Wisconsin’s Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued an advisory memo to prosecutors and police departments across his state saying the mere act of having a gun (open carry) does not necessarily warrant a charge of disorderly conduct.

Van Hollen’s memo was the result of an earlier case that saw a backyard tree planter in a suburb of Milwaukee taken down and charged with disorderly conduct for the simple fact that he had a holstered gun strapped to his side.

The memo wasn’t very definitive, saying, “The Department of Justice believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge,” and citing the state constitutional right to bear arms, Van Hollen still believes that a person who “brandishes a handgun in public” may lose “constitutional protection.” And he said in an interview that still, the act of carrying a gun in public is in itself causing disorder.

Oregon, Wisconsin Police Chief Doug Pettit said the memo didn’t really provide direction for police, “I don’t know if the memo clarifies anything, other than it’s not automatic disorderly conduct charge.” Pettit added that like everything else these days, he would have to use discretion. I recommend to Chief Pettit a good reading and understanding of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Van Hollen’s memo cited case precedent advising that the police can approach and question anyone open carrying, and as along as the person remains “free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty.”

But Milwaukee Chief of Police Ed Flynn is refusing to abide by the recommendations of the memo with a rather arrogant and condescending tone:

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. 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.

"My troops"? They're police officers.

"Decide whether you have a right to carry it"? Ever heard of due process?

For someone who is supposed to uphold the law, even have a dedication to the law, by totally disregarding that law and infringing on the rights of others to keep and bear arms under the fear of being taken down, Chief Flynn exhibits a certain tyrannical and totalitarian approach, out of line with the Constitution. By defying the law, that’s what Chief Flynn is doing, he breaks it. His advice if put into practice is unconstitutional. It is he who is operating outside the law, by imposing his own rule on others.

The matter of open carry should not be a contentious one. And indeed, in the history of this country it has only become so in modern times.

Objectively, someone carrying a gun is not causing a disorder; this would only be in the eyes of the beholder, the mindset of each individual or of society as a whole who have had their sensibilities manipulated. Usually this happens in societies where limitations and restrictions replace liberties and freedoms, toward a particular goal.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Bob Donohoo said:

	Good guys and bad guys... It sounds like this particular peace officer is having difficulty telling the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. I hope the mayor of Oregon still has more influence over this police chief than the DHS which may not have time to see the problem here...
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 23, 2009
Votes: +3

MarkGlen said:

	Chief Flynn is on the wrong side of the law This is the case where the law enforcer becomes the outlaw. Where is George Washington when you need him?
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 24, 2009 | url
Votes: +5

RichardR369 said:

	Law Turned Upside Down So let's see. Let's totally ignore our laws in the name of order. Isn't that what terminology Communists use?
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 24, 2009
Votes: +4

danwhitehead1 said:

Becoming the norm The type of arrogance displayed by this "peace" officer seems more and more to be the norm of public officials. It's right up there with an us/them, ruler/ruled/right to rule attitude. It is very dangerous and will be the cause of many problems as more and more people get fed up with it (as they rightly should). I'm surprised that Homeland "Security" goons haven't showed up in Oregon to help this arrogant, lawless rogue intimade and abuse the citizens who pay their salaries.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 25, 2009
Votes: +4

Falkenroth said:

	Traitor This country is'nt ran by what police officers think should be the law. Yet that is. When police officers make the laws thats the definition of a police state. This is tyranny in one of it's worst forms brought down on American citizens. Traitors to the Constitution and their oath of office.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +3

Illuminos_9 said:

	Food for thought! Those who cannot kill will always be subjects to those who can. Live Free or Die, already! Sheesh!
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 27, 2009
Votes: +1

Cory Beevers said:

	... When did the chief get his brain knocked out? Didn,t anybody around town notice? May the Lord have mercy on us!
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 27, 2009
Votes: +0

Peter Steele said:

Guns and my family I had given money to thw Second Amendment Foundation out at Bellvue, WA, to the Citizen's Right To Bear Arms, to Gun Owners of America, and to the NRA. The reason for this like my wonderful late father was a Jamestown/Mayflower/Son of the American Revolution whose death was caused by Jimmy Carter who did terrible damage to America. We had guns for target practice and self-defense against criminals who would hurt us. BGen Peter F. Steele, USMC for RADM Peter Steele, USN. We spoke to the Daughters of the American Revolution and never at the CFR

report abuse vote down vote up

April 27, 2009
Votes: -1

Osher Doctorow said:

	More Suggested States Rights-Related Resolutions Here are some of my suggestions for additional States Rights related resolutions. 1. Traitors including Obama are not Welcome in our State. 2. We intend to Enforce 1 above. 3. Our State Welcomes Military people who refuse to Serve under Traitor Obama, even if that refusal results in Dishonorable Discharge. Osher Doctorow
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Osher Doctorow said:

