Master Doug Huffman wrote:
941.2965 Restrictions on use of facsimile firearms.
(1) In this section, “facsimile firearm” means any replica, toy,
starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance
to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm.
“Facsimile firearm” does not include any actual firearm.
(2) No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a
manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate,
threaten or terrify another person. Whoever violates this section
is subject to a Class C forfeiture.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any peace officer acting in the discharge of his or her official
duties. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), this paragraph does
not apply to a commission warden.
(b) Any person engaged in military activities, sponsored by the
state or federal government, acting in the discharge of his or her
official duties.
(c) Any person who is on his or her own real property, in his
or her own home or at his or her own fixed place of business.
(d) Any person who is on real property and acting with the consent
of the owner of that property.
History: 1993 a. 191; 1993 a. 491 s. 262; Stats. 1993 s. 941.2965; 2007 a. 27.
When you're right your right Doug. Still doesn't change the whole tone of things on the part of the Onalaska Police Dept. If this was such a bad deal, why wasn't gramps yanked out of the vehicle and slammed to the ground? What up with that. Safe and standard SOP was ignored as if we already knew it was no biggie.
Seems strange to me. Heck, he could have been a terrorist or wacko. So, on the one hand we treat it like a scary, bad, horrible threat, and on the other hand, it looks like a traffic stop. I have trouble with that.
Edit: By the way, if the mere appearance of a replica firearm; Mind you, not brandishing or holding it in an intimidating way, but by the mere appearance of said toy, one can be accused of causing alarm, the law is being used as a club. What happened here is not what the law says.