jayspapa
Regular Member
I sent a few dollars. Wish I had more to send.
Good luck to you MKEgal .
Good luck to you MKEgal .
-
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.
-
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.
MKEgal Is Free
- Thread starter jpm84092
- Start date
Curmudgeon
Regular Member
If everyone could send just a couple dollars when one of these cases comes up... :idea:
Brendon .45
Regular Member
Donation sent.
The situation sucks but hopefully it works out in all of our favor!
The situation sucks but hopefully it works out in all of our favor!
3fgburner
Regular Member
Sent.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
She has been officially charged with a 941.23 violation.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...official-MKEGal-charged-with-941.23&p=1651988
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...official-MKEGal-charged-with-941.23&p=1651988
XDFDE45
Regular Member
Sent a little something. Sorry I haven't been able to be here lately but you know why 
. Will try to send a PM sometime very soon.
. Will try to send a PM sometime very soon.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Not trying to be obtuse or snarky or anything here, but:rcawdor57 said:
1) there is no law saying that open carry is legal, because laws don't permit, they prohibit
1a) the best ones [Constitutions] prohibit actions by the gov't & its agents against citizens
2) you're the first real person (citizen) I've known of who does not equate "possess" with "carry".
(As in, wear in a holster.)
Could you try to explain why, please? PM is fine, so we don't clutter the thread any more.
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
Ah...I don't mind posting and pushing this thread back up. Krysta...I have no idea where you got the idea that I think we need a law to "allow" us to open carry. I also have no idea where you got statement number 2 either.
You didn't quote my post so I can't click on it to see what I posted. I spent ten minutes looking through the last two months of my posts and I don't see where I ever posted what you quoted. I have always stated that open carry is legal in Wisconsin in vehicles after ACT 35 was passed in July without a license. Always. I have posted many times "How can we possess, load, unload in or on a vehicle.....but as soon as we get inside a vehicle it is considered concealed??" It makes no sense to me. I have asked numerous times what "possess" means in a vehicle. To me it means a person has control over the gun whether it is worn in a holster or on the seat next to them or in the glove box...etc.
I was actually open carrying in my own vehicle in July when I was warned not to by others on this forum. I was warned that 941.23 case law would be used against me.
Please go here and read my post: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Gal-charged-with-941-23&p=1661671#post1661671
Added: I found my post you were referring to. I see where you are coming from. I could have been clearer. My thoughts were that since we didn't get the actual words "open carry" in the wording of ACT 35 that some police were going to charge us with concealed carry without a license in a vehicle. (based on case law). I do agree that possess is definitely open carry and it doesn't matter if I am in a restaurant booth, riding a horse or in my car.
Last edited:
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
The highest law in the state, constitutional law, reads we are allowed to keep and bear arms. It is a permissive law not a restrictive one. Article I, section 25. The WSC in Hamdan and Cole judged the concealed carry prohibition statute as constitutional therefore by default the law legalizes open carry because the WSC stated that the State must provide a manner of carry so that the activities in Art.I sec 25 can be exercised. In Hamdan the WSC declared that there were two manners of carry, hidden and visible. Because the concealed carry prohibition law was declared as valid then by default it could be said that Article I section 25 endorses open carry posession.
Excerpts from Hamdan.
¶38. The adoption of Article I, Section 25 did not affect prior judicial interpretations of the CCW statute or the availability of privilege defenses for CCW crimes, but it did create an obligation to protect rights guaranteed by the amendment.
¶41.-------- However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. ---------------The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.
¶71.-------We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.
¶72.-------During these times, the firearm will be either visible or concealed.
This post is not submitted so as to be argumentative. It is submitted as information.
My opinion Emphasis = mine.
Excerpts from Hamdan.
¶38. The adoption of Article I, Section 25 did not affect prior judicial interpretations of the CCW statute or the availability of privilege defenses for CCW crimes, but it did create an obligation to protect rights guaranteed by the amendment.
¶41.-------- However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. ---------------The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.
¶71.-------We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.
¶72.-------During these times, the firearm will be either visible or concealed.
This post is not submitted so as to be argumentative. It is submitted as information.
My opinion Emphasis = mine.
E6chevron
Regular Member
For those who prefer to research, study, verify on their own, here are links to the above cases.
State v. Cole
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...50&as_vis=1&case=13890613197986074665&scilh=0
State v. Hamdan
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...4,50&as_vis=1&case=661027771167556292&scilh=0
State v. Cole
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...50&as_vis=1&case=13890613197986074665&scilh=0
State v. Hamdan
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...4,50&as_vis=1&case=661027771167556292&scilh=0
MKEgal
Regular Member
Someone else PM'd me about the carry v. possess thing...
I see possessing as being the larger circle in the Venn diagram,
that is, possessing is the overall concept,
and carrying is a smaller circle, the more restrictive concept.
One may possess w/o carrying, but one may not carry w/o possessing.
(To confuse things further, owning is a larger circle than possession.
I still own, though I'm :cuss: prohibited from possessing.)
To borrow from Paul, there's no law saying that I can have lasagna on Tues., but that doesn't mean it's illegal to have lasagna on Tues.
Trimming away the other parts saves space & focusses attention.
I try to preserve the intent.
:banghead: :cuss: :uhoh: + a few more things I don't say in public & rarely say in private.
I see possessing as being the larger circle in the Venn diagram,
that is, possessing is the overall concept,
and carrying is a smaller circle, the more restrictive concept.
One may possess w/o carrying, but one may not carry w/o possessing.
(To confuse things further, owning is a larger circle than possession.
I still own, though I'm :cuss: prohibited from possessing.)
I don't. Never have. I'm with you there.
To borrow from Paul, there's no law saying that I can have lasagna on Tues., but that doesn't mean it's illegal to have lasagna on Tues.
Um... it's above what I wrote. Or at least, the part I wanted to address is.
Trimming away the other parts saves space & focusses attention.
I try to preserve the intent.
Yep. Lots of us saw that problem & the :cuss: legislators didn't bother to fix it.
:banghead:
:cuss: :uhoh: + a few more things I don't say in public & rarely say in private.
Last edited:
thieltech
Regular Member
wish u the best
Trip20
Regular Member
Someone else PM'd me about the carry v. possess thing...
I see possessing as being the larger circle in the Venn diagram,
that is, possessing is the overall concept,
and carrying is a smaller circle, the more restrictive concept.
One may possess w/o carrying, but one may not carry w/o possessing.
(To confuse things further, owning is a larger circle than possession.
I still own, though I'm :cuss: prohibited from possessing.)
I don't. Never have. I'm with you there.
To borrow from Paul, there's no law saying that I can have lasagna on Tues., but that doesn't mean it's illegal to have lasagna on Tues.
Um... it's above what I wrote. Or at least, the part I wanted to address is.
Trimming away the other parts saves space & focusses attention.
I try to preserve the intent.
Yep. Lots of us saw that problem & the :cuss: legislators didn't bother to fix it.
:banghead:
On the whole possess/carry thing..... I'm no lawyer but I don't think the following opinion/conclusion is unreasonable. I think any reasonable citizen practicing due diligence could come to the same conclusion.
In my opinion the DOJ FAQ is reasonably construed as The Wisconsin Department of Justice's interpretation of Wisconsin Act 35. If that interpretation is that one can "possess" a loaded handgun in a vehicle with out a license, and if you believe it's reasonable to interpret possession to include having said article on your person (i.e., carry), how is it not reasonable to conclude one can legally open carry in a vehicle as a result of Act 35 effective 11/01/2011 with out a license?
Last edited:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
The stare decisis elements of the crime of concealment were not changed by Act 35. I ANAL believe that it will take case law subsequent to Act 35 to change the elements of the crime of concealment.
Trip20
Regular Member
IANAL either but is the legislature bound by stare decisis as well? I thought that only applied to judges with respect to precedent. When a citizen sees the DOJ's interpretation of Act 35 (i.e., the FAQ), I don't believe the conclusions are unreasonable. Jury Nullification maybe?
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
They aren't but they didn't address it. Stave v Walls would be moot if Act 35 had changed 167.31 to include "Any firearm (handgun) contained in a vehicle pursuant to this section shall not be considered concealed" or changed 941.23 to include "Any firearm (handgun) contained in a vehicle pursuant to 167.31 shall not be considered concealed". Since they didn't, they either on purpose or inadvertently let the precedent stand.
Teej
Regular Member
It is legal. But the specifics depend on what the state considers "open", and for that all we have now is case law.
The problem with the thought process of the venn diagram and including "carry" as a subset of "possess" is that by that logic *anything* you can do while possessing that handgun would be legal - How 'bout instead of "carry" we make another fully contained "subset" and label it "on school property". Doesn't work.
The more proper way to make either of those venns is with intersecting circles - the part of "carry" that overlaps with "possess in a car" must fit within the range of another circle - "open".
A part of "carry" must exist outside the "possess" circle to cover "conceal".
Last edited:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
on jury nullification in Wisconsin, you will find little foundation in the statutes.
http://www.badgerlawyer.com/blog/?p=132
BadgerLawyer.com said:
Trip20
Regular Member
Thanks for the information. Not being argumentative I assure you, but I think what I'm getting at is that the DOJ FAQ may not have "let it stand". I say this under the assumption that a FAQ by the DOJ could be admissible evidence in portraying a reasonable person standard with regard to a citizens interpretation of what is legal. If that assumption is wrong, then I really have no basis for anything I've said thus far
Damn you.
I'll have to evaluate the venn diagram in more detail before I can really understand what you mean as my head is spinning. But it looks like you're throwing out my idea that one could reasonably construe "carry" to be a type of "possess" (correct me if I'm wrong in your intent).