Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: loaded car carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member jeff niles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Milton, WI
    Posts
    68

    Exclamation loaded car carry

    I just seen on the news ch-3 nov 1 you can have a loaded, uncased handgun in a car in plane view not with in reach? Lot of good that will do in my back seat!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by jeff niles View Post
    I just seen on the news ch-3 nov 1 you can have a loaded, uncased handgun in a car in plane view not with in reach? Lot of good that will do in my back seat!
    Lies by the media. Act 35 took out the requirement for handguns to be unloaded and encased. You can have it on your hip and IMHO, loaded in your glove box.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Central Wi
    Posts
    80
    I saw that. It was really lame. The channel 3 guys acted all surprised by this. "Did they know this was in there?"
    And these idiots are supposed to be reporters. Why don't they just read the bill like all the rest of us did? It's all spelled out "what's in there."
    More Madison liberal anti gun bias. And then they get it wrong to boot.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Act 35 took out the requirement for handguns to be unloaded and encased. .
    But it did not eliminate the prohibition of it being concealed unless you are a licensee.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    But it did not eliminate the prohibition of it being concealed unless you are a licensee.
    That's how I read it too.

    - - - -

    The DOJ agrees in the Concealed Carry FAQ:

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...q-20111020.pdf

    Go to the section on "TRANSPORTING WEAPONS" on page - 44 -

    Pay attention to the
    IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 10-27-2011 at 12:51 AM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    So... According to the law, if I sit strong side towards a wall in a booth at a restaurant I'm considered concealed.
    "I don't really care for "cream cheese"..."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlutz View Post
    So... According to the law, if I sit strong side towards a wall in a booth at a restaurant I'm considered concealed.
    According to the letter of the law it may be considered "hidden"..

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Perlman View Post
    Some posters just do not read all of the laws.
    Or some people are asking questions about particulars to the law that has not been specifically addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    According to the letter of the law it may be considered "hidden"..
    Could that also not be said if I was carrying openly and someone approached me from my weak side?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlutz View Post
    So... According to the law, if I sit strong side towards a wall in a booth at a restaurant I'm considered concealed.
    There is no case law on that. There is case law of what is considered 'concealed' in a car.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    ...Could that also not be said if I was carrying openly and someone approached me from my weak side?
    There are alot of things which could be said and then we have reality. There is not a reasonable expectation of being cited for carrying openly so long as your clothing is not obstructing the view of your handgun even if an officer approaches you from your weak side. There is not a reasonable expectation of being cited for carrying openly while sitting in a restaurant booth.
    There is a reasonable expectation that in some municipalities you may be cited for carrying openly while driving your car and the firearm is on your hip or otherwise hidden by the body of the car as case law supports this and this is the understanding of many if not most LEO departments.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    So, Could someone please explain how a handgun could be considered to be "within reach" while in a closed glove compartment...................................
    You guys are reading too far into the law again and making assumptions, most likely wrong assumptions.

    We can OC in a car without the permission slip. Plain and simple. We also no longer need to unload and encase a handgun while in a car. So being in a closed container makes it "Out OF Reach"

  12. #12
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    So, Could someone please explain how a handgun could be considered to be "within reach" while in a closed glove compartment...................................
    You guys are reading too far into the law again and making assumptions, most likely wrong assumptions.

    We can OC in a car without the permission slip. Plain and simple. We also no longer need to unload and encase a handgun while in a car. So being in a closed container makes it "Out OF Reach"
    I agree with you 100%, but I also agree with I_K that there may be LEO's and DA's don't see it the way and the difference of opinion may have to be settled by a jury.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Lies by the media. Act 35 took out the requirement for handguns to be unloaded and encased. You can have it on your hip and IMHO, loaded in your glove box.
    Be careful friend. Yes it can be loaded and unencased, but you still need a permit to CCW. And a gun in reach, and on your hip or in your glove box or even just sitting on your seat is considered a concealed weapon in the state of wisconsin.

    http://opencarry.org/wi.html

    In Wisconsin, a gun in plan sight inside a vehicle... is considered unlawfully concealed.
    State v. Walls, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. App. 1994) (A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section).

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlutz View Post
    So... According to the law, if I sit strong side towards a wall in a booth at a restaurant I'm considered concealed.
    The letter of the law maybe yes, but there is no case law to support that. Vehicles on the other hand, there is case law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    So, Could someone please explain how a handgun could be considered to be "within reach" while in a closed glove compartment...................................
    You guys are reading too far into the law again and making assumptions, most likely wrong assumptions.

    We can OC in a car without the permission slip. Plain and simple. We also no longer need to unload and encase a handgun while in a car. So being in a closed container makes it "Out OF Reach"

    Wrong. encased does not equal out of reach. We aren't reading into anything. This is actual law, and we have case law to also support it. Please don't make statements like that when you have no cite to support it.

    An encased gun is unlawfully concealed in a vehicle if the case is not "out of reach," arguably wingspan plus lunge distance.
    State v. Alloy, 616 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. App. 2000) (affirming concealed carry conviction of man possessing handgun in a vehicle in conformity with Wisconsin Stat. � 167.31 because .Alloy's argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. � 167.31 and Wis. Stat. � 941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with � 167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with � 941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35. It is the courts duty to interpret the will of the legislature on a question of the law or interpret it in light of the constitutions as applied or on it's face. With the changes to both I have to believe that the case law would change if someone is cited in the manner we are talking about. Also, Alloy is not cite-able jurisprudence which has been argued many a time on this forum.

