Men carrying AR-15s to farmer's market detained by police, gun advocates outraged

News article link

Quote:
Two men heading to Appleton's downtown farmers market with AR-15 rifles slung over their shoulders and handguns in holsters swiftly attracted the attention of police officers last weekend.

Now, they're attracting attention across the Internet, with some gun rights advocates expressing outrage that the pair were held at gunpoint and handcuffed, while others voice frustration at what they consider a foolish and dangerous stunt.

The men, Charles Branstrom, 27, and Ross Bauman, 22, ultimately were released without tickets or charges.

Branstrom recorded the confrontation with Appleton Police. About six minutes into the recording, one officer sees Branstrom's camera, confiscates it and attempts to turn it off — but stops only the video. The device continues recording audio for about 45 minutes.
Gun rights advocates think the police acted inappropriately.

"I would never blame police for following up on 'man with a gun' calls, but they still have to behave within the limits of the law and abide by people's constitutional rights," said Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, Inc., a gun rights group. "I believe the police were acting outside of their legal authority when they pointed guns at the individuals and involuntarily detained them."

Milwaukee's police chief ridiculed the pair.

"In a post Aurora-Newtown environment, it's a reckless and irresponsible stunt to strut around in public with an assault-style weapon and think police should assume you're well-intentioned," Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn said Thursday, referring to mass shooting incidents in Colorado and Connecticut.

"It's just absurd," Flynn said. "This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. These characters and those who support them should be ashamed of themselves."

Appleton police declined to comment beyond a prepared statement issued after a Journal Sentinel inquiry Thursday. It said police responded after getting calls about the men from concerned citizens, briefly detained the men and released them after determining they intended no harm and were in legal possession of the guns. The department "has no ongoing investigation and considers the issue resolved," the statement reads.

According to the recording:
The men are walking down the street when they see a police car's lights go on and they see officers approaching. As the officers order the men to put their hands against the wall, the police ask why they're carrying the guns that way.

"For self-defense," Branstrom says.

"These are real AR-15s guys. I'll cover them both," says one officer, who levels his own weapon at the men as another officer begins questioning them.

Police ask if the men are headed to the farmers market.

"Yeah, we were just going to do some shopping," Branstrom says.

"Do you understand how that might create a disturbance if you're walking around with an AR-15 strapped to your back?" asks an officer.

"Yeah, I guess some people don't like guns," Branstrom replies.

Throughout the stop, both men appear polite and cooperative. Another officer orders that they be put in handcuffs and moved to separate squad cars.

Branstrom asks, "Why are we being detained? Have we broken any laws?"
An officer replies that while Wisconsin recognizes the right to openly carry guns in most public areas, "there's a point where that can be crossed and it becomes disorderly conduct" and that's what the officers are investigating.

On the audio, officers discuss the fact that the men appear to be trying to make a statement, that both have concealed-carry permits.
"It's taking the Second Amendment a little too far," one officer says.
The officers check the concealed-carry permits and run the serial numbers of the guns. One speaks with a prosecutor — most of the conversation is inaudible because of background noise — and eventually the men are released with their property.

One officer offers this parting comment: "I get what you guys are trying to do. ... But when you grow up a little bit and you're a parent and have kids at an event like this and you see someone walk through with guns strapped to their back, your first inclination is going to be, 'All right, what's this guy up to? Is my child going to be safe?'"

Branstrom, an Appleton truck mechanic, said he gets that argument, but said police just "provoked more fear and panic" the way the rolled up on him and Bauman.

"I'm still kind of shaken," he said. "I was one nervous twitch away from having a bullet put in me," he said.

Branstrom said he and Bauman had walked about three blocks before the police pulled up, hit a siren and leveled a gun at them. He said he's had police ask him about openly carrying a handgun in the past, but those were "very professional, casual conversations."

He thought the officers could have just questioned him Saturday without the show of force and handcuffing, or walked with him toward the market while learning he was legally carrying the rifle.

Branstrom said it was too early to discuss whether he and Bauman plan to sue over the their arrests, but he said he had made public records requests of 911 calls and the officers' dash-cam videos.

Lawsuits over similar arrests have led to at least four settlements in Wisconsin. In each case, those who were arrested received money.

------------------------

Ok, so they are trying to make a statement, I got that. But when does common sense kick in with guns? I think the officer had a point too.

So maybe I need to walk around with guns all over me so I can sue and get hella cash! Wait, I forgot, that only works if you're white. I would just get shot.

So maybe I need to walk around with guns all over me so I can sue and get hella cash! Wait, I forgot, that only works if you're white. I would just get shot. Originally Posted by Trey

Forreal!!! Lol that's nuts. The cops are just supposed to assume they aren't up to anything and let them look like their in Iraq or something. I bet if they had been up to no good and the cops had not secured the scene, the same people that are mad now would have been calling for the cops heads. What if the cops saw the guy go into that theater with his assault rifle and instead of stopping a massacre, they just let him walk on with no problems. Of course they had to pull their guns, the guys infront of them were armed. If they were black, MANNN, we would be reading about how the cops gunned down two criminals as they tried to rob a farmers market. I don't know what people be thinking sometimes.

I certainly support the carrying of weapons to protect yourself, but carrying AR-15s to a Farmer's Market. Come on! I think the police acted appropriately. Maybe they didn't have to handcuff the two guys but better safe than sorry.

The Second Amendment gives law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

But with any "right", there is also a degree of common sense and responsibility involved. These two, while trying to make a statement, showed they lacked both.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, or any other benign forms of gun activity. It is about the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for defense and to give an over repressive Government pause.

It is NOT about flaunting a weapon in public for the sole purpose of antagonizing others, impress your girl friend, or, in this case, make an ass of yourself.

The Second Amendment gives law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

But with any "right", there is also a degree of common sense and responsibility involved. These two, while trying to make a statement, showed they lacked both.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, or any other benign forms of gun activity. It is about the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for defense and to give an over repressive Government pause.

It is NOT about flaunting a weapon in public for the sole purpose of antagonizing others, impress your girl friend, or, in this case, make an ass of yourself. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Well said, Jackie.

Shit! Me too!

that's one way to lower the price of yellow squash and okra

+1 Jackie.....

But the police had no cause to draw weapons on the 2 gentlemen.

Just as the 2 individuals should act responsible and operate with common sense; so should the police. Open carry means openly exposed. If the state wants to change to concealed, then fine. But until then citizens who carry AND the police should show restraint.

Open carry means openly exposed. If the state wants to change to concealed, then fine. But until then citizens who carry AND the police should show restraint. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

While my states laws allow OPEN carry also and it would be "legal" for me to carry a gun slung over my shoulder, I still wear a jacket over the holster for my pistol when carrying. A legal action (openly carrying) does not necessarily equate to a SENSIBLE action. And yes, if the jacket did bulge a little and the butt of the pistol became visible, that would not be reason for the police to draw on me and handcuff me.

Yep, sometimes people just do not have a lick of common sense about them.

The really sad thing is that if you left them in your car there is a high probability that some democrat will break into your car and steal them.

+1 Jackie.....

But the police had no cause to draw weapons on the 2 gentlemen.... But until then citizens who carry AND the police should show restraint. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No cause? How are the police to know that this was not another case of Sandy Hook or Colorado or Arizona? How are they suppose to know? Explain to me please why police should show restraint when they see two heavily armed men heading toward a public gathering. If police are not suppose to draw their weapons in this case when are they suppose to? When people start getting shot?

Wait until they undress...

Police in open carry states go about their business all the time, seeing citizens carry openly and don't drawn down, put them in handcuffs, call the local DA, and do background checks. What the police did in this instance was unnecessary and harassment. Did the police have the right to stop and question the individuals ?

Yes. But to draw weapons ? No.

Open carry means open carry; what don't you get about that right ?

No cause? How are the police to know that this was not another case of Sandy Hook or Colorado or Arizona? How are they suppose to know? Explain to me please why police should show restraint when they see two heavily armed men heading toward a public gathering. If police are not suppose to draw their weapons in this case when are they suppose to? When people start getting shot? Originally Posted by BigLouie

No cause? How are the police to know that this was not another case of Sandy Hook or Colorado or Arizona? How are they suppose to know? Explain to me please why police should show restraint when they see two heavily armed men heading toward a public gathering. If police are not suppose to draw their weapons in this case when are they suppose to? When people start getting shot? Originally Posted by BigLouie

Sounds like you're 'profiling', BL. Didn't federal judges just rule on that in New York City?