Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: Department of regulation and licensing misleading me

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    81

    Department of regulation and licensing misleading me

    Below is an email transcript of the entire conversation, i've yet to recieve a reply, obviously read bottom to top.


    Then I believe all armored security drivers in the state of wisconsin should be arrested immediatly on sight today. I believe I found the statue correcting your statement.

    Private detectives and security can transport loaded and unencased firearms in vehicles, but they cannot carry concealed weapons unless they also happen to be sworn peace officers.

    (4) EXCEPTIONS. (a) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to
    any of the following who, in the line of duty, place, possess, transport,
    load or discharge a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat
    or aircraft or discharge a firearm from or across a highway or
    within 50 feet of the center of a roadway:
    2. A member of the U.S. armed forces.
    3. A member of the national guard.
    4. A private security person who meets all of the following
    requirements:
    a. He or she holds either a private detective license issued
    under s. 440.26 (2) (a) 2. or a private security permit issued under
    s. 440.26 (5).
    b. He or she holds a certificate of proficiency to carry a firearm
    issued by the department of regulation and licensing.
    c. He or she is performing his or her assigned duties or responsibilities.
    d. He or she is wearing a uniform that clearly identifies him
    or her as a private security person.
    e. His or her firearm is in plain view, as defined by rule by the
    department of regulation and licensing





    --- On Mon, 9/27/10, Backey, Elaine - DRL <Elaine.Backey@wisconsin.gov> wrote:

    > From: Backey, Elaine - DRL <Elaine.Backey@wisconsin.gov>
    > Subject: RE: private detective doing uniformed armed security question
    > To: "'wiustiffler@yahoo.com'" <wiustiffler@yahoo.com>
    > Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 9:26 AM
    > There is no exception.
    >
    > ELAINE M BACKEY
    > DEPT OF REGULATION & LICENSING
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: wiustiffler@yahoo.com
    > [mailto:wiustiffler@yahoo.com]
    >
    > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:25 AM
    > To: Backey, Elaine - DRL
    > Subject: Re: private detective doing uniformed armed
    > security question
    >
    > I thought there was an exception for place of business with
    > consent of owner to conceal, ie when your armed in your car
    > its concealed but its place of business private property

    > ------Original Message------
    > From: Backey, Elaine - DRL
    > To: 'wiustiffler@yahoo.com'
    > Subject: RE: private detective doing uniformed armed
    > security question
    > Sent: Sep 27, 2010 7:52 AM
    >
    > You can only wear it when you are working, when driving in
    > your vehicle, it should be in the trunk and disarmed.
    >
    > ELAINE M BACKEY
    > DEPT OF REGULATION & LICENSING

    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Prine, Kim - DRL
    > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:51 AM
    > To: 'Nationwide Solar Products'
    > Cc: Backey, Elaine - DRL
    > Subject: RE: private detective doing uniformed armed
    > security question
    >
    > I'm referring your question to the person who handles that
    > firearm permits.

    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Nationwide Solar Products [mailto:wiustiffler@yahoo.com]
    >
    > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 8:27 PM
    > To: DRL
    > Subject: private detective doing uniformed armed security
    > question
    >
    > Can a uniformed licensed PI doing uniformed armed security
    > while on area patrol carry his firearm in holster while
    > driving his vehicle? I know a regular citizen cannot, does
    > the law require an armed guard to disarm and rearm every
    > time he gets in and out of a vehicle?
    >
    > thank you

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Sent from my U.S. Cellular BlackBerry(r) smartphone
    >

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Why are you asking about this? Stop, I know many people, including a close friend of mine who works for Big Ten Armor. I know its slight, but there is a small chance you could stir up a hornets nest if you keep pestering about this. Just stop, thousands of people have jobs where they carry in a vehicle, are you trying to make them lose their jobs? Are you just jealous they can carry? Knock it off. BTW, all those guys carry openly.
    Last edited by Springfielddx40; 10-02-2010 at 11:54 AM.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    I disagree...

    Keep pestering them. If a group with a special privilege finds out they're suddenly lumped in with the rest of us it's just more voices for us.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Its not a special privilege. Its their job. You won't be saying that when you go to your bank and find out they have no money to give you. Every single bank relies on either Big Ten, Loomis, Per-Mar, Garda and so on.
    Last edited by Springfielddx40; 10-02-2010 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Why ask if you're not accepting of their 'authority'?

