• 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.

Must watch Videos for all Firearms Carriers and LEO Encounters

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
Fork In The Wisconsin Gun Law / Transportation Of Fire Arms by Doug Huffman

I am searching the laws but frankly they don't state what you CAN do, rather what you cannot do (in most cases). I do not believe this video to be correct. It is well within rights to carry a firearm in it's original "box" or in a secured container, this does not define it as concealed rather as encased. Does anyone know of any laws that may clarify this ?
Under this definition I would not be able to carry an encased weapon anywhere for it's concealed.

I drive an el camino and have been pulled over twice recently once with a long gun directly behind my seat and the second with a pistol on the passenger seat (of course properly encased), The officer that pulled me over with the long rifle simply asked I keep my hands in plain view. The officer that pulled me over with the pistol said nothing other then thank you for being honest about having it. I know this does not mean much really but clarification on this would be nice.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
I drive an el camino and have been pulled over twice recently once with a long gun directly behind my seat and the second with a pistol on the passenger seat (of course properly encased), The officer that pulled me over with the long rifle simply asked I keep my hands in plain view. The officer that pulled me over with the pistol said nothing other then thank you for being honest about having it. I know this does not mean much really but clarification on this would be nice.
An officer's (abuse of) discretion does not comment on legality.
 
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
An officer's (abuse of) discretion does not comment on legality.

As I more less stated at the end of the comments.

I am looking for an answer to a legit question and not your opinion, I understand you are the one who posted said video so are trying to defend it. Seriously though I would like to find some fact and not your opinion.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Seriously though I would like to find some fact and not your opinion.
What do you find to be the difference between fact and opinion? I quoted black letter law with its incorporated annotations of case law.

Is this your "legit question", "Does anyone know of any laws that may clarify this ?", this difference in definition between concealed and encased?

If so, then the difference is intent, mens rea, and that is in the exclusive purview of the judge/jury, the trier of fact.
 
Last edited:

msteinhilber

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Verona, WI
I respectfully disagree. Your car was cursorily searched. If your window was open and he bent down to speak to you then you were 'sniffed'.

You probably have his palm/thumb print on your left rear pillar, purposely put there to validate his potential claim of interaction - and likely filmed, along with the cursory search and sniff. I have seen discussions suggesting that the print can be recovered months later from an unwashed car.

That may be the case, let's assume he sniffed my car through the partly rolled down window (the rest of the windows were closed). I'm considering your recommendation, to exit the vehicle and meet the officer at the front of the vehicle. I'm not sure about the police in your community, but most of the police in the areas I have lived in are sure to immediately grow very aggressive with you if you exit your vehicle during a traffic stop.

Just looking for some clarification from you if that is in fact what you are suggesting and if so, if you have personally used such tactics and how it worked out for you. Further, if there are any laws regarding exiting your vehicle during a stop that you can cite it would be appreciated. I'm 99.9% certain if this tactic was used around here, you would immediately be asked to get back in the vehicle at the least and at which point, since the officer had reason to pull you over (headlight in my case) wouldn't being asked to get back in the vehicle and refusing be disobeying a lawful order?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
I have not been stopped for a traffic 'stop' since 1977, before I became a legally armed citizen. I am sure that a cop can charge "disobeying a lawful order" but wonder about its legality.

When I was involved with a PD, "officer safety" was a mantra. Two vehicles as barrier from approaching traffic sounds good to me that is as responsible for safety as some cop.
 

msteinhilber

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Verona, WI
I have not been stopped for a traffic 'stop' since 1977, before I became a legally armed citizen. I am sure that a cop can charge "disobeying a lawful order" but wonder about its legality.

When I was involved with a PD, "officer safety" was a mantra. Two vehicles as barrier from approaching traffic sounds good to me that is as responsible for safety as some cop.

I too would question it's legality. I did some brief searching, though plan to do more, but what I did find some mention of the US Supreme court leaning more towards officer safety being a big factor though I would have to agree with you, a person outside a vehicle is less of a threat in my eyes than a person inside a vehicle as you can see all of their actions without the vehicle providing partial concealment.

I, unfortunately, was less reluctant to go to as much of an extreme to stand up for my rights at that time and somewhat even to this day as I was in the middle of a divorce and custody/placement negotiation at that time. As a result I was playing things safe, since the courts already have a negative stigma seemingly associated with father's rights and didn't need further complications at that time.

Shortly after that stop, I located and reinstalled the drape type device that many vehicles with an exposed rear hatch come equipped with to provide some concealment from prying eyes viewing what you have in your "trunk" space. I've started to use this religiously especially since relocating to my present town as I now end up working close to the range I typically shoot at so it's not uncommon for me to have several firearms in my vehicle so I can make a short drive after work to enjoy some shooting. Aside from my headlight incident, I have very few encounters with LEO's on the road but it's been a concern of mine given the area I live near and work in (Madison) of being targeted again in the future and having an officer overstep the law and perform a search. My mind questions what an officer willing to overstep the law would have to say/try to do about a guy lawfully transporting an AR-15, handgun, and a dozen or so magazines and a couple M19A1 can's of ammo. Nothing that wouldn't be thrown out in court I imagine, but just unwanted attention given some current circumstances in my life.
 
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
firearm vehicle transport questions

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.

1st. the weapon is hidden. Is a weapon within a gun case considered hidden ?
2nd. indiscernible from ordinary observation. If the gun is in a gun case it's not really indiscernible is it ?
3rd. 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?
If I am concealing a gun in a gun case for purpose of lawful travel which is the only way im allowed to, then it indeed falls within these guidlines right ?
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
If I am concealing a gun in a gun case for purpose of lawful travel which is the only way im allowed to, then it indeed falls within these guidlines right ?

Yes, but what Doug is saying is that it's up to the officers/DA's discretion, on whether or not you would get cited/charged. If you do wind up defending yourself in court it will cost you much time and money even if you do beat it.
 
X

XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX

Guest
Yes, but what Doug is saying is that it's up to the officers/DA's discretion, on whether or not you would get cited/charged. If you do wind up defending yourself in court it will cost you much time and money even if you do beat it.

Yes, but this holds true to ANY instance, for example, I can be cited for dc for open carrying a gun or yelling across the street to a friend, then the da can decide wether or not he wants to go along with it, regardless of wether anything unlawful was done or not. This does not change the fact of what the law is clearly stating. Hence I believe this video is incorrect as the law does show it to be untrue and this is what we are talking about, not an officers discretion.
Either way it doesn't really matter I'm not asking anyone to remove it I am simply stating I feel it to be untrue, I did not intend for this to be an argument but a discussion on what is or is not legal from a constitutional stand point and not an officer/da, and I would like to think/feel confident if I am pulled over and ticketed that I would be able to fight and beat the ticket even though it will cost money.
I am sick of people on this forum finding a need to "attack" me for inquiring about what is or is not correct, no need in becoming a rude old fart because I disagree with what you interpret to be true. Personal attacks I thought were against the forum rules but it doesn't seem to stop anyone. I have had enough and will no longer participate in anything on this forum, thanks for your rudeness Doug.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Though I generally agree that it is very unlikely anyone would ever be cited I have to disagree that there is anything clear about the gun laws in Wisconsin.

A lot of this discussion came about because of an unpublished opinion; State v. Alloy. Although this doesn't set precedent, it did give an inclination; of how far the courts could take the current law.

So, I would say the video is not untrue even if the possible outcome of being cited/charged is improbable.

Unfortunately, many judges have long since stopped interpretting the laws in light of legislative intent and the constitution and instead decided that they will legislate from the bench. That's what happened in Hamdan, they found the statute constitutional out of one side of their mouths and said it was the legislatures purview out of the other, never taking into account that "strict scrutiny" should have been applied to a law that was passed over 100 years before the constitutional amendment.
 

MT Yon

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
4
Location
Great Falls, Montana, United States
Interpretation is key

"1)a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;"

If you carry it like I do on your side, or within arm's reach while buckled into the driver's seat you lose. If it is locked in the glove box, you can get to it in the amount of time a police officer generally takes to walk to your window, ergo guilty.

If like you said the weapon is behind the seat, or in an el camino, in the bed of the vehicle in a locked box, there is no way it qualifies as being on your person or within reach.

When asked for my license and registration I will hand them my CWP as well just to make sure they see it and only then will I alert them as to having it. Having Marine Corps insignia on my tags, a disability permit hanging from the mirror, and a VFW sticker in the window usually means I get off with a warning or a have a nice day. Sometimes you can run into one having a bad day, but if you remain calm and polite (even while refusing a search) they will often calm down and go away.
 
Top