CC of unloaded firearm?

imported post

First, I'd like to you all that I have enjoyed the discussions on this board.

This may be misplaced since this board is dedicated to open carry. However this group seems knowledgable on all aspects of carry and guns.



I seem to remember a court case that I can not find any reference. The case involved the CC (see, one day and I'm throwing around those abbreviations! ) of an unloaded firearm. He was arrested and the judge ruled it was legal because an unloaded firearm is not a dangerous weapon and therefore the CCW laws did not apply.

Am I remembering correctly? Anyone have information on this case?

Thanks.

imported post

*

imported post

941.23 is the statute prohibiting concealed dangerous weapons. In its annotations are listed the elements for a violation:

1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and
3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

For your recollection to be effective it would seem to me to require a definition of only a loaded gun being a dangerous weapon. I don't recall such.

imported post

You guys are right. Perhaps it was a different state.

Perhaps I had too many Whiskey Sours that night. :dude:

imported post

Well.....there is another way we can go about this too. Remember in certain places you MUST CARRY your firearm unloaded and encased. School zone, state parks. SO therefore you are in possession of a concealed weapon, BUT under Alloy I do not think they could charge/ prosecute you. This is only my opinion, but I have not yet seen ANYONE who could tell me different.



IN MY OPINION

You could make your own "case" "designedspecifically for carrying a firearm"and strap it to your belt with your unloaded pistol inside.And walk around in a school zone or state park. WHY?? Because you have NO other option to possess that firearm legally, possibly creating a valid rift in the CCW law.

Here is a snippet from Wisconsin vs. Aloy





[align=left]A person complying with § 167.31 is not[/align]
[align=left]required to violate § 941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach.3[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]It can't be in many of the times the state forces us to carry in a case.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left] Ben[/align]
[align=left] [/align]

imported post

BJA wrote:

Well.....there is another way we can go about this too. Remember in certain places you MUST CARRY your firearm unloaded and encased. School zone, state parks. SO therefore you are in possession of a concealed weapon, BUT under Alloy I do not think they could charge/ prosecute you. This is only my opinion, but I have not yet seen ANYONE who could tell me different.



IN MY OPINION

You could make your own "case" "designedspecifically for carrying a firearm"and strap it to your belt with your unloaded pistol inside.And walk around in a school zone or state park. WHY?? Because you have NO other option to possess that firearm legally, possibly creating a valid rift in the CCW law.

Here is a snippet from Wisconsin vs. Aloy






[align=left]A person complying with § 167.31 is not[/align]

[align=left]required to violate § 941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach.3[/align]

[align=left][/align]

[align=left][/align]

[align=left]It can't be in many of the times the state forces us to carry in a case.[/align]

[align=left][/align]

[align=left] Ben [/align]

Click to expand...

You are taking that sentence out of context - the state does not have to let you carry at all.

imported post

Lets look at this for a second, a fully closed case, an unloaded firearm. Legal right.

The statute specifically states "The case must be designed to hold a firearm"

It does not state anywhere that the case cannot be designed to be worn, So how about one of those "Man-purse" fannypacks designed for concealed carry? A few of my long-gun cases have a sling on them to wear over the shoulder. So IMO a fannypack holster fits the same bill.

If the firearm is not loaded, and the pack is fully closed with no part of the gun showing, and it just happens to attach to your body, so be it IMO.

The Chicago boys a few years (decades ago) found that fannypack carry was not prohibited by wording of their laws, (it changed later) and they were winning cases for fannypack carry of a loaded firearm if I remember correctly.

imported post

*

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Lets look at this for a second, a fully closed case, an unloaded firearm. Legal right.

Click to expand...

No, violates concealed carry law to have a gun in a case. See Alloy.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Lets look at this for a second, a fully closed case, an unloaded firearm. Legal right.

The statute specifically states "The case must be designed to hold a firearm"

Click to expand...

Safe transportation only applies to vehicles. Encased applies to School Zones. If you were walking within a Gun Free School Zone, there may exist an argument. Let me know where to Pay Pal my donation if you are going to try it and get caught and wish to fight it...

imported post

If we keep going back to "Alloy" as a reference , even for a person on foot, not in a vehicle.
That leaves us no other option but to carry firearms uncased for any travel. And we have all seen how well thatworks in this state. It easily gets turned into brandishing if on foot. illegally concealed if in or on a vehicle, and at the very least illegal transport of a firearm.

If the case-law set in alloy does not allow us to walk down the street with an unloaded firearm in a case. Doesn't that specifically violate the 2nd amendment?

I still hold that alloy is aninvalid argumentbecause we do not know the status of the firearm, the summary of the case makes no mention if the firearm was loaded or not. I contend that Alloy must have had a loaded firearm in his vehicle to be found guilty of the charges.
Is there any way to dig up the notes of the arrest to verify so we can finally put this argument to rest?

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

[snip]..I contend that Alloy must have had a loaded firearm in his vehicle to be found guilty of the charges.
Is there any way to dig up the notes of the arrest to verify so we can finally put this argument to rest?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, an unloaded weapon is considered a a "dangerous weapon" in the Wisconsin statutes so to be found guilty of possessing a concealed weapon it need not be loaded.


Wisconsin Stat. § 941.23 (Concealed weapon prohibition.)
Wisconsin Stat. § 939.22 (Words and phrases defined. "Dangerous Weapon")

imported post

i remember watching cops one night and a guy had fired a gun in an alley and when the police got there he had no bullets but an empty gun. the cop made the comment that they could not charge him with possession of a dangerous weapon because it had no bullets. only that they could arrest him for disorderly conduct, i think it was in cali.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

If we keep going back to "Alloy" as a reference ,

Click to expand...

From Alloy, FN 3 on page 3, emphasis mine,

While complying with WIS. STAT. § 167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it, those facts are not present here. We do not address hypothetical arguments.

Click to expand...

This is the subject of the video that I am trying to produce, the "might" is a fork that will capture the unwitting.

imported post

Someone please verify, but I think here in WI the firearm doesn't even need to be in working condition to be considered a dangerous weapon. Could you get nailed for CCW for having a dismantled gun in your backpack?

imported post

If by "could" you mean 'can', yes, the police do not require a legitimate violation of the law to "nail".

The law that I know does not address dismantling.

imported post

I'm just wondering, I think I understand the law correctly, this seem correct?:

Violation of "concealed" in s. 941.23 contains three elements: #1) the weapon is on your person or within reach; #2) you're aware of the weapon's presence; and #3) the weapon is hidden. Carrying openly is acceptable because #3 is not violated. The reason your firearm needs to be out of reach while transporting in a vehicle is because you're aware of the weapon's presence (#2) and because s. 157.31(2) says the firearm needs to be encased (#3, hidden). If you were to put your firearm in a proper case (doesn't matter whether loaded or unloaded since both meet the definition of as a dangerous weapon) and carry it on you as you walked around town, you would be in violation of all three criteria for violation of S. 941.23. The argument in State v. Alloy that a person complying with s. 167.31 is violating s. 941.23 would likely only be valid if an officer nabbed someone for concealing while they were on the way from the door to their vehicle with an encased firearm, as stated in the footnote from the State v. Alloy case: "While complying with WIS. STAT. § 167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it, those facts are not present here."

Anyways, new here, from Eau Claire and was just reading up on OC in WI and came across this site.

imported post

Welcome to OCDO Wisconsin!

I may have a video out soon that tries to show that you cannot transition from legal open carry to legal transportation by a vehicle because you cannot close the gun case while in your arms and you cannot have the gun encased in a open case in the vehicle - even momentarily. If you are not cited for a violation of 941 or 167 it is at the discretion of the cop and that is unsatisfactory and unconstitutional.

imported post

Well lets use a few different scenarios and put the"Alloy" decisions up against them.
And the gun is unloaded in all situations

I purchase a new gun, I place it in a guncase I boughtat the gun shop. According to Alloy walking from that shop to my car it is then illegally concealed!

I want to go to the shooting range, Firearm is in the case, I walk to the shooting range with my cased firearm. Am I again illegally concealing? What If I have that same cased firearm and I need free hands, so I strap it to the handlebars of my motorcycle, or bicycle. Am I still illegally concealing a firearm?

My point being, the decision in alloy differs from the rules and regulations set forth by the published from the WIDNR, where the rulesclearly state that all firearms must be fully enclosed in a case specifically made to house a firearm with no part of the firearm viewable to be transported in or on any vehicle.

According to the DNR, I can alsolegally walk down the road withmy cased firearm that is unloaded, when I enter the woods I can uncase and load that firearm to hunt. If I am in a boat with an engine running or under power (sail, motor, rowing Etc Etc.), the firearm must be unloaded and fully closed in a case.

Lets say I am out hiking, I have a backpack on,and I have a loaded gun stashed in the backpack, I may be illegally concealing it.
But if the gun is in a case specifically made to house a firearm, and it is unloaded, and then placed in the backpack. I still meet the 3 rules set forth in alloy, but I am considered legal according to other published laws.

(we still do not know if Alloys gun was loaded , and why his murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment and other charges for firing that gun at people may have had a bearing on the decision)

imported post

Despite the chance of being shot, stabbed, beaten and then stomped, I have to remind you all that there is no legal CCW in Wisconsin period and that includes an unloaded fire arm.

:uhoh: