Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: How subjective is 'consealed' ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626

    How subjective is 'consealed' ?

    If Im wearing my black sweatshirt and OC my Glock...its kinda camflaged...IF i also have black pants, its even more so hidden...How about the picture on the WIC home page of the gal with just the grip sticking out of her waist band? Is that concealed? Imagine her the same way, but with a black shirt...gun is much less noticible...Im just wondering...how has 'concealed' been defined in WI?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    If it is not covered it is not Concealed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    how much is allowed to be covered...? Like the gal in the picture..is that considered 'concealed' or is enough visible?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    how much is allowed to be covered...? Like the gal in the picture..is that considered 'concealed' or is enough visible?
    I have seen people carry the firearm in an IWB with the grip exposed. Some actually use the old military style holsters that completely cover the handgun. As long as it is obvious that you are carrying a firearm, no one can say it is concealed.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    The element of 941.23 for conviction is "hidden", be it hidden on your person or in your car.

    If I want to be discrete then I hold the crook of my elbow over my OWB holstered gun. Like when a lady got in my face for walking a dog too near her property and disturbing her dogs. She never knew else she would have apoplexy.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    It was explained to me by an LEO that the gun merely had to be visible from three points, ie. front, side and rear but I have never seen an affirmation of that assertion at law.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    It Just Goes To Show You The LEO's Make It Up As They Go

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    It was explained to me by an LEO that the gun merely had to be visible from three points, ie. front, side and rear but I have never seen an affirmation of that assertion at law.
    There is no description of "where" the gun has to be to openly carry. Heck, there isn't anything written that I know of that even says it has to be in a holster. The only reason (legally) I can think of as to why we holster is to prevent breaking another non-descript "law" for "brandishing". There is no law describing "brandishing" either but there is for obvious threat of said weapon(s).

    I have seen shoulder holster wear in Wisconsin as well as IWB and flap holster. I have also seen guns worn in the SOB as I do in other states when driving (yes, it is comfortable for me believe it or not).

    So we always have to know the law(s) and do our best to follow them. What the LEO's don't know, they make up.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    I have not found "brandishing" in Wisconsin law despite an exhaustive search. Cops are not required to know the law and their comments have no bearing on legality but only on their eager abuse of discretion.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 10-15-2010 at 08:51 AM.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    All of the people carrying in the picture would be LEGAL in WI.

    IWB (Inside Waist Band), OWB (Outside Waist Band), even shoulder rigs are legal.

    I've seen leather flap holsters that completely cover, as well.

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest
    i do much as Doug does, carry just behind my hip bone, so it is visible, and drop my right arm in front of it to sooth the un-nerved, or allow them to see me as a person, with no emphasis on the view of my firearm, when viewing me, or judging me as a person, while still complying with the law. sigh, the dances i must perform.

  11. #11
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    To my knowledge the operative definition of "concealed" comes from the case Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 432, 230 N.W. 76 (1930) which said:

    "If the weapon is hidden from ordinary observation it is concealed. Absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment. The test is, was it carried so as not to be discernible by ordinary observation."
    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"

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    "If the weapon is hidden from ordinary observation it is concealed. Absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment. The test is, was it carried so as not to be discernible by ordinary observation."
    Mularkey may be the eldest such citation yet. Good find.

    Parsing the paragraph is enlightening.

    "Absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment." got quite a few hits, most from Nebraska and two from Wisconsin, including Asfoor.

  13. #13
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    I think the phrasing may seem somewhat imprecise, but I believe the way it is applied in practice is fairly simple: Can one look at the person and say "that is a gun" or "that is a knife?"

    An unpublished WI Appeals Ct. case that I found, and which relied on Mularkey, involved a man who had a 5-inch bladed knife with a wooden handle in his boot. The wooden handle was visible outside of the boot and the defendant argued that, consequently, the knife was not concealed. However the court concluded that knives are not the only objects with wooden handles, so that while the object was in a sense visible, it was not readily identifiable as a knife. So I would venture to say a key test is that if an average person can look at you, regardless of how you carry a weapon, and say "that is a gun, knife, or other weapon" then the weapon is not concealed.
    Last edited by Shotgun; 10-15-2010 at 02:16 PM.
    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"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    It was explained to me by an LEO that the gun merely had to be visible from three points, ie. front, side and rear but I have never seen an affirmation of that assertion at law.
    Take it for what it's worth, LEO are there to enforce the Law, Judges/Lawyers to interpit and the Legislature to write it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288
    "reasonably discernible at 6' is what I had read, I will try and find it, I did read it here in the forum some time ago.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    "Visible from 3 sides" no such verbiage in WI laws

    If i remember correctly, there is a state that uses the "Visible from 3 sides" phrase in it's statutes, Nevada maybe?

    Is anyone else familiar with where that phrase is from?

  17. #17
    McX
    Guest
    i'm still working on consealed; is that the way seal pups carry in the artic?

  18. #18
    Regular Member ayce2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greater Fox cities area
    Posts
    89

    Average person

    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    I think the phrasing may seem somewhat imprecise, but I believe the way it is applied in practice is fairly simple: Can one look at the person and say "that is a gun" or "that is a knife?"

    An unpublished WI Appeals Ct. case that I found, and which relied on Mularkey, involved a man who had a 5-inch bladed knife with a wooden handle in his boot. The wooden handle was visible outside of the boot and the defendant argued that, consequently, the knife was not concealed. However the court concluded that knives are not the only objects with wooden handles, so that while the object was in a sense visible, it was not readily identifiable as a knife. So I would venture to say a key test is that if an average person can look at you, regardless of how you carry a weapon, and say "that is a gun, knife, or other weapon" then the weapon is not concealed.
    I'm just having a bad week with people. Obviously courts aren't average people. What person seeing a wood handle sticking out of a boot wouldn't assume it is a knife. I keep my spatula in boot in case in need to frost a cake.

  19. #19
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ayce2 View Post
    I'm just having a bad week with people. Obviously courts aren't average people. What person seeing a wood handle sticking out of a boot wouldn't assume it is a knife. I keep my spatula in boot in case in need to frost a cake.
    shoe horn stuck?

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Forty-one Wisconsin Statutes have the word "visible" in them. None of the criminal statutes' mentions are on point. That includes annotated case law.

Posting Permissions

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