Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Clarification

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    So just for clarification (because I do not want to go to jail) I can carry my Glock 21 .45ACP loaded in Wisconsin on my pants in plain view in a holster, as long as it is not covered in any way and I do not get into a car, go into a school, go into a bar or place that sells alcohol, go into a post office, go into a police department or sheriff office, or go into a City, State, or Federal building correct?


    The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled that concealed carry is absolutely prohibited by private citizens. The Court said that visible carry is the only reasonable alternative manner of carry. The Court also has said that the State must allow an alternative manner of carry to concealed carry or yield to the state constitutionasl amendment Article I chapter 25. The attorney general office agreed. Apparently the word is not getting spreed around through local law enforcement departments, or they are just plain ignoring the supreme court rulings, knowing that most of us won't challenge their idle threats.
    Article I, Section 25
    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.



    Thank you
    P.S. Please let me know if there are any other restrictions.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Welcome to OCDO-Wisconsin.

    Your legal analysis is faultless.

    Unfortunately every jurisdiction from Wisconsin's highest court to the lowliest beat cop and virtually every County have made it clear that we go armed in public at risk of harassment. They openly harass with extra-legal charges of Disorderly Conduct or Inciting Terrorism.

    Go armed and you MAY soon gain standing to challenge this violation of our civil rights.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Has any one started a group to OC in Wisconsin together? I think that would be a good idea because people are stronger in numbers. I seen a clip on you tube some people got together in a group and OC 'd in a bad neighborhood and picked up trash and litter. We should do something like that to help the community in a positive way while affirming are rights. The cops would look pretty stupid harassing a bunch of people trying to do some free community service. What do you all think?


    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIBELcNq5mU




  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Forum 57 is Wisconsin's. OC has been discussed.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/6497.html

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/6649.html

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/5670.html

    Beyond that, I'll wait for others to chime in.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

    ps. Re "NRA *******" for a newbie; the NRA cannot allow OC since without infringements from which to sell dispensations they have no reason to be nor stock-in-trade to sell.

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Glock21Man wrote:

    The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled that concealed carry is absolutely prohibited by private citizens.
    Not true. The court said "If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises."

    (Hamdan case)
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Thank you for the correction.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Most of us on this forum are looking for ways to OC without risking DC charges (though no record of DC charge while OCing has been succesfully prosecuted to my knowledge based on posts in different topics in this forum). But the fact that we have to deal with possible LEO harrasment for DC and possible unlawful arrest keeps most everybody from OCing.

    See the posts from Gene German (ccwtrainer) and see how we are going to bring these issues to county government through petitions and resolutions. The bottom line is we are trying to remove the barriers from why we don't carry...we already have the right to carry openly.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Glock21Man:

    Your analisys of our right to open carry is nearly correct. The only item that is not totaly correct is the school carry. Not only is a person prohibited from firearm carry in the school proper but the person is prohibited from knowingly carrying on any public land within 1000feet of the school property.


  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Shotgun:
    I seldom find reason to disagree with your comments. Your quote from the Hamdan case, which you used to respond to the question on whether concealed carry is absolutely prohibited by private citizens, is correctly quoted as it appears in the Hamdan SSC opinion. However an example of why we cannot trust our confused Supreme Court is the following paragraph from elsewhere in the same Hamdan opinion.

    "P48. Wisconsin's current CCW statute is very broad. It is a strict liability offense. The legislature has not authorized any stautory defenses or exceptions (other than peace officers) to the broad prohibitions found in the statute. As presently construed, the statute prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I section 25."

    Note: The bold letters are made by me for emphasis.

    The SSC then goes on later in the opinion to make the statement you quoted. The SSC logic baffles one's mind.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Isn't there an aphorism to the effect that the law is merely a beast of burden, that cops and lawyers ride to work?

  11. #11
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Yes, Lammie, I agree thatthe Hamdan case could have been argued better and written better. But what was the outcome of the case? Hamdan got off.Leading us to the conclusion that the Court's opinion is that the concealed weapons statute cannot be so broad as to have absolutely no exceptions. They explained that there are exceptions, Hamdan being an example of one.

    When you listen to the oral arguments you can tell that the justices were clearlydisturbed by some of the more obvious absurdities ofa "no exceptions"concealed weapons statute, e.g., that if you stored you guns in an opaque gun safe, or even steak knives in a kitchen drawer, were violations of the law. What you quoted was a statement of what they thought was WRONG with such a reading of the law-- i.e., it had no exceptions as it had been understood up to that point. Basically they're saying that such a strictno exceptions reading could not stand a constitutional challenge.

    The court said that a constitutional challenge to a concealed weapons charge could be mounted and needed to be address by courts on a case-by-case basis. Now, that's not very specific, but I think it is clear that they held that concealed weapons in one's one business (such as Hamdan) or in one's home were the mostclear examples of when prosecution underthe concealed weapons statute violates constitutional protection. They state that there may be other cases as well, they just didn't have the curtesy to explain them.

    If thecore part of the decision is in what you quoted, Lammie, then Hamdan would not have gotten off, but we know he did. If they were agreeing that there were no exceptions, then Hamdan's conviction would have stood. The key phrase in your quotation is "Aspresently construed...." But the effect of thecourt's opinion was to say thatthe statute cannot continue to be so strictly construed from now on.

    Too bad more justices did not go along with Justice Crooks who said he believed the statute was entirely unconstitutional.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Welcome to OCDO-Wisconsin.

    Your legal analysis is faultless.

    Unfortunately every jurisdiction from Wisconsin's highest court to the lowliest beat cop and virtually every County have made it clear that we go armed in public at risk of harassment. They openly harass with extra-legal charges of Disorderly Conduct or Inciting Terrorism.

    Go armed and you MAY soon gain standing to challenge this violation of our civil rights.
    This has been said for every state in the union - the only way to make these risks lessonis for folks to OC in public as much as possible, which generally will result in nothing, and where it does result in police harassment, only then can this harassment be dealth with thru complaints, news story publicity, and possible law suits.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I am running for town council (three candidates for two open seats of five) with a conservative and pro-gun agenda.

    I am circulating Gene German's petitions.

    We are a town with <700 real residents and two cops. Maybe I can change their policy.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    I am running for town council (three candidates for two open seats of five) with a conservative and pro-gun agenda.

    I am circulating Gene German's petitions.

    We are a town with <700 real residents and two cops. Maybe I can change their policy.
    When you OC at your campaign stops, their policy will be set for them

Posting Permissions

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