State Resolutions Against the State Dept./Central Bankers Here are some suggested State Resolutions against the State Department/Central Bankers as generalizations of the Gun Resolutions: 1. The State Department and Central Bankers including the Federal Reserve Bankers are Unwelcome in our State because of their control, in partnership with Government, of our Financial and Economic System in violation of the Spirit of our Constitution. 2. The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Order of the Skull and Bones of the Yale Law School (which is a fraternity more active politically AFTER graduation politically than before) are Unwelcome in our State as representatives and friends of the State Department/Central Bankers. 3. Individual and Corporate Members of 2 above are Unwelcome in our State. (See Wikipedia online, "Trilateral Commission," "Council on Foreign Relations," and so on for details about members including corporate members, and for links in the reference to additional literature on the topics). (A list of Individual and Corporate members should follow, but it is too long for me to post here.) 4. The Secretaries of State and The Defense Department Secretaries of Defense are Unwelcome in our State because they have typically been recommended as nominees by the above groups to the President since Carter and mostly since Truman, and have almost never been rejected (exceptions for certain Secretaries of Defense can be provided for). 5. The News Media except for a few (to be listed, such as Fox News) are Unwelcome in our State because they have almost Universally and persistently supported the groups above for the last two decades or more. 6. The Entertainment Media, except for a few (to be listed), are Unwelcome in our State, for reasons similar to 5 above. Osher Doctorow

report abuse vote down vote up

May 13, 2009
Votes: +0

Patrick White said:

... My wife, children and I enjoy handgun and rifle shooting. I mentioned to my daughters and wife the actions taken by the Milwaukee police chief to 'Put on the ground and disarm' anyone carrying a firearm openly and asked them individually for their opinions on the subject. They responded that if they didn't have the legal right to carry a handgun (due to a felony conviction, age or other reason) and decided to illegally carry one, they would carry it concealed so as not to draw any attention to themselves, regardless that they would be breaking another law by carrying it concealed. However, since my family and I obey the law, this is a non-issue. I strongly believe that the same opinion is held by those who aren't permitted to legally own firearms but choose to carry regardless of what the laws are. Only my son and I carry concealed firearms in the state of Washington because we are legally licensed to do so. I believe the Milwaukee Police Chief is definitely out of line and is displaying a similar mentality as the Mayor of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina when the Mayor ordered individual's personal firearms in their homes to be confiscated.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Osher Doctorow said:

... I don't believe that anyone without a felony record should be restricted from carrying firearms, concealed or openly, and felons of course tend to carry them anyway as most of us know ("Only the Crooks will carry guns" if one outlaws them). I had a friend who had previously worked for the Secret Service and who carried a handgun in his car glove compartment. He often visited dangerous Ethnic Minority districts in town (after leaving the Secret Service), and he pointed out that between being murdered and commiting a Misdemeanor, he would always prefer commiting a Misdeameanor. Osher Doctorow

report abuse vote down vote up

May 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Illuminos_9 said:

Hey P.W.!!! In case you didn't know... ...The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it states quite clearly that the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable (i.e. cannot be given up or taken away) and is NOT to be infringed upon (NO EXCEPTIONS). Gun Control laws do not encumber criminals or patriotic Americans who know what the word "inalienable" means, nor those who understand that ANY "laws" that breech the protections of our Constitution are UNconstitutional, regardless of what some SCrOTUS judge says, and therefore, criminal in their existence. "It is the duty of all good men to disobey unjust laws." Gun Control laws do not protect the weak cowards who support them by votes, contributions or obedience. They only protect the convoluted value of Class 3 firearms and devices (for degenerate profiteers) as well as the existence of the BATFE charged with enforcing them. Face to face sales are still a viable source for firearms without the need to appease the corrupt Federal government. Do your part in honoring the Constitution and buy your next firearm from a private seller. Let Caesar go on wanting.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 15, 2009
Votes: +1

Osher Doctorow said:

Buy Face-To-Face Well said, Illuminos_9! In fact, I recommend that everybody move out of the Blue States which have, via Obama and Homeland Security and their attacks on Patriots including Veterans, in fact Seceded from the USA. The exception is those former Red States stolen by Obama in November 2008, which hopefully we can get back soon if they're not already back. We can then keep the Constitution inside and its Violators outside. Osher Doctorow

report abuse vote down vote up

May 15, 2009
Votes: +1

12dozen said:

	... Another one of those people who take an oath to up hold and support a document they have never read or having read it did not understand what the words meant and did not care.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 28, 2009
Votes: +1

Osher Doctorow said:

	... Well, I know lots of people who haven't read the Bible, the 10 Commandments, the Cardinal Virtues/Sins, but have taken Oaths. How much do you think that Oaths are worth without having read those? (Hint: Zero, Nil, Null, Nada, Nichevo, Nichto, Nixt.) Osher Doctorow
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 28, 2009
Votes: +1