The City of Madison and its Police Department are about to get their johnnies slapped around by the courts. So far, the five men charged for doing absolutely nothing unlawful aren’t asking for money, a fact which city taxpayers must be most grateful for. So far.
If you missed the story, on Saturday September 18th, five men, all of them members of a group that supports carrying guns openly in public, went into a Culvers restaurant a few hundred feet from East Towne Mall, each of them with a handgun in a holster on their belt, and sat down to eat. Some nervous-nellie east-sider called the cops just aghast that something this heinous could happen in MADISON, and the cops went into the restaurant and made a shambles of the Constitution and our state’s laws.
They CUFFED the men, charged two with obstructing because they wouldn’t give their names, and charged all five with disorderly conduct. A few days later, cops dropped the obstructing charge against the two men, but pressed the disorderly conduct charge on all five, who filed a lawsuit last week accusing the city and the cops of violating their constitutional rights.
How many Americans know that you do NOT have to give your name to a cop just because he or she asks for it? Not very many, apparently. And the cops, who are used to getting their way about everything, decided to write those two who understood their rights a nice fat obstructing ticket, which stuck for a few hours until someone who knows the law read the incident report and said “better drop those obstructing charges, boys…..”
Just so we’re clear on this, you do NOT have to give your name or identify yourself to a cop just because he or she asks you to. That is, unless between the time I’ve written this and you’re reading it, the Nazis or Commies have taken over this country. We don’t ask citizens to “see their papers” without damn good reason in this nation. (And don’t get me going on Arizona’s issues with this. Different kettle of fish.)
A few days ago, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray told a local TV reporter he was “proud of the way his officers handled the situation”….and further opined that “we’ll have to decide what to do in situations like this in the future, when someone is upset by someone carrying a holstered gun”, or words to that effect.
How about this, Chief - how about not letting some nervous-nelly eastsider who withers at the sight of a handgun not decide which state laws and Constitutional Amendments apply in Madison? Or should we bring back one of my favorite Madison characters from the 60’s and 70’s, Eddie Ben Elson, who ran for D-A on the platform “only obey good laws.”
I’m not some gun nut. I’ve been trained in firearms use by a highly decorated WW2 combat infantryman: my father. And I don’t carry a sidearm in public and never have; likely never will. And I was raised to respect the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments, and the laws of the sovereign states.
So until those laws or Amendments are changed, I don’t want some whiny bitch dictating which ones are the “good laws.”
Unless she plans to patrol the parking lot at East Towne well after dark, looking for thugs and losers who are UNLAWFULLY carrying concealed weapons and looking for an opportunity to rob or steal.
Well.
ReplyDeleteI just spent two lovely days in your neighborhood (I was at High Point @ Watts, roughly.)
Note well: no damages done, no old ladies fainted--despite the fact that I have plenty of ammo available.
I agree with you 100%. What if that nervous nellie Eastsider had decided that the sight of a group of African-American youngsters wearing backwards baseball caps made her nervous? Would she have called the cops to report gang activity? How would they have responded. We cannot give in to the tyranny of the thin-skinned and still live in a free society.
ReplyDeleteGun control has been interpreted as a form of class warfare.
ReplyDeleteTrotsky “ (is)that the sacredness of democracy is best guaranteed when the bourgeoisie is armed to the teeth and the workers are unarmed.” (Interrogative question)
The Black Panthers, around 1960 armed themselves with shotguns and rifles for protection against the police.
Many faithheads live in armed compounds, supporting armed militia.
All this is to insure the challenge of the bourgeois state’s monopoly of force.
Gun counter point is that access to guns should be challenged to keep force from criminals and disturbed individuals that shoot up schools. Gun crime is an explosive problem involving the deaths of many of our citizens.
Personally, I think that the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” was a revolutionary response to a young democracy, as a guarantee against the establishment of a tyrannical state.
But it’s obvious that carrying a gun around the farm, as a revolutionary patriot, is far different than carrying a gun around the fractionalized big city, packed with people, full of tension and flashpoints.
Maybe that "nervous-nellie east-sider" saw this video. I think Nelly would definitely have had to take a Miltown if she'd been in that classroom, eh?
ReplyDeleteBut returning to the issue at hand, what's likely to happen here? Will that suit get anywhere?
The Town Crank
Neenah
Town Crank: the five will win, quite easily. They haven't asked for money. The city will wring its hands and then hold a session to remind police officers that ALL laws are to be obeyed, including the ones which allow law-abiding citizens to carry sidearms. This group has won similar challenges in two other WI cities.
ReplyDelete"Whiny bitch", Tim? Seriously? Kiss your daughter with that mouth?
ReplyDeleteThe authorities have told us to report people acting suspiciously, which a group of civilians armed like a posse in a fast food restaurant definitely is. It's not her fault if the police bungled the confrontation they had with these kooks (bringing a gun to Culver's is about as appropriate as bringing a hive of bees).
Calling this woman a "whiny bitch" is over the line, don't you think? How is she any different from the WWII vet who calls the cops on a late-night party next door?
Calling this woman a "whiny bitch" is over the line, don't you think? How is she any different from the WWII vet who calls the cops on a late-night party next door?
ReplyDeleteSeriously? It seems to me that the guy who calls in on a late night party is probably reporting someone disturbing the peace. Most cities would qualify this as an ordinance violation at least. There is a difference, especially when the Chief of Police thinks that her anxiety should influence the rights of others.
Your right to free speech doesn't cover loud chatter during a play at Overture, does it? If I complain to the manager, does that make me a "whiny bitch," Jennifer?
ReplyDeleteHow about "whiny old broad"?
ReplyDelete