Department of regulation and licensing misleading me

Springfielddx40 said:

Go ahead and enforce this. Don't cry however when you lose your job. For without these guys moving money around, the economy simply wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE

They will still move money around but they should have to have their guns displayed when in their vehicles so a person on the street can see them. That is what the judges say.

Click to expand...

daveycleaning said:

hello,

I have been bouncing around on these forums for a while without really commenting much, but I just had to chime in with this one. I have found this forum to be very helpful in finding out what is going on in the world of open carry and I was SO proud to be a member of the Wisconsin carry when I heard about what they were doing to help out and protect the rights of the Madison folks that were arrested. But having said that my enthusiasm has diminished by the comments on this topic. It seem the internet makes people less caring about others as well as voice the opinions a lot of people that really have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the law. Private detectives and security guards are professionals that have a dangerous job to do. And they want to be able to go home to there families at the end of the day. Comments like "brass magnet's" of "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." is is such a rude and stupid thing to say. What your saying is hey if they are in more danger on a day to day basis i don't care if it somehow helps me. Wisconsin says they can carry in a vehicle as long as it meets there definition of "plain view" which is stated that holstered is considered pain view, PERIOD. ripping it apart any further doesn't any good. You are just risking the loss of even more rights for Wisconsin people to protect themselves. And as a side note private detectives and security persons need have there respective licenses but they also need to receive state certified training and a firearm permit issued by DRL which requires them to be bonded and insured for carrying firearms as well as a written "Firearm policy" submitted to the DRL stating exactly how they would act with there firearms and how they would handle the situations they may encounter. So please don't be mislead by comments from short sighted people like "max" saying that "their guns displayed when in their vehicles so a person on the street can see them". Because where does that thinking end? What if used that train of thought for open carry. What if you are sitting in a booth at your favorite restaurant open carrying and your gun is facing the wall and a cop arrested you because your gun is not visible to everyone in the restaurant? I'm sure you would think that the cop was being unreasonable and no doubt there wouldn't be a person on this forum that would disagree with the fact that you can't always keep your weapon visible to ALL. But beings we are not all private detectives or security it is easy to say who cares and they should some how make there weapons viewable by everyone at all times to the absolute extreme.

Click to expand...

daveycleaning said:

Private detectives and security guards are professionals that have a dangerous job to do. And they want to be able to go home to there families at the end of the day. 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." is is such a rude and stupid thing to say. What your saying is hey if they are in more danger on a day to day basis i don't care if it somehow helps me. Wisconsin says they can carry in a vehicle as long as it meets there definition of "plain view" which is stated that holstered is considered pain view, PERIOD. ripping it apart any further doesn't any good. You are just risking the loss of even more rights for Wisconsin people to protect themselves. ..... But beings we are not all private detectives or security it is easy to say who cares and they should some how make there weapons viewable by everyone at all times to the absolute extreme.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

The court determined that regardless of whether the police could see the black handgun lying on the red front seat upon inspecting the vehicle, the handgun was concealed to "ordinary observation" as the automobile traveled down the street prior to being stopped. Thus, the trial court found Walls guilty because the handgun was concealed and violative of § 941.23, STATS.

Click to expand...

The only
element at issue in this case is whether the gun was "concealed, or hidden from ordinary view.".....
While the police officers did observe the gun lying on the front seat after they handcuffed Walls, this was
upon the "inspection" and "examination" of the automobile pursuant to the stop and thus, cannot be
considered "ordinary observation." See Smith v. State, 11 So. 71, 72 (Ala. 1892). As the trial court determined,
however, immediately prior to this point, with the automobile traveling down a city street at night, the handgun was indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the
immediate vicinity of the vehicle. Thus, a person "approaching" the vehicle, or "passing" it "on the
streets or highways" could not see the handgun.

Click to expand...

Angelo Codevilla said:

...Toqueville argued that America controlled common crime more successfully than other countries because the American people took upon themselves the responsibility of keeping public order and pursuing criminals rather than leaving it to the authorities.[sup]4[/sup] Everywhere the regime transcends the government.
[ ... ]
[sup]4[/sup] Comic strip heroes such as Batman and Superman recall the ingrained American preference for people who fight crime at their own peril, following standards of common decency rather than statutes or (possibly corrupt) officials.

