Man Accused Of Bringing Guns Inside Hospital, concealed, not licensed. Poison fruit?

Herr Heckler Koch · Feb 4, 2012

http://www.wisn.com/news/30376162/detail.html

WISN said:
WAUWATOSA, Wis. -- A man will face charges after being accused of bringing two concealed weapons inside Froedtert Hospital.

The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department released a statement that said hospital staff found two handguns inside the man's computer bag while he was visiting his wife at the hospital on Thursday.

According to investigators, the man does not have a concealed carry permit and the hospital has posted signs banning weapons.

Hospital staff acting as government agents (think Obamascare) is an easy argument.

skidmark · Feb 4, 2012

Lacking any indication of why they looked inside his computer bag it is difficult to determine if there is any poisoned fruit or not. My money, however, says "No" because the hospital was not acting as agent for the state at the time.

If anything it sounds like the guy was asked to leave and refused, which resulted in the Sheriff being called.

stay safe.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 4, 2012

I too am curious as to why or how they looked in his computer bag. Unless it was open and seen with out intrusion it could be considered an illegal search.

E6chevron · Feb 4, 2012

skidmark said:
Lacking any indication of why they looked inside his computer bag it is difficult to determine if there is any poisoned fruit or not. My money, however, says "No" because the hospital was not acting as agent for the state at the time.

If anything it sounds like the guy was asked to leave and refused, which resulted in the Sheriff being called.

stay safe.

In Wisconsin, If the building is legally posted against weapons or concealed weapons, at the entrances, and you are carying a concealed weapon, you are breaking the law as soon as you walk in. You are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification.

It will be interesting to hear what led them to think he was carrying concealed, and then whether they had probable cause to search his computer bag. If he did not have a valid Concealed Carry License or permit, that would be violation of another statute, as well.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 4, 2012

E6chevron said:
In Wisconsin, If the building is legally posted against weapons or concealed weapons, at the entrances, and you are carying a concealed weapon, you are breaking the law as soon as you walk in. You are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification.

It will be interesting to hear what led them to think he was carrying concealed, and then whether they had probable cause to search his computer bag. If he did not have a valid Concealed Carry License or permit, that would be violation of another statute, as well.

Act 35 makes no such statement that "you are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification." It is not unreasonable to assume that if you enter a building or business that has posted and you are "noticed" that you would simply be asked to leave. I have walked into a business and been halfway through with my business before I even wonder if they had posted. Luckily I looked on my way out and there was no sign. If you are asked to leave and refuse you are then guilty of trespassing and subject to any subsequent forfeiture.

The question of how the discovery was made still needs to be answered. Hospital personnel do not have the authority to perform any type of search, so unless the discovery was accidental or voluntary it may be nullified in court if found to be an illegal search.

E6chevron · Feb 4, 2012

bigdaddy1 said:
Act 35 makes no such statement that "you are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification." It is not unreasonable to assume that if you enter a building or business that has posted and you are "noticed" that you would simply be asked to leave. I have walked into a business and been halfway through with my business before I even wonder if they had posted. Luckily I looked on my way out and there was no sign. If you are asked to leave and refuse you are then guilty of trespassing and subject to any subsequent forfeiture.

The question of how the discovery was made still needs to be answered. Hospital personnel do not have the authority to perform any type of search, so unless the discovery was accidental or voluntary it may be nullified in court if found to be an illegal search.

Your use of the word assume gives a clue to the reasoning behind your opinion.

Let's review what the official statutes of the State of Wisconsin have in them:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13

943.13(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
...
943.13(1m)(c)
...
943.13(1m)(c)2. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresidential building, or land that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the building, grounds, or land, if that part of the building, grounds, or land has not been leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of the building, grounds, or land has notified the actor not to enter or remain in that part of the building, grounds, or land while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental unit, to a privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, or to the grounds of or land owned or occupied by a university or college, or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of a building, grounds, or land used as a parking facility.
...
943.13(2)
...
943.13(2)(bm)
943.13(2)(bm)1. In this paragraph, "sign" means a sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
943.13(2)(bm)2.
...
943.13(2)(bm)2.am. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., 4., and 5., an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building, the state or a local governmental unit, or a university or a college has notified an individual not to enter or remain in a part of the building while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner, occupant, state, local governmental unit, university, or college has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.

