear being attacked and unlawfully arrested by the cops do you, as a practical matter, actually have said right?