• 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.

It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
MKEgal was carrying in the same way that the majority of people plan to Open Carry when driving in a vehicle.

I have first hand knowledge that there is good visibility of her weapon from outside her car when she is Open Carrying and in the drivers seat.

Those who support the 2nd amendment and their organizations, NEED to put their money out to suppoort this case.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Looks like she's due for an appearance in court 11/22 at 1:30 PM.

My argument would be two-fold:

1. Walls is bad case law due to plain sight doctrine.

2. The intent of the legislature with Act 35 is for loaded OC in a car to be legal without a license or they would have exempted only licensees.

IMO the must probable outcomes are:

1. Ruling that it's concealed for the purposes of 941.23 but that the legislature wanted to allow it. Dismissed and legislature told to fix it.

2. Walls case law is thrown out as overly broad and inconsistent with other jurisprudence. Dismissed.

3. A combination of 1 and 2.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
 

TyGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
775
Location
, ,
I don't see where concealed is defined?

Also, isn't it lovely that the police can hassle, arrest, jail you for hours, release you, and THEN decide what law you broke? What was their RAS to start with? Where's the 4th Ammendment here?

Don't get me wrong, I like LEOs in general, as I have a long family line of them, but this just stinks!
 

XDFDE45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
823
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
What a load of
bs.gif
:mad:.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I don't see where concealed is defined?

Also, isn't it lovely that the police can hassle, arrest, jail you for hours, release you, and THEN decide what law you broke? What was their RAS to start with? Where's the 4th Ammendment here?

Don't get me wrong, I like LEOs in general, as I have a long family line of them, but this just stinks!

Defined in the annotations below 941.23

RAS was prowling/loitering.

"concealed" weapon was seen so search was initially legal under plain sight doctrine. See the contradiction? LOL

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
This is just the case that needs to get to at least the courts of appeal. Unfortunately to get there Krysta will need to be found guilty and none of us want that. The State is not about to let this case get to the higher courts. A catch 22 for us. As much as I hate to say it maybe this is one time the NRA/ILA should get involved.

The prowling and loitering RAS sucks. The owner of the property gave permission for people to use his internet access point after hours.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
This is the email I sent to the NRA-ILA:

My friend and fellow NRA member, Krysta Sutterfield, has been charged with a concealed weapon violation for open carrying in her car, as per the procedure told to us by Darren Lasorte at Cabellas in Richfield. It seems that Act 35 didn't actually fix 941.23 so that non permit carriers can open carry in their vehicles. The DA is using precedent (State v Walls) set in 1994, before WI passed a pro-gun Constitutional amendment and while the WI Supreme Court was more liberal than it is today.

I would ask that the NRA offer their resources to get this precedent overturned. Krysta was acting in good faith when she got arrested.


Thanks!
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
This is just the case that needs to get to at least the courts of appeal. Unfortunately to get there Krysta will need to be found guilty and none of us want that. The State is not about to let this case get to the higher courts. A catch 22 for us. As much as I hate to say it maybe this is one time the NRA/ILA should get involved.

The prowling and loitering RAS sucks. The owner of the property gave permission for people to use his internet access point after hours.

Questiton:

If one it found guilty, it can be appealed that the Courts of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals reverse the verdict, then the State can Appeal to the Supreme Court.

But if one is found not guilty, the State cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals, correct? That would be double jeopardy?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Questiton:

If one it found guilty, it can be appealed that the Courts of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals reverse the verdict, then the State can Appeal to the Supreme Court.

But if one is found not guilty, the State cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals, correct? That would be double jeopardy?

Acquittals generally cannot be appealed.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Questiton:

If one it found guilty, it can be appealed that the Courts of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals reverse the verdict, then the State can Appeal to the Supreme Court.

But if one is found not guilty, the State cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals, correct? That would be double jeopardy?

The State can appeal as well. Appeals aren't a new trial but rather granted due to a perceived error in procedure or law as I understand it. So double jeopardy doesn't apply.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
 
Top