Subsection (1m), paragraph (c), subdivision 2. describes the forfeiture offense, referred to in this thread. This thread is dealing with a nonresidential building.

Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), subdivision 1. describes the sign needed to legally post the area referred to in this thread.

Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), sudivision 2. part am. describes how a sign alone, is considered notification for the area referred to in this thead. Additional notification of the individual is not required by this statute. You have violated statute 943.13(1m)(c)2.

While you may be simply asked to leave, after entering a building that is properly posted, that is just a grace that is extended by the building management or by law enforcement. It is like getting a warning ticket after being clocked doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone. You broke the law, they are just declining to cite. They could legally press charges, without any further notification or discussion.

I think it is a bad idea to depend on the kindness of strangers. Better to just follow the law as written.

11Act35, is a very complicated set of changes, additions, deletions to many Wisconsin statutes. To understand what the complete law in force is, take a direct look at the statutes.

skidmark · Feb 5, 2012

E6chevron said:
....

It will be interesting to hear what led them to think he was carrying concealed, and then whether they had probable cause to search his computer bag. If he did not have a valid Concealed Carry License or permit, that would be violation of another statute, as well.

1) Unless the hospital was acting as an agent for the state they have no right to search anything. They may ask permission to view the contents of any containers, and may even decline to admit you if you refuse their request. But they have no right to search.

2) And if they were acting as an agent for the state they would be requireds to indicate they they were doing so at the time they initiated the search.

3) Once the cops became involved in investigating the allegation that he carried into a prohibited area they can develop the fact that he also had no CCL and thus committed another crime. He may not be able to dodge that charge.

stay safe.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 5, 2012

E6chevron said:
Your use of the word assume gives a clue to the reasoning behind your opinion.

Let's review what the official statutes of the State of Wisconsin have in them:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13

Subsection (1m), paragraph (c), subdivision 2. describes the forfeiture offense, referred to in this thread. This thread is dealing with a nonresidential building.

Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), subdivision 1. describes the sign needed to legally post the area referred to in this thread.

Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), sudivision 2. part am. describes how a sign alone, is considered notification for the area referred to in this thead. Additional notification of the individual is not required by this statute. You have violated statute 943.13(1m)(c)2.

While you may be simply asked to leave, after entering a building that is properly posted, that is just a grace that is extended by the building management or by law enforcement. It is like getting a warning ticket after being clocked doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone. You broke the law, they are just declining to cite. They could legally press charges, without any further notification or discussion.

I think it is a bad idea to depend on the kindness of strangers. Better to just follow the law as written.

11Act35, is a very complicated set of changes, additions, deletions to many Wisconsin statutes. To understand what the complete law in force is, take a direct look at the statutes.

Your point is taken, and while a business may not be required to ask you to leave I "assume" that business greed will in many cases provide that courtesy. I would imagine that its similar to walking into a restaurant without shoes. I would not maliciously enter a business but may unintentionally. However Act 35 really doesnt say your boned.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 5, 2012

skidmark said:
1) 2) And if they were acting as an agent for the state they would be requireds to indicate they they were doing so at the time they initiated the search.

I don't think they can just say "I am acting as an agent of the state", even a private security officer does not have the legal authority to initiate a search. They can ask but you can decline. I remember reading some years ago where a security officer had been sued because he searched some lady's purse because he thought she shoplifted something.

rcawdor57 · Feb 5, 2012

How Can This Be Considered "Concealed" When It Is Being Transported??

I don't understand how this can be considered concealed since 167.31 has been changed for handguns. The handguns do not have to be unloaded nor do they have to be in a case made specifically for handguns. I carry several handguns in a "Range bag" when I go to the range.

Once again how can we transport a handgun (or any firearm) legally if by simply putting it in a container it is now a "concealed weapon"??

167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(b) “Encased” means enclosed in a case that is completely
zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part
of the firearm exposed.

