• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Sussex Sun, WI: Sussex incident triggers gun protest; WCO president Nik Clark quoted

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

protias wrote:
I agree Nik. There was still no reasonable suspicion to make a stop. I broke no laws and yet there is this concern that I "might shoot up the place?" Come on, what criminal open carries?


[align=justify]There would have been nothing wrong, illegal or improperwith the Officer discretely talking to you inside or outside of the restaurant. He definitely did not have to be ajerkand disrupt the whole restaurant when he asked the employee about their firearm policy.[/align]

[align=justify]
Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or
[font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Terry [/font][/font]stop) if he has "reasonable suspicion," based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Illinois v. Wardlow, [/font][/font]528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]United States v. Sokolow, [/font][/font]490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Terry v. Ohio, [/font][/font]392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]United States v. Arvizu, [/font][/font]544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming "totality of the circumstances" test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. [font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]See State v. Anderson, [/font][/font]155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop). [/align]
¶9. And "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification," as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory.
[font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"][font="Times New Roman,Times New Roman"]Florida v. Bostick, [/font][/font]501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct.

 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
imported post

There would have been nothing wrong, illegal or improper with the Officer discretely talking to you inside or outside of the restaurant. He definitely did not have to be a jerk and disrupt the whole restaurant when he asked the employee about their firearm policy.

Precisely.

If the trooper had approached Joseph outside, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

If the trooper had approached Joseph outside for a voluntary conversation, we wouldn't have been at starbucks "packin heat" (insert eye roll here) and we wouldn't have been standing in front of the state patrol headquarters on Sunday either


The trooper (or you or I, or Obama himself) is free to approach Joseph and ask him any questions they would like. And Joseph is free to have a conversation with the trooper if he wishes OR go free on his way.

THAT ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED and thats the crux of the issue that media and the leo's who have been trolling the boards lately won't acknowledge (until Sgt. Clark did now)

So THANK-YOU Sgt. Clark for finally admitting that your trooper acted improperly.

The trooper had no business harassing the business owner as his method of imposing his will upon Joseph.

The trooper had NO business of, without solicitation by the business owner or anyone else, USURPING the authority of a private business for his personal motives.

If the trooper had a problem with Joseph going about his law-abiding business, he could have taken it up with Joseph (and Joseph could have told him to have a nice day) The trooper THEN could have decided if he had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Joseph, or probable cause to arrest him. IF NOT, he had NO other authority and CERTAINLY not the authority to go harass the staff of a private business.

At the end of the day, this was a teachable moment for the State Patrol. I recognize that the State Patrol has little to no experience with any type of law enforcement that doesn't involve running a radar gun on interstate highways or aiding motorists with flat tires. This situation, while unfortunate for Joseph, has surely made the state patrol more aware of the rights we have, and how THEY should handle law-abiding citizens going about their lawful activities.

Carry on...
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

You know one more thing on this, traditionally, police are not allowed to act as agents for the owner to tell people to leave even if the owner does want to eject somone from the premises - the owner needs to make the first move.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:
None of these directly rule on a legally encased firearm laying openly on the seat. Either the firearm was not legally encased or the encased firearm was "hidden". There is alot of fluff (even more than you quoted) which is not absolutely directly relevant.

Is it the "safest" practice to place the encased firearm in your trunk if you do not wish to get a citation? YES.

IF cited will you be able to beat the rap? You have a decent change.... The key point is that you must be willing to take that chance with the knowledge of the potential consequences.
If you'll notice what I wrote:

"or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car"

I never mentioned a gun case; and I also hope you aren't saying that case law is "fluff".... :what:

Anyway, I personally won't be driving my car with a gun on the front seat until either the law is changed or somebody successfully challenges it in court. You do what you think is best.

Dave
 

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
imported post

Griffin1340 wrote:
We all know how a guy wearing cammo and carrying a gun is immediately a 'militia extremest'


aahhh see..now why you gotta single me out like that just cuz i was wearing army cammo at the rally??? :lol::lol::lol: i happen to like army cammo because they're cheap, warm and comfortable. plus i love having all the pockets cuz i carry alot o crap around with me.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

davegran wrote:
I never mentioned a gun case; and I also hope you aren't saying that case law is "fluff".... :what:

Why then do you have a seperate #2 and $3 if they are referring to the same exact thing????:?

Did you mean that it was not encased while he was driving down the road and it was just laying on the seat???

Not every opinion stated by a judge during a case is "case law" or otherwise binding to another judge in another trial.....
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:
davegran wrote:
I never mentioned a gun case; and I also hope you aren't saying that case law is "fluff".... :what:

Why then do you have a seperate #2 and $3 if they are referring to the same exact thing????:?

Did you mean that it was not encased while he was driving down the road and it was just laying on the seat???

Not every opinion stated by a judge during a case is "case law" or otherwise binding to another judge in another trial.....
"2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car"
Yes, the gun was uncased and sitting on the front seat.


