Press release from Wisconsin Carry:

Saturday night at approximately 7:30 pm five Wisconsin Carry members were peaceably dining at a Culvers in Madison. Eight Madison Police officers arrived and demanded ID from our members. As Wisconsin is not a police-state, Wisconsin law does not require you to provide identification to an officer unless you are operating a motor vehicle. Two Wisconsin Carry members, in consideration of their legal rights politely declined to provide ID and were handcuffed, detained, and issued citations for obstruction.

Wisconsin Case-Law clearly states that refusing to give your name is not grounds for obstruction. “No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his orher name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.” Henes v. Morrissey,194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

Wisconsin Carry filed suit against the Racine Police Department on January 8th 2010 for unlawfully arresting one of our members, Frank Hannon-Rock on obstruction charges for refusing to provide ID. Wisconsin Carry obtained a $10,000 judgement against Racine in that case where the Racine City Attorney explains to the Racine City council that the officers did not have the authority to arrest Mr. Hannon-Rock. [Click here for audio of that encounter.]

Wisconsin Carry will be taking action against the Madison Police Department and the officers who illegally detained, handcuffed, searched, and cited our members.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

9 COMMENTS

  2. Just what we need more guns, you people are delusional. You have little understanding that the 2nd amendment, it was to prevent standing armies being controlled by the central government. People are stupid enough as it is, we don't need them carrying weapons also.

    • That ship has sailed. And the question here is not the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled on its meaning many times without reaching the same conclusion that you have. The question is the right to go about your business lawfully without harassment from the police.

  3. Pointless is pointless.
    The constitution is about individual rights, including the right not to be harassed for political reasons.
    More people than you know are carrying all around you right now.
    I feel safer for it.

  4. Hey Pointless, I attend college in Utah and our campus police are happy that there are students with concealed carry permits. They know that they will never react as quickly to an active shooter as someone who is armed and in the same classroom. Large numbers of us carry every day, and yet our state retains one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.htm…

  5. Thank you mr cmdrliimpet and macten you make my point, it's pointless. You both state that running around with gizmos on you persons and the sole purpose of said gizmos is to kill people and YOU feel safe.

    People are ignorant, assume nothing. Americans kill 40,000 people a year because they can't drive, drunk , yapping on their phones, speeding ect. Most crashes are caused thru actions of the drivers, you'd expect people to think about what is going to happen to themselves and others (if you think of others at all, I doubt).

    And you expect me to trust YOU with the killing gizmo, pointless.

  6. NJ's f"in lame. Can only buy one gun a month, permit for each gun, registrations, more hoops to jump through then a dog show. I'll never understand it really! This is why crime is out of control here.

  7. The Supreme Court recently ruled that if you wish to exercise your right to remain silent you actually have to state out loud that you are exercising your right to remain silent. Maybe that was part of the problem, he just sat there not saying anything, not acknowledging the officer. Another part of the problem is that someone actually did call the police because they were concerned about armed individuals so clearly there was some sort of public concern and disturbance. I have seen people commenting in other places on this matter wondering why she didn't just approach the men and ask them why they were carrying guns. If you take a step back and see it from her perspective – she was already concerned about seeing men with guns, do you really think she is going to feel comfortable approaching those same armed men? The truth of the matter is that there are many people who know very little about firearms and are not comfortable around them. Just because you CAN do something does not always mean you SHOULD do something. Just because YOU are comfortable with a behavior or action does not mean that OTHERS around you are. More people need to bear that in mind in their public behaviors.

  8. In the 911 call the caller was concerned but not frantic and once the 911 operator explained that it is legal to carry a firearm in the open the caller felt bad for calling cause the men were not threating and not in the wrong

Comments are closed.