friendly carry talk with cudahy police

imported post

so this evening as i went out for a cigarette and secure my garage, i hear some noise from the alley. i go to check it out and decided it was just a neighbor moving his trash cans. as i'm heading back to my garage, a large conversion van comes flying up the alley FULL THROTTLE nearly hitting me and continues through alleys and over 2 streets.

so i call the police, and they came by to check it out (they're familiar with my address after i've had 2 burglaries in my garage this summer adding up to $30,000). the officer then came back to chat with me a bit and noted that i was carrying. we just had a friendly chat about my burglaries, neighborhood watch (which i'm going to be getting involved in), and school zones. my house is just a little over 1,000 feet from the nearest school, but there is a football field less than 1,000 feed from my house that has school games on friday nights during the summer. I'm not sure if that counts as a school zone or not. he told me he didn't want to give me any incorrect information and referred me to another officer/detective that is "a geek regarding that information" and would be able to assist me better with the cudahy school zones, so i don't run into any issues when open carrying.

as the conversation continued, and i told him that i carry so as to not become another statistic (specially if they decide to come back and check out my house). to which he responded that that is a fair decision, and he has absolutely no problem with law abiding citizens carrying so long as they are responsible and educated about it. he said that even though his job is to keep the peace and protect, he can't always arrive before the crime happens, so people should be responsible and protect themselves. because the criminals don't care, and they're going to carry regardless of what the laws are. when i brought up an example of a burglar or worse being in the house and not having time to call the police, he mentioned that "sure.....you might be able to make the call in time. but the question is.............CAN WE GET THERE IN TIME???"


glad to see that not all cops are "bad". i don't mean to put down all cops, but so far the majority of my encounters with cops have been "people hiding behind a shield to abuse it's power". but this cop, and 1 or 2 others that i've encountered with my burglaries, have been very nice though. and seeing as how cool he is about carrying, and wanting to provide me with ACCURATE information regarding the school zones in cudahy makes me feel much better knowing that there are truly some who ACTUALLY DO CARE.

imported post

Sounds like a good conversation

scorpio_vette wrote:

glad to see that not all cops are "bad". i don't mean to put down all cops, but so far the majority of my encounters with cops have been "people hiding behind a shield to abuse it's power". but this cop, and 1 or 2 others that i've encountered with my burglaries, have been very nice though. and seeing as how cool he is about carrying, and wanting to provide me with ACCURATE information regarding the school zones in cudahy makes me feel much better knowing that there are truly some who ACTUALLY DO CARE.

Click to expand...

My only comment about this is the reason some see cops in a "negative light" I think is because uneventful encounters go undocumented. Nobody hears about them.

Thank you for posting this. Most cops really are good. It's just the bad ones we hear about the most.

imported post

There are a lot of good police out there. It is a shame we rarely hear about them.

imported post

that is probably very true. i'm only speaking from personal experience. and most of my encounters have been of the unfriendly sort. one of the worst that i've had was when a police officer started to personally insult me and my vehicle after pulling me over on my way home from purchasing a "new to me" vehicle. my wife was witness to it. the officer was harassing me about my vehicle, and saying what a piece of shit it was (71 jeep cj5), and that shit like this, should never be allowed on the street. when he asked me what i was going to do with such a piece of shit, i told him that i was going to fix what was wrong with it, and use it for transportation. at that point he started telling me that i shouldn't waste my time because no emissions station would even allow such a pile of junk to pass, and that if he ever saw me on the road with that shitpile, that he would personally pull me over every time, etc..etc..etc..

long story short, after listening to his verbal abuse which then went over to threads, i ended up driving to the police station which was only 1 mile away and filed a report against him.


but i really didn't want this to turn into police bashing. the point i was trying to bring across is that i have met a FRIENDLY cop who also supported the fact that people should protect themselves, and that he was very helpful in the matter of NOT providing me with incorrect information regarding the school zones in my area so i wouldn't get in trouble.

imported post

948.605 Gun−free school zones. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(a) “Encased” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet−firing
gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any
starter pistol.
(am) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.
8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the
school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the
school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
(3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of
another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the
individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the
attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. As part of a program approved by a school in the school
zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in a school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual; or
4. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity.
History: 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 336; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 290; 2007 a. 27.

948.61 Dangerous weapons other than firearms on
school premises.

(1) In this section:
(a) “Dangerous weapon” has the meaning specified in s.
939.22 (10), except “dangerous weapon” does not include any
firearm and does include any beebee or pellet−firing gun that
expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter
pistol.
(b) “School” means a public, parochial or private school which
provides an educational program for one or more grades between
grades 1 and 12 and which is commonly known as an elementary
school, middle school, junior high school, senior high school or high school.
(c) “School premises” means any school building, grounds,
recreation area or athletic field or any other property owned, used
or operated for school administration.
(2) Any person who knowingly possesses or goes armed with
a dangerous weapon on school premises is guilty of:
(a) A Class A misdemeanor.
(b) A Class I felony, if the violation is the person’s 2nd or subsequent
violation of this section within a 5−year period, as measured
from the dates the violations occurred.
(3) This section does not apply to any person who:
(a) Uses a weapon solely for school−sanctioned purposes.
(b) Engages in military activities, sponsored by the federal or
state government, when acting in the discharge of his or her official
duties.
(c) Is a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in the discharge of his or her official duties.
(d) Participates in a convocation authorized by school authorities
in which weapons of collectors or instructors are handled or
displayed.
(e) Drives a motor vehicle in which a dangerous weapon is
located onto school premises for school−sanctioned purposes or
for the purpose of delivering or picking up passengers or property.
The weapon may not be removed from the vehicle or be used in
any manner.
(f) Possesses or uses a bow and arrow or knife while legally
hunting in a school forest if the school board has decided that hunting
may be allowed in the school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
(4) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this section
is subject to the provisions of ch. 938, unless jurisdiction is
waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction
of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 336; 1995 a. 27, 77; 2001 a. 109; 2005
a. 290; 2007 a. 27.
Pellet guns and BB guns are dangerous weapons under this section. Interest of
Michelle A.D. 181 Wis. 2d 917, 512 N.W.2d 248 (Ct. App. 1994).


Clearly you can carry a fire arm to the football games as the property is merely a school premises and firearms do not fit the definition of a dangerous weapon. However, you can not carry in the school zone which is the area within 1000 ft of a school building used for the education of children grades 1-12.

If your property is directly across the street from the school or the athletic field you can carry on your own property without worry as private property is exempt.

imported post

so i read the whole thing, and if you don't mind, i'd like to ask a couple question to make sure i understand it correctly.

1) i am NOT allowed to carry in a school zone. which is anywhere within 1,000 feet of the school. UNLESS i'm on private property with permission that is located in a school zone, then i can carry WHILE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

2) the football field by my house is SCHOOL PREMISE, NOT school ZONE. and since firearms are NOT a "dangerous weapon", i'm legal to carry while walking past it (possibly on it???)???

3) when my sons starts going to school, if i enter into contract with said school to agree that i'll be carrying while dropping my son off from school, and picking him up from school, then I AM LEGALLY allowed to enter ONLY THAT school zone for the purposes specified in the contract between me and said school???


and on a side note i noticed something interesting


according to this part

2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

Click to expand...

it sounds like i LEGALLY CAN have a firearm on school property if it is NOT LOADED, AND IS:........in a LOCKED FIREARMS rack that is on a motor vehicle.

is that correct???



which brings up another question??? i thought the only way to carry in a VEHICLE was unloaded, locked in a case designed for a gun and out of reach.

well a "LOCKED FIREARMS RACK ON A MOTOR VEHICLE" doesn't sound like "in a case and out of reach". so how do i understand that??? or is there possibly a contradiction of sort worth looking into???

imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:

my house is just a little over 1,000 feet from the nearest school, but there is a football field less than 1,000 feed from my house that has school games on friday nights during the summer. I'm not sure if that counts as a school zone or not. he told me he didn't want to give me any incorrect information and referred me to another officer/detective that is "a geek regarding that information" and would be able to assist me better with the cudahy school zones, so i don't run into any issues when open carrying.

Click to expand...

Athletic fields are "school premises" as defined in the statutes Chapter 948.61(1)(c). "School zones" include those areas surrounding property described in Chapter 948.61(1)(b). School premises do not have a school zone surrounding them unless there is actually a school located the premises. Presumably the property you describe is simply an athletic field, without a school located on it. If true, then there is no "zone" around it.

