• 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.

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

GlockRDH

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
626
Location
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
Heres the probable scenerio...After if get my special 'permission slip' in Dec, I do my usual walk of 3 blocks to my kids school to get them at the end of the day. I can stand on the sidewalk in front of the school, not on the school property...If im OCing at that location would the LEO have have RAS to ask for my permit OR my ID?
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Yes, they can ask for your permit and ID. You are in a GFSZ and a permit and ID is required.

ETA WARNING: Any anti-gun cop, school staff, parent or student, or neighbor of the school, could say you stepped on the lawn. I would highly recommend staying on the other side of the street. Atleast to start.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Yes, they can ask for your permit and ID. You are in a GFSZ and a permit and ID is required.

ETA WARNING: Any anti-gun cop, school staff, parent or student, or neighbor of the school, could say you stepped on the lawn. I would highly recommend staying on the other side of the street. Atleast to start.

I thought only the permit was required?
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
The Wisconsin permit will be like the AZ permit and will not bear a photo. Thus, just like with the AZ permit, you need a government issued photo ID to prove that you are the one and only person that the particular permit you possess was issued to.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I was asking a genuine question, but to answer yours, I have read only bits and pieces. :(

I remember you posting on FB that you were going to. I assume you atleast read the DOJ's FAQ.


Do I need to carry my license with me at all times?

Yes, a licensee or an out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must have with him or her their license document and photographic identification card unless the concealed weapon is being carried in the licensee’s dwelling or place of business or on land that they owns lease, or legally occupy. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(2g)(b).
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I thought only the permit was required?

Yep, if they they have RAS to ask for permit (you are in a permitted area), they can then demand ID. Kinda sucks!

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.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
But would there be RAS? If you are seen driving a car, do they have RAS to demand your license? The answer is no, they don't So what's the difference? I don't believe there is a difference.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
But would there be RAS? If you are seen driving a car, do they have RAS to demand your license? The answer is no, they don't So what's the difference? I don't believe there is a difference.

If someone is open carrying in a GFSZ, they must provide thier permit and a photo ID because they are in a GFSZ. RAS is that they have an loaded and uncased firearm in a GFSZ. A permit makes it legal, and a photo ID must accompany a permit anytime they conceal carry or open carry in a GFSZ, public building, or bar/resteraunt with a class 'B' liquour license.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
If someone is open carrying in a GFSZ, they must provide thier permit and a photo ID because they are in a GFSZ. RAS is that they have an loaded and uncased firearm in a GFSZ. A permit makes it legal, and a photo ID must accompany a permit anytime they conceal carry or open carry in a GFSZ, public building, or bar/resteraunt with a class 'B' liquour license.

Unfortunately I agree with the sprocket that is broken... :banghead::cuss:
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Motofixxer said:
If you are seen driving a car, do they have RAS to demand your license? The answer is no, they don't. So what's the difference? I don't believe there is a difference.
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.)

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.
(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.)

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.)
 

Big Dipper

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Illinois & Wisconsin
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.)

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.
...

I think that that would be overreaching by a LEO.

It is also a crime for a registered sex offender to walk through a playground. Would a LEO have RAS to ask for the ID of every unaccompanied male walking through the palyground with his hands in his pockets because he "might be breaking" the law?

In Terry v Ohio the court said:
... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.

I don't see "might be unlicensed" as specific enough for such a stop.

In the same case, the court said "hunches" alone were not even RAS!

And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I think that that would be overreaching by a LEO.

It is also a crime for a registered sex offender to walk through a playground. Would a LEO have RAS to ask for the ID of every unaccompanied male walking through the palyground with his hands in his pockets because he "might be breaking" the law?

In Terry v Ohio the court said:

I don't see "might be unlicensed" as specific enough for such a stop.

In the same case, the court said "hunches" alone were not even RAS!

The Federal and State GFSZA's are still in place, so it is a crime to have a firearm in a school zone. There has been an exception carved out for licensee's. Based on that there clearly is RAS. I don't agree with it, but that is the way it is. A bill has been introduced to do away with the Fed. GFSZA and WCI as a lawsuit challenging the State GFSZA so it may not always be that way.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Multiple Choice Question

My friend, the only definitive clarification is whether the judge says "guilty" or "not guilty" when you are standing in front of him - everything up to that point is speculation and probabilities of varying magnitude. Only you can decide how much risk is involved and how much you wish to accept.
 

Big Dipper

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Illinois & Wisconsin
The Federal and State GFSZA's are still in place, so it is a crime to have a firearm in a school zone. There has been an exception carved out for licensee's. Based on that there clearly is RAS. I don't agree with it, but that is the way it is. A bill has been introduced to do away with the Fed. GFSZA and WCI as a lawsuit challenging the State GFSZA so it may not always be that way.

It is also a crime for a felon to possess a firearm.

If a LEO sees "someone" (say at a Culvers in Madison) with a firearem does the LEO have RAS to demand ID from the possible perp so as to establish that he is not committing a crime (afterall there are a lot of felons wandering around Madison)?

Why would said LEO be allowed to assume that a person in the GFSZ is committing a crime and thus have sufficient RAS to demand to see the individual's permit in order to establish that he is not committing a crime? (Yes, as the OP had said, all of this after Nov. 1 and sufficient time for WI residents to recieve licenses, etc.)

I'm sorry, but I do not yet see the difference in the two situations. The LEO cannot just feel that a crime might be taking place. He truly needs RAS in both situations.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
It is also a crime for a felon to possess a firearm.

If a LEO sees "someone" (say at a Culvers in Madison) with a firearem does the LEO have RAS to demand ID from the possible perp so as to establish that he is not committing a crime (afterall there are a lot of felons wandering around Madison)?

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.


Why would said LEO be allowed to assume that a person in the GFSZ is committing a crime and thus have sufficient RAS to demand to see the individual's permit in order to establish that he is not committing a crime? (Yes, as the OP had said, all of this after Nov. 1 and sufficient time for WI residents to recieve licenses, etc.)

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.



I'm sorry, but I do not yet see the difference in the two situations. The LEO cannot just feel that a crime might be taking place. He truly needs RAS in both situations.
If you still don't see the difference, I suggest you do a little research into Reasonable Suspicion.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Ask Yourself

What is the default condition?

GFSZ - No firearm unless licensed. People are not automatically licensed. License is the exception.
GFSZ carry is illegal - the rule. GFSZ carry w/license is legal - the exception. Therefore RAS.

Culvers - Open carry generally legal. People must do something to be unable to openly carry.
Open carry is legal - the rule. Open carry is illegal - the exception. Therefore no RAS.

Sex Offender example - Being in the proximity of children is lawful unless a person does something to make it unlawful.
Being around children is legal - the rule. Sex offender around children is illegal - the exception. Therefore no RAS.

Of course these examples presume no special knowledge on the part of a LEO. If a LEO spots you OC'ing in a GFSZ (off grounds) but knows from previous encounter or clairvoyance that you have a valid license, he has no RAS to roust you (at least for a GFSZ violation). Seeing a felon who is known to him carrying is PC to arrest. Same with known S.O. at the playground. Other situations fall in between - LEO sees person known to be 19 y.o. OC'ing in school zone. OC'er cannot possibly have a valid license - RAS at least. Whether WI resident or not - 19 y.o. cannot have a WI license, OOSL of no value (at least against federal charge). LEO sees person who definitely looks under 21...RAS? Looks kinda young? I dunno. Is a known opponent of licensing? Maybe. Is known to be 48 but from Chicago -probably. Is wearing a Cubs hat? No, Cubs have a lot of fans in Wisconsin and elsewhere. White Sox, maybe.
 
Top