Looks like about $2,000 but you have to pay for your attorney. So, not much?
The five persons who had been arrested at Culver’s when carrying guns sued the City of Madison and individual police officers for an alleged violation of their constitutional rights to bear arms. The case was brought under sec. 1983, which would make the City liable for attorneys fees if we lost the case.
Based on the cost of defense and the possible costs of an adverse verdict, the City reached agreement to settle the entire case (all five plaintiffs) for a total of $10,000.
The City was represented by Cathy Rottier, one of our outside counsel under the WMMIC insurance policy.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Michael P. May
I guess I’m pleasantly surprised that it was only that small amount. And, we didn’t have to pay for their attorney fees. I wonder how much they actually see out of this.
How did the city lose this? They obviously were causing a disturbance and should have been given a disorderly conduct ticket.
Well, that depends on whether this happened before or after CCW went into effect. Unless the Culvers’ in question had a sign SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING carrying a concealed weapon into their establishment, what these did was perfectly legal.
They were charged with disorderly conduct. http://www.channel3000.com/news/25116566/detail.html
I disagreed with the police department’s decision, and a $10,000 penalty for violating these men’s right seems like a reason first warning to the city. Bt the news accounts of the time, the men were not brandishing the weapons, threatening to use them, or anything of the sort. They were simply wearing them, something protected by the constitution. Declaring legal behavior disruptive because third parties are uncomfortable seems as equally dubious as the heckler’s veto.
According to that article, the citations were issued “because police said customers were uncomfortable and felt threatened”. By that standard, we better start issuing citations to groups of teenagers.
This was before CCW went into effect cory and they were open carrying anyway.
and to Alan, no one violated their “rights” they were causing a disturbance, hence the ticket….
As for this “By that standard, we better start issuing citations to groups of teenagers.” we do this all the time with such things are curfews and many stores say only two teenagers allowed at a time….
Jeff: None of the news coverage indicated that they were creating a disturbance. They ordered food, paid for it, sat down, got their food, and ate it. That doesn’t seem particularly disturbing to me. Nor have I seen any coverage suggestings that people were panicking, rioting, or anthing else that might indicate a disturbance. What I did see is that one or two people were bothered and called the police out of concern. Police get called out to investigate perfectly innocent but “scary” situations all the time, and is not evidence of a disturbance.
As for “rights,” yes, their rights were violated once citations were issued. A “right” that evaporates when someone else is made uncomfortable is not a right at all. That’s why I used the comparison to teenagers gathering. So long as teenagers are otherwise obeying the law, they are free to assemble no matter how uncomfortable it makes others.
Curfews are a different matter, notably because as a society we do restrict constitutional freedoms of children in a variety of ways. As for limits of how many teenagers can be in a store at once, that’s just private property law. Culver’s is perfectly free to ask people to leave for carrying firearms; if they refuse at that point it becomes trespass. None of the news reports indicated that Culver’s had posted signs prohibiting firearms. Indeed I eat at that Culver’s regularly, and I did not see one. Furthermore, none of the news reports indicated that Culver’s staff asked the men to leave or to disarms.
If it still seems like my arguments aren’t fair because we can put lots of restrictions on teenagers, feel free to replace “teenagers” with “Africian-Americans” or “Muslims” above. I trust that will make my point clear.
They were causing enough of a disturbance to have someone call the police. No one knew what the reason was they felt the need to go to Culver’s with their guns on their hips. The one thing we do know though is it was not “to protect themselves or anyone else”
Teenagers obeying the law yet breaking curfew are still in trouble of breaking curfew.
Not sure what right was being violated by being given a citation. Citations are given daily by the police.
I will bite on your last statement though. Lets replace African American or Muslim and tell me what you think the end result would have been…
“A group of muslim men, dressed in traditional garb, showed up at Culvers all carrying open carry weapons….
I know what i think would have happened.
Jeff, my apologies, I was apparently unclear. Let me try again.
If I understand you correctly, then if a single person is concerned about a situation and chooses to call the police, then there is a disturbance and the police should issue a citation for disorderly conduct. You are saying that the standard for disorderly conduct is the sensitivities of the most sensitive person in the area.
Given that, let’s say, a pair of black men were walking through an unfamiliar neighborhood. It’s day, and the neighborhood is just a random, public neighborhood in Madison, not a gated community or similar. The two men are unarmed. They are speaking to each other in conversational tones. The topic of their conversation is mundane. They are fully clothed. They are not harassing anyone. They are not carrying anything illegal. They are not doing anything illegal. But, someone who lives in the neighborhood glances our their window, sees the men, and does not recognize them. This homeowner finds the two men threatening, perhaps because they are unfamiliar, perhaps because they are dressed differently, perhaps because they are black. The homeowner calls the police to report suspicious people.
Given that situation and as best I understand your argument, you believe the police should cite the men for disorderly conduct.
If you disagree, why? What is different about the hypothetical situation above and the situation at Culver’s? In both situations a group of men were behaving legally, in both situations someone was uncomfortable and called the police. The law does not, as a general rule, recognize a difference between “legal while unarmed” and “illegal while armed.” Yes, there are exceptions: you can’t be armed in a bar, on a plane, on a bus, or in some government buildings. But there is no law specifying you can’t be armed in a fast food restaurant. At the time there was no signage on the Culver’s indicating that firearms were prohibited and I have seen nothing suggesting that Culver’s staff asked the men to disarm or leave, so there are no claims of trespass.
This is largely settled case law. Court rulings have made it clear that the right to bear arms applies to individual citizens and that Americans may openly carry a firearm without needing to justify their decision. As the right to bear arms to protected by the second amendment, there is clearly a right that could be infringed. If there are no specific laws controlling the situation (“No guns in bars,” “It’s trespass if you stay when the owner asks you to leave.”), then you’re citing someone for making use of their rights. That’s a clear infringement on their rights. Madison paid the settlement because the city was very likely to lose a court challenge.
(My apologies for the misplaced reply. It looks like the comment system doesn’t allow replies to nest too deeply, so I can’t reply directly to your comment.)
Accept
If a single person is concerned about a situation and calls the police, then its up to the police officer to make his/her best judgement on who is causing the disturbance and issue the tickets accordingly. That is what happened here.
These people were openly carrying into a culvers, not because its a constitutional right(it really isnt) but to simply cause a disturbance. They were not “protecting themselves” unless they were worried that the concrete shake was not going to be thick enough or were scared the flavor of the day was not going to be to thier liking.
The 2nd Amendment “right to bear arms” was never ever meant to mean that anyone could carry a gun anytime. That is nowhere near the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. I get that activist judges, like alito, roberts and Thomas and Scalia. have bastardized much of the original intent of our Founders, so you can say its been interpreted that way. However in reality that is not what the 2nd Amendment said.
The danger at Culvers that day was WHEN these people walked into the restaurant with guns, NOT when noone in there was armed.