Apparently the Milwaukee police department is incapable of understanding the distinction, because-- as I've pointed out elsewhere-- their official definition of a school zone includes both the areas described in 948.61(1)(b) and 948.61(1)(c), whereas statutes only use 948.61(1)(b) in the description.

imported post

sorry. i believe we may have a slight misunderstanding due to my wording.

the school (school zone) is 1,584feet from my house.


the football field (school premises) is approximately 500feet from my house.


the officer DID NOT say the football field was school zone. he said he wasn't sure and told me to talk to another officer at the police station who was more informed about these things. he clearly stated that he DID NOT want to give me incorrect information.


the question as to whether or not the football field was school zone or not came directly from me after a neighbor suggested that the football field was school zone.


so now i understand the difference between ZONE and PREMISES. i still have the questions that i just asked above though. LOL

thanks.

imported post

I'm sure that there are good cops and good people in Wisconsin. Too bad we seldom hear from them.

Merry Christmas and Shalom aleichem

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 KMA$$ God damn the Obamination - and y'all know who you are!

imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:

sorry. i believe we may have a slight misunderstanding due to my wording.

the school (school zone) is 1,584feet from my house.


the football field (school premises) is approximately 500feet from my house.


the officer DID NOT say the football field was school zone. he said he wasn't sure and told me to talk to another officer at the police station who was more informed about these things. he clearly stated that he DID NOT want to give me incorrect information.


the question as to whether or not the football field was school zone or not came directly from me after a neighbor suggested that the football field was school zone.


so now i understand the difference between ZONE and PREMISES. i still have the questions that i just asked above though. LOL

thanks.

Click to expand...

I understood what you said, I just wanted to point out the facts so when the "more knowledgeable" officer provides you with his answer, you can see if he really knows his stuff.

As for the other questions... there's a lot of argument and disagreement about vehicle carry. My opinion? An encased firearms is "out of reach" even if it sits on your lap. Why? Same reason the Crown Jewels of England were "out of my reach" at the Tower of London. Sure, they were close enough to reach... except there was three inches of glass between them and me. A gun case makes a gun not immediately accessible.

Others will disagree with me, but, I'm right. :lol:

imported post

Be careful you don't mix apples with oranges. 948.605 and its sub paragraphs apply to only firearms. Those are the ones to be concerned about relative to open carry. Statute 948.61and it's subparagraphs applyto all other dangerous weapons that don't meet the definition of a firearm. My opinion is that the two statutes are different due to the significant difference in penalties. A first time violation of 948.605 is a felony. A first time violation of 948.61 is a misdemeanor. 948.605 and 948.61 are separate sections under the Chapter 948, Crimes against children.

Some other points. IANL and these are my opinions.

You can carry open in a "school zone" if on private property.

You can carry on both private or public property in a school zone if the firearm is unloaded and encased and the property is not a "goverment building".

The phrase "locked in a firearms rack" applies only if the firearm is unloaded, encased and then locked in the firearms rack and then the issue is whether or not a firearm locked in a rack is out of reach or considered within reach, therefore concealed. The SSC found in State v. Fry that a firearm locked in a glove compartment is within reach.

The definition "school premisis" does not apply tosection 948.605. Only "school grounds"are involved. I have not been able to find a precise definition of "school ground" as it relates to other than the property the school buildings rest on.

The only portion of section 948.61 that applies to section 948.605 is statute 948.61(1)(b), the definition of "school".

I agree with Shotgun that a firearm unloaded and properly encased should be considered out of reach. Unfortunately the SSC doesn't agree as demonstrated by its decisions in State v. Fry and State v. Fisher.

I also agree with Sotgun that you should confer with the "geek" officer. The most important thing for you to know is how the Cudahy police interpret 948.605. Not saying their interpretation is correct but it's sort of a "know the enemy" situation.

The Gun free school zone statute 948.605 is essentially acopy of the federal "school zone" law. The Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau did a poor job in drafting it to fit Wisconsin.The federal law was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 27, 1995 in the case of U.S. v Lopez. Unfortunately the Wisconsin law is still in the book.It will be interesting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Chicago plays into this scenario. The arguments are due to be heard in early March 2010. The educated opinion is that the USSC will find in favor of McDonald and declare the second amendment incorporated into the states under the 14th amendment. The question will then bewhat effect will the USSC decision in Lopez have onexisting state law. Especially as they relate to schools which are largely funded by the federal goverment.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Be careful you don't mix apples with oranges. 948.605 and its sub paragraphs apply to only firearms. Those are the ones to be concerned about relative to open carry. Statute 948.61 and it's subparagraphs apply to all other dangerous weapons that don't meet the definition of a firearm. My opinion is that the two statutes are different due to the significant difference in penalties. A first time violation of 948.605 is a felony. A first time violation of 948.61 is a misdemeanor. 948.605 and 948.61 are separate sections under the Chapter 948, Crimes against children.