    Once again, one would take a chance by openly carrying in a car without a permit; but for the other side of the argument the case law is NOT as clear as it's made out to be by some because of the differences I talked about above.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35. It is the courts duty to interpret the will of the legislature on a question of the law or interpret it in light of the constitutions as applied or on it's face. With the changes to both I have to believe that the case law would change if someone is cited in the manner we are talking about. Also, Alloy is not cite-able jurisprudence which has been argued many a time on this forum.

    Once again, one would take a chance by openly carrying in a car without a permit; but for the other side of the argument the case law is NOT as clear as it's made out to be by some because of the differences I talked about above.
    I think that's sorta my point, as you mentioned. If you're going to OC in a vehicle and you don't have a CCW permit, be prepared to fight a legal battle.

  18. #18
    Regular Member McNutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35. It is the courts duty to interpret the will of the legislature on a question of the law or interpret it in light of the constitutions as applied or on it's face. With the changes to both I have to believe that the case law would change if someone is cited in the manner we are talking about. Also, Alloy is not cite-able jurisprudence which has been argued many a time on this forum.

    Once again, one would take a chance by openly carrying in a car without a permit; but for the other side of the argument the case law is NOT as clear as it's made out to be by some because of the differences I talked about above.
    Agree - I don't think Walls would be (at least it shouldn't be) decided the same way after the passage of Act 35. It cites, in particular, the old stat section 167 in discussion of the legal transport of a firearm. I'd still be nervous about it because Walls basically said that the firearm was concealed just based on the fact that the firearm was in a moving vehicle traveling down the road and not readily observable by others passing it even on the highways.

    The DOJ's comments give me little comfort because while they state that you can now legally possess a loaded firearm in a vehicle without a CCW permit they note that a person who doesn't have a CCW permit can not carry concealed which they state means hidden or concealed and within reach. Logically, I would think this means that if I don't have a CCW permit I can't keep the loaded handgun under the newspaper on the passenger seat for example. But in case law, like Walls, just the mere fact that you have the firearm in a vehicle meets the definition of concealed under 941.23.

    So while I think Walls might not be decided the same way as the definition of concealed in a vehicle would need to be tailored to meet the newly amended version of 167, I'd be concerned that this will still be tested in court.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35...
    Act 35 created a shall issue concealed carry license system. It made zero changes to 941.23 for those who are not licensees. Act 35 actually makes it harder to fight a 941.23 violation because you now have a means to carry legally with only the manner of carry being dictated. Before Act 35 you had no manner of carry available while in a vehicle as even unloaded and encased was prohibited because of 941.23.
    It is irresponsible at best to recommend people carry in a car with a handgun holstered on their side without a permit. Although you are free to do it yourself and risk a citation, there are others reading these threads who are not prepared for such a citation yet would read some of the statements being made as a green light to try it.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Act 35 created a shall issue concealed carry license system. It made zero changes to 941.23 for those who are not licensees. Act 35 actually makes it harder to fight a 941.23 violation because you now have a means to carry legally with only the manner of carry being dictated. Before Act 35 you had no manner of carry available while in a vehicle as even unloaded and encased was prohibited because of 941.23.
    It is irresponsible at best to recommend people carry in a car with a handgun holstered on their side without a permit. Although you are free to do it yourself and risk a citation, there are others reading these threads who are not prepared for such a citation yet would read some of the statements being made as a green light to try it.
    I recommended nothing. Further, Act 35 is relevant in establishing the legislative intent that open carry in a car without a permit may now be permissible. Otherwise they would have restricted it to permit holders. Once again, the courts may find otherwise but it's relevant none the less.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 10-27-2011 at 02:41 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Further, Act 35 is relevant in establishing the legislative intent that open carry in a car without a permit was permissible. Otherwise they would have restricted it to permit holders. Once again, the courts may find otherwise but it's relevant none the less.
    Although an automobile is a vehicle, not every vehicle is an automobile. Act 35 is definitely not the Constitutional Carry bill we wanted.
    So long as it is not concealed, you may "carry" a loaded handgun in or on any vehicle. In an automobile this means that you may not carry it on your hip.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Although an automobile is a vehicle, not every vehicle is an automobile. Act 35 is definitely not the Constitutional Carry bill we wanted.
    So long as it is not concealed, you may "carry" a loaded handgun in or on any vehicle. In an automobile this means that you may not carry it on your hip.
    Thank you Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.........oh wait...
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Thank you Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.........oh wait...
    Although you can not responsibly recommend that others do so, you are free to become the test case in an effort to establish new case law. The DOJ and all other attorneys I have spoken to concur that current case law is relevant.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 10-27-2011 at 03:10 PM.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Although you can not responsibly recommend that others do so, you are free to become the test case in an effort to establish new case law. The DOJ and all other attorneys I have spoken to concur that current case law is relevant.
    Didn't recommend anything, didn't say current case law wasn't relevant. Once again you get The.........



    Award.............your honor.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  25. #25
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Didn't recommend anything, didn't say current case law wasn't relevant...
    Others have. "You" is a general statement in this thread and not to be taken personal. You may want to re-examine your understanding of what a straw man argument is as I made none.
    There are several people who have expressed their intent to carry in a vehicle on their hip without a permit and seem to believe that case law does not apply to them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •