CCW and Knives

Not to Worry

bnhcomputing said:

I had this discussion with the legislature and they didn't listen.

66.0409 (WI preemption statute) specifically says firearm. Almost every local municipality in the state has a "No Dangerous Weapons" ordinance. While firearms are preempted, all other weapons are not. Carry a knife, that is a local ordinance violation. Carry a taser... local ordinance violation. The only weapon you can carry without fear of local citation is a firearm.

Click to expand...

Part of the new statute says:

175.60(2g) CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON; POSSESSION AND DISPLAY OF LICENSE DOCUMENT OR AUTHORIZATION.
(a) A licensee or an out−of−state licensee may carry a concealed weapon anywhere in this state except as provided under subs. (15m) and (16) and ss. 943.13 (1m) (c)and 948.605 (2) (b) 1r.

This is implicit de jure preemption for licensees. There was no need to expand preemption generally because that was not wanted. There are other sections that address issues for non-licensees. There is no constitutional requirement that the legislature specifically enact a preemption law. It suffices that the subject be of statewide concern to demand uniformity. This can be implied. The reason that there was a specific firearm preemption passed was because there is no general state law on the ownership or carrying of firearms and that provided a loophole for cities and villages to run through. In Act 35, the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously. I can't guarantee that the City of Milwaukee or some renegade judge won't try and say otherwise but it's a loser for them.

True about local ordinance but lacking one they have to fall back on state law.

apjonas said:

Part of the new statute says:

175.60(2g) CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON; POSSESSION AND DISPLAY OF LICENSE DOCUMENT OR AUTHORIZATION.
(a) A licensee or an out−of−state licensee may carry a concealed weapon anywhere in this state except as provided under subs. (15m) and (16) and ss. 943.13 (1m) (c)and 948.605 (2) (b) 1r.

This is implicit de jure preemption for licensees.

Click to expand...

It also explicitly says "concealed." So I can open carry a firearm, but not a knife or taser? As always, just trying to learn.

bnhcomputing said:

It also explicitly says "concealed." So I can open carry a firearm, but not a knife or taser? As always, just trying to learn.

Click to expand...

That is the way I see it....

Outdoorsman1

But Remember

CalicoJack10 said:

My study for this says that there is no state restriction aside from switchblades. That is after some time of cross refrencing the statutes that are listed in SB93. But I am not a lawyer, I am just an instructor. So I need to know what it says, even if I am not the one that can teach others how to interperit it.

Click to expand...

The "protections" of Act 35, except where otherwise stated, are for licensees. If there are no state statutes addressing the carrying of knives, localities are pretty much free to enact any restrictions they care to. So if Fond du Lac has (or enacts) an ordinance that no knife longer than 3" or any knife with a fixed blade may be carried that prohibition might be effective against non-licensees. It won't against licensees but an ordinance against switchblades would be. You might consider bringing in an attorney to deal with these issues.

Are You A Licensee of Not?

bnhcomputing said:

It also explicitly says "concealed." So I can open carry a firearm, but not a knife or taser? As always, just trying to learn.

Click to expand...

Once you have made that determination, go to the relevant section of the statute (or the Act or enrolled bill) and read what it says, remembering that there may be more than one section that is relevant to your question. Answer on this one: If you are a licensee you may carry a pistol, taser, knife* or billy club* concealed or openly anywhere in Wisconsin minus those places that are specified in the law. Arguments to the contrary are invited. The situation for non-licensees is left as an exercise.

*the open carrying of a knife or billy club requires more research

You Got Me

I can't see where I contradict myself but show me. I didn't really "slam" anybody but regret being less than nice to a newcomer. Yes, indeed I was new but I always (to my memory) attempted to find the answer (elsewhere on the site or from outside sources) before posing a question. Now if the issue was highly technical or esoteric, I might not do as much before turning to a post and I would start by saying "Regarding Issue X, Bob's Gun Diary says Y, George Gunsmith says Z, can anybody help me sort out the issue? I wouldn't ask a question like "Does open carry mean that I can't cover my handgun with my coat?" (the obvious) or "Can anybody tell me what states have reciprocity with Georgia?" (the easily discovered). Those types of questions indicate either laziness or lack of respect for other forum participants or both. And if you take advice from OCDO to CYA - may the saints preserve you. So how would you handle a post that asks "What states recognize a Utah permit?" or "When does Act 35 take effect?" for the umpteenth time?

qball54208 said:

apjonas, if YOU re-read this post in it's entirety, you will find (look really close) you will find areas that YOU contradict yourself! I find it repulsive that an "expert" (my opinion) as yourself should slam a relatively new person coming here to pose a question to cover their arse! Instead of jumping in their arse w/both feet might I suggest you help them instead of being so self righteous and indignant.
You too were new to this, it may or may not have come easily, so cut those that seek out the knowledge some slack. Is individuals specifically like you and how you responded turn people away, if you choose to alienate in your personal life that's on you! Keep it where it belongs, your own AO and not here.
That being said, I wish you luck in your search to better yourself.

Click to expand...

All this bantering about detail. There is a more serious question soon facing all of us hunters. With the "new" definition of weapon, which expressly links knives to firearms in regards to concealed carry, what about hunting knives. Does the new law now require that we must carry our hunting knives "in plain view" at all times or go through the ordeal of permit and training if we wish to carry them on our pants belt underneath our outer garments? You folks all presumed the restrictions applied only to tactical knives. As the statute reads it applies to all knives except switchblades. There is no exemption for style or blade length. Technically the swiss army knife many of you carry in your pocket is a concealed weapon. As good as SB93 appears to be I fear the saying "haste makes waste" has a modicum of truth to it. In addition to the "knife" issue possible conflict with the stop and ID statute 968.24 is also interesting.

Captain Nemo said:

All this bantering about detail. There is a more serious question soon facing all of us hunters. With the "new" definition of weapon, which expressly links knives to firearms in regards to concealed carry, what about hunting knives. Does the new law now require that we must carry our hunting knives "in plain view" at all times or go through the ordeal of permit and training if we wish to carry them on our pants belt underneath our outer garments? You folks all presumed the restrictions applied only to tactical knives. As the statute reads it applies to all knives except switchblades. There is no exemption for style or blade length. Technically the swiss army knife many of you carry in your pocket is a concealed weapon. As good as SB93 appears to be I fear the saying "haste makes waste" has a modicum of truth to it. In addition to the "knife" issue possible conflict with the stop and ID statute 968.24 is also interesting.

Click to expand...

What changed as far as knives go Nemo?

939.22 (10) “Dangerous weapon” means any firearm, whether
loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable
of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other
instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another
person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation
of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any
other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or
intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or
great bodily harm.

Click to expand...

We could always technically be nailed if we "concealed" our hunting knives. Remember in State v. Schultz; at least I think that was it, concerning the knife a guy had on him in an aparment?

ETA: Found it. http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/?p=2879

I think that SB93 could have more clearly addressed this and made it easier on us but it didn't; thing is, I don't think anything has changed otherwise.

Yeah Brass, I know what you say is true. My concern is that SB calls attention to the fact that Knives are a weapon and therefore to legally carry one concealed is it required to undergo training and get a permit to do so. I realize knives, except switchblades, have always been considered concealed weapons and concealment prohibited and also that the enforcement of 941.23 for carrying a concealed hunting knife has rarely if ever been enforced. In that regard there is nothing new in SB93. My question remains. By strict letter of the law does a person have to undergo training and have a concealed weapon permit on his person if he is going to carry a concealed hunting knife?

Captain Nemo said:

Yeah Brass, I know what you say is true. My concern is that SB calls attention to the fact that Knives are a weapon and therefore to legally carry one concealed is it required to undergo training and get a permit to do so. I realize knives, except switchblades, have always been considered concealed weapons and concealment prohibited and also that the enforcement of 941.23 for carrying a concealed hunting knife has rarely if ever been enforced. In that regard there is nothing new in SB93. My question remains. By strict letter of the law does a person have to undergo training and have a concealed weapon permit on his person if he is going to carry a concealed hunting knife?

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. Yes, is probably the answer to your last question. However; I think that besides the people on this forum and maybe a few select others (legislators and SOME LE), no one has ever even read SB93 or will be likely to do so in the future. Because of this, and that guns always draw all the press, I doubt that it will bring much attention to knives.

This just leads us back to something like our usual resident debate about "what's considered concealed" and such.

Unfortunately SB93 fell victim to the interest of the LRB to maintain a police state. It is writtem so certain portions will or won't be enforced depending on the motives of law enforcement. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I can conceive of a overzealous game warden, disgruntled at the vehicle carry issue, charging a hunter for illegally carrying a concealed weapon if the person does not have a CC permit. In my opinion SB93 bit off too big a chunk. It should have limited itself to firearms and let knives and other dangerous weapons be addressed under separate cover.

I'm not sure why knives got inserted into the mix. I don't remember them being in our example bill. Not that I have a problem with deregulation of knives mind you; but I think you're right that it may have clouded things.

I think a further reaching focus for us in the future is to get more liberty minded (read: non statist) individuals elected in our districts. Whether my favorite presidential candidate gets elected or not, he's sure to frame the debate in 2012, opening up the door for real liberty loving pols in the future.

This is besides the immediate focus on castle doctorine and such.

apjonas said:

I can't see where I contradict myself but show me. I didn't really "slam" anybody but regret being less than nice to a newcomer. Yes, indeed I was new but I always (to my memory) attempted to find the answer (elsewhere on the site or from outside sources) before posing a question. Now if the issue was highly technical or esoteric, I might not do as much before turning to a post and I would start by saying "Regarding Issue X, Bob's Gun Diary says Y, George Gunsmith says Z, can anybody help me sort out the issue? I wouldn't ask a question like "Does open carry mean that I can't cover my handgun with my coat?" (the obvious) or "Can anybody tell me what states have reciprocity with Georgia?" (the easily discovered). Those types of questions indicate either laziness or lack of respect for other forum participants or both. And if you take advice from OCDO to CYA - may the saints preserve you. So how would you handle a post that asks "What states recognize a Utah permit?" or "When does Act 35 take effect?" for the umpteenth time?

Click to expand...

Of course you can't see where you contradicted yourself, you're a narrow minded self righteous DOUCHE!