• 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.

Judge says driver with unloaded, encased gun under seat can't be charged...

Uziel Gal

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
93
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I hate to say it

While I do feel vindicated that my long standing position that encased and unloaded must still be "out of reach" seems to be correct in Milwaukee, the facts of this case are rather depressing. Thankfully this individual is not being convicted but just being charged is enough to make my blood boil. Where is the bill to prevent this constitutional infringement? When will they act? Everyday that passes without the legal right is a travesty.
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
I have been in, or lived in most of these neighborhoods. I think the guy would have been perfectly justified to carry the gun on his hip, fully loaded and called it a need for self defense.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I have been in, or lived in most of these neighborhoods. I think the guy would have been perfectly justified to carry the gun on his hip, fully loaded and called it a need for self defense.

I would agree, but remember them school zones. On that side of town, we have a school on every other block... I think...

I have and still will keep mine (in a case/unloaded) right next to me in my truck.



"“Requiring Pinnow to put the encased unloaded firearm out of reach would effectively deny him his right to bear arms guaranteed,” by Wisconsin’s Constitution, according to the decision.
Pinnow’s attorney, Christopher R. Smith of Greenfield, said the concealed carry and transportation of firearms statutes, taken together are vague. Since the mid 1990s, Smith said, almost any transportation of a gun anywhere but in a trunk has been presumed treated as concealed carry when police want to bring that charge. But the law that requires guns be unloaded and in a case doesn’t specify that they must also be in trunk."
 
Last edited:

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
There is nothing in WI law that states "Out of Reach" or that ammunition must be in separate cases or parts of the vehicle.
The judge ruled correctly IMO, a properly cased and unloaded firearm is not a concealed weapon no matter where it is in ones vehicle, or on their person such as in a backpack or purse.
 

Uziel Gal

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
93
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I was right and you were wrong

The judge ruled correctly IMO, a properly cased and unloaded firearm is not a concealed weapon no matter where it is in ones vehicle, or on their person such as in a backpack or purse.

Judge Watts ruled that a properly cased and unloaded firearm on ones person or within ones reach is a concealed weapon that may result in a charge of carrying a concealed weapon and that it is unconstitutional "as applied" to this defendant in this case. The finding as reported, does not match up with your statement. Feel free to continue to spin it, you might win.
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Judge Watts ruled that a properly cased and unloaded firearm on ones person or within ones reach is a concealed weapon that may result in a charge of carrying a concealed weapon and that it is unconstitutional "as applied" to this defendant in this case. The finding as reported, does not match up with your statement. Feel free to continue to spin it, you might win.

Right. Because the guy was robbed prior, that helped give an affirmative defense.

If you are not a victim of anything in years past and get caught like he did, then it's a coin toss in court.
 

swfaninwi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
26
Location
Wisconsin
What happened in this case was police intimidation – arrest the guy and let him sweat until a judge throws the case out.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84989-few-questions-about-transporta

Judge Watts ruled that a properly cased and unloaded firearm on ones person or within ones reach is a concealed weapon that may result in a charge of carrying a concealed weapon and that it is unconstitutional "as applied" to this defendant in this case. The finding as reported, does not match up with your statement. Feel free to continue to spin it, you might win.

Simply read #62 which I linked to, and gee golly, And to top it off, a liberal Milwaukee judge ruled exactly as I expected how any judge would be forced to rule if he was familiar with WI statutes. And we even have news of the 'Wiener-head Cop" wrongfully charging someone which I had also predicted.
Where is that emoticon with a tongue sticking out, and maybe a middle finger standing vertically?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ansportation&p=1443619&viewfull=1#post1443619
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
I still don't understand why cops harass CIVILIANS who are carrying to protect themselves and their loved ones. Either cops are VERY INSECURE, are egomaniacs who want to be king and have the right to carry a fire arm, or they're afraid to go after real criminals.

(in another infamous youtube vid:) To spend 20 minutes checking and harassing a guy walking his DOG while OC-ing is just ridiculous - in fact there was a robbery going on somewhere else in town that the cop should have been handling, given statistics.

A guy with an unloaded gun under his seat is NOT going to commit a crime. Good grief.
 
M

McX

Guest
But you see, it was the totality of the circumstances...

Protias, you been hanging around chief knobby again?

I still don't understand why cops harass CIVILIANS who are carrying to protect themselves and their loved ones. Either cops are VERY INSECURE, are egomaniacs who want to be king and have the right to carry a fire arm, or they're afraid to go after real criminals.


that be the truth!
 

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
A police officer approached and asked if he had guns, drugs, knives or bombs. Pinnow said he had a gun. The police found his chrome Cobra .38, which he purchased legally at a Washington County gun show prior to being robbed, in a closed plastic case under the driver’s seat. A magazine with five rounds was in a center console. Pinnow was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor.

don't talk to the police.
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
I totally disagree with the concept of being a "prior victim" as having some sort of justification. If I'm a contractor who has work to do in a certain neighborhood (lets say for example I'm a plumber), and two weeks ago an electrician was robbed at gun point, or beaten and mugged, at the same work sight I'm now going to, does this count as justification for me too... or just the "prior victim"?

My profession is as a locksmith. I know 3 other locksmiths who were the victims of armed robberies after responding to requests for service that were nothing but a ruse to facillitate an ambush. Does this justify me to carry every time I go on a service call? Not according to this judge's logic, until I too am mugged or robbed.

In the Hamdan ruling, the Supreme Court said it was "OK" to CC in your business premises. For a contractor, like a locksmith as I am, or an electricion, plumber, carpenter, roofer, salesman, or any other business that requires traveling, your work sight IS your business premises.... but I doubt the Supreme Court would see it that way, which is why we need the current bullcrap laws changed to conform to the State's RKBA Amendment so no "interpretation" by a court of law is necessary to exercise your rights.
 
Top