Captain Nemo
Regular Member
This is what the WSC said in Hamdan.
IV. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
¶20. To convict a person of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wis.Stat.§941.23, the State must prove three elements. First, the State must show that a person who is not a peace officer went armed with a dangerous weapon. State v. Dundon, 226 Wis.2d654, 661, 594 N.W.2d780 (1999) (citing State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d529 (1977)). Second, the State must show that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon. Id. (citing Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433). Third, the State must show that the weapon was concealed. Id. (citing Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 432, 230 N.W. 76 (1930)). Over the years, every element of the statute has been vigorously litigated.
Note: This is the most recent WSC statute interpretation of ss941.23. Note that there is no mention of out of reach or within reach.
IV. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
¶20. To convict a person of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wis.Stat.§941.23, the State must prove three elements. First, the State must show that a person who is not a peace officer went armed with a dangerous weapon. State v. Dundon, 226 Wis.2d654, 661, 594 N.W.2d780 (1999) (citing State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d529 (1977)). Second, the State must show that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon. Id. (citing Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433). Third, the State must show that the weapon was concealed. Id. (citing Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 432, 230 N.W. 76 (1930)). Over the years, every element of the statute has been vigorously litigated.
Note: This is the most recent WSC statute interpretation of ss941.23. Note that there is no mention of out of reach or within reach.
Last edited: