—ping—
Plenty of criticism for everyone involved. Yeah, they may have the legal right to open carry in a sheep pasture. That doesn’t make it a good idea. Way to set up a confrontation or a tragedy.
The cops need to learn the law and obey it regarding gun rights and video recording. As to the chief, how typically elitist for a senior employee of the people. Without looking at the video, I just know he wears the four stars of a General.
A pox on them.
TC
This kind of crap will continue until some lame stream media type is arrested or detained for writing an unpopular article. No, on second thought, the relationship between the first and second Amendment would still be lost on the sheeple.
Idiot cops who don’t know the law throwing their weight around.
My respect for law enforcement continues to decline.
I can understand why cops would be called (don't like it, but I understand that there are plenty of anti's out there...).
I can understand why the cops, after being called, might even stop and ask a few questions. After all, the only thing that they know is that someone has called them about some men with guns. A couple of polite questions - at the most - would quickly clear things up.
No, what I have a problem with is the following quotes:
An officer replies that while Wisconsin recognizes the right to openly carry guns in most public areas, "there's a point where that can be crossed and it becomes disorderly conduct" and that's what the officers are investigating.
and
"It's taking the Second Amendment a little too far," one officer says
There's no such thing as "taking a law a little too far". Either a behavior is legal, or its not. If it's legal to carry a gun, and the men are behaving legally with them (not threatening people, not acting aggressively, etc) .... then that's that. End of discussion.
Scary times we live in. 30 years ago, where I grew up, two men carrying guns wouldn't have been given a second look. Unless the cop wanted to admire what they were carrying.
Ah, is it possible they've identified the motive behind all this?
get used to it LEO community. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
Didn’t the Wisconsin rule that open carry of firearms was constitutional?
Rifles at Farmer’s Market ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list
Only an idiot would be against these two patriots, it’s people like them that keep us free. What should happen next it 10,000 armed citizens should go to that same market this weekend....
I vote foolish and dangerous stunt, given the mass killings of recent years.
I think it is kind of neat that these two acted like men. It’s good to see that - twentysomethings acting like adults.
I witnessed a couple shopping in a book store in Reno. Both had visible sidearms. Not one person in the store cared. No one freaked out.
We hear from the left about how mild government action has a “chilling effect” and “suppresses” the exercise of rights.
I wonder if we handcuffed and held at gunpoint a few voters exercising their right, without any added cause for suspicion, whether the left might understand why this is so offensive.
Right now, those who support gun liberty need to start effectively lobbying state governments to “reform police training”.
Starting in the early 1970s, with several things, including several police assassinations, and the 1972 SCOTUS decision that outlawed the death penalty, which before then had been regarded as “swift and certain” for those who murdered LEOs; at a national level, police were encouraged to adopt new, “SWAT-style” tactics.
The idea was that if police immediately moved to control all situations, and frequently brandished their guns, it would lead to fewer police assassinations.
This idea was incorrect. Much as with the gun control measures begun in 1968, their assumptions were incorrect. In fact, *more* police were dying, and often by their own gun, having lost control of them after brandishing them. Likewise, the three modes of guns: holstered, brandished and firing, were inappropriate for most situations.
More often than not, situations that could have been settled down by other means were aggravated by police gun brandish and use. This is why today many police just adore Tasers, because they give them more alternatives than do guns.
But they still use SWAT-style tactics, because that is what they have been trained to use. And this needs reform at the state level, if the public is to enjoy its gun liberty without police interference.
As an example, a failure of SWAT-style tactics is when an armed officer meets an armed civilian. SWAT tactics say that in many circumstances, the officer should brandish their gun at the civilian, “to establish control over the situation.”
This ignores probable cause completely, because establishing control is regarded as a social action, not a legal one. SWAT tells the officer they must intimidate and dominate, and over the years, especially with widespread steroid abuse among officers (according to the FBI and DEA), this has in many cases turned into unneeded aggression.
For instance, police department “dog killing” policies. Absolutely unnecessary in most cases, but effective if they want to intimidate and dominate, are pure SWAT tactics.
So what reforms are needed. As with gun policy, states should look to Arizona, where there is such a surfeit of open and concealed carry that the police, while being aware of it, are generally indifferent to it.
This also implies a very potent tactic from the past, that if an LEO draws his gun in Arizona, he is very likely to use it, and with lethal intent. So if he does brandish, he means it, no kidding around. And anyone stupid or insane enough to draw down on an Arizona cop is most likely about to die.
Thus gun rights are ensured, order is maintained, police need to use far less violence, and violent crime is minimal. Arizona did it, so other states should follow suit if they want the benefits.
Get rid of SWAT training, except for a small SWAT organization for when you have to have a SWAT team.
It doesn’t sound like it got dangerous until the police showed up and started pointing their firearms at people.
Stupid, unnecessary stunt. I would like to keep my right to carry for a while longer before democrats start getting elected again and decide to rescind CCW. Low-lifes in Milwaukee already make our argument for CCW, we don’t need law-abiding citizens stirring the pot and giving the conservative dems second thoughts.