Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: OC around a felon?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Teamtnt2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    77

    OC around a felon?

    I have a friend who was, let's just say stupid once, and he has a felony. If he is with me and we're running around town, can I OC when he is with me? I asked him to ask his PO if it was ok but I think he too scared to ask. I do not want to do anything to get him into trouble. Anyone know anything about this?

    Carry On

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Let's say he wasn't your friend, and he just happened to be in the area where you were OCing. Would you have to surrender your rights because of his stupidity? Would he be required to leave?

    I don't think one has anything to do with the other as long as you NEVER allow him to possess your firearm there shouldn't be a problem.

    In the end, he may have to ask his PO, but my opinion is that it doesn't matter.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Teamtnt2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Let's say he wasn't your friend, and he just happened to be in the area where you were OCing. Would you have to surrender your rights because of his stupidity? Would he be required to leave?

    I don't think one has anything to do with the other as long as you NEVER allow him to possess your firearm there shouldn't be a problem.

    In the end, he may have to ask his PO, but my opinion is that it doesn't matter.
    That is exactly what I was leaning toward because it is in MY possession, he should have nothing to worry about. The only part I was really worried about was the transportation in the car. But, again, my car, my weapon, my possession.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    New London, WI
    Posts
    12
    I have an in-law whom is a felon, and from what he has told me, he cannot even be around firearms being used. It may be different by case though idk, seems like a tricky situation. Especially the vehicle part.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work. What is possession in § 941.29(2)(a)

    I-ANAL After reading the below and thinking on our OCDO controversy about proper transportation § 167.31, I would suggest that a felon not be in a car with a legally transported firearm on the mere chance that the proper owner of the firearm not have physical control of the firearm. As when the owner is pumping gas.

    As always, YMMV and I'm a high mileage kind'a guy.

    State v. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363, 99−0230

    ¶ 19. At the outset, we note the absence of any mens rea[5] requirement in this statute. That is, the statute makes no reference to intent and therefore creates a strict liability offense. State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 664, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999); State v. Coleman, 206 Wis. 2d 199, 207, 556 N.W.2d 701 (1996). As a result, the State is only required to show that the felon "possessed" the firearm with knowledge that it is a firearm. In this context, "possess," according to the legal definition, simply "means that the defendant knowingly had actual physical control of a firearm." Wis JI—Criminal 1343 (1997); see State v. Loukota, 180 Wis. 2d 191, 201, 508 N.W.2d 896, (Ct. App. 1993) (determining that this definition of possession was appropriately given and that Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2) does not require ownership, just mere possession). Furthermore, there are no temporal limitations in this statute. It does not specify what length of time a felon must possess the firearm in order to violate the statute. While to some it may seem unduly harsh that a felon who handles a firearm for a brief period violates this statute, such a result comports with the theory of strict liability. As we have explained:

    143*143 The basic concept of strict liability is that culpability is not an element of the offense and that the state is relieved of the burdensome task of proving the offender's culpable state of mind....

    ....

    ... One of the objectives of the legislature in adopting the concept of strict liability in statutes designed to control conduct of many people, such as operating motor vehicles is to assure the quick and efficient prosecution of large numbers of violators.

    State v. Brown, 107 Wis. 2d 44, 53-54, 318 N.W.2d 370 (1982). The statute at issue here, felon in possession of a firearm, applies to all felons and is designed by the legislature to control their conduct: it aims to prevent felons from possessing firearms. Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2). This is so "because the legislature has determined that felons are more likely to misuse firearms." Coleman, 206 Wis. 2d at 210. We have further recognized that this statute is "aimed not at punishment but at protecting public safety through firearm regulation." State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 706-07, 524 N.W.2d 641 (1994). With this goal in mind, the legislature struck a balance between the possibility of a harsh result to an individual felon and the greater good of protecting the public from felons with firearms. We decline to upset this balance by rewriting the statute with an intent requirement. In the present case, the complaint stated that Black "handled the pistol," which is sufficient to show possession because such an action amounts to exercising actual physical control over the firearm, even though it may have been only for a brief period of time.

Posting Permissions

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