My suggestion:
1. File a FOIA or "Open Records" request for all information related to the incident.
2. File an official complaint against the officer(s) involved.
3. Contact Nik Clark of WCI (Wisconsin Carry, Inc.)
To try and answer you question: No, without probably cause, the mere presence of the firearm should not be sufficient for a stop and frisk.
In the future, this is what I would do and what I would have done:
So I was attacked by LEO for no reason. LEO eventually lets me go, and with my gun.
1. Call 911 immediately after the encounter. Report the truth, you were just assaulted by a police officer. That way they WILL have records.
2. Get the officers name/badge number.
3. File an official complaint against the officer for assault.
4. Contact the DA's office. I was assaulted by LEO. I am the victim of a crime. I wish to make a statement and file a criminal complaint. (This should get an investigation going).
Just my thoughts. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
+100
I like this--at least, off the cuff. Maybe further review of tactics argues against it. But, for an instant reaction, I love it. Why?
Because it speaks to a fundamental, foundational element of governmental theory in this country.
Full disclosure: I no longer accept the views I am about to give. But, that does not change the fact that the views I am about to give are part of the primary "explanation" for the legitimacy of government as pounded into us since junior high. Which is just another way of saying, "Hey! This is the government's own argument. If they violate it, tough for them."
In this here democratic republic, government only has the authority it is given by the people. A cop only has the authority he is given by the people. The instant he steps one millimeter past that line, he is no longer operating as a cop. The instant he steps even one millimeter past that line, he is nothing more than an ordinary person--because it was authority (given by the people) that elevated him above them. Without that authority, beyond that authority, he is just an ordinary citizen.
An ordinary citizen grabbing another is at a minimum assault. So, I love it. No legal authority? Instantly revert to citizen status.
The US Supreme Court has
twice said no right is more sacred or carefully guarded than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of their own person unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. They said it first in
Union Pacific Rail Co vs Botsford. And, they said it again by quoting
Botsford in
Terry v Ohio. No right
. More sacred
. Without clear and
unquestionable authority of law
.
Not just
clear. Clear
and unquestionable. Notice the horsepower in that word
unquestionable. Any lawyer can argue his version of what the law clearly says. But, that word
unquestionable destroys the attempt. The instant anybody offers an alternate interpretation of a law, they've raised a question. They've questioned what the law means. If the defendant was seized (arrested or detained) on an interpretation of law that was open to question, the arrest violated his rights. So says
Botsford. So says
Terry by quoting
Botsford. He can be seized only on an interpretation of the law that is so iron-clad that it cannot be questioned (excepting hucksters and total idiots).
And, the instant a cop invents a not-ironclad interpretation of the law (also known as anything between self-perceived "loop-holes", distortions, and deliberate rights violations)...the instant the cop invents or uses any questionable interpretation of the law, he has exceeded his authority. So says Botsford. So says Terry by quoting Botsford.
The instant he exceed the authority, he exceeded his delegated powers. And, outside of his delegated powers, he is just an ordinary citizen.
And, committed assault.