H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°
When I leave to go to the grocery store, there are a few items I keep in mind to take with me — debit card, car keys, cell phone and maybe a pair of steel-toe boots if it’s the rush right before Christmas dinner.
But until now, I hadn’t thought to bring a 9 mm with me.
Well, why not? It’s legal. And it would probably clear the aisles pretty quick.
At least, that’s the opinion of Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (not the shopping thing, I’m sure his slicked-back hair is enough to scare those crowding the dairy section). In an opinion released on Monday, Van Hollen made clear what most gun rights advocates already knew and most law enforcement find bewildering: Police can’t arrest you for disorderly conduct simply for openly carrying a gun, even if you don’t have a permit for that gun.
Well, strap on a holster and call me John Wayne! Oh, don’t worry, I don’t want to shoot anyone. Nor did the West Allis man who was arrested on his own property for openly carrying his gun — he was doing yard work. Nor do most of the hunters in Northern Wisconsin who treat their guns as essential tools to a rite of passage.
And usually, police should be able to tell whether you’re ready to kill someone or just casually showing off your Second Amendment rights in a completely unnecessary way. In Van Hollen’s opinion, for example, the difference between disorderly conduct and constitutional right can be as small as yelling at someone while holding a gun.
Of course, you can understand how this would irk law enforcement. Cops in white bread parts of Wisconsin will see a man with a gun and have images of every small town rampage flash before their eyes. Before you know it, the gun-toting citizen is on the ground and a mostly inert situation has been rendered completely absurd.
But the issue for law enforcement isn’t suburban, peaceful Wisconsin. It’s Milwaukee.
You know, that place where gun deaths run rampant, gunfire strikes down innocent bystanders and talk radio pundits are throwing up their arms and heralding the breakdown of civilization.
And law enforcement officials there are feeling embattled by Van Hollen’s decision. Not only because it seems vague, but also because they seem to feel it doesn’t allow them to arrest gun-wielding youth on the spot.
Well, whatever — they’re still going to do 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 told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “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.”
But in what situation is Van Hollen’s opinion going to stop police from doing their job?
Man holding gun in his hand? Reasonable suspicion. Man with gun in car? Still against the law. The only scenario I can see where a person with a gun doesn’t end in an arrest is if a suspected threat walks down the street with a gun tucked in the front of his pants, but still visible, and then simply walks by police without a single facial tick or sneer. But be realistic, how many people are going to see police while showing a piece and not react in a way deemed suspicious?
I know what gun control advocates will say: “This is just one more step toward proliferating gun violence in Wisconsin. Next is concealed carry.”
Maybe. But let’s be honest with ourselves — who handles guns, what kind of guns they have and how they get those guns is a lot more important than how someone handles their gun.
Laws prohibiting guns in public places serve a normative purpose in regulating gun use, but practical enforcement is rather limited. Once someone has a gun in public, one of two things happens: They either take it out and start shooting people or they beam with pride as they test the produce.
But either way, the police are still going to approach you. If you’re about to shoot someone, they’re either going to stop you or regrettably have it end in a shootout. But if you are just going about your day and feel like alarming your neighbors for the sake of touting your newly emboldened Constitutional rights, yeah, you should be allowed to go about your shopping/picnic/other non-trigger tripping situation.
But gun control advocates will at least have the opportunity to pick their battle. There are kids getting guns in front of Chicago schools with assault rifles and mentally unbalanced individuals getting guns without any problems.
Deal with them first. The man doing lawn work isn’t a threat — he’s just obnoxious.
Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
IP hash: 8e1b9904
I lean toward conservative on a few issues, but carrying a gun around with me everywhere I go is not one of them. Just the psychological addiction would drive me insane before long. I shoot just for recreation and I shoot at targets with a bullseye in the middle, not at animals. But if every third person on the street is packing heat, you’re gonna have trouble soon after happy hour gets underway.
IP hash: 5a860a62
If I remember correctly, it’s still illegal for someone under 18 to carry a handgun without parental permission. Teens walking around with a pistol in their pants are still eligible for arrest…
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Awww, look at the cute PANDER bear. I think I’ll name him JB.
IP hash: 9c771276
An armed society is a polite society.
But we are now subjects of the state, not free citizens. Just ask Ed Flynn, laws are for others - not the troops keeping the poens their place.
IP hash: 55cc4fa9
Open Carry is not obnoxious or showing off anymore than gay people kssing on campus is offensive. People are open carrying in 44 states, usually without need of any permit, including San Diego, Pittsburg, and Seattle.
Open carry is an honorable and constitutionally protected way to carry guns - and it’s legal on Wisconin college campuses too, so carry on! See more at OpenCarry.org.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
2:17, if I am un-armed and I want to pick a fist fight with you, because you are the kind of douche who would wear a Texas-sized belt buckle, are you going to shoot me dead? Is that the honorable thing to do?
IP hash: 0de87e99
Ed Flynn is an idiot! The issue of whether or not a citizen of these United States has a right to keep and bear arms has been decided to include the individual right to do so. (See SCOTUS’ decision in Heller v District of Columbia) Moreover, the courts have decided that the police HAVE NO DUTY to protect individuals! (See DC Court of Appeals’ Warren v District of Columbia and SCOTUS’ Castle Rock v Gonzales) Had the police been protecting individuals, perhaps Brittany Zimmerman would still be alive. As the police have been absolved of the responsibility of protecting me, I choose to do so myself within the confines of law. Obviously, Ed Flynn knows nothing about the confines of law since he’s violating the constitutional rights of open carriers in Milwaukee!
IP hash: a97b32cf
Good article, providing a non-biased, rational look at the current issue.
Thank you for having journalistic integrity and being realistic. How dumb would a criminal have to be to openly carry a firearm before/after they use it in a crime? That question needs to be asked of Ed Flynn and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.
IP hash: 15600624
The right to keep and bear arms has been an integral part of our society for over 2 centuries. No laws have changed since the AG sent out his memo that open carry is not an illegal act, he simply stated that the police need to quit wrongfully arresting and charging law abiding citizens with disorderly conduct charges for exercising their constitutional rights that are guaranteed by both the US constitution and the Wisconsin state constitution. Minors are still not allowed to possess a handgun, nor are felons or mentally defective people allowed to posess firearms either. I Wisconsin, only the riminals conceal handguns, Why do you feel that the regular law abiding citizen should not have the right to protect themselves and their family against these criminals while exercising their constitutional right to do so? Carry on!
IP hash: 3f845e77
The author seems kind of snarky about this issue. Odd, since he appears to make his living by exercising his 1st amendment free speech rights, that he should be so dismissive of those exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
People go about exercising their 1st amendment rights to free speech, and saying things that make others uncomfortable. That discomfort is not, in itself, a reason to limit the speaker’s 1st amendment right to free speech. We accept that discomfort, and we engage in political discourse.
People going about their business while exercising their 2nd ammendment rights also may very well make others uncomfortable. Once again, that discomfort is not, in itself, a reason to limit the bearer’s 2nd amendment rights.
Convicted felons loose the right to go carry firearms. Since WI is one of two states with zero provision for law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, anybody found carrying ANY concealed weapon is still subject to arrest and confiscation.
Really, one would think law enforcement would be happy to see people wearying a holstered firearm. It makes it readily apparent who is armed, after all.
IP hash: 87443baa
The Attorney General simply made a correct statement regarding the law. Ed Flynn however is instructing police officer to willfully disregard the law and to violate the civil and Constitutional rights of citizens. Which is more outrageous?
IP hash: 9c771276
Hey 2:44
Picking a fight with somebody packing heat is a good way to win the Darwin Award.
One of the excellent reasons to pack a gun is to disuade idiots from attacking.
IP hash: 6c7b1e0c
If you un-armed and you want want a fist with me. I will fist fight you, but if you try to grab my gun, then I will shoot you first hehehe! How that sounds???
IP hash: 280c916e
One major problem.. What may seem obvious, has to be an assumed conclusion. You are assuming the guy on the lawn, with the gun is OK, because he is on the lawn and not in the lobby of a bank, or a school cafeteria with the weapon.
Setting laws, based on assumption as a mitigating factor, is not sound thinking.
So can we assume anyone with an open gun, is ready to use it and actually looking for an excuse to do so?
IP hash: 9c771276
“So can we assume anyone with an open gun, is ready to use it and actually looking for an excuse to do so?”
Assume that they are “looking for an excuse” only if you are a paranoid idiot. Do you assume that everybody with a car is looking for an excuse to run you over?
IP hash: 97d91588
“One major problem.. What may seem obvious, has to be an assumed conclusion. You are assuming the guy on the lawn, with the gun is OK, because he is on the lawn and not in the lobby of a bank, or a school cafeteria with the weapon.
Setting laws, based on assumption as a mitigating factor, is not sound thinking.
So can we assume anyone with an open gun, is ready to use it and actually looking for an excuse to do so?”
I’ll make this assumption: 8:00 doesn’t know how to use commas.
IP hash: 55597865
If people want to carry guns, fine. But when they are mistakenly shot by police, don’t complain about it. That should be the expected outcome … especially around college campuses. duh.
IP hash: 9c771276
“But when they are mistakenly shot by police”
Yeah, police shoot first, ask questions later - this policy should never be questioned!
IP hash: bd48b646
So carrying a gun means you can’t complain about police mistakes anymore? Also all the police have to do is claim they thought you were carrying a gun. Whether or not you actually had one is inconsequential.