loaded car carry

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
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.

Brass Magnet · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
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.

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
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.

Brass Magnet · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
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...

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
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.

Brass Magnet · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
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.

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
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.

Brass Magnet · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
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.

A strawman argument is substituting someones real position for something else and attacking the substituted position which you've done here and in other threads recently. But I'm guessing you know that and are being disingenuous yet again.

You quoted me, not the "others".

If you are bothered by real debate, you may put me on your ignore list so that you need not suffer through it.

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
If you are bothered by real debate, you may put me on your ignore list so that you need not suffer through it.

If you are not willing to continue discussing these issues, you are also free to do so. I however will continue to discuss them and encourage you to do the same.

E6chevron · Oct 27, 2011

It might be a good idea to ask the DOJ for a ruling on whether a handgun in plain sight from within the car, and within reach of a person, is considered concealed for the purposes of 941.23

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

E6chevron said:
It might be a good idea to ask the DOJ for a ruling on whether a handgun in plain sight from within the car, and within reach of a person, is considered concealed for the purposes of 941.23

They already inferred that all of the case law is still in place when they published their FAQ. Don't forget that plain sight is defined as visible to someone who is in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and outside of it, not someone with their face pressed against the window looking inside.

Brass Magnet · Oct 27, 2011

E6chevron said:
It might be a good idea to ask the DOJ for a ruling on whether a handgun in plain sight from within the car, and within reach of a person, is considered concealed for the purposes of 941.23

We've tried, but can't seem to find someone "important enough" to request an official opinion. There are only a few people in the state that the AG must oblige with an official opinion and "the people" aren't on the list.

HandyHamlet · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
The DOJ and all other attorneys I have spoken to concur that current case law is relevant.

Cite please? (not case law but conversations)

Have it in writing?

Who are the names of the attorneys and DOJ employees you have spoken with and what is their contact information please.

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

HandyHamlet said:
Cite please? (not case law but conversations)

Have it in writing?

Who are the names of the attorneys and DOJ employees you have spoken with and what is their contact information please.

The case law is in writing. It would make far more sense for you to simply pick up the phone and call your own attorney so that you can hear it first hand. That way you can ask the questions which you may have directly.

E6chevron · Oct 27, 2011

Maybe we need a handgun holster arrangement that mounts on or in the front of the dashboard, similar to how a shotgun rack in a police car makes the shotgun visible from the outside.

- - - - -

After the Nov.1, 2011 effective date, the 167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows statute, basically has no restrictions on placement, possession, transportation or loading of handguns in vehicles (including snowmobiles, Segways). So, no citations will be coming from this area.

Does any of the existing case law with regard to concealed carry prosecutions, involve a handgun that was unloaded?

AFTER EDIT:

After some more research, I found that the Concealed Carry Prohibition statute reads

941.23(2) Any person, other than one of the following, who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor: ...

and that a definition applicable to the above statute comes from

939.22(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; ...

Light shined down upon me, and I realized that as far as the 941.23 Concealed Carry prohibition statute is concerned, it doesn't make any difference whether a firearm is loaded or unloaded.

Thanks for your patience.

HandyHamlet · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
It would make far more sense for you to simply pick up the phone and call your own attorney so that you can hear it first hand. That way you can ask the questions which you may have directly.

I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims on the internet.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Oct 27, 2011

I think my 14 inch scoped contender is going to be place on the dash just because I can.

A rather large handgun but a hand gun none the less.

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 27, 2011

HandyHamlet said:
I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims on the internet.

The case law is there for you to see. The DOJ FAQ is there for you to see. So much for unsubstantiated.
I am not the one advocating foolish behavior in light of both as some on this board are. Send a PM to neoinarian on this board if you wish to have personal communication with an attorney but do not feel like picking up the phone. He is a WI attorney.
I pay hundreds of dollars per year for the convenience of calling attorneys any time I have a question for legal advice.

MKEgal · Oct 27, 2011

protias said:
Interceptor_Knight said:

According to the letter of the law it may be considered "hidden"..

Click to expand...

Could that also not be said if I was carrying openly and someone approached me from my weak side?

Believe it or not, someone from the Brookfield church tried to make that argument against me.
"I walked up on her from her left side & couldn't see through her, so it was concealed."
(Or words to that effect, including a less-than tolerant comment about my weight. Gee, I thought they billed themselves as a welcoming & inclusive church?)

Interceptor_Knight said:
Act 35... made zero changes to 941.23 for those who are not licensees.

IIRC, pre-Act35 one was only protected from charges for ccw inside one's own house or business,
and post-Act35 that protection extends to the property as well.
Small victory.

GlockRDH · Oct 27, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
They already inferred that all of the case law is still in place when they published their FAQ. Don't forget that plain sight is defined as visible to someone who is in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and outside of it, not someone with their face pressed against the window looking inside.

I believe you mean 'implied'...NOT 'inferred'...those words arent exactly interchangeable... is there case law that differentiates between 'immediate vicinity' and 'face pressed against the window' ?

loaded car carry

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member