• 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

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
This is the email I sent to the NRA-ILA:

While I do think the NRA should get involved, especially for one of their trainers, I'll hold my breathe and eat my crow if they help.

I don't have an unlimited amount of funds, but today was payday. More money sent. Hopefully it helps out MKEgal.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
While I do think the NRA should get involved, especially for one of their trainers, I'll hold my breathe and eat my crow if they help.

I don't have an unlimited amount of funds, but today was payday. More money sent. Hopefully it helps out MKEgal.

I would suggest as many NRA members as we can send the same basic email asking for help though. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I am planning on sending an email to GOA and 2nd amendment foundation as well. The most they can say is no.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
This is the email I sent to the NRA-ILA:

I was just reading Van Hollen's 2009 advisory memo and in my opinion it is speaking out of both siders of the mouth. Maybe this is also what they are looking at. Maybe this court case will clear up the smoke hanging over weather we can OC in the car now if the CC rulings have made that possible. Remember leos ( most of them) don't want us to open carry. Will send donation by paypal.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I was just reading Van Hollen's 2009 advisory memo and in my opinion it is speaking out of both siders of the mouth. Maybe this is also what they are looking at. Maybe this court case will clear up the smoke hanging over weather we can OC in the car now if the CC rulings have made that possible. Remember leos ( most of them) don't want us to open carry. Will send donation by paypal.

Regardless of what Van Hollen said in his memo, Act 35 is clear on the intention.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
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!

Maybe mention that she is also an NRA Instuctor with plans on getting even more certifications in the future...

I AM NOT HERE......
 
Last edited:

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Okay, it is time to step up the donations. Everybody pitch in $5-$10 or more and it will add up quick. This whole case is total BS!
 

McNutty

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin
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

If found not guilty, I believe double jeopardy would apply. I think the states ability to appeal after an acquittal is pretty limited. I think they can appeal the sentencing decision of a court and they can appeal a court order setting aside a jury's finding of acquittal and enters a guilty finding not withstanding the jury's verdict. Once the trial starts, jeopardy attaches and if a final verdict is entered, that's it. There are some situations where double jeopardy wouldn't apply but those would involve state versus federal charges, criminal versus civil matters, etc.
 

TyGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
775
Location
, ,
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

Can you tell me the section # where you see the definition of concealed, I still do not. :-(
 

McNutty

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin
Can you tell me the section # where you see the definition of concealed, I still do not. :-(

941.23 doesn’t provide a definition of what concealed means. You need to read the case law (see the cases cited at the end of the statute section) to see how courts have interpreted and applied the statute.

The Walls court said: “we conclude that a person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile where: (1) the weapon is located inside a vehicle and is within the defendant's reach; (2) the defendant is aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon is concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.” 190 Wis.2d 65 (1994)
 
M

McX

Guest
It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23

bastards du socialistique'
 

wild boar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
445
Location
wisconsin
You want to be in a world of sh(t...

let the Governor pass 237 & 246 police without boarders. boar out.
 

Big Dipper

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Illinois & Wisconsin
941.23 doesn’t provide a definition of what concealed means. You need to read the case law (see the cases cited at the end of the statute section) to see how courts have interpreted and applied the statute.

The Walls court said: “we conclude that a person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile where: (1) the weapon is located inside a vehicle and is within the defendant's reach; (2) the defendant is aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon is concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.” 190 Wis.2d 65 (1994)

Which again brings up the basic question how the heck did that LEO "see" the openly carried pistol that MKEGal had if that pistol was "indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle"?
 

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
Trying to "common sense" your way into understanding the 941.23 Carrying concealed weapon statute will be frustrating and confusing. You need to follow the trail of legal definitions and terminology, this will help.


First, understand the definition of "Dangerous weapon" as it is used in 941.23 (and many other statutes). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/I/22 You will note that it includes both loaded and unloaded firearms.

939.22  Words and phrases defined. In chs. 939 to 948 and 951, the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless the context of a specific section manifestly requires a different construction or the word or phrase is defined in s. 948.01 for purposes of ch. 948:
...
(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Second, reading the 941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. statute will help understand what is involved in this charge.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/23 When viewing the statute here, you will see other links that, for example, would allow you to drill down thru a reference to 175.60(1)(j)

At the bottom of the statute, thru this link, you will see some of the various case law (court decisions) that has had to do with this statute in the past. Notice that this statute also does not differentiate between a weapon cased or not cased.

175.60(1)(ag) "Carry" means to go armed with.

Case law has taken the phrase "going armed with" in State v Asfoor http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...1&q=249+N.W.2d+529&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_vis=1 [19]
"going armed" meant that the weapon was on the defendant's person or that the weapon must have been within the defendant's reach and that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon.

Another significant case law precedent is State v. Walls, 1994 courts 526 N.W.2d 765 at 72 clarified crime of concealed carry for jury instruction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...4&q=526+N.W.2d+765&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_vis=1

[3,4] we conclude that a person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile where: (1) the weapon is located inside a vehicle and is within the defendant's reach; (2) the defendant is aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon is concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. See State v. Fry But see supra note 2 (discussing lawful placement, transportation, or possession of weapons in vehicles as permitted by § 167.31(2)(b), STATS.).

As you read the above from State v. Walls, note that whether a firearm is loaded/unloaded, cased/uncased doesn't make a difference.

If you do not have a CCL valid in Wisconsin, be aware that you could be in danger of violating 941.23 as it is currently being interpreted, if the weapon is NOT in a place that is impossible to reach quickly, such as the trunk. In the past, violations have been sustained for handguns in closed gloveboxes, and center consoles, under seats, and back seats.


One recent change in the legal environment, was that in November of 1998 (after most of the case law decisions), the Wisconsin constitution was amended, to better align with 2nd amendment of the United States:

Article 1 Section 25, Wisconsin Constitution

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
[1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]

The Nov. 1, 2011 changes in the transportation statute 167.31are also a factor in the changed legal environment.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I was just reading Van Hollen's 2009 advisory memo and in my opinion it is speaking out of both siders of the mouth. Maybe this is also what they are looking at. Maybe this court case will clear up the smoke hanging over weather we can OC in the car now if the CC rulings have made that possible. Remember leos ( most of them) don't want us to open carry. Will send donation by paypal.

I have not had a single issue.
 
Last edited:

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.

I had always planned to gothe Public Defender route. Then appeal with a heavy hitter. That is for strictly carry issues like 167.31.

IF I ever are forced to use my handgun, I have a attorney on speed dial. That will be the second call I make before officers arrive. After I give the basic information to dispatcher, denying them a phishing expedition, I will hang up and call an attorney.
 

McNutty

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin
974.05 State’s appeal. (1) Within the time period specified
by s. 808.04 (4) and in the manner provided for civil appeals under
chs. 808 and 809, an appeal may be taken by the state from any:

(a) Final order or judgment adverse to the state, whether following
a trial or a plea of guilty or no contest, if the appeal would
not be prohibited by constitutional protections against double
jeopardy.
 
Top