Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Please update site and anyone who open carrys!!!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22

    Please update site and anyone who open carrys!!!!!

    TRANSPORTINGWEAPONS
    If I have a CCW license can I transport the weapon on my person in a vehicle?
    Yes. Current law generally requires that firearms other than handguns being transported in or on a vehicle, or placed inside a vehicle be unloaded, and not hidden or concealed when within reach of any occupants of the vehicle. In regard to other weapons not authorized under a CCW license, they could not be carried concealed and within reach.
    Under the new CCW law, a person with a CCW license may carry a concealed weapon (handgun, knife, electric weapon or billy club) in a vehicle.
    However, long guns are still subject to the requirement of being unloaded and not hidden when within reach.

    If I do not have a CCW license how do I transport weapons in a vehicle?
    A. Handguns
    The law now allows a person who can legally possess a handgun to do the following without a CCW permit:
    • place, possess, or transport a handgun in a vehicle without being unloaded or encased.Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(b).
    • load a handgun in a vehicle. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(c).
    • operate an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with a loaded uncased handgun in the operator‘s possession. Wis. Stat. § 23.33(3)(a).
    • place, possess, or transport a handgun in or on a motorboat with the motor running without being unloaded or encased. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(a), (b), (c).
    • place, possess, or transport a loaded uncased handgun in or on a
    noncommercial aircraft.
    IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    This information is as of June 23, 2014. I have had personal experience while getting pulled over. Make sure you inform the officer(s) right away of any weapons in the vehical as soon as he gets out of his. I informed the sheriff of my pistol and he said thank you for informing me never asked for the pistol. He originally pulled me over for an expired tag on the truck, but that quickly turned into friendly gun talk after i told him what kind of pistol i had. Gave us a warning for the tag and said have a nice day.
    Last edited by Savage14; 09-28-2014 at 11:20 AM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    ...Make sure you inform the officer(s) right away of any weapons in the vehicle as soon as he gets out of his...
    Please be specific.

    Is this legal advice, or personal opinion?

    Personal opinions are certainly valid, especially with experiences and reasons as you've noted, but it needs to be clear. AFAIK, Wisconsin law does not require notification, and there are advantages and disadvantages to notifying.
    Last edited by MAC702; 09-28-2014 at 12:34 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    TRANSPORTINGWEAPONS
    If I have a CCW license can I transport the weapon on my person in a vehicle?
    Yes. Current law generally requires that firearms other than handguns being transported in or on a vehicle, or placed inside a vehicle be unloaded, and not hidden or concealed when within reach of any occupants of the vehicle. In regard to other weapons not authorized under a CCW license, they could not be carried concealed and within reach.
    Under the new CCW law, a person with a CCW license may carry a concealed weapon (handgun, knife, electric weapon or billy club) in a vehicle.
    However, long guns are still subject to the requirement of being unloaded and not hidden when within reach.

    If I do not have a CCW license how do I transport weapons in a vehicle?
    A. Handguns
    The law now allows a person who can legally possess a handgun to do the following without a CCW permit:
    • place, possess, or transport a handgun in a vehicle without being unloaded or encased.Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(b).
    • load a handgun in a vehicle. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(c).

    • operate an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with a loaded uncased handgun in the operator‘s possession. Wis. Stat. § 23.33(3)(a).
    • place, possess, or transport a handgun in or on a motorboat with the motor running without being unloaded or encased. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(a), (b), (c).
    • place, possess, or transport a loaded uncased handgun in or on a
    noncommercial aircraft.
    IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.


    Would this now mean the idea of an OC'd handgun in a vehicle is no longer considered 'unlawfully concealed'? I hate legalese and struggle to interpret the 'language'. Incidentally Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(b). says

    (c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may load a firearm, other than a handgun, in a vehicle or discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or from a vehicle.
    I don't see anything about the method of carry so not sure where the ban on vehicular CC without a permit is.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Please be specific.

    Is this legal advice, or personal opinion?

