Would like definitive clarification.....GFSZ/RAS....?

Needed to show permit for being within 1,000 feet of a school while open carrying is like having to show your I.D. so they can check to see if you are a felon in possession of a firearm.

175.60(2g)(b)(b) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carryinga concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
941.23 (2) (e), a licensee shall have with him or her his
or her license document and photographic identification
card and an out−of−state licensee shall have with him or
her his or her out−of−state license and photographic identification
card at all times during which he or she is carrying
a concealed weapon.
(c) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying
a concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed
weapon shall display his or her license document and
photographic identification card and an out−of−state
licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display
his or her out−of−state license and photographic
identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the
request of the law enforcement officer while the law
enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and
with lawful authority.

Click to expand...

This only applies to carrying a CONCEALED weapon.

MKEgal said:

Without a license, having an uncased &/or loaded firearm on public property within the magical 1000' bubble that surrounds & protects schools is a crime... you can go to jail. (It's no longer a felony in WI.)

Click to expand...

IF you are refering to the FED GFSZA, then you are absolutely correct. Obviously.:lol:

But if you are refering to state law, then you are contradicting yourself. The state GFSZA is a forfeiture. I stated before that it was an officers discretion to arrest for forfietures and you proved me wrong on that earlier.

MKEgal said:

So seeing someone too near a school with a firearm is RAS of a crime.
Having a permit is an exception, but they don't know that until they check you.

Click to expand...

I am in total agreement. Thanks for stating it that clear and simple. I think I used way tooo many word in my explanation.

MKEgal said:

(I think that if there's one cop assigned to watch the little darlings enter school, & s/he 'contacts' you once, that should cover it as long as that cop is there.)

Click to expand...

Or if you live in a small town and they all know you.

But consider, even if that one 'assigned' cop does know you, anyone else, i.e. parent, student, teacher, staff, neighbor or passerby that calls into 911 will prompt a response.
:uhoh: > > > > >>>>>>> :shocker:

Unless perhaps, the person calling 911 names you and the dispatcher knows you are licensed, then maybe there won't be a response.

MKEgal said:

I don't think that driving a car w/o a license is a crime, just a forfeiture.

Click to expand...

Operating w/o a Valid DL, and Operating After Suspension are just forfeitures. But Operating After Revocation, if revoked because of an OWI conviction, or with 5 years of a previous OAR conviction, is criminal. However, a first offense OAR not based on OWI, or if there is more than 5 years since of a previous OAR conviction, then they are just forteitures as well.

xmanhockey7 said:

Needed to show permit for being within 1,000 feet of a school while open carrying is like having to show your I.D. so they can check to see if you are a felon in possession of a firearm.

175.60(2g)(b)(b) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carryinga concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
941.23 (2) (e), a licensee shall have with him or her his
or her license document and photographic identification
card and an out−of−state licensee shall have with him or
her his or her out−of−state license and photographic identification
card at all times during which he or she is carrying
a concealed weapon.
(c) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying
a concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed
weapon shall display his or her license document and
photographic identification card and an out−of−state
licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display
his or her out−of−state license and photographic
identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the
request of the law enforcement officer while the law
enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and
with lawful authority.

Click to expand...

This only applies to carrying a CONCEALED weapon.

Click to expand...

I want to put this politely. You are wrong.

You only quoted one part of a WI statute. There are a few others that need to be considered. In particular, you must understand WI ss. 948.605 and the changes made to it by WI ACT35 in context of 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv),(v), (vi), or (vii).

I suggest that you read all of WI ACT while reviewing the current statutes that are affected to put it all into context in light of 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv),(v), (vi), or (vii)..

FYI. There are only a handful of people that contribute to the WI forum that have studied this more than me. I am not bragging. I have had alot of extra time on my hands.

BROKENSPROKET said:

When I say 'you', I don't mean YOU.

No, not unless the officer has RAS that you may be a felon, then they can demand ID. For instance, if the officer remembers that you sere arrested years ago for a felony offense, then that is RAS, then the officer detain and demand ID. If he knows you are a convicted felon, or with RAS runs your ID and determines you are a felon, then it is PC.

An officer cannot demand ID to determine if you are a felon just because you are OCing. The officer does have to have RAS. But remember, it is not you that they have to articulate reasonable suspicion to. Also, several elements of RAS combined can constitute PC.




If you are OCing in a school zone, and an officer sees it or anyone sees it and reports it, then that is RAS. One, you are in a GFSZ. Two, you have a gun that is visible. That is RAS. If you do not produce upon request a valid CWL and Photo ID, then there is PC and you will be arrested.

You must provide a Liscene and Photo ID upon request if you Open Carry in a GFSZ, public building, state park, or any place that has class "B" liqouor license BECAUSE a CWL and Photo ID are required to be able to do so.



If you still don't see the difference, I suggest you do a little research into Reasonable Suspicion.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That helps alot!

Let me ask about one more speculative scenario, if I may.

LEO "sees" what he "believes" to be a magazine (not the type one reads) under you jacket on your left hip, but does not see a firearm or even a print. Does he have RAS (you are possibly carrying concealed) to ask for license and ID? Ask that you lift your coat to show your possible magazine and perhaps firearm?

Big Dipper said:

Thanks. That helps alot!

Let me ask about one more speculative scenario, if I may.

LEO "sees" what he "believes" to be a magazine (not the type one reads) under you jacket on your left hip, but does not see a firearm or even a print. Does he have RAS (you are possibly carrying concealed) to ask for license and ID? Ask that you lift your coat to show your possible magazine and perhaps firearm?

Click to expand...

If you are carrying concealed, you must provide license and ID upon request. I cannot find anything that says that RAS is needed to make the request, just that if the request is made, you must comply if you are carrying concealed.

If you are not carrying concealed, you can refuse the request. But if he believes he saw a magazine, he may be able to articulate that he reasonably suspected that you were also carrrying a concealed firearm. I cannot answer definitively, because I am quite not sure if that is enough RAS to warrant a Terry Stop.

(my brain ain't working rightnow, I only slept an hour last night. I will be back later after a nap to see if I am making sense)

xmanhockey7 said:

Needed to show permit for being within 1,000 feet of a school while open carrying is like having to show your I.D. so they can check to see if you are a felon in possession of a firearm.

Click to expand...

Seeing someone in possession of a firearm on public property near a school is RAS of a crime, since the exception to the crime is having a permit or being a protected class (LEO).

Unless the officer has RAS that a person is a felon, s/he doesn't have RAS of a crime for merely possessing a firearm in a non-restricted place.

hockey said:

This only applies to carrying a CONCEALED weapon.

Click to expand...

OR carrying in a restricted place*, where only people w/ permits or members of the protected class are allowed to carry.
[*Taxpayer-owned building, magic school bubble, state park, restaurant.]

Big Dipper said:

LEO "sees" what he "believes" to be a magazine (not the type one reads) under your jacket on your left hip, but does not see a firearm or even a print.
Does he have RAS (you are possibly carrying concealed) to ask for license and ID?
Ask that you lift your coat to show your possible magazine and perhaps firearm?

Click to expand...

Magazine does not equal gun. I carry a magazine in my otherwise empty holster even at school, where the official policy is victim disarmament.

But I think that a judge might agree that the officer has RAS of the 'crime' of carrying concealed, so would be "acting officially & with lawful authority" to demand a permit & DL.

Nothing in the law says I have to show my pistol (or any property) to anyone.
If the officer chooses to forcibly search me, or any other such nonsense, based solely on my status as a permit holder, well, the law has teeth for that.

I'd like to see what happens when an officer demands a permit from someone based solely on the fact that the officer sees the citizen carrying openly, & doesn't realize that the citizen has admitted to carrying concealed as well by producing a permit.

If we think we're stopped for OC, even though we're cc, do we ask why they need to see a permit?
If the cop only references OC as the reason to demand a permit, do we hand it over?
Most citizens would hand over a permit even if OC only, but we know we don't have to for OC unless in a restricted area.
I'd probably hand it over while saying "you should have been taught that the law says I only have to show this to you if I'm carrying concealed or in a restricted area".

So would the cop understand that there's another pistol in play?
And should we, once learning that the cop only demanded the permit based on the visible pistol, educate the officer about the law?
[Both the part that says they can't demand a permit for OC except in limited circumstances AND point out that they were just given information that they didn't know they got?]
I think I would.
Would prevent other people from being bothered for OC, and get the cop to think a bit more.
Or if the cop is being a jerk & doesn't want to know, get his/her name & write a nice letter to the Chief suggesting that their training officer needs to do better work.

BROKENSPROKET said:

If you are carrying concealed, you must provide license and ID upon request. I cannot find anything that says that RAS is needed to make the request, just that if the request is made, you must comply if you are carrying concealed.

Click to expand...

175.60 (2) (g) (c)
a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card... to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority.
(Bottom right of pg. 7, top left of pg. 8)

I think that means that they need RAS.

It can't be curiosity,
or a random sweep of people entering a mall,
or routinely on all traffic stops (esp. since that doesn't requre a permit),
and definitely not because s/he sees you OC,
but the officer must have RAS that you are carrying concealed (or openly in a restricted area).

MKEgal said:

I don't think that driving a car w/o a license is a crime, just a forfeiture.
(But no, a LEO can't stop you just to check your DL; that's why some make up lies about your taillight being out [which, of course, isn't when you check it]... gives them an excuse to demand your license.)

Click to expand...

Actually, operating without agot license can be a class C felony. First offense gets you arrested and your car impounded, second offense is a misdemeanor, and third offense is felony.

Unless laws have changed, that's how it used to be. I got into some trouble with my license, got an occupational, and got pulled over "outside of my hours". Luckily I had just come from the courthouse where they had just changed my hours and I was on my way to the DMV to make it 100% official.

Ironically enough, I got pulled over for a burned out brake light that magically started working again a little bit later.

I got pulled over once for a light not working at all on my trailer... And it really wasn't working. LEO just told me to get it fixed and have a good night...I said thanks..... go figure.

Outdoorsman1

TaurusToter said:

Actually, operating without agot license can be a class C felony. First offense gets you arrested and your car impounded, second offense is a misdemeanor, and third offense is felony.

Unless laws have changed, that's how it used to be. I got into some trouble with my license, got an occupational, and got pulled over "outside of my hours". Luckily I had just come from the courthouse where they had just changed my hours and I was on my way to the DMV to make it 100% official.

Ironically enough, I got pulled over for a burned out brake light that magically started working again a little bit later.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely and completely false. So much so, that there is not a shred of truth in it.

Operating w/o Valid DL is never a felony.
Operating After Suspension is never a felony.
Operating After Revocation is never a felony.

5th Offense OWI is a felony, but the only Class C Felony is Vehicular Homicide w/prior qualifing convictions or circumstances, otherwise it's a Class D Felony.

BROKENSPROKET said:

If you are carrying concealed, you must provide license and ID upon request. I cannot find anything that says that RAS is needed to make the request, just that if the request is made, you must comply if you are carrying concealed.

Click to expand...

How about reading comprehension??? I don't mean to sound condescending but if you finish the sentence it's rather clear, here it is.


941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed
weapon shall display his or her license document and
photographic identification card and an out−of−state
licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display
his or her out−of−state license and photographic
identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the
request of the law enforcement officer while the law
enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and
with lawful authority.

Motofixxer said:

How about reading comprehension??? I don't mean to sound condescending but if you finish the sentence it's rather clear, here it is.


941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed
weapon shall display his or her license document and
photographic identification card and an out−of−state
licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display
his or her out−of−state license and photographic
identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the
request of the law enforcement officer while the law
enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and
with lawful authority.

Click to expand...

Not a problem. When I posted, I was in desperate need of a nap. I was just thinking on duty. But I know better than that.

BROKENSPROKET said:

That is absolutely and completely false. So much so, that there is not a shred of truth in it.

Operating w/o Valid DL is never a felony.
Operating After Suspension is never a felony.
Operating After Revocation is never a felony.

5th Offense OWI is a felony, but the only Class C Felony is Vehicular Homicide w/prior qualifing convictions or circumstances, otherwise it's a Class D Felony.

Click to expand...

I'll happily provide the documentation from my first arrest including: the tickets, the receipt for towing and impounding the vehicle, the checks for the attorney fees to get it dropped, and I'll even share the humilty of the cold steel handcuffs if you want the full effect.

The attorney informed me that the 2nd offense of OAR can be classified a misdemeanor, and if I got nailed again it would be a 2nd offense because the 1st case would be count even though it was dropped.

This was back in 1999 when I was 20 years old. In the research I've done this weekend, I see where laws have been changed here and there, but the bulk of them deal with DUI and OWI. That wasn't the case for me. I was an HTO. Could have had something to do with it. Never got the second offense, so........

That being said, if my above post is no longer valid I draw attention to the first sentence of the second paragraph:

Unless laws have changed, that's how it used to be.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain I still have the file somewhere in the basement.

TaurusToter said:

I'll happily provide the documentation from my first arrest including: the tickets, the receipt for towing and impounding the vehicle, the checks for the attorney fees to get it dropped, and I'll even share the humilty of the cold steel handcuffs if you want the full effect.

The attorney informed me that the 2nd offense of OAR can be classified a misdemeanor, and if I got nailed again it would be a 2nd offense because the 1st case would be count even though it was dropped.

This was back in 1999 when I was 20 years old. In the research I've done this weekend, I see where laws have been changed here and there, but the bulk of them deal with DUI and OWI. That wasn't the case for me. I was an HTO. Could have had something to do with it. Never got the second offense, so........

That being said, if my above post is no longer valid I draw attention to the first sentence of the second paragraph:

I'm fairly certain I still have the file somewhere in the basement.

Click to expand...

We don't need to air dirty laundry here, but I definitely got you beat. My email is below.

This whole RAS or no RAS thing is still a little fuzzy IMHO. apjonas had a good point in his post about what the "default" position is and how it relates to the situation. MKEgal had good points as well. I'm not sure this is the whole story though since the true "default" condition is that it's legal to do anything unless a law says it's not. Although at first glance, and thanks to the demonization of firearms, it seems to make sense that carry near a school is illegal by default, it's really legal by default, made illegal by law, and then made legal if you are one of the exceptions.

I think a car, which was also brought up earlier is actually a good counterexample regardless of the difference in severity of the punishment. An officer does not have RAS to pull over a vehicle just to check if someone is licensed or not yet this has the same default legalities as the GFSZ example eg. legal, made illegal by law, and then made legal if you are one of the exceptions (a licensee).

Logically, if seeing you in a car isn't RAS, seeing you with a firearm shouldn't be either but it seems that people and courts are carving out exceptions to ease the requirements of meeting RAS for the simple reason that less people meet the exceptions. For example, there are a large amount of licensed drivers and relatively fewer CC permitees therefore RAS applies to the GFSZ example but not driving a car. There are lesser amounts of people licensed to hunt or fish, therefore the DNR wardens have RAS to check licenses if someone is hunting. There are less felons than LACs so there's no RAS to check an OCer's ID unless other circumstances warrant it.

So really, I think this is a numbers game. If there were ever more permitee's than non permitee's RAS would need a greater requirement similar to an OCer outside of a GFSZ. So although I tend to agree that the officer would have RAS in the OP's example, it's only because of the majority view/numbers.