"3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car"
Unfortunately the way Wisconsin law reads, it would probably be illegal to reach inside the trunk of the car, uncase the gun, and then pull it out of the trunk.

As far as case law not being binding, it's always good to know how similar circumstances were judged when we formulate our personal carry strategies.

I was just trying to present some scenarios where the state patrolman might have had cause to approach Joseph. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV so I could be 100% wrong.


Dave
 

Parabellum

Founder's Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
THAT ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED and thats the crux of the issue that media and the leo's who have been trolling the boards lately won't acknowledge (until Sgt. Clark did now)

So THANK-YOU Sgt. Clark for finally admitting that your trooper acted improperly.
When, Wheredid this happen? Link? I cant find it:question:
 

Cobbersmom

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
179
Location
Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

davegran wrote:
Cobbersmom wrote:
davegran wrote
No, no, no! The only time they would have been justified in questioning Joseph would be:
  1. if he exited the car already armed
  2. or if he removed the gun from the front seat of his car
  3. or if the gun was not encased when he pulled it out of the car
  4. or if he was brandishing the weapon
  5. or if he concealed the gun before entering the restaurant
Number 2 - Where DO you come up with this?
Wisconsin Statute 167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.
I was following the train of thought on Protias' actions that day. He removed an unloaded, encased gun from the trunk. I assumed the gun in #2 was unloaded and encased. #3 says if he removed the gun from the car not encased, hence I assumed #2 was encased. You meant loaded and uncased. Neither was mentioned. You were thinking one way, I was thinking the other. No harm, no foul.
However, I'm getting frustrated by the comments that folks add to transporting in a vehicle. The statute above is very clear. Thank you! Folks need to be reminded constantly. Some people come on here and say it has to be out of reach. Then it has to be in the back seat. Well, another says I have a truck or a motorcycle, now what do I do, I don't have a back seat or trunk. And on and on. In my car or truck my gun is unloaded and encased on the seat next to me. On my motorcycle, it's in my backpack.
If we complain about cops not educating themselves on whats legal, how can we (forum, per se) claim we know so much more when misinformation abounds within.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Cobbersmom:

You are correct statute 167.31 says nothing about carrying a weapon "out of reach". That confusion was added to the fray by the Wisconsin Supreme Copurt in the 1977 case of State v. Asfoor.

The pertinent paragraph is below:

Asfoor also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction of the charge of going armed with
a weapon. The basis for this argument is that because
Asfoor disarmed Schubert he could not be found guilty of
going armed with a concealed weapon. This is one
reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Another is
that a man who places a .357 Magnum pistol on the
floorboard of his car as he is driving is going armed
with a concealed weapon, or that even one who disarms
another but places the weapon within his reach,
underneath a car seat,
and remains in the car is going
armed with a concealed weapon.
This court will not retry
the case. The evidence, as to both charges, was
sufficient to support the convictions. emphasis added.

Granted the firearm was not encased but it was hidden from view which is one of thethree conditions that define concealement. Therefore because the encasement of a weapon IAW 167.31 makes it "hidden from view" and the person knows it is there the only way to risk not being charged with concealment is to avoid the third condition and place the weapon "out of reach".

The issue is not whether or not 167.31 requires a weapon to be carried out of reach but whether or not the encasement makes the weapon hidden from view and therefore the weapon has to be carried out of reach to avoid a charge of going armed with a concealed weapon.

Some stand with the argument that complying with 167.31 excludes you from the reach of 941.23. Others say the two statutes conflict and that the requirement for encasement makes one violate the concealed weapon statute. So far the courts have said forget theargument - carry the firearm out of reach.- My opinion

The maximum penalty you can face for notcomplying with 167.31 is $175.

The maximum penalty for not complying with 941.23 is 9 months in jail and/or$10,000 fine.

The risk you want to take is your decision.
 

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:
Cobbersmom wrote:
  On my motorcycle, it's in my backpack.
It's "hidden" in your backpack..;)   It would be better to place it in a motorcycle "trunk" or strap the case to the seat. 

not always possible on a motorcycle. depending on bike model and/or configuration, there is literally no storage other than a backpack on your back.
 

jwayne972

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
42
Location
, ,
imported post

Probably the only time I would use the option to CC would be when riding my motorcycle, if it was legal that is.:banghead:
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I've said it until I'm blue :uhoh: but if an encased firearm is an illegally concealed weapon then forget about Chapter 167.31. The vehicle aspect would be the least of our worries. There's no magic or anything special about placing an encased firearm in your vehicle. If you think having an encased weapon within reach is truly a risk of a CCW charge then that risk is there long before you reach your vehicle. It's there even if you don't HAVE a vehicle. It's there anytime you have an encased weapon anywhere outside of your home or place of business.

Like I've said, if they could, the police would simply arrest anyone coming out of a gun shop with a long cardboard box or plastic handgun case under their arm and charge them with CCW long before they even reached their car.

Anyone heard of this happening? Do you see sporting and shooting stores selling gun cases and warning people to not place a firearm inside a case unless you're at home or at your place of business? Do gun shops warn you to look both ways for the police before exiting the store with your new purchase? No? I wonder why not. Maybe because a properly encased firearm is NOT a concealed weapon, nor is it a violation of law to have one in your possession. Why don't you all call your local police department and ask if they'd ever consider charging someone with having a concealed weapon simply because they are exiting the store with a new-bought gun in the box under their arm? It's concealed and within reach right? Baloney!

If you can legally have that encased gun not only within your reach, but in your arms, as you emerge from the gun shop, then you can have it within your reach, in your vehicle, all the way home. Again, there is nothing magic that happens when you place it in your vehicle. Concealed weapons laws don't suddenly take effect because you're in or around your vehicle, do they? Nope, they apply equally inside your vehicle and 50 yards from your vehicle. If you feel fine with your encased gun 50 yards, or 500 yards away from your vehicle, why are you suddenly worried that some special concealed weapons law takes effect upon reaching your vehicle?

We have enough real restrictions on our rights without overly active imaginations creating further restrictions on what you can do.
 

jwayne972

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
42
Location
, ,
imported post

Just to clarify, in case the above ^^^ rant was aimed at me, I was referring to actual CC being the most convenient for transporting on a motorcycle. I was not suggesting that transporting an encased firearm within reach is illegal. Yikes, touchy subject I guess.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
If you think having an encased weapon within reach is truly a risk of a CCW charge then that risk is there long before you reach your vehicle.
The issue with an automobile or truck is the hidden part. I placelittle credence in the premise that a legally encased firearm is hidden when the case is visible and it is in your hand. In a vehicle is not the same thing. A legally encased firearm is not always easily discernible by someone outside of the vehicle and in the immediate vicinity even if it is on the seat next to you.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Whether or not a weapon properly encased iAW 167.31 is "hidden from view" is confusing to say the least. Even the courts seem confused. In the final evaluation I lean toward shotgun's opinion. Perhaps we are somewhat paranoid and jousting at windmills concerning the question. I'll share with you an email I received from Michael Lutz of the DNR. Mr. Lutz is the top legal representative of the DNR. He and I share a number of exchanges concerning the "hidden firearm" issue. The following email was written at 10:01 AM on September 17, 2006.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Lamminen,

In response to your message of September 7, 2006, I would like to reiterate for you the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource's position in response to your concern that compliance with Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) could create a conflict with Wis. Stat. § 941.23.

The previous memorandum and email that I provided to you on April 18, 2006 did not imply that you must ensure that your gun case is out of reach in order to comply with the concealed carry law. Instead, the email indicated that if you wanted to be absolutely certain you are not in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.23, you could ensure your encased gun was out of your reach. The memorandum provided that recommendation by relying on the unpublished opinion of State v. Alloy, which stated that an "encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach." 2000 WI app 116, P3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000), pet. denied, 2000 WI 88 (Wis. 2000). However, the court's decision in that particular case, which involved a Jeep, should not be construed as requiring all individuals in all types of vehicles to keep their encased weapons out of reach. Instead, the case merely provides additional assurance for individuals in a truck or car who are concerned about complying with both Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) and Wis. Stat. § 941.23.

As discussed in the memorandum, the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) have been interpreted by a Wisconsin court as an exception to Wis. Stat. § 941.23. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). In that case, the court held that a defendant who left a handgun on the passenger seat of the car he had been riding in had a concealed weapon as defined by Wis. Stat. § 941.23. Id. at 72-73. However, the court was careful to point out that "our conclusion in this case in no way limits the lawful placement, possession, or transportation of unloaded. . .and encased firearms, bows, or crossbows in vehicles as permitted by Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b)." Id. at 69. Therefore, the court did not consider a lawfully encased weapon to be a concealed weapon.

Furthermore, my email stated that in the Department's view, "a gun case that is clearly a gun case and which in effect 'advertises' the contents of what is inside does not result in a violation of the concealed carry law."

Therefore, as both my April 18, 2006 email and attached memorandum indicated, if you unload and encase your weapon and then transport it in a vehicle in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b), with the cased gun clearly visible, the Department does not view you as violating Wis. Stat. § 941.23. However, the email and memorandum recommended that if you were still concerned about compliance with both statutes, you could make absolutely certain you do not violate either law by ensuring your encased weapon is out of reach while transporting it in a vehicle. This advice was offered with the notion that you would be using a car or truck to transport the encased weapon, and was not meant to impose an impossibility. Of course other types of vehicles make it difficult, or even impossible, to ensure an encased weapon is out of reach. Consequently, if you are transporting an encased weapon in a vehicle such as a motorcycle, snowmobile, or trail bike, as long as the weapon case makes it evident a weapon is contained inside and the case is clearly visible, the DNR does not view transportation of the encased weapon to be a violation of the concealed carry law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Draw your own conclusions. Bare in mind it is not an opinion of the courts or local law enforcement.
 
Top