Does this sound familiar?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/99701094.html

Gun ownership works only if all the rules are followed
Truck owner caught with weapon out of case

Personally, I can't imagine why any law-abiding 22-year-old male living in a major American city would feel the need to carry a gun.

But, then, I'm not Charles James.

James, 22, is a black male living in the central city who has seen more than a few close friends die by gunfire in recent months.

"I went to three funerals this month," James told me last week. "One of them was my best friend. All of them were just about my age, too."

Fair Use Excerpt - Click link for full story

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know how different a situation it is when a gun is stored on the seat of a car NOT in a case as opposed to unloaded and encased? Is it still a transportation violation?

Also, how is a gun considered concealed if it sitting near an armrest? Going by the info in the article, it is not concealed.

Concealed is not subject to reasonable person interpretations but to case law that suggests that the intent is to protect an approaching LEO from a hysterical reaction.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

RULES! said:

(11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.

Click to expand...

Eugene Kane is not our friend and his spunk does not need spreading, especially in decent company.

Doug Huffman said:

Concealed is not subject to reasonable person interpretations but to case law that suggests that the intent is to protect an approaching LEO from a hysterical reaction.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Eugene Kane is not our friend and his spunk does not need spreading, especially in decent company.

Click to expand...

Right on.

Now this is where things get down and dirty.

I am not a barrister so I don't know the legal answers to the following questions.

1. Is James quilty of violating statute 941.23 or 167.31 or both?
2. Can James be charged with a violation of a statute with a forfieture penalty and another statute with a criminal penalty at the same time?
3. Does state statute trump case law?
4. Does James have legal option to require which violation he is charged with?
5. Can James declare that statute 941.23 is unconstitutional because his interest in concealing a firearm for personal security is more compelling than the State's interest in enforcing the statute?

It appears from the media report that James had the loaded uncased firearm sitting on his car seat. A presumed violation of ss167.31, the penalty of which is a fine <$101. However the WSC ruled in the case of State v. Walls that a firearm sitting on the passenger seat of an automobile was concealed from ordinary view and therefore a violation of the concealed weapon statute 941.23, the penalty of which is a criminal charge of a Class A misdemeanor. Does a DA have the option to pick and choose or must the possibility of a statute violation preclude case law. If charged with violation to both statutes are James constitutional rights infringed because the State has taken away all manners of firearm carry so that James can not exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense as given by Article I section 25 of the Wis. constitution? Something that the WSC ruled the State can not do.(Hamdan). Also because James lives in an area of the city with documented multiple acts of violence happening every day does that open an "as applied" defense to declare that his need for personal protection in that area of the city is more compelling than the States need to enforce statute 941.23? In Hamdan the WSC ruled that the constitutional amendment Art I sec 25 trumped statute 941.23 as it applied to the security of ones home, property and business. It left the issue of personal security and the other activities listed in the constitutional amendment open for future determination based on compelling need and the applied evidence.

This could be an interesting case.

Captain Nemo said:

[snip]
5. Can James declare that statute 941.23 is unconstitutional because his interest in concealing a firearm for personal security is more compelling than the State's interest in enforcing the statute?[snip]

Click to expand...

#5 Get's my vote. I'd say yes. This guy has nothing on Vegas but the same thinking applies. I believe 941.23 is unconstitutional as applied to him.

1. He has a compelling argument that he needed a firearm at a moments notice because of his friends. This, to me, goes to proving that his need outweighed the public benifit in the exercise of the states police power.

2. If he needs a firearm at a moments notice, it certainly can't be encased and unloaded. With the case law as it stands; a gun sitting on the seat is concealed; there is obviously no other way to exercise the right.