Previous Post
Next Post

“Madison police said Wednesday they will rescind obstructing citations wrongly issued to two of five [members of Wisconsin Carry] who were openly carrying firearms while eating at a Culver’s restaurant,” reports. “and instead cite all five men for disorderly conduct.” Huh? “All five men, who are members of the gun-rights group Wisconsin Carry, would be cited for disorderly conduct because the caller, a 62-year-old woman, along with a second patron interviewed this week told police they were disturbed by the armed men.” Huh X2? If someone thinks you’re a danger, you’re disorderly? Let’s just check that statute shall we?

Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

[Click here to download the entire statute.] It seems the Police Chief thinks it’s enough to satisfy the last part of the law.

Chief Noble Wray admitted police erred in issuing citations for obstructing officers to the two men who refused to identify themselves to officers sent to the restaurant near East Towne Mall on Saturday after a patron called 911 because she was concerned about the armed men and feared something ‘horrible’ could happen.”

Yes, well, what of the FIRST part of the statute? All accounts of the incident report that the members of Wisconsin Carry acted in a quiet, dignified fashion; before, during and after their arrest. This will not end well for Chief Wray or the City of Madison.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If an old woman gets to call the cops and have me arrested for carrying a firearm, I should be able to call the cops and have them put out one of those spike-strips in front of her car when she's driving 43 in a 65 mph zone.

  2. When Chicken Little and the crowd she had gathered got to the King, he did not thank or praise her. He called her "silly" for causing the ruckus. He did not cut down the oak tree that had provided the acorn that had hit her. The old woman and the dispatcher who did not determine that the men were merely eating a meal should be admonished. The cops should have sat down and had a cup of coffee while they observed five men going about their lawful business. Do police still swear to "support and defend the Constitution" or have they become the domestic enemies referred to in the oath? Who watches the watchers?

  3. The problem here isn't the old woman who called the police. It isn't the dispatcher who sent the cops to the scene.

    The problems are 1) The idiot cops who violated those men's rights, and 2) The idiot DA who filed charged, and 3) The idiot sheriff who didn't fire those cops involved on the spot.

  4. .and what would happen if I called the police for " a person with a gun" and was "somewhat rattled" and "uneasy" when I saw the holstered handguns. AND the person was a police officer, would they charge the office with the same offense? NO, because he is an "ONLY ONE". double standard.

  5. I always have to ask this question when I read something like this, how many CRIMINALS has that old bitty seen open carrying a gun? Criminals will not open carry, they can not afford to have the police question them. I wish the anti gun people would realize this.

    • Sue for what? As long as the DA can make a legitimate-sounding argument for the application of the law, his decision to prosecute is immune under the sovereign immunity/qualified immunity doctrines. And even if he wasn't immune, he gets to spend taxpayer money to defend himself while the plaintiff's have to hire an attorney with their own money to push the suit.

  6. If the chief were smart, he would drop all charges. By dropping one charge in exchange for another, he has opened up Pandora's Box. These men can now sue for false arrest and having their civil rights violated.

  7. You might want to check out this site for an opinoin (NOT legally binding unfortunetly) by the Wisconson Attorney General… In it he states that "The Wisconsin Department of Justice (the Department) believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge from a prosecutor."

    Again not legally binding but very interesting.

    Also on a side note could I call the cops if I see somone praying and they make me uncomfortable? Serious, no joke. They could be a religous fanatic waiting to attack. Kinda looks different when you change the constitutional right doesn't it?


  8. As I posted elsewhere:

    I’m surprised they weren’t charged with “Being male in the presence of a female” as that is enough to “disturb” and “rattle” more than a few women I know.

    Keep fighting this crap, or else you WILL end up in the same situation as here in the UK.

  9. Shameful. This story speaks for itself. Had some unlawful individual entered this establishment with intent to harm the patrons they would praising the lawful gun carriers as heroes…

  10. Remember, this is WI, a silly state, by and large. Rational thinking are routinely overcome by emoting. Remember, these are the same kind of union cops around the country who rightly see armed citizens as having their budgets cut. We don’t nee them as jch

Comments are closed.