-
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.
-
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.
School zone arguments
- Thread starter paul@paul-fisher.com
- Start date
springfield 1911
Founder's Club Member
Fork In The Wisconsin Gun Law / Transportation Of Fire Arms by Doug Huffman
http://www.vimeo.com/6115265
GlockRDH
Regular Member
I was thinking along the lines of Springfields...make 'defense' an exception...as well 'intent' of the individual committing a crime...
Max
Regular Member
If you knowingly carry a loaded and uncased firearm within the 1,000 foot school zone, you have committed a felony.
If you obey the law and unload and encase the firearm within the school zone, you violated the ban on conceal carry and have committed a misdemeanor.
Max
Regular Member
I miss Doug.
phred
Regular Member
How about revisiting/rereading this thread?
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84989-few-questions-about-transportation
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84989-few-questions-about-transportation
Last edited:
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
As we know only Israel has effective screening for Airline travel - their screeners and policies actually work and they'd better. There is real danger if they don't.
So-o, ask yourself what would Israel do to effect a real, logical and 'safe' school zone protecting children against gun violence, using their skill in logic and 'what works'?
1. They'd have firearm classes in grades 7 and above (at least), teach children to use, recognize, operate, disassemble and understand firearms. They'd talk about safety, how to seek cover, how to remain calm and they'd have 'gun in the school' drills. (at least in all new school construction)
2. They'd install 'safe-room' aspects and self-locking doors in all class rooms with bullet proof laminate doors, so that even if something started they could do an auto-lockdown and isolate the shooters and protect the children behind substantial walls resistant to all small arms fire.
3. They'd have armed guards at the entrances
4. They'd have bullet resistant outwear for the children - they make that now-days in the form of jackets or raincoats.
5. They'd have metal detectors in each entrance with double-doors to prevent someone from slipping by.
6. They'd have designated teachers who are armed (CC, probably) in each zone/floor who would be trained in defensive use.
So, given that in the US we have NONE of these measures, I have to conclude that legislators ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE/DEATH of school children. They're just PRETENDING. The real agenda is to disarm the average peaceful and armed citizen and CREATE A CLIMATE OF FEAR.
I'll end this diatribe by reminding folks of the utterly useless, pointless and deceptive practice in the 50s and 60s of having kids get under their flimsy wooded desks to protect them against nuclear detonation and fall out. Everyone involved in setting up these drills knew this was a ridiculous and pointless exercise, yet they made us do them, knowing all the while it was a sham.
So-o, ask yourself what would Israel do to effect a real, logical and 'safe' school zone protecting children against gun violence, using their skill in logic and 'what works'?
1. They'd have firearm classes in grades 7 and above (at least), teach children to use, recognize, operate, disassemble and understand firearms. They'd talk about safety, how to seek cover, how to remain calm and they'd have 'gun in the school' drills. (at least in all new school construction)
2. They'd install 'safe-room' aspects and self-locking doors in all class rooms with bullet proof laminate doors, so that even if something started they could do an auto-lockdown and isolate the shooters and protect the children behind substantial walls resistant to all small arms fire.
3. They'd have armed guards at the entrances
4. They'd have bullet resistant outwear for the children - they make that now-days in the form of jackets or raincoats.
5. They'd have metal detectors in each entrance with double-doors to prevent someone from slipping by.
6. They'd have designated teachers who are armed (CC, probably) in each zone/floor who would be trained in defensive use.
So, given that in the US we have NONE of these measures, I have to conclude that legislators ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE/DEATH of school children. They're just PRETENDING. The real agenda is to disarm the average peaceful and armed citizen and CREATE A CLIMATE OF FEAR.
I'll end this diatribe by reminding folks of the utterly useless, pointless and deceptive practice in the 50s and 60s of having kids get under their flimsy wooded desks to protect them against nuclear detonation and fall out. Everyone involved in setting up these drills knew this was a ridiculous and pointless exercise, yet they made us do them, knowing all the while it was a sham.
Last edited:
Max
Regular Member
In the oral arguments of either Cole or Hamdan, one of the state Supremes asks the AG rep, "So it is legal to walk down State street in Madison with a shotgun uncased?" the Ag responds "it must not be in a case" or something to that effect. It seems the AG views an encased firearm as being concealed if in reach.
Last edited:
Max
Regular Member
Listen to the oral arguments of the Hamdan case and then tell me if you think carrying an unloaded, encased firearm next to you is legal.
phred
Regular Member
Carrying in uncased shotgun is in effect putting the gun in the hands of the user and the person is able and ready to shoot it. A holstered handgun, even if loaded, is not in the hands of the user. An unloaded and encased firearm is not a "usable" firearm, unless it is meant to be used as a club. Don't get me wrong, it is still considered a dangerous weapon. I am not using the word "usable" as a legal term here. I am only describing the difference. The OCrs that walked down State St. didn't have a problem, did they? If they had a uncased shotgun, I bet they would have been at least "talked to". Another way of saying it, a holstered handgun is not "out of character". An uncased shotgun on State St. is "out of character". An uncased shotgun in a corn field is not "out of character".
If the AG views an encased firearm as concealed, why then are there not thousands of citations written weekly, when people transfer loaded and encased firearms to and from homes, stores, vehicles, ranges, etc?
Please point me towards them.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Oral arguments are circumstantial. The only information that has legal precedence are published opinions of a court. Unpublished opinions prior to July 2009 have no legal precedence in court. The only court opinion that adressed the interplay between 167.31 and 941.23 is the unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals in State v Alloy. Following is a footnote contained in that opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 While complying with WIS. STAT. § 167.31 might provide a defense to a person who
possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it,
those facts are not present here. We do not address hypothetical arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is apparent that the Court feels that there is a time and circumstance where the two statutes collide.
The WSC has made no published opinion or comment concerning the dispute between 941.23 and 167.31. In Hamdan, Cole, Fisher, Kieth and others it has only made the following rulings as pertain to concealement. 1. Concealment applies whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded. 2. The conditions that define concealment are: The person knows the firearm is present. The firearm is within reach. The firearm is hidden from ordinary view.
You draw your own conclusions whether or not walking in public with an encased firearm meets the above test. Also keep in mind that, by statute, encasement of a firearm is only a restriction when transporting the firearm in or on a vehicle or in the 1000 foot GFSZ. Therefore the issue of whether or not an encased firearm is concealed only applies when the firearm is in or on a vehicle or in a GFSZ. Outside that environment an encased firearm is "hidden from ordinary view".
If you can find any published ruling or statute contrary to my statements please cite them.
The reason that there aren't thousands of citations issued against people carrying an encased firearm in public outside the venues I mentioned is because law enforcement doesn't choose to enforce statute 941.23 to the letter of the law as interpreted by the WSC. You can bet that if it served LE's best interest it would.
IANAL these are my opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 While complying with WIS. STAT. § 167.31 might provide a defense to a person who
possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it,
those facts are not present here. We do not address hypothetical arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is apparent that the Court feels that there is a time and circumstance where the two statutes collide.
The WSC has made no published opinion or comment concerning the dispute between 941.23 and 167.31. In Hamdan, Cole, Fisher, Kieth and others it has only made the following rulings as pertain to concealement. 1. Concealment applies whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded. 2. The conditions that define concealment are: The person knows the firearm is present. The firearm is within reach. The firearm is hidden from ordinary view.
You draw your own conclusions whether or not walking in public with an encased firearm meets the above test. Also keep in mind that, by statute, encasement of a firearm is only a restriction when transporting the firearm in or on a vehicle or in the 1000 foot GFSZ. Therefore the issue of whether or not an encased firearm is concealed only applies when the firearm is in or on a vehicle or in a GFSZ. Outside that environment an encased firearm is "hidden from ordinary view".
If you can find any published ruling or statute contrary to my statements please cite them.
The reason that there aren't thousands of citations issued against people carrying an encased firearm in public outside the venues I mentioned is because law enforcement doesn't choose to enforce statute 941.23 to the letter of the law as interpreted by the WSC. You can bet that if it served LE's best interest it would.
IANAL these are my opinions.
Max
Regular Member
Try this link. If it works, just click on "playback". http://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/sco...date=&end_date=&party_name=hamdan&sortBy=date
Max
Regular Member
Captain, I agree with most of what you have stated. This debate has been going on forever. I mention the AG's position as stated in the oral arguments because 1) his interpretation carries a bit more weight then anyone here currently involved in this debate. 2) I am of the opinion the AG's office knows more about legal interpretations then most here do.
You are correct that LEOs don't charge people for carrying guns in gun cases, nor do they charge people for keeping a gun in their dresser drawer or gun safe, which the AG claims are concealed weapons, but they could. Should you be charged for carrying a gun in a gun case in a school zone, I don't think any jury in the state would convict you. The statutory insanity here is that obeying one law, forces you to violate another. Hopefully our legislators will fix all of this.
You are correct that LEOs don't charge people for carrying guns in gun cases, nor do they charge people for keeping a gun in their dresser drawer or gun safe, which the AG claims are concealed weapons, but they could. Should you be charged for carrying a gun in a gun case in a school zone, I don't think any jury in the state would convict you. The statutory insanity here is that obeying one law, forces you to violate another. Hopefully our legislators will fix all of this.
phred
Regular Member
Can anyone cite a statute or a court decision that requires an unloaded and encased firearm to be out of reach?
Can anyone cite a a statute or court decision that says a properly encased and unloaded firearm is a concealed weapon?
Can anyone cite a a statute or court decision that says a properly encased and unloaded firearm is a concealed weapon?
LR Yote 312
Regular Member
M
McX
Guest
you ever notice how nothing good comes out of cali?
XDFDE45
Regular Member
Max
Regular Member
To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of
s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993)
There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed
weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999),
97−1423.
I believe the citations above mean what they say. Instead of looking for statutes that claim carrying an unloaded and encased firearm is a crime, try finding a statute that makes an exception to 941.23 if the weapon is unloaded and encased.
s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993)
There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed
weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999),
97−1423.
I believe the citations above mean what they say. Instead of looking for statutes that claim carrying an unloaded and encased firearm is a crime, try finding a statute that makes an exception to 941.23 if the weapon is unloaded and encased.