Manasquan, NJ -(Ammoland.com)- His walk in the park was no walk in the park, so to speak, but a Wisconsin man’s public stand against unlawful open-carry restrictions seems to be having the desired effect: his county is changing its policy.
The man, Bill Polster, recorded himself on a walk through Calumet County WI Park last month while he carried two guns, and after 10 minutes, he was confronted by law enforcement.
Polster swears near the beginning of the encounter as he realizes one of the officers is aiming a rifle at him.
“Don’t point that f***ing gun at me!” he yells. ”He’s got a gun pointed at me, that’s bulls***!”
The other officer tells Polster that county ordinance prohibits carrying loaded firearms through the park, and while Polster is able to cite state laws that should supersede the county rules, the officer nevertheless takes and unloads both of Polster’s weapons.
Content warning: strong language.
The officer winds up giving Polster a warning for the incident.
After video of the incident was posted to YouTube, county officials met, reviewed the rules and decided that the county ordinance would need to be updated to comply with state law, WLUK-TV reported.
And while the new ordinance — which is expected to ban hunting in the park but allow open carry — won’t be drawn up until September, Chief Deputy Brett Bowe of the Calumet County Sheriff’s Office told WLUK that the sheriff’s department would not enforce the old blanket ban.
“Obviously there is no hunting in the county park,” Bowe said. “Those were covered under that ordinance. We’re going to have to redo that ordinance to cover those specifically while allowing open-carry.”
And while Polster said the officers who confronted him could have handled the situation better (and he also apologized for his own swearing, saying he was “not proud of the vulgarity”), Bowe defended his officers’ work.
“They handled the incident appropriately,” Bowe said, adding, “Once [Polster] understood what we were doing, he was cooperative with that, and we handled it right there.”
If the county goes through with the ordinance change, halting open-carry is a situation police won’t have to handle again.
H/T Blaze,
So what was the final outcome of this, if the cops made an error u might as well sue them for damages!
Just wondering thx adam
Nothing like a police officer loading your firearm and pointing it at you. Happened to me in Anchorage Alaska , oh and I gave his supervisor a 10 minute lecture how unsafe firearm handling skills the officer had and needed lots of training. All started with a broken tail light.
First of all the officers only have a right to stop you if they have reason to believe a law has been broken. Secondly they only may use the necessary force to bring the suspect under there control. If the suspect never puts his hand on the gun, there is no reason to believe he is going to resist. Therefor the officer should not have pointed his rifle at the suspect.
From a retired officer’s and life time pro-gun point of view these folks are stirring up an issue that is best left alone. This guy was looking for a reason. I live in Georgia with the best ccw law in the country and we still have folks pushing the limits. Carrying an exposed firearm is just asking for what he got. I would have covered my buddy until we had the nut under control also. Just plain good policing
Had the “nut” under control? Not your job to put anyone under control. Another “life time pro-gun” officer above the lowly citizen.
Law enforcement should keep in check and not pass judgement on what people should and should not do. The previous poster’s comment is so disappointing to me. He seems to be coming from a mindset of control. How dare he suggest that one’s rights are invalidated because ” they are asking for it”! What a pathetic excuse for a public servant! If there was another citizen present with a gun, he could have legally shot the officer dead – after all, the officer had a weapon pointed at someone that was neither breaking the law nor resisting arrest.
absolutely Right the guys a Darwinian inbred!
That officer had no reason to have his weapon trained on this man. He wasn’t acting erratically or aggressively. He should have had his weapon in hand ready to draw if the need arose.
The first 5 comments appear to come from Thunderthigh supporters. If it’s lawful, that means you can and may do it without interference from ANYONE, including “worried, or concerned” observers.
Good for him. And good for the County folks who Finally got the idea they were in the wrong.
Could have been handled a LOT better! That jerk aiming a rifle at him needs to find employment elsewhere, maybe McFrys.
LEO clears the rifle while he is close to his fello LEO. Should have pointed it down.
How do I really know a guy dressed up as a LEO is a real LEO? I don’t.
Its because of sissy gun owners like WW. And all others that the communists have made all the progress they have.
Rights are like easements, if you decline to exercise them, you lose them over time.
Anyone doing “open carry”,, in a public place is automatically a TARGET!!!,, and an idiot,, trying to gain publicity.. EGO STUPID…,, if a crime is being committed, ,the “CONCEALED CARRY” GUY,, can solve the situation,, simply and effectively,, utilizing the element of SUPPRISE!!!,, and effective,, accurate shooting.!!!
WW.
I am a super Second amendment defender–but doing dumb stuff to push a point (if that is the goal) is just dumb. The guy with his gun is near a playground! And while the cops should not point at him it is prudent they deploy as they did and have the cop with the rifle in a ready position. And the strictest law trumps the least strict law. If his state says it is legal but the county says it is not–county wins! I think he got handled pretty courteously. I sometime open carry in our area (it is legal)… Read more »
You are incorrect. A local government may not pass any ordinance that contradicts state law. State law always wins. Level of restriction has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Perhaps that is true in your state but in mine local law contradicts state law all the time. On just about every issue you can think of. State law says I can shoot a gun anywhere so long as I am 300 feet or more from a dwelling. Yet it’s illegal to discharge a firearm in at least half the towns in NH. State law says firearms are legal. Yet it’s illegal to shoot off fireworks in half the towns in NH, and the rest have restrictions, such as only in certain areas, or a $4,000 license is required, etc.… Read more »
It’s never the case that a county or city overrides or supercedes a state law. What happens is Some states don’t preempt there counties and cities to allow them to have stricter laws. That’s how it works. State law always supercedes any county or city but not when the state says in the laws that they can enact stronger laws than state level. Just like the US Congress does with most all firearm laws. It did not preempt the states from enacting stronger laws than federal.
Moronic defense… SCOTUS has “preempt(ed) the states from enacting stronger laws than federal” every time it’s been attempted.
Virginia. We have state statutes that restrict local law from contradicting state law in any form. That’s why I can open or conceal carry at our local botanical garden. All the people that work there are super anti gun but they can’t tell me to not have it because it’s owned by the city. State says all govt property aside from Court, Executive buildings, legislative buildings, are allowed.
And everything you just said points to a pseudo military run state Just because a cop says it don’t make it a law. And wow! …if they can’t “GET YOU” on the original reason, they can “ALWAYS GET YOU ON A BOGUS CHARGE” Ain’t that great law enforcement!!
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. The deputies did a great job, could have been disastrous for all involved, right or wrong.
I agree with durabo, antagonizing the constabulary is not the way to go but in this instance the end result was successful. Honest citizens should not be afraid of another citizen with a gun unless acting in a suspicious manner. Carrying a long gun as well as a pistol on a playground will take some getting used to.
1. Fifteen minutes of leisure walking are excessive for this report
2. Citizen is right, even though ambush journalism is abhorrent to me. Citizen’s First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated
3. We gunnies won the battle, but we may be losing the propaganda war. I consider that the score from this “interview” is GUNNIES 40, ANTI-GUNNERS 60