Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Perhaps the Milwaukee Mayor will be for CONCEALED carry now!

  1. #1
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    This was on the news today:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/...e_s_hero_mayor

    Perhaps now is the time for some of the more level headed and rational people on this board to get the Mayor to push for legislation to enact full CCW in Wisconsin! Do you think the mayor would understand the need for this after being beaten and threatened with being shot for merely dialing 911?

    Here is his address to write an intelligent argument for CCW:

    http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/Mayor

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

    Post imported post

    941.23 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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    This was on the news today:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/...e_s_hero_mayor

    Perhaps now is the time for some of the more level headed and rational people on this board to get the Mayor to push for legislation to enact full CCW in Wisconsin! Do you think the mayor would understand the need for this after being beaten and threatened with being shot for merely dialing 911?

    Here is his address to write an intelligent argument for CCW:

    http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/Mayor
    We already have Open-carry with no permitting needed, We always had it, nothing is recent except the police recognizing our rights, and in some places they even respect our rights

    We first need to remove the vehicle prohibiton on firearms carry, and the1,000' school zone exclusion before trying to forward a conceal-carry option IMO.
    We would like a system similar to what your state and AKhas, "carry it any way you want with no permits required"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    I agree with that, AK/VT style carry would be ideal IMO. It seems to me that people think this is not possible in WI, but facts would show that these idiot little gang members already run around concealed anyway so why shouldn't law abiding citizens be able to? I mean we are the only ones who actually obey the 1000ft law, and car carry law, honestly when is the last time you seen one of these thugs untuck thier weapon from their belt and unload and case it before they got in a car? From a self defense standpoint,AK/VT style carry just makes sense...
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The school zone law has to go. Many of the comments I have read on the internet suggest that if Barret had concealed carry or open carried or if someone else legally open carrying in the area had assisted, then the assault of the mayor may have been prevented or minimized. None of the authors considered that the assault took place in front of an elementary school so if someone had come to the rescue with a firearm, concealed or open, they themselves would have been a felon.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    Well if you guys have not seen this thread yet, you really should. It seems Mark Todd is running for Governor in 2010 and he is VERY pro gun, he supports VT/AK style carry and does not believe in the Unconstitutional school zone ban...etc. Check the thread out in the meantime.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=57

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The school zone law has to go. Many of the comments I have read on the internet suggest that if Barret had concealed carry or open carried or if someone else legally open carrying in the area had assisted, then the assault of the mayor may have been prevented or minimized. None of the authors considered that the assault took place in front of an elementary school so if someone had come to the rescue with a firearm, concealed or open, they themselves would have been a felon.


    Not until found guilty by the court, then the appeals begin

    Lammie I don't think a D.A. would seek to charge such a person just as the bicyclist in Racine was not charged for defending himself in a school zone.

    after being knocked off his bike drew his firearm pointed in air yelled gun.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

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

    Post imported post

    Having read many court cases concerning firearms I wouldn't even attempt to second guess the legal system in Wisconsin.

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

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Having read many court cases concerning firearms I wouldn't even attempt to second guess the legal system in Wisconsin.
    Would you consider, please, an on-line course here on OCDO in Wisconsin case law? I would be an eager and attentive student.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Doug:

    You need as much training in understanding Wisconsin firearm case law as Einstein needed in the theory of relativity. I will no longer summarize my opinions of case law as it usually only leads to cynicism and argument on the forum. However here are some case names.

    Alloy, Fry, Kieth, Anderson, Dundon, Cole, Hamdan, Fisher, Coleman, Vegas, Krause, Nollie, Walls, Brown Deer.

    Cases of import related to disorderly conduct. Douglas D., Gerrits, Zwicker,



  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thank you.

    I just went off to try to find a complete copy of Fry. WisSC.gov is down and FindLaw.com just sends me back there.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The essence of State v. Fry is that Fry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon because police found a firearm locked in the glove compartment of his car. (emphasis, mine). Adds some interest to the "out of reach" theory doesn't it?

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The essence of State v. Fry is that Fry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon because police found a firearm locked in the glove compartment of his car. (emphasis, mine). Adds some interest to the "out of reach" theory doesn't it?
    Idrive a 4-door F-250 andcan reach my glove compartment...BARELY and I've got to have my seat belt off to do so. In myoldSubaru ImprezaWRX I could easily reach it and inside it from the drivers seat.

    I guess what I'm saying is that it really depends on what Fry wasdriving.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Lammie wrote:
    The essence of State v. Fry is that Fry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon because police found a firearm locked in the glove compartment of his car. (emphasis, mine). Adds some interest to the "out of reach" theory doesn't it?
    I*drive a 4-door F-250 and*can reach my glove compartment...BARELY and I've got to have my seat belt off to do so.* In my*old*Subaru Impreza*WRX I could easily reach it and inside it from the drivers seat.

    I guess what I'm saying is that it really depends on what Fry was*driving.*
    well if his glove compartment is anything like mine.. in order to unlock it i would have to turn the car off and remove the ignition key. i guess if i could go through the plastic and metal it would be in reach. :P

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Fry was driving a typical sedan back in the days before one key does all and seat belt laws. During the time period of Fry (1986) cars often had two keys one for the ignition and one for the glove box and trunk. Even with the change of automobile styles and technology the Fry case is still case law. For a mor modern example read State v. Fisher. Fisher was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon because his firearm was in a locked console between the bucket seats of his SUV. I'm not defending these cases nor do I agree with them. I'm just saying that's the way it is. Under the shadow of those two cases if one was to go into court and declare that a firearm was out of reach because it was locked in a glove compartment and was out of reach because I had to unbuckle my seat belt or shut the vehicle's ignition off before I could open the glove box, my opinion is that that argument and three bucks might buy you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

    State v. Fry

    The court affirmed Fry's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, which the police discovered in a warrantless search of the locked glove compartment of his automobile, incident to his custodial arrest. Fry argued that the search did not qualify as a search incident to arrest because he was not in the car when the officers searched it. 131 Wis.2d at 159, 388 N.W.2d at 568. The court adopted what it considered the Belton rule:
    A police officer may assume under Belton that the interior of an automobile is within the reach of a defendant when the defendant is still at the scene of an arrest but the defendant is not physically in the vehicle. We cannot say as a matter of fact in all cases that a defendant never could regain access to the interior of an automobile after initially leaving the vehicle.
    Id . at 174, 388 N.W.2d at 574.
    The Fry court rejected a case-by-case analysis of warrantless searches of automobiles which would depend on whether the police reasonably believed that an arrestee could escape from their control and regain access to an automobile. Id . at 175, 388 N.W.2d at 574. The court said that that alternative was unworkable because of the unpredictability of such escapes. Id . The court preferred Belton's "bright-line" rule because it relieves the officer of making ad hoc at-the-scene decisions to search or not to search.
    However, Fry leaves uncertain how much of Belton's bright-line rule the court intended to adopt. The court said:
    The search is based on a need to protect evidence or the police and includes the area in the defendant's reach or presence. The exigency is the defendant's potential for regaining access to the area of the car.
    131 Wis.2d at 181, 388 N.W.2d at 577.
    This statement does not describe Belton's bright-line rule. The Belton court specifically rejected the case-by-case analysis required by Fry's reliance upon defendant's potential for regaining access to his or her vehicle. See 453 U.S. at 459. The Belton bright-line rule is simple and easily applied:
    [W]e hold that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
    Id . at 460 (footnote omitted).
    Whether Belton's bright-line rule will survive is another matter which need not concern us.
    Is This Case Different?
    On their facts, neither Belton nor Fry involved a fact situation such as that presented here; neither Belton nor Fry would have had to possess Houdini-like powers to regain access to his automobile. See United States v. Vasey , 834 F.2d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 1971). Here, however, Sotelo was handcuffed, seatbelted and locked in the squad car's "cage." Two armed officers were present. Clearly, Chimel's "grabbable area" rule would not justify the warrantless search which the officer made in this case.
    However, in accord with its disavowal of an intent to change Chimel's rule, the Belton Court said: "Our holding today does no more than determine the meaning of Chimel's principles in this particular and problematic context . It in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests." 453 U.S. at 460 n.3 (emphasis added). Belton's "problematic context" is the warrantless search of an automobile. Warrantless searches of premises remain subject to the Chimel rule. LaFave concludes that the Belton Court erred in not considering the automobile exception. Plainly, the Court's bright-line rule may have to be considered in future automobile exception cases.
    The only low-voltage areas of Belton's bright-line rule concern when a search is contemporaneous with the occupant's arrest and what constitutes the passenger compartment of an automobile. Neither of these concerns is present here. Other problematic areas--whether there was a lawful custodial arrest and the search of containers--must be explored by already established rules which are not so bright. However, Sotelo does not ask us to illumine these dark corners.
    While certain language of Fry does not track Belton's rule, because the Wisconsin court follows the United States Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment decisional law, we conclude that precedential decisional law requires that we hold that the trial court erred in granting Sotelo's motion to suppress.
    By the Court .–Order reversed.

    I should point out that the snippet above is not from State v. Fry itself. It is from the case of State v. Kimberly Soleto No. 95-1681-CR.


  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Thanks for that Lammie.

    I was unaware of case law that basically tells us: "Anything in the passenger compartment is within reach".

    I'm working on a writeup now, of the problems with Wisconsin's gun laws and I'll have to use some of this snippet.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Yes. And the defendant apparently doesn't even need to be physically in the vehicle if Belton's rule is literally applied.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    "Anything in the passenger compartment is within reach".
    I fully disagree with that for a few different reasons.

    In all the case-law that people are using for their cites, there is somekey evidence missing on how the courts came to their conclusion.
    Belton/Fry and whoever else got nailed for a firearm in a locked glovebox. Was the gun first placed in another case before being put in the vehicle?
    I contend that it was not! We already know a firearm must be fully enclosed in a case before it can be placed in or on a vehicle in Wisconsin. So if he had an unloaded gun in the glovebox with no other case holdng the gun, I agree that he did break current law. The way the law is written, it makes it very clear that any firearm must be placed in a case designed specifically to house a firearm, andthat caseis to be fully closed with all available closing mechanisms before it can be placed in a vehicle. Placing a firearm in a glovebox does not meet those standards, nor does placing a firearm in a cargo box in or outside of the vehicle unless it is in another case first.

    In regards to Alloy; We still do not know if he had a loaded gun, My money says he had a loaded gun in a case and that is why he was found guilty of the charges.

    Too many people are jumping to conclusions by not reading between the lines in the case law that has been posted as evidence. Or they are assuming things instead of analyzing key facts that may or may not be present in what articles we have access to.

    lets say forinstance I want to drive a 1970's corvette to the shooting range, There is no place to put a gun besides the passenger compartment, and no place to have it out of reach. I would be breaking no laws by having an unloaded, fully cased firearm anywhere in that vehicle. Same goes for any vehicle.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Nutczak:

    Here is the Alloy case. Read it and draw your own conclusions.



    COURT OF APPEALS

    DECISION

    DATED AND FILED


    April 4, 2000


    Cornelia G. Clark

    Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals

    of Wisconsin



    STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS


    DISTRICT III




    State of Wisconsin,

    Plaintiff-Respondent,

    v.

    Nick Alloy,

    Defendant-Appellant.






    APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County: peter j. naze, Judge. Affirmed.

    Before Cane, C.J., Hoover, P.J., and Peterson, J.

    ¶1 PERCURIAM.Nick Alloy appeals a judgment convicting him of carrying a concealed weapon, a handgun contained in a zipper case inside a metal box between the bucket seats of his Jeep Wagoneer. He argues that the trial court erred and denied him his constitutional right to testify in his own defense when it disallowed questions designed to show that the handgun was encased because Wis. Stat. §167.31(2) (1997-98) requires that a firearm be encased when it is transported in a vehicle. Because complying with §167.31 does not provide a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, the trial court properly disallowed this irrelevant testimony.

    ¶2 Alloy’s trial counsel asked him three questions that the trial court disallowed: whether he thought it was “acceptable conduct” to carry the pistol as he did in his car; whether he thought he was doing anything wrong; and whether he intended to arm himself by having that gun. Counsel explained to the court that she was attempting to present evidence that Alloy was merely following Wis. Stat. §167.31 when he encased the handgun. The trial court correctly ruled that Alloy’s state of mind was irrelevant. See State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 664, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999). Wisconsin Stat. §941.23 provides “any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” While the State must show that the alloy was aware of the presence of the weapon, his motive for carrying or concealing it is not relevant.

    ¶3 Much of Alloy’s argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. §167.31 and Wis. Stat. §941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with §167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with §941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach. See State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis. 2d 411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d 529 (1977). A person complying with §167.31 is not required to violate §941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach. The trial court properly disallowed testimony in support of the invalid defense that §167.31 compelled Alloy to “go armed” with a concealed handgun. See Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d at 674.

    By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

    This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.












  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Nutczak:

    After you read the Alloy case please explain to me how having the firearm encased and then locked in the glove box would have made a difference in the Fry case.

Posting Permissions

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