Should I Carry a Gun?

J.B. Van Hollen issued an advisory on Monday reminding prosecutors and police officers that it's legal to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

His memorandum to prosecutors says the mere act of having a gun does not warrant a charge of disorderly conduct, a position that pro-gun advocates have argued in several recent legal cases.

However, packing a sidearm is still likely to give police justification to ask the armed citizen a few questions, Van Hollen said.

"Whereas I don't expect police would ask somebody additional questions just because they are openly carrying a firearm, they shouldn't be immune from questions either," he said in a telephone interview. "It tends to lead to more inquisitiveness by law enforcement, and that's where their discretion has to enter into it."

...Van Hollen distributed the advisory in response to questions from district attorneys and police officials across the state. Some, Van Hollen said, mistakenly believed the mere act of wearing a handgun in a visible holster amounted to a violation of the disorderly conduct statute.

His advisory was most clear on that point. "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," the Republican attorney general wrote in the memo.

Other than law enforcement or security officers, I don't recall ever seeing anyone wearing a handgun in a visible holster in public.

Yesterday, Gov. Jim Doyle responded to Van Hollen's memorandum.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Reacting Tuesday to questions about Van Hollen's memorandum, Doyle said local communities should be able to adopt their own ordinances relating to guns. He said he objected to a 1995 law that barred municipalities from enacting gun regulations that are more stringent than state regulations and wiped out about 35 local gun-control ordinances.

"To me it's a very different issue whether you're walking down Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee with a gun on your hip and . . . if you're carrying a hunting rifle through a town during hunting season," Doyle said..

There are constitutional considerations regarding such ordinances, and Doyle's position would require a change to state law. He stopped short of calling for that Tuesday, but others did not.

Rep. Leon Young (D-Milwaukee), a former Milwaukee police officer, was surprised by Van Hollen's memorandum and said he's drafting legislation to change or clarify state law to prevent people from openly carrying weapons.

"I'm just totally in opposition to putting more guns on the streets," Young said. "We have too many incidents in which people are being shot and killed in Milwaukee."

The memorandum doesn't put more guns on the streets. It's not a new law. Van Hollen is clarifying what is. Nothing has changed.

If Van Hollen issued a memorandum stating that citizens can freely exercise religion, would that mean more people would start exercising a right that they've had?

I don't see why it would.

Even if the Legislature repealed the statute that limits local gun regulations, ordinances against open carry would be challenged on constitutional grounds, said James Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement. The constitution provides the right to bear arms, and if the state law prohibits concealed carry, open carry must be allowed to ensure people can exercise that right, Fendry said.

Van Hollen's memorandum refers to the 1998 constitutional amendment affirming the right to bear arms in Wisconsin, for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., saying it was unconstitutional.

What's odd about this is that it's suddenly an issue.

What has been legal all along is now being criticized by Doyle and others. If not for Van Hollen's advisory, this discussion wouldn't be occurring.

The advisory gives those who choose to carry guns in public more confidence in doing so but isn't likely to spark a rush to arms, said Gold, who works with OpenCarry.org, a gun rights advocacy group based in Virginia.

"Most of those inclined to do it already knew it was legal," said Gold, a 54-year-old photographer. "Those that choose to do so should be able to do so without interference."

There didn't appear to be a noticeable increase in publicly armed residents Tuesday, but that could change.

A group of Wisconsin gun advocates is planning a picnic in July with food, soft drinks and handguns, Gold said. Organizers are looking at locations in Burlington, he said, and a second picnic is being planned for the northern part of the state.

The events would give gun owners an opportunity to "enjoy each other's company and exercise the right to open carry in Wisconsin," Gold said.

Van Hollen's memorandum removes the fear of prosecution that kept some people from carrying firearms openly in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, who expects "a flood" of people to begin doing so.

I don't know why "a flood" of people would start openly carrying guns. Nothing has changed. I can't believe that Van Hollen's memorandum would make a big difference in people's habits.

It's an odd discussion.

I don't plan to start carrying a gun. Why would I? Just because I can?

If I didn't want to before, why would I now?