    Personal opinions are certainly valid, especially with experiences and reasons as you've noted, but it needs to be clear. AFAIK, Wisconsin law does not require notification, and there are advantages and disadvantages to notifying.
    Sorry i should have been more clear and thank you for pointing it out. It's my personal opinion and the sheriff that pulled us over really appreciate people informing them of a weapon(s) inside just so there not blind sided.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Would this now mean the idea of an OC'd handgun in a vehicle is no longer considered 'unlawfully concealed'? I hate legalese and struggle to interpret the 'language'. Incidentally Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(b). says



    I don't see anything about the method of carry so not sure where the ban on vehicular CC without a permit is.
    The sheriff told me so i could even understand all the mumble jumble is that if the weapon can be seen from any view around the vehicle your fine. If the weapon can not be seen as far as pistols go, not including long guns, than you need to be carrying the ccw permit.

    I do have the PDF file and i would put it on here but the file is to large. Here is the HTTP thingy hopefully this will work:

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/def...cw/ccw-faq.pdf
    Last edited by Savage14; 09-28-2014 at 03:03 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    We have only the rights that we defend

    175.60(2g) Carrying a concealed weapon; possession and display of license document or authorization.
    [ ... ]
    (c) Unless the licensee or out-of-state licensee is carrying a concealed weapon in a manner described under s. 941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card and an out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her out-of-state license and photographic identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority.
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/175/60

    The cops have only the power delegated by law.
    345.22  Authority to arrest without a warrant. A person may be arrested without a warrant for the violation of a traffic regulation if the traffic officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is violating or has violated a traffic regulation.

    345.23  Officer's action after arrest without a warrant. If a person is arrested without a warrant for the violation of a traffic regulation, the arresting officer shall issue a citation under s. 345.11, and in addition:
    (1) May release the person; or
    (2) Shall release the person when he or she:
    (a) Makes a deposit under s. 345.26; or
    (c) Deposits the person's valid Wisconsin operator's license with the officer. If the license is deposited with the officer, the officer shall issue to the licensee a receipt which shall be valid as a driver's license through the date specified on the receipt, which shall be the same as the court appearance date, and the officer shall, at the earliest possible time prior to the court appearance date, deposit the license with the court.
    (d) Presents a guaranteed arrest bond certificate under s. 345.61.
    (3) Shall, if the alleged violator is not released under sub. (1) or (2), bring him or her without unreasonable delay before a judge or, for ordinance violations, before a municipal judge in the county in which the violation was alleged to have been committed.
    (4) Shall, if the alleged violator is released under sub. (1) or (2), specify on the citation a return date which may not be more than 90 days after the issue date.
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/345/III/23
    Last edited by Nightmare; 09-28-2014 at 03:02 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    The sheriff told me so i could even understand all the mumble jumble is that if the weapon can be seen from any view around the vehicle your fine. If the weapon can not be seen as far as pistols go, not including long guns, than you need to be carrying the ccw permit.
    Best peice of advice I can give is never take an LEOs word for it. He is 100% wrong

    State v Walls


    .....Handgun lying on front seat of automobile in which defendant was passenger was “concealed” within meaning of concealed weapons statute, although police officers were able to observe handgun after stopping vehicle, where handgun was concealed to ordinary observation as automobile traveled down the street prior to being stopped.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Best peice of advice I can give is never take an LEOs word for it. He is 100% wrong State v Walls
    Everything OP says or does will be used against him. A cop is authorized to lie and entrap.

    Believe nothing read or heard without verifying it oneself unless it Weltanschauung congruent, to excuse the invincibly ignorant. (I had forgotten G. G. Liddy's fine turn of phrase, "The invincibly ignorant.")
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Best peice of advice I can give is never take an LEOs word for it. He is 100% wrong

    State v Walls
    Have you had any experience or just going but what you find in someone elses situation.You going around telling people not to listen to cops is not by any means a good idea. you sir would end up getting some young man or women killed by the law or thrown in jail because they took your advice.

    So how about you keep reading the State vs walls and you will see that under Weapons 406-10 i clearly agrees to what ive stated ealier. If you read, than you shall learn.
    Last edited by Savage14; 09-28-2014 at 03:28 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Always follow the law, always know the law. Do NOT make up your own variation, which means in a state in which there is no notification required, do NOT notify. Neither should you lie.

    Also be aware that the ONLY requirement (except for one state) is to show a permit IF CONCEAL CARRYING. It does not have any provision to declare anything about the firearm. You only need to show the PERMIT and a picture ID.

    If asked about the firearm, I would suggest you say nothing, or ask if the request (if any) is a demand or a request. If the reply is 'a request' you should say nothing about it. The point is NOT to empower the officer, and not to TEACH them that they have a right to demand something which they do NOT.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    Have you had any experience or just going but what you find in someone elses situation.You going around telling people not to listen to cops is not by any means a good idea. you sir would end up getting some young man or women killed by the law or thrown in jail because they took your advice.

    So how about you keep reading the State vs walls and you will see that under Weapons 406-10 i clearly agrees to what ive stated ealier. If you read, than you shall learn.
    i'm going by the law and by advice I've read here on OCDO. Incidentally if you like being lied to and having your rights stolen feel free to carry on but this is not the site for you and you'll get no support. Cops are subject to the law and resisting unlawful searches, seizures is quite common if not here, a myriad of activist groups, many of which have youtube accounts. Cops can and do lie and it's up to you to know what is a lie and what is law. Educate yourself then come back when you've learned a thing or two about reality.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    i'm going by the law and by advice I've read here on OCDO. Incidentally if you like being lied to and having your rights stolen feel free to carry on but this is not the site for you and you'll get no support. Cops are subject to the law and resisting unlawful searches, seizures is quite common if not here, a myriad of activist groups, many of which have youtube accounts. Cops can and do lie and it's up to you to know what is a lie and what is law. Educate yourself then come back when you've learned a thing or two about reality.
    This is not the site for me? Really by who's account?...its a free site and anyone person may be on it and if no one supports me than so be it, i dont support you and the words you speak. I do educate myself unlike you who i doubt that you read under the Weapons 406-10 in the State vs Wals

  14. #14
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    I've said my piece. If a moderator or other experienced member wishes to contradict me then I shall retract.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  15. #15
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Yes, we're aware of the laws regarding transporting firearms in WI, thank you.
    For new people, there's a sticky at the top of the forum titled "New to OC in WI? Here's what you should know" which has lots of useful information.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ou-should-know

    TRANSPORTINGWEAPONS
    If I have a CCW license can I transport the weapon on my person in a vehicle?
    Not sure where you're getting this info, but anyone who calls it a "CCW license" doesn't know what they're talking about.
    CCW is a crime, and you can't get permission to commit a crime.
    WI sells concealed carry licenses (ccl).
    Having a ccl is a defense against a charge of CCW.
    Yes, I'm aware that someone at the DOJ calls a ccl a "CCW" in official documents. That doesn't make me feel very good about the DOJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14
    This information is as of June 23, 2014. I have had personal experience while getting pulled over. Make sure you inform the officer(s) right away of any weapons in the vehical (sic) as soon as he gets out of his. I informed the sheriff of my pistol and he said thank you for informing me never asked for the pistol. He originally pulled me over for an expired tag on the truck
    Did you notify him of all other personal property you had in the car? Why or why not?
    Why would you encourage a LEO to expect that people will give up their rights?
    And what does your pistol have to do with having an expired tag? Why would you even mention it?

    Most sheriffs will have more citizen-friendly responses & policies than most police chiefs,
    and most rural areas will have more citizen-friendly responses than most cities.
    So making a blanket assertion that LACs should inform a LEO of being armed when they're being investigated for an offense is off-base.
    In Milwaukee, you're likely to get your gun stolen, the serial # run (hello, you now have a "crime gun" registered to you), and have to go to court to get it back, even though you've done nothing wrong.

    The last 2 times I got pulled over, they didn't ask & I didn't tell, even though 1 time I was OC & both times I was cc.
    That being said, I did once inform a LEO I was armed & tried to show him my WI ccl (he refused it), but his partner was leaning in my passenger window grinning at me & could already clearly see the pistol on my hip, and neither of them was freaking out, so I figured it wasn't going to be a problem. (This was in a rural area of WI.) I was also cc, which is why I offered the ccl.
    I'd called 911 to report a dangerous driver, and they wanted my contact info in case it went to court. Wish I'd had a cell phone camera back then, 'cause that would have made prosecution lots easier!

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14
    The sheriff told me so i could even understand all the mumble jumble (sic) is that if the weapon can be seen from any view around the vehicle your (sic) fine. If the weapon can not be seen as far as pistols go, not including long guns, than you need to be carrying the ccw permit (sic).
    Walls is an old decision by a judge, not based on current law.
    The actual law has changed several times in important ways since that old ruling.
    And it was bad to begin with, the lawyer should have challenged it right away.
    If the officers saw a baggie of marijuana sitting on the front seat next to the pistol, they would claim that the drug was in plain sight. So of course the pistol was in plain sight too. Use a little common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14
    This is not the site for me? Really by who's (sic) account?... its (sic) a free site and anyone person may be on it and if no one supports me than so be it, i dont (sic) support you and the words you speak. I do educate myself unlike you who i doubt that you read under the Weapons 406-10 in the State vs Wals (sic)
    What is this "Weapons 406-10" of which you speak?
    Here's where you can search WI statutes, by number or key word: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/RSB/STATS.HTML
    There is no chapter 406.

    I think that most of the people here are more freedom-loving and more knowledgable about the laws, so we would not choose to give up our rights, would not choose to inform a LEO of what personal property we were carrying.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 09-28-2014 at 04:23 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    I do not know what that thing is linked as State v. Walls above. This is the caption

    In those lawyerly ambulance chaser attorney's TV commercials, the banks of expensive bound books background for the mouthpiece are their collections of stare decsis case law. In a common law state, as Wisconsin is, case law is persuasive and decisive precedent. Dismiss it at ones peril.

    This is the caption and URLs from the case law annotations to Wisconsin statutes.
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/941/III/23

    State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994)

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/doc...Wis.%202d%2065 refers to
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=4,50&as_vis=1

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/doc...20N.W.2d%20765 refers to
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=4,50&as_vis=1



    State v. Walls, 526 NW 2d 765 - Wis: Court of Appeals 1994
    Highlighting 526 N.W.2d 765
    State v. Walls, 526 NW 2d 765 - Wis: Court of Appeals 1994
    190 Wis.2d 65 (1994)
    526 N.W.2d 765
    STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    Andre Tony WALLS, Defendant-Appellant.[†]
    No. 93-2984-CR-FT.

    Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
    Submitted on briefs August 2, 1994.
    Decided December 6, 1994.

    67*67 For the defendant-appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of Gerald P. Boyle and Wendy A. Patrickus of Gerald P. Boyle, S.C., of Milwaukee.

    For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was submitted on the briefs of Irene P. Gall, assistant district attorney, and briefs of James E. Doyle, attorney general, with Marguerite M. Moeller, assistant attorney general.

    Before Sullivan, Fine and Schudson, JJ.

    SULLIVAN, J.

    Andre Tony Walls appeals from a judgment of conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, party to a crime, contrary to §§ 941.23, and 939.05, STATS. Walls presents only one issue for our review—whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him of going armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon where: (1) the weapon was a semi-automatic handgun located inside an automobile and within Walls' reach; (2) he was aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon was concealed, or hidden from ordinary view, meaning it was indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. Because we conclude a weapon located in the above manner is "concealed" within the meaning of § 941.23, we reject Walls' argument and affirm.[1]

    The parties stipulated to most of the dispositive facts. On October 17, 1988, at about 2:42 a.m., Walls was a passenger in an automobile that was stopped by 68*68 two City of Milwaukee police officers. The police officers were responding to a report of a robbery and, noting that the car in which Walls was riding had been involved in a similar incident eight days earlier, pulled the vehicle over. Both Walls, who had been sitting on the right front passenger seat, and the driver exited the vehicle. The officers approached the vehicle with their guns drawn, at which time the driver fled on foot. Walls remained standing outside the automobile with its door open. Upon inspecting the vehicle, the officers spotted an Intratec 9-mm semi-automatic handgun lying on the front seat. The handgun was approximately thirteen inches long from the tip of the barrel to the handgrip, and had a blackened, gun-metal finish. The automobile front seat was red in color. After they found the handgun, the police arrested Walls for carrying a concealed weapon. The parties stipulated to most of the facts and the court, therefore, concluded it would reach a verdict based solely on the question of whether the handgun was "concealed" within the meaning of § 941.23, STATS.

    After both reviewing briefs submitted by the parties and upon hearing arguments on the issue, the trial court concluded that the handgun was concealed within the meaning of the statute. The court determined that regardless of whether the police could see the black handgun lying on the red front seat upon inspecting the vehicle, the handgun was concealed to "ordinary observation" as the automobile traveled down the street prior to being stopped. Thus, the trial court found Walls guilty because the handgun was concealed and violative of § 941.23, STATS.

    [1]

    The application of conceded facts to a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Jefferson, 69*69 163 Wis.2d 332, 338, 471 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Ct. App. 1991). After reviewing the Wisconsin cases interpreting the offense of carrying a concealed weapon, we conclude that the handgun was concealed within the meaning of § 941.23, STATS.[2]

    Section 941.23, STATS., provides:

    Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

    Further, "[t]he elements of the crime of carrying a concealed weapon are: (1) the defendant had a dangerous weapon on his person or within his reach; (2) the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon was concealed, or hidden from ordinary view." State v. Fry, 131 Wis.2d 153, 182, 388 N.W.2d 565, 578, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986). The only element at issue in this case is whether the gun was "concealed, or hidden from ordinary view." See d.

    In Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 230 N.W. 76 (1930), a driver of an automobile was convicted of "going armed" with a "concealed and dangerous weapon" when, during an "altercation," he "turned to 70*70 his automobile and took a 32-Colt automatic revolver from a holster which was on a small shelf behind and about five inches below the back of the seat." Id. at 430, 230 N.W. at 76. The supreme court noted that "[t]he revolver had not been visible from the front of the automobile, and it had not been observed by the witnesses who were present until [the] defendant took it out of the automobile." Id. In upholding the conviction, the court declared: "If the weapon is hidden from ordinary observation it is concealed. Absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment. The test is, was it carried so as not to be discernible by ordinary observation." Id. at 432, 230 N.W. at 77.

    In the present case, Walls argues that the facts are distinguishable from those in Mularkey. He states in his appellate brief that the officers' reports indicate that "upon checking the auto the gun was lying on the seat' clearly in plain view." Thus, he contends, unlike Mularkey, the handgun was observable to anyone looking into the automobile and therefore cannot be considered concealed. We are not persuaded.

    [2]

    To read the statute in such a manner would defeat the purpose for which we conclude the statute was created. The carrying of a concealed or hidden weapon has been uniformly considered contrary to sound public policy. See Annotation, Offense of Carrying Concealed Weapon as Affected by Manner of Carrying or Place of Concealment, 43 A.L.R.2d 492, 495-98 (1955), and 43 A.L.R.2d 492 at 107 (Supp. 1992). The rationale for such statutes is well-chronicled:

    At common law or by very early statute in England, people were prohibited from going armed that they might not terrorize the King's subjects. That was never the law in this country but from an 71*71 early date, with the invention of small arms, statutes were enacted condemning the practice of carrying a deadly weapon concealed on or about the person. The reason for these statutes, it has been said, is "because persons becoming suddenly angered and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person."

    Williams v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 807, 807-08 (Ky. 1953) (citations omitted). A statute created to prevent the carrying of a concealed weapon on the body of a person is naturally extended to the area inside an automobile in which a person may reach a concealed or hidden weapon. See Fry, 131 Wis.2d at 182, 388 N.W.2d at 577 (concluding evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of carrying concealed weapon where gun was found in automobile glove compartment). A weapon easily accessible to an occupant in an automobile, and indiscernible from ordinary observation to a person outside the vehicle, see Mularkey, 201 Wis. at 432, 230 N.W. at 77, is as dangerous to the general public or an unsuspecting police officer, as a weapon carried inside a person's front coat pocket. See Williams, 261 S.W.2d at 808. We note the particular vulnerability of police officers approaching the unilluminated passenger compartment of a vehicle at night.

    [3,4]

    Because we determine that the statute evinces a strong rationale to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons in automobiles, as well as on a person, we conclude that a person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile where: (1) the weapon is 72*72 located inside a vehicle and is within the defendant's reach; (2) the defendant is aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon is concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. See Fry, 131 Wis. 2d at 182, 388 N.W.2d at 578. But see supra note 2 (discussing lawful placement, transportation, or possession of weapons in vehicles as permitted by § 167.31(2)(b), STATS.). Where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the weapon was indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle, that question remains within the ambit of the jury's fact-finding duty.[3] See Mularkey, 201 Wis. at 432, 230 N.W. at 77.

    [5]

    Applying this test to the conceded facts in the present case, we conclude that the handgun was indiscernible to the ordinary observation of a person 73*73 outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. While the police officers did observe the gun lying on the front seat after they handcuffed Walls, this was upon the "inspection" and "examination" of the automobile pursuant to the stop and thus, cannot be considered "ordinary observation." See Smith v. State, 11 So. 71, 72 (Ala. 1892). As the trial court determined, however, immediately prior to this point, with the automobile traveling down a city street at night, the handgun was indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. Thus, a person "approaching" the vehicle, or "passing" it "on the streets or highways" could not see the handgun. See id. Therefore, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to convict Walls of carrying a concealed weapon. See State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, 757-58 (1990) (judgment of conviction should not be reversed if any evidence supports upholding the jury's verdict). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

    By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

    [†] Petition to review denied.

    [1] This case was originally submitted to the court on the expedited appeals calendar, see RULE 809.17, STATS., and assigned as an appeal to be determined by one judge as provided by § 752.31(2)(f), STATS. Pursuant to Chief Judge Eich's order of May 25, 1994, this case is decided by a three-judge panel.

    [2] We are mindful "that there is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country." Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 1799 (1994). Thus, our conclusion in this case in no way limits the lawful placement, possession, or transportation of, unloaded (or unstruing) and encased firearms, bows, or crossbows in vehicle as permitted by § 167.31(2)(b), STATS., which provides in part:

    (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.

    (Emphasis added.)

    [3] We note the following language from Smith v. State, 11 So. 71 (Ala. 1892), the case from which Mularkey "discernible from ordinary observation" test was derived:

    What is ordinary observation in such cases cannot well be defined so as to meet all the varying conditions under which weapons may be carried . . . but it may be said generally that the meaning is that the weapon must be open to the ordinary observation of persons who may come in contact in the usual and ordinary associations of life with one who carries a weapon. . . . If parties approaching a [person], carrying a weapon[,] . . . or passing [the person] on the streets or highways, or thrown with [the person] in ordinary social contact, can see the weapon without inspection or examination for that purpose, but from ordinary observation, then such weapon is not concealed . . . within the meaning of the statute. Whether or not it is so concealed is a question for the jury under all the facts and circumstances of each case.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 09-28-2014 at 04:50 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    ...and (3) the weapon was concealed, or hidden from ordinary view, meaning it was indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. Because we conclude a weapon located in the above manner is "concealed" within the meaning of § 941.23, we reject Walls' argument and affirm.[1]
    Same idea, different words. Fact is open carry without a permit is deemed illegal.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Same idea, different words. Fact is open carry without a permit is deemed illegal.
    You were doing so well. One aww-shite wipes out a thousand atta-boys.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Same idea, different words. Fact is open carry without a permit is deemed illegal.
    So your saying that everyone on this site including myself in the state of Wisconsin that open carrys there pistol without a ccl, are committing an illegal act?!

  20. #20
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    You were doing so well. One aww-shite wipes out a thousand atta-boys.
    Why pray tell? The language is different but the mesning is the same

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    So your saying that everyone on this site including myself in the state of Wisconsin that open carrys there pistol without a ccl, are committing an illegal act?!
    No, only OCing in a vehicle is deemed illegal. I say deemed as I am a firm believer in Constitutional carry and believe it to be an infringement and the judge was wrong to make that ruling. The ruling was made however and we're saddled with it for now.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Why pray tell? The language is different but the mesning is the same



    No, only OCing in a vehicle is deemed illegal. I say deemed as I am a firm believer in Constitutional carry and believe it to be an infringement and the judge was wrong to make that ruling. The ruling was made however and we're saddled with it for now.
    IT IS NOT BY LAW ILLEGAL TO OPEN CARRY A FIREARM IN YOUR VEHICLE.

    Handguns vs Long Guns in Vehicles[edit]
    Beginning November 1, 2011, it is legal to load a handgun, or to transport a loaded handgun cased or uncased, in a vehicle without a license. NOTE: This does NOT apply to long guns; they still must be unloaded, but now may be uncased. There is still some confusion as to whether or not an encased gun is concealed, so if it is cased, best practice is to keep the long gun out of reach. Long guns must be "discernable to ordinary observation", since a conceal carry license does not apply. Previously all firearms had to be unloaded & encased (per the transport statute), & out of reach (derived from the concealed carry statute). Those with a concealed carry license may conceal a pistol in a vehicle.

    WI statute 167.31[16]

  22. #22
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    IT IS NOT BY LAW ILLEGAL TO OPEN CARRY A FIREARM IN YOUR VEHICLE.

    Handguns vs Long Guns in Vehicles[edit]
    Beginning November 1, 2011, it is legal to load a handgun, or to transport a loaded handgun cased or uncased, in a vehicle without a license. NOTE: This does NOT apply to long guns; they still must be unloaded, but now may be uncased. There is still some confusion as to whether or not an encased gun is concealed, so if it is cased, best practice is to keep the long gun out of reach. Long guns must be "discernable to ordinary observation", since a conceal carry license does not apply. Previously all firearms had to be unloaded & encased (per the transport statute), & out of reach (derived from the concealed carry statute). Those with a concealed carry license may conceal a pistol in a vehicle.

    WI statute 167.31[16]
    167.31 sub (16) doesnt exist it only goes to 5. LEOs have made up more believable stories. Or you may be an LEO trying to see how much we know. I can promise you if a common citizen with no special knowledge can refute your statements then you don't stand a chance with seasoned members. I'm gonna call it. Troll.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage14 View Post
    [ ... ] WI statute 167.31[16]
    Square brackets - [ ] - are not used to specify Wisconsin Statutes subsections. What ever is being referred to is not Wisc. Stats.

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/prefaces/toc

    Here is Wisc. Stats. Chapter 990 CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/990
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Square brackets - [ ] - are not used to specify Wisconsin Statutes subsections. What ever is being referred to is not Wisc. Stats.

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/prefaces/toc

    Here is Wisc. Stats. Chapter 990 CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/990
    I had thought the brackets was a typo. In any case of course it's not a part of W. statutes and my previous post stands.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    OPie has probably found some DoJ/DNR Frequently Answered Questions spun to the cops advantage.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •