Federal Court Rules Open Carrying Disorderly

GCO member Jesus Gonzalez’ federal lawsuit in Wisconsin was dismissed after the judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In his lawsuit, Gonzalez challenged his arrest in two separate incidents for disorderly conduct when openly carrying in retail stores. The court found no specific disorderly conduct on Gonzalez’ part, but went on to observe:

“No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance. This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both. Further, it is almost certain that someone will call the police. And when police respond to a “man with a gun” call, they have no idea what the armed individual’s intentions are. The volatility in such a situation could easily lead to someone being seriously injured or killed.”

Interestingly, a federal court in Georgia ruled that openly carrying a firearm is not disorderly conduct, even if the carrier “manipulates” the gun while repeatedly entering and existing a convenience store.  In Wisconsin, the carrier was just shopping.

It also is worthy of note that Wisconsin has no licensing law at all, has a ban on concealed carry, and has a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms that the state supreme court has interpreted to mean must allow carry in some fashion.

A copy of the order can be found here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

7 Responses to “Federal Court Rules Open Carrying Disorderly”

  1. rmodel65 Says:

    pretty sad that a civil right can be considered disorderly

  2. B. Johnson Says:

    Given that this issue was decided by a federal judge, I have the following question. Second Amendment or no 2nd A., I know of no constitutional statutes that expressly delegate to Congress the power to regulate civilian firearms. Yes, Article I, Section 8 has several clauses which give Congress authority to regulate military firearms. But not only is the 2nd A. not a delegation of power to Congress to regulate civilian arms, there are no clauses in the Constitution which clearly do so as far as I can tell.

    So I have two concerns about federal government power to regulate civilian firearms that people can possibly address. First, James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, particularly the BoR, had actually discouraged the making of the BoR. He did so on the basis that since no powers had been expressly delegated in the Constitution to Congress to regulate our basic freedoms, including civilian gun rights, the BoR was unnecessarily redundant.

    Next, the timelines that I have seen concerning federal civilian gun regulations shows the following. Federal regulations for civilian firearms don’t appear on the radar until the FDR Administration. The problem that I have with this is that FDR and Congress were known to flagrantly ignore their constitutional limits on legislation made in those days.

    The bottom line is that I wouldn’t be surprised if federal regulations for civilian firearms are based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers and therefore unconstitutional, corrections welcome.

  3. ArmedCitizen Says:

    Same as always.
    The problems begin when the police show up!
    “Protect and Serve” nope!
    Harass, intimidate, control, and deprive citizens of their rights.

  4. SnarkyBytes » Civil RIghts Fail Says:

    […] From Georgia Carry: […]

  5. Sharp as a Marble - Bigotry by any other name Says:

    […] Because apparently it makes sense to some people. […]

  6. rustygray Says:

    I find the comment “””No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance. This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both””””” to be immature, slanted, sensationalistic and ludicrous. Here is a judge, and we will use that term lightly, who feels that the mere presence of an armed civilian is a threat. What abou the 4th amendment? If the man was carrying a pistol, in a holster, and going about his business, then why would anyone panic? Answer: Fear. The judge is a coward, like most antigun liberal cowards, they fear the object that scares them and fear anyoen able to handle a firearm. This irrational fear allows them justify and rationalize their dislike of firearms. Yet, these very people, think having a badge or uniform make the carrier so much more reliable.

    Let me ask you, when I was a soldier, and carried an M16 fully automatic, A2, 3 round burst, or M4, plus a 1911 or M9, a really big knife and was willing to dies for the this country, you the people trusted me with those weapons. Now that I am a civilian, I shoot more than I ever did in the Army. I practice more often, train just as hard. But the mass media sheeple have been so indoctrinated by their false idols and what ever they see on tv, as the gospel of their sad scared lives. My character did not change the day I left active duty, in fact I became even more protective of my young family and the Constitution.

    I carry a gun for my family, myself and for all the cowards who are too afraid to man up, cowboy up, grow a pair, or discover a backbone. I am the guy you should toward in a firefight, unfortunately, the mass media sheeple are so indoctrinated by the liberal fear, that those of willing to sacrifice still are met with disdain and even accused of being terrorists, why? Because we are the strong, we are the sheep dogs, protecting the sheeple, and always on the look out for pack animals that might endanger the herd.

    Jesus Gonzalez is a man. A brave and vigilant civilian, a citizen, and he should be protected under the law, not harrased by it.

    It is time to take back our government. Vote out all those who oppose us, and support the ones that support us. Our dollars are powerful. Use them.

  7. RickT Says:

    I am with rustygray