[SJackson]

On his property was not really the issue being decided. What the judge had to decide was if Brad was rightly arrested for ‘disorderly conduct while armed.’ And the facts of the case show Brad was not disorderly.

Good. As I noted in post 38, the Supreme Court ruling implied the right, though concealed, on your property. I don't plan on being test case #2, but the clear implication should this hold up on appeal is that open carry is, in fact, legal in WI.

[SJackson]

If you’d like to be on or off this Upper Midwest/outdoors/rural list please FR mail me. And ping me is you see articles of interest.

[Secret Agent Man]

And I will clarify that the judge made pretty clear that the whole ‘disorderly’ charge stemmed from the fact police arrested him under disorderly conduct BECAUSE he was armed. Being armed WAS the disorderly conduct. So they were saying he was guilty of disorderly conduct (i.e. being armed), while armed. The fact he was armed was the basis for the disorderly conduct charge, according to the arresting officers.

Which is why is was right for the judge to say not guilty, otherwise EVERYONE who open carries is automatically guilty of disorderly conduct because they are armed.