    There is no exception in § 941.23 for vehicle transport, even for vehicle transport by a professional.

  6. #6
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    (4) EXCEPTIONS. (a) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to
    any of the following who, in the line of duty, place, possess, transport,
    load or discharge a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat
    or aircraft or discharge a firearm from or across a highway or
    within 50 feet of the center of a roadway:
    2. A member of the U.S. armed forces.
    3. A member of the national guard.
    4. A private security person who meets all of the following
    requirements:

    Otherwise Doug thats like saying when I worked for Loomis I broke the law. Hell, some of the pick ups I had was in Courthouses, UW-Stevens Point, or right across from schools. Also, is that saying when I carry my rifle in a military Humvee on public roads I'm commiting a crime.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Its not a special privilege. Its their job. You won't be saying that when you go to your bank and find out they have no money to give you. Every single bank relies on either Big Ten, Loomis, Per-Mar, Garda and so on.
    Really? What is a special privilege if not something one group may do that another can not? If those companies wish to gaurd their interests, why not my company or myself.

    Its a special privilege regardless of whether or not its their job...
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Your exceptions are to § 167.31 safe transport laws and NOT to the prohibition on carrying a concealed dangerous weapon in § 941.23.

    Military duties are typically excepted.

    Yes, Loomis is probably breaking the law with a wink and a nod from the cops, knowing that they'll need a different job some day. Again, participants in the judicial system enjoy discretion - even we/you can decide to abide the law or not.

  9. #9
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Alright, when put like that yes it is special. They don't carry those firearms to guard the money, they are carried to protect ourselves if we are attacked. If someone simply tries to take the money, we are supposed to let them have it.

  10. #10
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Like I said though, those sidearms aren't concealed, they are openly carried on the hip.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Like I said though, those sidearms aren't concealed, they are openly carried on the hip.
    In a vehicle and indiscernible from ordinary observation from outside is concealed and illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by § 941.23 Annotations of case law
    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).

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Like I said though, those sidearms aren't concealed, they are openly carried on the hip.
    True. There are also a few security companies in the Madison area that have armed patrol units. JBM, MPI for instance. No money involved for them to secure, but allowed by law to openly carry in vehicles as per their jobs.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by trailblazer2003 View Post
    No money involved for them to secure, but allowed by law to openly carry in vehicles as per their jobs.
    Citation please. There is no exception in § 941.23 for vehicle carry or "professionals".

  14. #14
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Guess what? We could argue this all day. It won't change a thing. Guys are carrying right now. Small routes on run on Saturday. Then come Monday, all of them will go back to US Bank, the courthouses and what have you. The guys at the Nuclear Plant will continue to carry the Silverado that patrols the perimeter of the plant.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Nothing is being "argued". The law is being violated.

  16. #16
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Should we call batman? The police will never enforce this one. It would be huge and would go nationwide, this happens all over the country. Some of these places are unionized. Bottom line, it'll never be enforced.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Nothing is being "argued". The law is being violated.
    Yes, maybe, but which supersedes? 167.31 sec 4 lays out the facts for private security carry, appearing to make it legal. 941.23 says concealed carry is illegal.

    Just like your earlier video describing the conflict of laws for casing/uncasing guns and vehicles. One law says this, the other says you can't. Seems the state subscribes to 167.31 when dealing with the issue.
    Last edited by trailblazer2003; 10-02-2010 at 01:10 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    There is no law being "violated". To claim so is just being silly and argumentative for the sake of controversy.
    They have a license to have a loaded holstered handgun in a vehicle.
    His or her firearm is in plain view, as defined by rule by the department of regulation and licensing.
    and plain view is interpreted differently for a security guard. This double standard should be eliminated. The issue is not holding them to a lower standard, it is holding us to a higher standard of "plain view".
    RL 34.011 Conditions relating to transporting a
    loaded firearm in a vehicle. No owner or employee of an
    agency may transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle, unless all of
    the following apply:
    (1) The firearm is in plain view. In this section “in plain view”
    means it is visible from ordinary observation to a person outside
    the vehicle.
    Note: A firearm located in a glove compartment, in a briefcase, under a seat of a
    vehicle, or covered by the clothing of an occupant, is not “in plain view.”

    (2) If the firearm is a handgun, the owner or employee transports
    the firearm in a holster which is in plain view.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 10-02-2010 at 02:27 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    There is no law being "violated". To claim so is just being silly and argumentative for the sake of controversy.
    They have a license to have a loaded holstered handgun in a vehicle. and plain view is interpreted differently for a security guard. This double standard should be eliminated. The issue is not holding them to a lower standard, it is holding us to a higher standard of "plain view".
    Exactly.

    Now, could a case be made that state statute (specifically, 941.23) and the DRL rules are in conflict? Absolutely.

    In the past, I worked for 2 armored car companies. At both, I had pickups in government buildings, and even a school. I didn't disarm when I went into these buildings. In fact, I made a pickup every day at the Racine PD! Not once did I ever have an issue. The crux of the problem is that some are more equal than others in this state.

    P.S. In WI, armored car personnel are not even required to have a security license. One company I worked for licensed everyone, the other didn't bother. So, at the one that didn't license us, we carried in vehicles and in other prohibited areas, and had no special state permission to do so. Just by virtue of being employed at an armored car company, we were able to carry anywhere we had to. Is that within the letter of the law? Nope. Are any armored car guards going to get arrested over it? Nope.
    Last edited by drewdown; 10-02-2010 at 03:24 PM.

  20. #20
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    There's no violation of any statutes by licensed armed security personnel as long as they do it by the book. The statutes allow licensed private detectives and security personnel to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle provided they stay within the rules of the WI Department of Regulation and Licensing. They cannot carry concealed weapons, but weapons in vehicles are not considered concealed provided they follow these rules:

    RL 34.011 Conditions relating to transporting a
    loaded firearm in a vehicle. No owner or employee of an
    agency may transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle, unless all of
    the following apply:
    (1) The firearm is in plain view. In this section “in plain view”
    means it is visible from ordinary observation to a person outside
    the vehicle.
    Note: A firearm located in a glove compartment, in a briefcase, under a seat of a
    vehicle, or covered by the clothing of an occupant, is not “in plain view.”
    (2) If the firearm is a handgun, the owner or employee transports
    the firearm in a holster which is in plain view.
    (3) If the firearm is other than a handgun, the owner or
    employee transports the firearm in a device inside the vehicle
    which locks the firearm in position and prevents an unauthorized
    person from removing the firearm from the locking device and
    which is in plain view.
    (4) The owner or employee complies with the requirements in
    s. RL 34.01.
    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"

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by drewdown View Post
    Now, could a case be made that state statute (specifically, 941.23) and the DRL rules are in conflict? Absolutely.
    What's the conflict? 941.23 prohibits concealed weapons by anyone other than a peace officer. No DRL rule has an exception to 941.23 in it.
    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"

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Thank you Shotgun.

    As usual with one stroke of the pen you disarm every poster in this thread including our self appointed constitutional expert.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Security Guards Carry Openly

    Regular folks can carry openly too. Some "open carry" in a vehicle situations may run afoul of
    941.23 - depending on the circumstances. There is no "OC in a car = CC" rule. The court of appeals, in a case, under the facts of that case said:

    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).


    Also, any absent some specific authority an administrative rule cannot carve out an exception to a statute.
    Last edited by apjonas; 10-02-2010 at 05:04 PM.

  24. #24
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Regular folks can carry openly too. Some "open carry" in a vehicle situations may run afoul of
    941.23 - depending on the circumstances. There is no "OC in a car = CC" rule. The court of appeals, in a case, under the facts of that case said:

    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).


    Also, any absent some specific authority an administrative rule cannot carve out an exception to a statute.
    Walls only addressed "indiscernible" weapons. Uncased discernible weapons in vehicles are not violations of the CCW statute, only of the vehicle transport statute. And the vehicle transport statute has an exception for licensed security guards and private detectives.
    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"

  25. #25
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    What's the conflict? 941.23 prohibits concealed weapons by anyone other than a peace officer. No DRL rule has an exception to 941.23 in it.
    It simply does not have to. It defines plain view which is the antithesis of hidden. If it is not hidden, it is not concealed. Not concealed equals no conflict and no violation of 941.23.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Walls only addressed "indiscernible" weapons. Uncased discernible weapons in vehicles are not violations of the CCW statute, only of the vehicle transport statute. And the vehicle transport statute has an exception for licensed security guards and private detectives.
    This....
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 10-02-2010 at 05:39 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •