looking to meet locals (milwaukee/cudahy area)

imported post

Jason from Grafton here...

'09 Ninja 650r

Love to meet up with other OC'ers to ride...come spring that is...the ninja's a bike, not a sled...lol

Actually, this thread has sparked a question...

Can we OC on our bikes? I know you're not supposed to in a car, because it's not visible, yadda yadda yadda, but on a bike, it's completely visible........

Hmmm....Not sure if it's addressed in the statutes, I'll have to look later, unless someone has an answer for me.

Thanks, and look forward to some rides this spring!!!!

Jay

imported post

icepik wrote:

Jason from Grafton here...

'09 Ninja 650r

Love to meet up with other OC'ers to ride...come spring that is...the ninja's a bike, not a sled...lol

Actually, this thread has sparked a question...

Can we OC on our bikes? I know you're not supposed to in a car, because it's not visible, yadda yadda yadda, but on a bike, it's completely visible........

Hmmm....Not sure if it's addressed in the statutes, I'll have to look later, unless someone has an answer for me.

Thanks, and look forward to some rides this spring!!!!

Jay

Click to expand...

No carrying on the bike. Or a wheelchair, or a scooter, or a bicycle.

imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:

gbu28...........where you located??? i put the wifes bike away for the winter already, but i keep mine on standby. depending on weather and if the roads are clear or not, i ride through the winter.

Click to expand...

Born and raised right off Oklahoma and Howell. Raised in Greenfield. Now live about a mile from UWM. But my backyard is a 20 mile radius so I'm always on the south-side der hey. And west. And north. And east when I get the kayak out.

imported post

gbu28 wrote:

icepik wrote:

Jason from Grafton here...

'09 Ninja 650r

Love to meet up with other OC'ers to ride...come spring that is...the ninja's a bike, not a sled...lol

Actually, this thread has sparked a question...

Can we OC on our bikes? I know you're not supposed to in a car, because it's not visible, yadda yadda yadda, but on a bike, it's completely visible........

Hmmm....Not sure if it's addressed in the statutes, I'll have to look later, unless someone has an answer for me.

Thanks, and look forward to some rides this spring!!!!

Jay

Click to expand...

No carrying on the bike. Or a wheelchair, or a scooter, or a bicycle.

Click to expand...

Is that spelled out in statutes, or your interpretation? (Not arguing, just curious)

imported post

I'm sure someone else knows it exactly but I'll give you my interpretation of it.

Carrying a weapon in a vehicle, regardless of how visible it is, is considered carrying a concealed weapon. (I think that was a court ruling)

Additionally, a vehicle is defined in the statutes as being what we all think of as a vehicle plus wheelchairs, bicycles, scooters, and a couple of other odd things.

I'm sure there is a thread here which defines exactly the statutes and court case(s). I'll see if I can find it...

edit- Thank to protias below...

imported post

icepik wrote:

Is that spelled out in statutes, or your interpretation? (Not arguing, just curious)

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

Vehicle carry
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0167.pdf
167.31

imported post

protias wrote:

icepik wrote:

Is that spelled out in statutes, or your interpretation? (Not arguing, just curious)

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

Vehicle carry
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0167.pdf
167.31

Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. I should have just waited a few moments to see about replies here before I dug into it. As that link will show, here's what I found also...

[size=167.31 Safegaurds][/size][/b]
[size=][/size]
[size=(2)][/size][/b][size= (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess][/size]
[size=or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle,][/size]
[size=unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or][/size]
[size=crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.][/size]
[size=][/size]
[size=(1)][/size][/b][size= (h) “Vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (74), and][/size]
[size=includes a snowmobile, as defined in s. 340.01 (58a), and an electric][/size]
[size=personal assistive mobility device, as defined in s. 340.01][/size]
[size=(15pm), except that for purposes of subs. (4) (c) and (cg) and (4m)][/size]
[size=“vehicle” has the meaning given for “motor vehicle” in s. 29.001][/size]
[size=(57).][/size]


340.01 Vehicles - Definitions

(74) [size=“Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any][/size]
[size=person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway,][/size]
[size=except railroad trains. A snowmobile or electric personal][/size]
[size=assistive mobility device shall not be considered a vehicle except][/size]
[size=for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.][/size]

imported post

OK, another question...

Perhaps I'm reaching now, and perhaps this is better suited for another thread.

The whole not being able to carry in a vehicle has been discussed in this forum before, and the whole "out of reach" understanding is there for having a firearm in a vehicl e.

However, looking at the statutes for transporting, I came across the little tidbit below.

I've underlined the interesting part. How can one use self-defense or defense of others for using a firearm from a vehicle if elsewhere in the statutes we're not allowed to OC in a vehicle and we're required to keep any firearm being transported unloaded, with empty clip and secured somewhere that is not accessible while in the vehicle.

Now, I'm by no means a legal expert, nor do I claim to understand half the jibberish in the statutes, but could this be something completely contradicting?

We are required to defend ourselves, and assist others who are in trouble, and this section would indicate that if we are to use our weapon(s) to defend ourselves or someone else from IN our vehicle, that we can use self-defense or defense of others in court to warrant our actions. If we can use that as our argument in court, doesn't that mean that it's ok for us to have access to our firearms, while loaded, in our vehicles? What about..it's our duty to have our firearm loaded and ready should the need ever arise to help someone? It's our duty to defend ourselves and others if needed...even if we're in our vehicle.

Sorry if I'm getting too much into this, or if I inadvertently incite a verbal uproar in here...lol

941.20

(3) (a) Whoever intentionally discharges a firearm from a
vehicle while on a highway, as defined in s. 340.01 (22), or on a
vehicle parking lot that is open to the public under any of the following
circumstances is guilty of a Class F felony:

(e) A person under par. (a) has a defense of privilege of self−defense
or defense of others in accordance with s. 939.48.

939.48 Self−defense and defense of others. (1) A person
is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against
another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person
reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or
her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use
only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes
is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor
may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause
death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes
that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
bodily harm to himself or herself.

imported post

It is because the courts have stated that concealing a weapon is only against the law unless your need for self defense outweighs the states prohibition on the manner of carry.

I believe the case law involving Vegas (pizza delivery driver) has this spelled out.

So basically, if you defend yourself with that illegally concealed firearm, it is not considered illegally concealed because you needed to defend yourself with it!

The logic of the WI Suprme court reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail,

imported post

icepik wrote:

We are required to defend ourselves, and assist others who are in trouble,
[ ... ]
, or if I inadvertently incite a verbal uproar in here...lol

Click to expand...

No, you're just wrong.

Sorry, Nutz, I just don't see to what you're responding.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

It is because the courts have stated that concealing a weapon is only against the law unless your need for self defense outweighs the states prohibition on the manner of carry.

I believe the case law involving Vegas (pizza delivery driver) has this spelled out.

So basically, if you defend yourself with that illegally concealed firearm, it is not considered illegally concealed because you needed to defend yourself with it!

The logic of the WI Suprme court reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail,

Click to expand...

you are correct for the most part here. although it's a big gray area in regards to CCW & if you decide to ccw & get caught- your lawyers fee's will be very expensive while you defend yourself in the courts.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

icepik wrote:

We are required to defend ourselves, and assist others who are in trouble,
[ ...]
, or if I inadvertently incite a verbal uproar in here...lol

Click to expand...

No, you're just wrong.

Sorry, Nutz, I just don't see to what you're responding.

Click to expand...

What am I wrong about?

I assume (yes I know), that you mean I'm wrong about the 'We are required...' and not the verbal uproar comment you highlighted?

Are we not supposed to defend ourselves or assist others who are in harms way if we are there, aware of it, and able to assist?

Again, not arguing, simply looking for clarification...

Thanks.

imported post

The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

Self defense in Wisconsin law is much less clear as many more words are used to make a similar statement.

OCDO rule 7) 'requires' that a citation to an assertion in law be made. You provided a citation but I don't see what it has to do with a legal requirement to defense of self or others.

imported post

To make my statement more clear, I have snipped the case law involved with 941.23 which can be found in its entirety here http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0941.pdf

[align=left]Emphasis mine;[/align]
[align=left]638 N.W.2d 280, 00−0744. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional, as applied. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. See also State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350. A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. This section is constitutional as applied in this case. The defendant’s interest in exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state’s interest in prohibiting him from carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989. Judges[/align]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Hey cobbersmom, You need to take a look at the "Titan" motorcycle (built in AZ by the lates Titan motorcycle company)that hollywood has got for sale. It has great lookingpaint, and enough engine in it to make to widlest of speed freakswear a permanent smile.
Or I could see you on a "Boss Hoss" with a 501 Cubic Inch big-block Chevy between your legs. Add some nitrous, and a backrest to keep you on the bike when you get into the throttle, you'll be all set for speed.

Click to expand...

I'll ride any bike YOU buy for me. However, I'm in the same boat as Glock34, no money. My gubmint job doesn't pay the big bucks.... When I'm old and crippled, then I'll ride a trike, not before. By the way, I also have a TW200 I take out on the logging trails north of here. What fun!!!

imported post

imported post

We should try not to let this post get lost in the forum and work on getting together come spring for an organized ride around here.

It would be nice to meet some like minded OC'rs, so keep this thread on your burner to watch.

Hope we can set something up when it warms up.

Thanks all.

Jason

imported post

icepik wrote:

We should try not to let this post get lost in the forum and work on getting together come spring for an organized ride around here.

It would be nice to meet some like minded OC'rs, so keep this thread on your burner to watch.

Hope we can set something up when it warms up.

Thanks all.

Jason

Click to expand...

The only problem being, that in case law pertaining to "Alloy" transporting a firearm while operating a motorcycle would be nearly impossible to do legally since there is no place "Out Of Reach". It leaves the enforcement side of law open to flexing their sphincters to make someones life costly and difficult to live comfortably if they so feel like acting in that manner.

imported post

I wonder if one could make the argument that the saddlebags are out of reach while riding since one hand must remain on the handlebars at all times.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

icepik wrote:

We should try not to let this post get lost in the forum and work on getting together come spring for an organized ride around here.

It would be nice to meet some like minded OC'rs, so keep this thread on your burner to watch.

Hope we can set something up when it warms up.

Thanks all.

Jason

Click to expand...

The only problem being, that in case law pertaining to "Alloy" transporting a firearm while operating a motorcycle would be nearly impossible to do legally since there is no place "Out Of Reach". It leaves the enforcement side of law open to flexing their sphincters to make someones life costly and difficult to live comfortably if they so feel like acting in that manner.

Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning a ride while OC'ing...just meant a ride with other people who like to OC when not riding.

In case I need to clarify that...