Click to expand...

Max said:

Brother Spartacus, you enjoy Oktoberfest. Jump back in the debate tomorrow when you are sober. We will still be here battling it out. Stay out of trouble tonight.

Click to expand...

Spartacus said:

Thanks Max.

I'll never drink again the rest of my life...

Click to expand...

daveycleaning said:

I of course agree that we should be able to carry in a car but you have to recognize that they HAVE to receive training and insurance to do that. We can simply throw on a gun and go out to dinner even if we have never touched a gun before in our lifes. It is only my humble opinion, but I think we should be able to ccw but agree a person should be trained to do so. I have seen a lot of young idots at the range who I swear have no clue how to safley handle a gun. I think they should be taught how to before they could drive with one straped to there side.

Click to expand...

daveycleaning said:

It is only my humble opinion, but I think we should be able to ccw but agree a person should be trained to do so. I have seen a lot of young idots at the range who I swear have no clue how to safley handle a gun. I think they should be taught how to before they could drive with one straped to there side.

Click to expand...

bhancock said:

A right is a right! No training, no permit, no fee. Anything else is an earned privilege or taxation. Training and practice good, yes. Training and practice required, NO.

Yes, I think we should nitpick every situation that is either conveniently overlooked by LEO on a regular basis or somehow allowed by statute to a privileged few and exploit them. We are equal or we are not.

If Loomis can carry to defend their lives while carrying a few Thousand $, then I should be allowed to transport to defend my life whilst carrying my valuables. But it shouldn't be about valuables and perceived risk cause trouble comes in the most unusual ways some days.

Click to expand...

bhancock said:

a right is a right! No training, no permit, no fee. Anything else is an earned privilege or taxation.

Click to expand...

johnny amish said:

If in deed we MUST recieve training to carry that will be the very moment that we lose another right. Training means permission and permission comes from the state. Our RIGHT to carry will be lost, some of us may recieve permission to carry. We don't need permission for our rights, if that's the case then we don't really have rights. To date we have three states in the union that require no training to carry, Vermont, Alaska and now Arizona. The three states that allow permitless carry don't seem to have problems with that. Right now we need no permit to open carry and we have heard on no problems because of that, what is the difference if we put a jacket over the sidearm? Something to think about.

Click to expand...

Captain Nemo said:

As I see it the role of constitutional authority between the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions is in a way similar to the Wisconsin preemption statute. By that I mean just as Wisconsin’s local governments can not make firearm laws more strict than the State nor can state constitutions make amendments more strict than the U.S. constitution. Meaning a state constitution can not trump the federal constitution. On the other hand the U.S. constitution must recognize the state’s authority to self govern.

The landmark cases of Heller and McDonald reflect the division of constitutional authority. Both cases are immensely important in establishing our federal fundamental right to keep and bear arms but their impact at the state level is less compelling. Heller established that every qualified citizen of the United states is entitled to the right to keep and bear arms and congress can not eviscerate (infringe) that right. The McDonald ruling built on the Heller ruling by declaring that the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms was also incorporated to the states. Meaning that state and local governments also may not enact laws that would deny a qualified individual from the right to posses a firearm. However, both rulings fell short of dictating the time. place and manner under which the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised. I believe SCOTUS intentionally left that determination up to the states. The Wisconsin Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue in State v Hamdan.

¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.

¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. See State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, 244 Wis.2d582, 628 N.W.2d820. It is constitutional. We hold that only if the public benefit in this 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.

Fortunately paragraph 41 is there as a control on paragraph 46.

My opinion: The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution establishes that every qualified U.S. citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be denied by federal, state or local governments. The regulation of the time, place and manner by which that right is exercised is left to the individual states.

Click to expand...

Brass Magnet said:

Sparticus,
Training and Rights aren't mutually exclusive. Mandated traning and Rights are.

I suggest you read "Rights vs. Privileges" that's a free exerpt from a book by Michael Badnarik titled "Good to be King". It's a very educational on the difference.

http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf

This will give you an idea on where a lot of us are coming from.

Click to expand...