• 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.

OC and drinking in a Class B

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
I am irritated that you have had to (when I last looked) disable PM's - BTDT - I would like you to parse your user name in PM.

In re Ms USN Vet; A Squadron Engineer that worked with me (Cdr. Tom Degan, AS-40) was very proud of his 'lady nukes' and assigned me a great one that maintained a positive attitude through the cold-shoulder that the boats' crews gave her.

In re MS USN Vet; As someone else has alluded here, a sub-sailor needs three shipboard friends, the quack, the yeo' and the MS cook.
 
Last edited:

msusnVet

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
90
Location
brooklyn. wi
Well I guess several of us have been test cases on multiple times already.

And please do use that harassment button. m&mvet the troll is just that. A troll. It has been banned multiple times under multiple accounts. The first being Logables. The troll has utilized at least a half dozen fake accounts by my recollection... The only difference being while under previous accounts he threatened to stalk us, this time he offers proof he actually IS stalking us. Which is quite disturbing. That's why MKEgal keeps suggesting to put LOGABLES on ignore. HHK, we have been dealing with this stalker and troll for quite some time.

Mr. Hamlet, I enjoy going to Kansasville and have never stalked anyone nor will I. I started going there when someone posted a thread about a Veteran's Benefit and all veterans were welcome to attend.

Well, I attended and enjoyed myself. I will continue to frequent these establishments. I like the food and the beer and the owners and the locals.

I have no desire to know who you or your group are, period. I only go there for what is mentioned in the above paragraph. Thank you for your input.
 

Da Po-lock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Green Bay, WI
940.32  Stalking

I think "IT" has already volunteered "ITSELF' as a test case a few months back by already admitting to some of the following..........

940.32(1)(a) (a) "Course of conduct" means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time, however short or long, that show a continuity of purpose, including any of the following:
940.32(1)(a)1. 1. Maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the victim.
940.32(1)(a)2. 2. Approaching or confronting the victim.
940.32(1)(a)6m. 6m. Photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or, through any other electronic means, monitoring or recording the activities of the victim. This subdivision applies regardless of where the act occurs.
940.32(1)(cb) (cb) "Member of a family" means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other person who is related by blood or adoption to another.
940.32(1)(cd) (cd) "Member of a household" means a person who regularly resides in the household of another or who within the previous 6 months regularly resided in the household of another.
940.32(1)(cg) (cg) "Personally identifiable information" has the meaning given in s. 19.62 (5).
940.32(1)(cr) (cr) "Record" has the meaning given in s. 19.32 (2).
940.32(1)(d) (d) "Suffer serious emotional distress" means to feel terrified, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or tormented. 940.32(2) (2) Whoever meets all of the following criteria is guilty of a Class I felony:
940.32(2)(a) (a) The actor intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person under the same circumstances to suffer serious emotional distress or to fear bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2)(b) (b) The actor knows or should know that at least one of the acts that constitute the course of conduct will cause the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or place the specific person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2)(c) (c) The actor's acts cause the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or induce fear in the specific person of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2e)(b) (b) The actor knows or should know that the act will cause the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or place the specific person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2e)(c) (c) The actor's act causes the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or induces fear in the specific person of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2m) (2m) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class H felony if any of the following applies:
940.32(2m)(a) (a) The actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime, as defined in s. 939.632 (1) (e) 1., or a previous conviction under this section or s. 947.013 (1r), (1t), (1v), or (1x).
940.32(2m)(b) (b) The actor has a previous conviction for a crime, the victim of that crime is the victim of the present violation of sub. (2), and the present violation occurs within 7 years after the prior conviction.
940.32(2m)(c) (c) The actor intentionally gains access or causes another person to gain access to a record in electronic format that contains personally identifiable information regarding the victim in order to facilitate the violation.
940.32(2m)(d) (d) The person violates s. 968.31 (1) or 968.34 (1) in order to facilitate the violation.
940.32(2m)(e) (e) The victim is under the age of 18 years at the time of the violation.
940.32(3) (3) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class F felony if any of the following applies: 940.32(3)(a) (a) The act results in bodily harm to the victim or a member of the victim's family or household.
940.32(3)(b) (b) The actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime, as defined in s. 939.632 (1) (e) 1., or a previous conviction under this section or s. 947.013 (1r), (1t), (1v) or (1x), the victim of that crime is the victim of the present violation of sub. (2), and the present violation occurs within 7 years after the prior conviction.
940.32(3)(c) (c) The actor uses a dangerous weapon in carrying out any of the acts listed in sub. (1) (a) 1. to 9. 940.32(3m) (3m) A prosecutor need not show that a victim received or will receive treatment from a mental health professional in order to prove that the victim suffered serious emotional distress under sub. (2) (c) or (2e) (c).
940.32(4) (4) 
940.32(4)(a)(a) This section does not apply to conduct that is or acts that are protected by the person's right to freedom of speech or to peaceably assemble with others under the state and U.S. constitutions, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
940.32(4)(a)1. 1. Giving publicity to and obtaining or communicating information regarding any subject, whether by advertising, speaking or patrolling any public street or any place where any person or persons may lawfully be.
940.32(4)(a)2. 2. Assembling peaceably.
940.32(4)(a)3. 3. Peaceful picketing or patrolling.
940.32(4)(b) (b) Paragraph (a) does not limit the activities that may be considered to serve a legitimate purpose under this section.
940.32(5) (5) This section does not apply to conduct arising out of or in connection with a labor dispute.
940.32(6) (6) The provisions of this statute are severable. If any provision of this statute is invalid or if any application thereof is invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
 

The_Pennsylvanian

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
65
Location
Marshfield, WI
Can Someone Please Tell Me . . . .

What the H E Double Hockeysticks a " Class B " Liquor license is , and how it is different from a Class A ,C , et al ?





Being from PA , I'm not use to as many bars as you'uns have here , and I've been here for ten years already !:question:
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
What the H E Double Hockeysticks a " Class B " Liquor license is , and how it is different from a Class A ,C , et al ?





Being from PA , I'm not use to as many bars as you'uns have here , and I've been here for ten years already !:question:

Don't know the rest, however, a class-B is an establishment that sells for consumption on premises. So.... Chilis, Applebees, a real bar, all are class-b.
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
Next up on Oprah, trap clubs that serve beer with video of shooters carrying shotguns out to the line!!!
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I thought we had talked about this before.



This was NOT changed by Act 35. So... I can drink while armed as long as I have permission of the 'owner or manager of the premises' as long as I don't also fall under 941.237(3)(cx).

Please tell me why I am wrong?

You were issued a CCL, that is how you fall under 941.237(3)(cx).

941.237(3)(g) is not an exception to 941.237(3)(cx) and does not give a licensee permission to drink.

An owner or manager of an establishment for which a Class B license has been issued, cannot exempt you from 941.237(3)(cx) and give you persmission to consume alcohol, if you are armed.

941.237(2)(g) gives an exception to 941.237(2) for possesion of a firearm, not consumption of alcohol while in possesion of a firearm, while on the premises for which a Class B license has been issued.

You may have been able to stretch 941.237(3)(g) and convince owner to give you permission to open carry and consume alcohol on the premises for which a Class B license has been issued and a really good lawyer might be have been able to convince a jury it was legal. But after 941.237(3)(cx) was created with Act 35, it is clearly not legal now, even though you may still get away with it.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
You were issued a CCL, that is how you fall under 941.237(3)(cx).

941.237(3)(g) is not an exception to 941.237(3)(cx) and does not give a licensee permission to drink.

An owner or manager of an establishment for which a Class B license has been issued, cannot exempt you from 941.237(3)(cx) and give you persmission to consume alcohol, if you are armed.

941.237(2)(g) gives an exception to 941.237(2) for possesion of a firearm, not consumption of alcohol while in possesion of a firearm, while on the premises for which a Class B license has been issued.

You may have been able to stretch 941.237(3)(g) and convince owner to give you permission to open carry and consume alcohol on the premises for which a Class B license has been issued and a really good lawyer might be have been able to convince a jury it was legal. But after 941.237(3)(cx) was created with Act 35, it is clearly not legal now, even though you may still get away with it.

OK, let's break this down into pre-act 35 and post act-35.

Pre act-35, I don't understand what you mean "941.237(2)(g) gives an exception to 941.237(2) for possesion of a firearm, not consumption of alcohol while in possesion of a firearm, while on the premises for which a Class B license has been issued." Once again, laws usually tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. So.... as HHK said, 941.237(2) says 'no handguns in class-b'. Notice, it doesn't say ANYTHING about drinking with a handgun. (3) gives exceptions. Once again, in no exception, pre act-35, does it say 'no drinking'. So.... I can't see how anyone could legitimately say 941.237 precludes drinking in any way.

Act 35 then adds (3)(cx) which is the only reference to drinking in 941.237. It only says non-drinking applies to licensee. I can see your argument that a licensee is anyone with a license, whether they are 'utilizing' it at the time or not. In my opinion, and IANAL, (cx) only applies if I do not fall under any other exception.

Last but not least, you say "You may have been able to stretch 941.237(3)(g) and convince owner to give you permission to open carry and consume alcohol ",kI don't get permission to dring, I get permission to carry, 941.237 says nothing about getting permission to drink either pre or post Act 35.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
So... when we go to Lizzie's, everyone carrys openly & leaves any licenses they may have in their vehicles because Adam & Lizzie most emphatically give permission.

Leaving thier CCL in the car, at home or mailing it to China, does not make them a non-liscensee. It makes them a licensee without a CCL in thier possession.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
So, having a license means I can never drink again. Good to know.

:banana:

Nope. I was going to use that argument as well, however, 941.237(2) says "Whoever intentionally goes armed with a handgun on any premises for which a Class “B” or “Class B” license or permit has been issued under ch. 125 is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." so, it only applies to handgun carriers.

I still stand by my contention.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
OK, let's break this down into pre-act 35 and post act-35.

Pre act-35, I don't understand what you mean "941.237(2)(g) gives an exception to 941.237(2) for possesion of a firearm, not consumption of alcohol while in possesion of a firearm, while on the premises for which a Class B license has been issued." Once again, laws usually tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. .

EXACTLY. 941.237(2) is the prohibition, the law that tells us what we can't do. 941.237(3)(g) in an exception to the prohibition. Furthermore, prior to ACT 35, there was no prohibition on consuming alcohol at a Class B premises while armed, so technically, it was legal as long as you do not violate 941.20(1)(b). I agree with you. But my opinion about consuming alcohol in public while open carrying is really poor judgement. I agree that consuming alcohol does not take away our right to self-defense, but do you understand how bad that would hurt "OUR" image if photos ever got leaked. WAVE would rejoice to have such a 'nugget'.

To get on with it, ACT 35 created 941.237(3)(cx).

Act 35 then adds (3)(cx) which is the only reference to drinking in 941.237. It only says non-drinking applies to licensee. I can see your argument that a licensee is anyone with a license, whether they are 'utilizing' it at the time or not. In my opinion, and IANAL, (cx) only applies if I do not fall under any other exception.

I understand the logic/reasoning that if a person qualifies under one exception, it doesn't matter if they don't qualify under any other, because they don't matter. The only exception that matters is the one you do qualify under. I do get that. But if anyone was arrested for 941.237(2) for consuming alcohol in a class 'b' while armed, any claim of 941.237(3)(g) being a defense would be ignored by a prosecutor and they would prosecute anyway. A DA would take it to trial and make it a test case. A test case like this would embarass the 2A community and hurt our cause. The liberal media would thoroughly enjoy it. Is this really what we want the next test case to be?
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
But if anyone was arrested for 941.237(2) for consuming alcohol in a class 'b' while armed, any claim of 941.237(3)(g) being a defense would be ignored by a prosecutor and they would prosecute anyway. A DA would take it to trial and make it a test case. A test case like this would embarass the 2A community and hurt our cause. The liberal media would thoroughly enjoy it. Is this really what we want the next test case to be?

Why didn't you say so in the first post?

It's a shame that your sense of humor so much depends on twisting logic and reason.

Trust me. That was not humor. THAT was S-A-R-C-A-S-M.
This whole thread is nothing but twisting logic and reason. Plus a healthy dose of opinion. In case you have not noticed.

:eek:










Now that's funny.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I know that this is not relevant to Wisconsin, today, but, could a effort be made to have the current Wisconsin language changed to address this issue like it was addressed here in Missouri. The language is very simple, to me anyway.

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; RSMo 571.030.1 (5)
Note the construction of the language. There is some debate here in Missouri, between LE and citizens on the meaning/intent of the law. It is clear, to me anyway, that the citizen must violate a law with a firearm while intoxicated that would also be a violation of the law if not intoxicated.

Intoxicated is defined under RSMo 571.010 (11) as substantially impaired. RSMO 571.010 (11)
The 0.08 rule is applied to motor vehicle operation.

Some LEOs believe that even a sip (BAC of 0.0 if tested) of booze equals intoxicated while armed. I do not know if this subsection has been tested in a court. I'll try to find one and get back to you. It is likely that it has not been tested or else the Missouri forum would have discussed it.

I have a few relatives up in Sheboygan and would like to have a frosty friendly while out to dinner on the occasions that I visit. Would my MO CCW endorsement meet the current Wisconsin law?
 

RR_Broccoli

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
170
Location
WI
Being an auto guy, and not a wheel gun guy, I have decided upon a personal rule; "guns before alcohol".

Early in my onset of gun collecting disease, I had two beers at home and put away my PX4. Reversing the order of "remove mag, clear chamber" and got the thing all the way into the drawer before realizing I just saw a round go into the barrel when I cleared it.

So, for me, at least, any type of manipulation aside from pick it up and move it to a secured spot is out after any booze. If I used revolvers I might think a little differently.

Realistically, if I am hanging out at place I want the option to have a drink or two, so I leave my guns out of the equation whenever I do that because I know my threshold for a simple mistake that starts a cascade of bad events is about two... maybe one and a half beers. Note, this is WELL before I would start to appear intoxicated, and I'd pass the standard driving BAC and "under the influence" tests easily.

Knives on the other hand, I always have with me.

That said, I have read all these laws several times, and I disagree with the idea the licensee has any differences aside from additional privileges (car carry, GFSZ, etc.) in regards to open carry. I don't know of any place that would give me permission to OC (aside from Lizzies, which I haven't gotten to yet) if I asked in the first place.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
EXACTLY. 941.237(2) is the prohibition, the law that tells us what we can't do. 941.237(3)(g) in an exception to the prohibition. Furthermore, prior to ACT 35, there was no prohibition on consuming alcohol at a Class B premises while armed, so technically, it was legal as long as you do not violate 941.20(1)(b). I agree with you. But my opinion about consuming alcohol in public while open carrying is really poor judgement. I agree that consuming alcohol does not take away our right to self-defense, but do you understand how bad that would hurt "OUR" image if photos ever got leaked. WAVE would rejoice to have such a 'nugget'.

To get on with it, ACT 35 created 941.237(3)(cx).



I understand the logic/reasoning that if a person qualifies under one exception, it doesn't matter if they don't qualify under any other, because they don't matter. The only exception that matters is the one you do qualify under. I do get that. But if anyone was arrested for 941.237(2) for consuming alcohol in a class 'b' while armed, any claim of 941.237(3)(g) being a defense would be ignored by a prosecutor and they would prosecute anyway. A DA would take it to trial and make it a test case. A test case like this would embarass the 2A community and hurt our cause. The liberal media would thoroughly enjoy it. Is this really what we want the next test case to be?

I would assume drinking in public would be illegal due to open container laws.
 
Top