Click to expand...

sorry, but i'm a bit confused by your statement.

so for somewhat simplicity sake (as i see my question), could you directly respond to my question as to whether or not i understand this correct.



1) i am NOT allowed to carry in a school ZONE. which is anywhere within 1,000 feet of the school. UNLESS i'm on private property with permission that is located in a school zone, then i can carry WHILE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

2) the football field by my house is school PREMISE, NOT school ZONE. and since firearms are NOT a "dangerous weapon", i'm legal to carry while walking past it (possibly on it???)???


thanks.

imported post

Note: Neither Fry nor Fisher involved firearms in gun cases, but rather in a glove compartment and a center console of vehicles. Fry was not a Supreme Court opinion. It was issued by the 2nd Court of Appeals, and would not apply state-wide, since the jurisdiction of that court applies to only 11 counties.

imported post

scorpio_vette:

In response to your item 1). You may not carry a visible and loaded firearm within 1000 feet from the grounds of a school unless you are on private property. However, you may carry an unloaded and properly encased firearm in a school zone. I made the distinction because you said simply that you may not carry. You did not specify the manner. There is no absolute prohibition.

In response to your item 2). 948.605 and 948.61 are separate sections within Chapter 948. Section 948.605 pertains to the carry and possession of firearms only. Section 948.61 pertains to all other dangerous weapons that are not firearms. The only statute in section 948.61 that applies to section 948.605 is the definition of "school". "Premisis" is part of section 948.61 and does not apply to section 948.605. Your concern should be whether or not the football field is owned by the school district and is considered school property. It is unclear in section 948.605 if school grounds must be contiguous. By that I mean connected together. Section 948.605 does not say within 1000 feet of the school buildings. It means within 1000 feet of the edge of school property boundary. That is why you should discuss it with the Cudahy police to see how they interpret the situation.

You are correct that you mayopen carry on school property if you have a contract to do so with the school. It is also not clear if a separate contract is required with each school or if the contract would apply to all schools in a school district.

Some of what J. Gleason says is incorrect because he makes reference to statute information in section 948.61 that doesn't apply to section 948.605. i.e. Definition of "premisis".

Also the statement that 1000 foot zone begins at school buildings is incorrect. It begins at the edge of the school grounds.

The statement that firearms do not fit the definition of dangerous weapons is incorrect.

939.22
939.22Words and phrases defined. In chs. 939 to 948 and951 the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless the context of a specific section manifestly requires a different construction or the word or phrase is defined ins. 948.01 for purposes ofch. 948.

939.22(10)
(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Sorry if all this confuses you but the Section 948.605 is so hosed up and confusing that there is no simple answer. That is why the stupid law has to go.

imported post

thank you for your reply.

as to question 1) you are correct. i was talking strictly about OPEN carrying and made the mistake of not distinguishing the 2 types.

as to question 2) i'm still a bit confused. i am aware that
948.605 and 948.61 are separate sections within the chapter. but am i not correct in reading this:

(a) “Dangerous weapon” has the meaning specified in s.
939.22 (10), except “dangerous weapon” does not include any
firearm and does include any beebee or pellet−firing gun that
expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter
pistol.
(b) “School” means a public, parochial or private school which
provides an educational program for one or more grades between
grades 1 and 12 and which is commonly known as an elementary
school, middle school, junior high school, senior high school or high school.

Click to expand...

to mean the definition as it is applied to this part of the section??? i mean how could it in chapter 939.22(10) state that a gun is a dangerous weapon, but then turn around and say in chapter 948.61 that a firearm is NOT a dangerous weapon??? could it be that the definition as it applies to the 2 different locations is different???


after all it does say "DANGEROUS WEAPONS OTHER THAN FIREARMS.........."




or could it possibly be there is actually a absolute contradiction of itself written into the law that actually ALLOWS and FORBIDS an action at the same time???

imported post

scorpio_vette:

The statement " except "dangerous weapon' does not include any firearm" means that section 948.61 addresses dangerous weapons that are other than firearms. It does not imply that firearms addressed in other sections (i.e. section 948.605) are not dangerous weapons. The statement only excludes firearms as dangerous weapons for the purposes of section 948.61.

I cleaned up my previous post so that 932.22 is more readable.

imported post

shotgun:

I stand corrected on Fry. It was a District II Court of Appeals case. However, I beleive published opinions of a Court of Appeals has statewide binding precedent. Courts of appeal is somewhat unique to Wisconsin. They were devised to take some of the load off the State Supreme Court.

My reference to Fry and Fisher was not to dispute the method of concealment but the "out of reach" issue. Both Fry and Fisher were found quilty of carrying a concealed weapon. One of the conditions of proving concealment is that the weapon must be considered to be within reach.

This is an excerpt from the District IV Court of Appeals case of State v Kimberly Sotelo. Case No. 95-1681-CR. The Belton rule has since been found unconstitutional but this excerpt shows the extent the Wisconsin courts will go to in order to uphold a concealed weapons conviction.

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.

imported post

scorpio_vette wrote:

sorry. i believe we may have a slight misunderstanding due to my wording.

the school (school zone) is 1,584feet from my house.

Click to expand...

At the risk of being pedantic...

Is that 1584 feet from the building or 1584 feet from the edge of the property that the building sits upon.

The former is irrelevant. It's the latter that matters.

imported post

i will find out. but if i'd have to guess, i'd say that's pretty close to the property edge. "usually" when mapping addresses, it goes by the "entry point" or "street side" to the property. and even if, i'm 95% sure that there is no way in hell that it's 500feet from the edge of the building to the edge of the property. and i have 500feet to play with to stay legal.

but i will verify.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

scorpio_vette:

In response to your item 1). You may not carry a visible and loaded firearm within 1000 feet from the grounds of a school unless you are on private property. However, you may carry an unloaded and properly encased firearm in a school zone. I made the distinction because you said simply that you may not carry. You did not specify the manner. There is no absolute prohibition.

In response to your item 2). 948.605 and 948.61 are separate sections within Chapter 948. Section 948.605 pertains to the carry and possession of firearms only. Section 948.61 pertains to all other dangerous weapons that are not firearms. The only statute in section 948.61 that applies to section 948.605 is the definition of "school". "Premisis" is part of section 948.61 and does not apply to section 948.605. Your concern should be whether or not the football field is owned by the school district and is considered school property. It is unclear in section 948.605 if school grounds must be contiguous. By that I mean connected together. Section 948.605 does not say within 1000 feet of the school buildings. It means within 1000 feet of the edge of school property boundary. That is why you should discuss it with the Cudahy police to see how they interpret the situation.

You are correct that you mayopen carry on school property if you have a contract to do so with the school. It is also not clear if a separate contract is required with each school or if the contract would apply to all schools in a school district.

Some of what J. Gleason says is incorrect because he makes reference to statute information in section 948.61 that doesn't apply to section 948.605. i.e. Definition of "premisis".

I was merely addressing the difference between school zone and school premises.

Also the statement that 1000 foot zone begins at school buildings is incorrect. It begins at the edge of the school grounds.

This is true, I mispoke. I should have said the school zone begins at the edge of the school property.

The statement that firearms do not fit the definition of dangerous weapons is incorrect.

This statement is incorrect, as according to the definition in the statute, firearms are not included in the definition of dangerous weapons. It was the wording in the statute that I was referring to and nothing more.

948.61 Dangerous weapons other than firearms on school premises.
(1) In this section:
(a) "Dangerous weapon" has the meaning specified in s.
939.22 (10), except "dangerous weapon" does not include any firearm.......

Clearly 946.61 is making an exception as to the definition of "dangerous weapon" as far as firearms are concerned. The statute itself makes the exception.
IANAL but, I believe this would be sufficient cause of a victory for our side in court!
After all it is not our fault that the legislators screwed up when writing the statute.

939.22Words and phrases defined. In chs. 939 to 948 and951 the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless the context of a specific section manifestly requires a different construction or the word or phrase is defined ins. 948.01 for purposes ofch. 948.

939.22(10)
(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Sorry if all this confuses you but the Section 948.605 is so hosed up and confusing that there is no simple answer. That is why the stupid law has to go.

Click to expand...