• 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.

How subjective is 'consealed' ?

GlockRDH

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
626
Location
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
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?
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

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

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
It Just Goes To Show You The LEO's Make It Up As They Go

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.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
M

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.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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."
 

Doug Huffman

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

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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:
M

McX

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

ayce2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
89
Location
Greater Fox cities area
Average person

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. :banghead:
 
M

McX

Guest
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. :banghead:
shoe horn stuck?
 
Top