• 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.

Carrying at work.

N

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

davegran wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
Dave,
....in Wisconsin concealed carry is legal on private property (assuming the owner/manager authorizes.) I can carry concealed on my property, and unlesssomeone can prove otherwise others can conceal carry on my property if/when given my express permission.
Click to expand...
Would you please cite the appropriate statute and case law that makes this possible?

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

I believe the case law you would be interested in is "Vegas", where it was determined if the persons need for self-defense outweighs the states need for prohibition of the manner of carry.
Tough to prove unless you are involved in a defensive situation IMO

In understandable English, you are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon, unless a situation comes up where you are forced to use it in a defensive situation.
It is the mother of all catch-22's!!
 
davegran

davegran

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

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 stat-
ute? 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.

I don't see where it mentions anything about giving permission to somebody to CC on your property, nor does it say you can CC just because you feel like it. If you can answer the above two questions with a "Yes", then go for it.

Dave
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

well, there is a 3rd alternative; if your uncomfortable with 'drawer carry', then mount your case on the side of your tool box, in plain view, and that should be ok, everyone in agreement on this suggestion? or then again, as our beloved governor said: Wear it on your hip :D
 
bnhcomputing

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
Dave,

He is not carrying concealed, it is in his tool box. Second in Wisconsin concealed carry is legal on private property (assuming the owner/manager authorizes.) I can carry concealed on my property, and unlesssomeone can prove otherwise others can conceal carry on my property if/when given my express permission.
Click to expand...
This is the second time I have seen a post regarding a permission exception to the concealed prohibition. Please cite relevant statute or case law supporting this claim. To my knowledge carrying of a concealed firearm is strictly prohibited. The courts carved out some exceptions, but I can find no reference to a permission exception.

Without citation, you are misleading the forum members.
 
M

Master Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
davegran wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
Dave,
....in Wisconsin concealed carry is legal on private property (assuming the owner/manager authorizes.) I can carry concealed on my property, and unlesssomeone can prove otherwise others can conceal carry on my property if/when given my express permission.
Click to expand...
Would you please cite the appropriate statute and case law that makes this possible?

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, adopted in 1998, states: “[t]he people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

In State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328 (2003), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin rejected an Art. I, § 25 challenge to Wis. Stat. § 941.23, which prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. Although the court found that the state right to "bear arms" is a fundamental, individual right under Art. I, § 25, the court held that it is subject to reasonable restriction. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 26, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 26, 665 N.W.2d 328, ¶ 26. Finding that section 941.23 is "a reasonable regulation on the time, place, and manner in which the right to bear arms may be exercised," the court upheld the statute. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 28, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 28, 665 N.W.2d 328, ¶ 28.

In a companion case to Cole, State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 (2003), the supreme court carved out an exception to the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons under section 941.23. In Hamdan, defendant owned a convenience store in a high crime area and kept a handgun for protection. Law enforcement officers performing a routine investigation of defendant’s business license discovered the concealed firearm, confiscated it, and prosecuted defendant for violating section 941.23. Defendant argued that the ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional as applied to him because it interfered with his "right to bear arms" under Art. I, § 25.

At the outset, the court emphasized that section 941.23 is constitutional and that the state may regulate firearms under its police power. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 46, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 46, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 46. Furthermore, the court noted that "only if the public benefit in . . . exercise of the police power [to regulate firearms] 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." Id.

Following an extensive review of statutory and case law from other jurisdictions pertaining to both the carrying of concealed weapons and the right to "bear arms," the court found that defendant had a constitutional right under Art. I, § 25 to "keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of security at the time he carried his concealed weapon . . . ." and reversed the conviction. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 84, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 84, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 84.

The court noted that "f the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises." State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 68, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 68, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 68.
Click to expand...
You miss the point, counselor. The authority to extend the privilege of concealment to another is not within the privileges of the proprietor.
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
davegran wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
Dave,
....in Wisconsin concealed carry is legal on private property (assuming the owner/manager authorizes.)  I can carry concealed on my property, and unless someone can prove  otherwise others can conceal carry on my property if/when given my express permission.
Click to expand...
Would you please cite the appropriate statute and case law that makes this possible?

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, adopted in 1998, states: “[t]he people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

In State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328 (2003), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin rejected an Art. I, § 25 challenge to Wis. Stat. § 941.23, which prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. Although the court found that the state right to "bear arms" is a fundamental, individual right under Art. I, § 25, the court held that it is subject to reasonable restriction. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 26, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 26, 665 N.W.2d 328, ¶ 26. Finding that section 941.23 is "a reasonable regulation on the time, place, and manner in which the right to bear arms may be exercised," the court upheld the statute. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 28, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 28, 665 N.W.2d 328, ¶ 28.

In a companion case to Cole, State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 (2003), the supreme court carved out an exception to the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons under section 941.23. In Hamdan, defendant owned a convenience store in a high crime area and kept a handgun for protection. Law enforcement officers performing a routine investigation of defendant’s business license discovered the concealed firearm, confiscated it, and prosecuted defendant for violating section 941.23. Defendant argued that the ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional as applied to him because it interfered with his "right to bear arms" under Art. I, § 25.

At the outset, the court emphasized that section 941.23 is constitutional and that the state may regulate firearms under its police power. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 46, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 46, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 46. Furthermore, the court noted that "only if the public benefit in . . . exercise of the police power [to regulate firearms] 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." Id.

Following an extensive review of statutory and case law from other jurisdictions pertaining to both the carrying of concealed weapons and the right to "bear arms," the court found that defendant had a constitutional right under Art. I, § 25 to "keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of security at the time he carried his concealed weapon . . . ." and reversed the conviction. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 84, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 84, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 84.

The court noted that "f the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises." State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 68, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 68, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 68.
Click to expand...
You miss the point, counselor.  The authority to extend the privilege of concealment to another is not within the privileges of the proprietor.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm agreeing with Doug.

Unless it is your private residence or your privately owned residence.
 
GlockMeisterG21

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

95 The two questions the majority opinion establishes for determining whether a constitutional defense is available are broad sweeping and potentially apply to countless individuals under any number of circumstances. For example, an owner of a privately operated business caught carrying a concealed weapon while walking to deposit the store's earnings in a bank can certainly argue that he is exercising his right to keep and bear arms under circumstances in which the need to exercise the right is substantial and that concealment, while walking to and upon entering the bank, is the only reasonable means for exercising the right to bear arms under the circumstances. So too can a store manager in charge for an absentee owner argue that she is exercising her right to keep and bear arms under circumstances in which the need to exercise the right is substantial and that concealment is the only reasonable means for exercising the right. Indeed, what is to stop any person from claiming this right in his or her workplace?
Similarly, anyone who must walk home from a bus stop every night after work through a high crime neighborhood can surely argue that his or her need to exercise the right to bear arms is high, concealment is necessary, and that his or her interests in self-protection substantially outweigh the State's interest in regulating concealed weapons.






 
bigdaddy1

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The court noted that "f the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises." State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 68, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 68, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 68.
Click to expand...

You miss the point, counselor. The authority to extend the privilege of concealment to another is not within the privileges of the proprietor.
Click to expand...

Granted I am not a lawyer, but where do you read from the above cite that it not extendable? It does not state OWNER only. I read it as where it may be deemed necessary to protect said property.
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Oh no, I'm agreeing with Doug.  Unless it is your private residence or your privately owned residence.
Click to expand...
Which word did I mis-use, please?  The privilege can not be extended legally by a person.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agreed with you and was just re-stating the point.
 
GlockMeisterG21

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Oh no, I'm agreeing with Doug. Unless it is your private residence or your privately owned residence.
Click to expand...
Which word did I mis-use, please? The privilege can not be extended legally by a person.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agreed with you and was just re-stating the point.
Click to expand...
That's what you get for agreeing with him. He rails you anyway :lol:
 
M

Master Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
Oh no, I'm agreeing with Doug. Unless it is your private residence or your privately owned residence.
Click to expand...
Which word did I mis-use, please? The privilege can not be extended legally by a person.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agreed with you and was just re-stating the point.
Click to expand...
That's what you get for agreeing with him. He rails you anyway :lol:
Click to expand...
That must be the root problem, what is agreement.

"The privilege can not be extended legally by a person" means that even if it is "your private residence or your privately owned residence" you cannot legally extend the privilege of legal concealment.
 
bigdaddy1

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
"The privilege can not be extended legally by a person" means that even if it is "your private residence or your privately owned residence" you cannot legally extend the privilege of legal concealment.
Click to expand...
That's great that you can say that, but where is your proof of what you say. Reading the cite (as posted multiple times above) it states NO WHERE in that short paragraph that it is for the property OWNER only. Show me where it states unequivocally that the property owner does not have the right to extend concealed carry permission on private property. If not in that cite, in what other documentation you are quoting from.
 
bnhcomputing

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The court noted that "f the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises." State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 68, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 68, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 68.
Click to expand...

You miss the point, counselor. The authority to extend the privilege of concealment to another is not within the privileges of the proprietor.
Click to expand...

Granted I am not a lawyer, but where do you read from the above cite that it not extendable? It does not state OWNER only. I read it as where it may be deemed necessary to protect said property.
Click to expand...
As I posted on the other thread, is says "his" a single individual. 941.23 absolutely restricts CC. This cite carves a very narrow opening for "his private residence or privately operated business." Not you as a visitor or employee.
 
bnhcomputing

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
That's pretty much what I took out of it bnh. However, you can still ccw if you meet the states requirements and your boss doesn't mind.
Click to expand...
And can you please cite what "the states requirements" are? For without the "requirements" you cannot carry concealed on "his" property.
 
GlockMeisterG21

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:
GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
That's pretty much what I took out of it bnh. However, you can still ccw if you meet the states requirements and your boss doesn't mind.
Click to expand...
And can you please cite what "the states requirements" are? For without the "requirements" you cannot carry concealed on "his" property.
Click to expand...
Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, adopted in 1998, states: “[t]he people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

In State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328 (2003), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin rejected an Art. I, § 25 challenge to Wis. Stat. § 941.23, which prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. Although the court found that the state right to "bear arms" is a fundamental, individual right under Art. I, § 25, the court held that it is subject to reasonable restriction. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 26, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 26, 665 N.W.2d 328, ¶ 26. Finding that section 941.23 is "a reasonable regulation on the time, place, and manner in which the right to bear arms may be exercised," the court upheld the statute. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 28, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 28, 665 N.W.2d 328, ¶ 28.

In a companion case to Cole, State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 (2003), the supreme court carved out an exception to the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons under section 941.23. In Hamdan, defendant owned a convenience store in a high crime area and kept a handgun for protection. Law enforcement officers performing a routine investigation of defendant’s business license discovered the concealed firearm, confiscated it, and prosecuted defendant for violating section 941.23. Defendant argued that the ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional as applied to him because it interfered with his "right to bear arms" under Art. I, § 25.

At the outset, the court emphasized that section 941.23 is constitutional and that the state may regulate firearms under its police power. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 46, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 46, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 46. Furthermore, the court noted that "only if the public benefit in . . . exercise of the police power [to regulate firearms] 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." Id.

Following an extensive review of statutory and case law from other jurisdictions pertaining to both the carrying of concealed weapons and the right to "bear arms," the court found that defendant had a constitutional right under Art. I, § 25 to "keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of security at the time he carried his concealed weapon . . . ." and reversed the conviction. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 84, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 84, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 84.

The court noted that "f the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises." State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 68, 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶ 68, 665 N.W.2d 785, ¶ 68.

in red
 
Gordo

Gordo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Holmen, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I got a question, my wife has an insurance agency and her office is in a plaza building. Across the street from the parking lot is a school and down the hall is a daycare center. Can she open carry at work. The parking lot is not connected to the school.
 
bigdaddy1

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

It doesn't say owner, it says primary residence or privately operated business.

I still do not see anything that would be a definitive answer that A; concealed carry onones own private property is illegal (per this cite) and B; that other persons are not allowed to CC on private property if given permission by the "primary residence" or in ones "privatly operated business"

By the overly highlighted HIS, this would indicate that WOMEN homeowners or business owners are not included. Anyone want to bring this one up?
 
AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Gordo wrote:
I got a question, my wife has an insurance agency and her office is in a plaza building. Across the street from the parking lot is a school and down the hall is a daycare center. Can she open carry at work. The parking lot is not connected to the school.
Click to expand...
The short answer is yes, she can carry at her work. But she has to stay on private property if she is that close to the school... So she can load up in her lot, but not from the street...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top