Herr Heckler Koch · Feb 5, 2012

rcawdor57 said:
I don't understand how this can be considered concealed since 167.31 has been changed for handguns. The handguns do not have to be unloaded nor do they have to be in a case made specifically for handguns. I carry several handguns in a "Range bag" when I go to the range. Once again how can we transport a handgun (or any firearm) legally if by simply putting it in a container it is now a "concealed weapon"?? 167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(b) “Encased” means enclosed in a case that is completely
zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part
of the firearm exposed.

The elements of the crime of concealment ss941.23 still stand, requiring a test case that WCI and KS have so kindly provided - provided they pursue it to appeals court. That means that KS must be found guilty and with error grounds for appeal.

rcawdor57 · Feb 5, 2012

Ah..But There Is A BIG Difference In The Two "Cases"...

Herr Heckler Koch said:
The elements of the crime of concealment ss941.23 still stand, requiring a test case that WCI and KS have so kindly provided - provided they pursue it to appeals court. That means that KS must be found guilty and with error grounds for appeal.

In K.S.'s case the handgun was in a holster in a vehicle. In the hospital case the handguns were being transported. There is a big difference. I have stated this many times: "How can we legally transport our firearms if we violate 941.23 every time?"

This is from...LINK: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/im/im2011_10.pdf

“Carry” Versus “Possession”
The majority of the provisions of the bill relate to restrictions on a person’s ability to “carry” a firearm. The bill defines “carrying” a firearm to mean to “go armed with” a firearm. The phrase “go armed with,” as it would relate to a firearm, has been defined by the Wisconsin courts to mean that the firearm was on the individual’s person or was within the individual’s reach and the individual was aware of the presence of the firearm. However, Wisconsin courts generally do not treat having an unloaded and encased firearm within one’s reach as “going armed with” the firearm.

The last sentence is what is most important. And yes...I KNOW this is a MEMO and not law but it is out there for the general public's knowledge.

Herr Heckler Koch · Feb 5, 2012

There is only one case, that I know, that bears on ss941.23. What is the other, please, or the ss167.31 test case?

rcawdor57 · Feb 5, 2012

The Two "Cases" I Was Referring To....

Herr Heckler Koch said:
There is only one case, that I know, that bears on ss941.23. What is the other, please, or the ss167.31 test case?

Was K.S.'s "Case" and this guy who had his handguns in his computer "Case". It was a pun...

The only legal case I know of is this: For instance, in State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65 (Ct. App. 1994), the Court of Appeals recognized that the placement, possession, or transportation of unloaded and encased firearms in vehicles as permitted by § 167.31 (2) (b), Stats., does not constitute going armed with a concealed weapon.

MKEgal · Feb 5, 2012

skidmark said:
Once the cops became involved in investigating the allegation that he carried into a prohibited area they can develop the fact that he also had no CCL and thus committed another crime. He may not be able to dodge that charge.

I disagree.
If the search was illegal (he did not consent, they had no RAS he was committing a crime) then the results of that search, & any charges that might come from that, are immaterial.

They cannot be brought/used/continued/pressed/whatever.
That's exactly what happened in the Brookfield case.

E6chevron · Feb 5, 2012

rcawdor57 said:
In K.S.'s case the handgun was in a holster in a vehicle. In the hospital case the handguns were being transported. There is a big difference. I have stated this many times: "How can we legally transport our firearms if we violate 941.23 every time?"

This is from...LINK: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/im/im2011_10.pdf

“Carry” Versus “Possession”
The majority of the provisions of the bill relate to restrictions on a person’s ability to “carry” a firearm. The bill defines “carrying” a firearm to mean to “go armed with” a firearm. The phrase “go armed with,” as it would relate to a firearm, has been defined by the Wisconsin courts to mean that the firearm was on the individual’s person or was within the individual’s reach and the individual was aware of the presence of the firearm. However, Wisconsin courts generally do not treat having an unloaded and encased firearm within one’s reach as “going armed with” the firearm.

The last sentence is what is most important. And yes...I KNOW this is a MEMO and not law but it is out there for the general public's knowledge.

First, take a look here at a definition which is used by the SS941.23 "Carrying concealed weapon" statute.

939.22(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.

I don't know if the hospital visitor had handguns which were loaded or not, but as far as SS941.23, it doesn't make any difference, they are still considered a "Dangerous weapon".

Here is the link to the "Carrrying concealed weapon" statute
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/23

For the purposes of understanding what the law is, and how it applies, anything other than the statutes and case law can be very misleading. Sometimes the statutes are contradictory.

The Legislative Council memo which you cite, has this at the top of page 3:

* Permits placing, possessing, or transporting a loaded and unencased handgun in a vehicle.

This is what MKEgal is in trouble over and facing a 941.23 charge.

Do not put much trust in a MEMO

----------------------------

This situation does not involve the firearms transportation statute.

The SS167.31 "Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/167/31

Is not pertinent to this situation (in a hospital), it applies to transporation in motorboats, vehicles, airplanes, and weapon usage near roadways and power transmission facilities.

----------------------------

My GUESS, is that the hospital visitor either:

1) Mentioned that there were handguns in the computer case.
.. or
2) Opened the computer case, the handguns were then visible to someone else, and that knowledge was communicated to hospital staff.

rcawdor57 · Feb 5, 2012

E6chevron said:
First, take a look here at a definition which is used by the SS941.23 "Carrying concealed weapon" statute.

I don't know if the hospital visitor had handguns which were loaded or not, but as far as SS941.23, it doesn't make any difference, they are still considered a "Dangerous weapon".

Here is the link to the "Carrrying concealed weapon" statute
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/23

For the purposes of understanding what the law is, and how it applies, anything other than the statutes and case law can be very misleading. Sometimes the statutes are contradictory.

The Legislative Council memo which you cite, has this at the top of page 3:

This is what MKEgal is in trouble over and facing a 941.23 charge.

Do not put much trust in a MEMO

----------------------------

This situation does not involve the firearms transportation statute.

The SS167.31 "Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/167/31

Is not pertinent to this situation (in a hospital), it applies to transporation in motorboats, vehicles, airplanes, and weapon usage near roadways and power transmission facilities.

----------------------------

My GUESS, is that the hospital visitor either:

1) Mentioned that there were handguns in the computer case.
.. or
2) Opened the computer case, the handguns were then visible to someone else, and that knowledge was communicated to hospital staff.

Oh, I know what the laws are and that is my point. How can ANYONE transport a "dangerous weapon" legally IAW 941.23? It cannot be done (without a Wisconsin CWL for four specific "items") even though ACT 35 states it CAN be done without a CWL for handguns (IE...Krysta's case). As I have stated before if the police wanted to they could put an officer at every sporting goods store and arrest everyone with a "dangerous weapon" as they enter or leave the store. Since 167.31 is only for transport in "vehicles" then technically we can never carry our firearms to and from our vehicles legally. You gotta love the wonderful laws of Wisconsin!

MilProGuy · Feb 6, 2012

E6chevron said:
In Wisconsin, If the building is legally posted against weapons or concealed weapons, at the entrances, and you are carying a concealed weapon, you are breaking the law as soon as you walk in. You are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification.

That's pretty much how it is in Mississippi, too.

1245A Defender · Feb 6, 2012

Hummm,,,..

MilProGuy said:
That's pretty much how it is in Mississippi, too.

thats interesting about mississipi,,,
even though it is off topic, I wonder if in mississippi, concealled means concealled?
Would an improperly posted sign still carry the weight of law, in mississippi?
its important to note that in wiconsin, a business that is not completely and
properly posted, pretty much doesnt count!
of course that hasnt been fully fleshed out in the courts quite yet, but
they will eventually either have to shlt or get off the pot!

Do you OC,,,, in Mississippi?

MilProGuy · Feb 6, 2012

1245A Defender said:
Do you OC,,,, in Mississippi?

No, but I do legally conceal carry.

Man Accused Of Bringing Guns Inside Hospital, concealed, not licensed. Poison fruit?

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Campaign Veteran

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member