Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Any CCW arrests lately?

  1. #1
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    Since I joined WCI as a Founders Member, I have worked membership drive tables at several gunshows and a couple of tea parties, also organizing, which may turn out to be the second largest OC event, come the end of 2010. I have had many interesting conversations. I want to share two of them.

    The first was with a retired State Patrolman. I was told that after the Hamdan vs State decision, all patrolman were given instructions to NOT make anymore CCW arrests, unless it was an add on charge to another crime, which could be later dropped as a plea bargain tactic.

    The second was with a retired County Deputy. I was told that there are several PD's along the west coast, aka, MN border, that honor MN Carry Permits.

    I DO NOT advocate CCW. Anyone who CCW in WI, does so at their own risk.

    I only want to point this out as to why I do not accept the Alloy vs State court ruling and unpublished opinion. It's bad case law. The higher courts increasingly lean towards a Constitutional rulings and opinions.

    Let the debate begin. I love a good debate. Let us stick to the issue.

    FYI! I tranport my unloaded and cased firearm on my dashboard.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    FYI! I tranport my unloaded and cased firearm on my dashboard.
    Now THAT'S in plain sight :what:

    Interesting info, but I ave nothing to debate...

    It Is What It Is !

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, is that out of your reach?

  4. #4
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Hmmm, is that out of your reach?
    It is well within reach, but it is inplain sight/ordinary view.

  5. #5
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    It's one of those subjects that almost takes a precedent to establish the law for the rest of us. Any takers?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Fair enough.

  7. #7
    Regular Member lance galloway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Eau Caire, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Look uptransportation of firearms and bows 167.31 wis stats. it never says the gun has to be out of reach.

    Then look up Minnesota gun transportation 97B.045 it does say the gun has to be out of reach

    I now a guy who teaches hunter safety in Wisconsin he told me they neverteach that they have to put a gun out of reach but onlythat it must be unloaded and cased.

  8. #8
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Please correct me if I'm wrong here but, the "Out of reach" and "In plain sight" items that keep coming up.....

    Aren't those "Case Law" and not p[art of 941 or 167???

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    If he feels comfortable with it being within reach, who am I to say otherwise.

  10. #10
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    hunter9mm wrote:
    Please correct me if I'm wrong here but, the "Out of reach" and "In plain sight" items that keep coming up.....

    Aren't those "Case Law" and not p[art of 941 or 167???
    Three prong test needed for a CCW conviction.

    1. You know its there.

    2. It is within your reach. (lunge reach)

    3. It is not within ordinary view.

    ALL three of those three elements are needed for a CCW conviction.

    It is case law. Don't remember just which case.

  11. #11
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    If he feels comfortable with it being within reach, who am I to say otherwise.
    I am more than comfortable with it. I feel much safer with it in reach. I no longer comtemplate just how would I get to my firearm if I need it.

    I just got off work. I stopped an Kwik Trip to fill the gas tank and get milk. There was a County Deputy filling his tank when I came back out. I forgot to pay for my gas. The cashier called me over the PA, that got the deputies attention. I exclaimed while laughing at myself, "I forgot to pay for my gas." He got a laugh out of it as well. He saw my handgun as I was walking back to pay for my gas. He did not even wait to see if I would properly case it. I was unloading it while he was pulling out.



  12. #12
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    BROKENSPROKET wrote:
    hunter9mm wrote:
    Please correct me if I'm wrong here but, the "Out of reach" and "In plain sight" items that keep coming up.....

    Aren't those "Case Law" and not p[art of 941 or 167???
    Three prong test needed for a CCW conviction.

    1. You know its there.

    2. It is within your reach. (lunge reach)

    3. It is not within ordinary view.

    ALL three of those three elements are needed for a CCW conviction.

    It is case law. Don't remember just which case.
    Let me get this straight, just so I fully understand,

    I'm headed to the range, to shoot so I'm transporting an empty (unloaded)hand-gun, fully cased as per 167 but it's within my reach (with lunge) and my jacket is laying over it, (cause I don't want some clown to break out my window to steal it) when I stop and grab a burger. Of couse I know it's there.....

    That could turn into a CCW conviction?



  13. #13
    Regular Member hunter9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    BROKENSPROKET wrote:
    I just got off work. I stopped an Kwik Trip to fill the gas tank and get milk. There was a County Deputy filling his tank when I came back out. I forgot to pay for my gas. The cashier called me over the PA, that got the deputies attention. I exclaimed while laughing at myself, "I forgot to pay for my gas." He got a laugh out of it as well. He saw my handgun as I was walking back to pay for my gas. He did not even wait to see if I would properly case it. I was unloading it while he was pulling out.

    What city/town did this take place as I'm starting to think that the "More Rural" area LEO's are much, much more tolerant than the larger cities WILL EVER BECOME!

    Maybe it's more accepted because the department is smaller and just people that were around guns more growing up, more of an accepted way of life than in the 'Big City" where politics play a bigger role in "accepted behavior"



  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    hunter9mm wrote:
    Let me get this straight, just so I fully understand,

    I'm headed to the range, to shoot so I'm transporting an empty (unloaded)hand-gun, fully cased as per 167 but it's within my reach (with lunge) and my jacket is laying over it, (cause I don't want some clown to break out my window to steal it) when I stop and grab a burger. Of couse I know it's there.....

    That could turn into a CCW conviction?

    Your jacket lying over it would prevent the firearm from being seen from the outside of the vehicle thus making it a concealed firearm. Don't cover it up.

    Even though it is in a case one can still easily identify the item as an encased firearm which would be legal.

    As far as transporting the encased firearm on the dash board. I would believe that to be withing lunging distance.

    This is just MHO I am not an attorney. However, I would think you would be hard pressed to find an attorney who would not agree.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    It is beyond mere case law stare decsis, being an 'annotation' to the statute. I-ANAL and a coward and an assh0le, so I don't know how an annotation is different from case law. The Keith citation is to case law.

    Here is my copy of

    941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except
    a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
    weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding s.
    939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not
    include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission
    warden.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
    The burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she is a peace officer and within
    the exception. State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973).
    A defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with
    a gun locked in a glove compartment. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565
    (1986).
    To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of
    s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
    2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
    State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

    A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation
    by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from
    view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this
    section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).
    There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed
    weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999),
    97−1423.
    Under the facts of the case, the privilege of of self−defense was inapplicable to a
    charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538,
    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 are not peace officers authorized to carry concealed weapons. 69 Atty. Gen.
    66.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Let me get this straight, just so I fully understand,

    I'm headed to the range, to shoot so I'm transporting an empty (unloaded)hand-gun, fully cased as per 167 but it's within my reach (with lunge) and my jacket is laying over it, (cause I don't want some clown to break out my window to steal it) when I stop and grab a burger. Of couse I know it's there.....

    That could turn into a CCW conviction?
    Why don't you OC your gun into the joint to get a burger?

    I will repeat that the law for transporting ONLY states UNLOADED and ENCASED. This is all that is required. I don't understand why some folks make such a big deal out of this "out of reach" thing.

    Transport an unloaded/encased gun on the dashboard. LEGAL. You could be badgered by an LEO or have him perform a non-consenting search of your vehicle. You would only be able to resolve in court if this happens.

    Transport an unloaded/encased gun where the case is in the trunk. LEGAL. But it's no good to you back there if you need it.

    Transport an unloaded/encased gun underneath the passenger seat. It is within reach. BUT STILL LEGAL based on vehicle transport statute. Even if it could be considered illegal because of the "in reach" idea, let me explain the protections this affords. It is out of sight of any LEO who looks into your car. By NOT CONSENTING to a search of your car, NOT getting arrested, and NOT answering any questions about whether you have firearms in the vehicle (it is NOT illegal to transport firearms), there is NO WAY for him to know that you have it. Now it is within reach in case you need it. Everybody wins.

    People, you need to decide for yourself which rights you are going to give up and which you are going to keep. Don't let yourself be defenseless in your car.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    State Suprem Court decision.

    State v Asfoor

    January 18, 1977

    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    The three conditions that define concealment can be found in State v Kieth and state v. Hamdan

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Captain Nemo wrote:
    State Suprem Court decision.

    State v Asfoor

    January 18, 1977

    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.
    Placing an uncased weapon under your seat is illegal. An unloaded, cased weapon under your seat is perfectly legal.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328 ¶ 28

    "The right to bear arms is clearly not rendered illusory by prohibiting an individual from keeping a loaded weapon hidden either in the glove compartment or under the front seat in a vehicle."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    Dustiniac:

    Please cite the source of your assumtion. The quote from the Asfoor case says nothing about encased or not encased. It is impossible to second guess the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is true that in this case the firearm was not encased, however, there is no way of knowing if that influenced the SSC opinion.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Bill Schmitz, or and state law. Also, I've got family and friends whom are law enforcement and they've all said they dont consider that concealed, IAW state law.
    I wont be able to comment further on this matter today, I am headed to the bars to forget my name.

  23. #23
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    An encased firearm is not "within reach" -- it's in a case. If you think otherwise, then I have to state again that I've had the Crown Jewels of England within my reach.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    An encased firearm is not "within reach" -- it's in a case. If you think otherwise, then I have to state again that I've had the Crown Jewels of England within my reach.
    Thank you

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    I have been told, by avery reputable source, that if you are caught CCW, at worst,you will have your gun confiscated. But no charges will be filed as the state dose not want this sort of case brought to court for obvious reasons.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •