• 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.

A victory for carry rights in Portage Wisconsin

__

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
94
Location
, ,
imported post

As noted here and in other expressions of lay opinion, unpublished does not mean unpersuasive - in cases other than Mr. Alloy's.
 

Mike

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

County Prosecutor wrote:
As noted here and in other expressions of lay opinion, unpublished does not mean unpersuasive
Very well said - rules on citation of "unpublished decisions" do not mean the opinions are not valid statements of the law - typically, the rules arise in part from the the idea that if an appellate opinion does not state new law, it is to be "unpublished" because existing opinions already state the law and should be cited instead.

With lexis and WestLaw publishing so called "unpublished" opinions, making them the "elephant in the room" and hard to ignore, and many courts themselves citing to such unpublished opinions to buttress their published opinions, the published-unpublished distinction is not really big deal that some non-lawyers like to make of them.
 

Mike

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

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
How did we get to the 'out of reach'? statement
The "in reach" aspect is an element of the offense to carry concealed. State v. Keith, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993) (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).

 

Shotgun

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

Mike wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
How did we get to the 'out of reach'? statement
The "in reach" aspect is an element of the offense to carry concealed. State v. Keith, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993) (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).

So, if you're standing next to an undercover cop (or anyone) that you know has a hidden gun, can you be charged for CCW? It is a dangerous weapon, within reach, you're aware of it, it's hidden.
 

__

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
94
Location
, ,
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
that you know has a hidden gun, can you be charged for CCW? It is a dangerous weapon, within reach, you're aware of it, it's hidden.
If it's hiden how are your aware of it?
 

Shotgun

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

CarryOK wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
that you know has a hidden gun, can you be charged for CCW? It is a dangerous weapon, within reach, you're aware of it, it's hidden.
If it's hiden how are your aware of it?
For the sake of argument, let's say you saw him put his coat on over it. Doesn't matter HOW you know, just THAT you know.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
Mike wrote:
paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
How did we get to the 'out of reach'? statement
The "in reach" aspect is an element of the offense to carry concealed.  State v. Keith, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993) (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).

 
So, if you're standing next to an undercover cop (or anyone) that you know has a hidden gun, can you be charged for CCW?  It is a dangerous weapon, within reach, you're aware of it, it's hidden.

I like the way you think. :cool:
 
Top