• 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.

Department of regulation and licensing misleading me

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Security Guards Carry Openly

Regular folks can carry openly too. Some "open carry" in a vehicle situations may run afoul of
941.23 - depending on the circumstances. There is no "OC in a car = CC" rule. The court of appeals, in a case, under the facts of that case said:

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation
by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from
view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this
section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).


Also, any absent some specific authority an administrative rule cannot carve out an exception to a statute.
 
Last edited:

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Regular folks can carry openly too. Some "open carry" in a vehicle situations may run afoul of
941.23 - depending on the circumstances. There is no "OC in a car = CC" rule. The court of appeals, in a case, under the facts of that case said:

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation
by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from
view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this
section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).


Also, any absent some specific authority an administrative rule cannot carve out an exception to a statute.

Walls only addressed "indiscernible" weapons. Uncased discernible weapons in vehicles are not violations of the CCW statute, only of the vehicle transport statute. And the vehicle transport statute has an exception for licensed security guards and private detectives.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
What's the conflict? 941.23 prohibits concealed weapons by anyone other than a peace officer. No DRL rule has an exception to 941.23 in it.

It simply does not have to. It defines plain view which is the antithesis of hidden. If it is not hidden, it is not concealed. Not concealed equals no conflict and no violation of 941.23.

Walls only addressed "indiscernible" weapons. Uncased discernible weapons in vehicles are not violations of the CCW statute, only of the vehicle transport statute. And the vehicle transport statute has an exception for licensed security guards and private detectives.

This....
 
Last edited:

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Pfffft...

You are correct Springfield. WisconsinPI should leave this kind of thing alone. All uneducated people do when engaging the government is make us all look bad. Leave the legal engagements for those that truly understand the law.

Spartacus, you don't seem to appreciate the degree of injustice when LEOs can arrest/ticket someone when no crime has been committed (Madison 5) and also ignore others for clearly violating the law. If certain groups want to get special treatment under the law, then they need to petition the lawmakers to change the law. If they are law breakers then they need to be treated as such. I think this is an issue worth pursuing and I agree with you it should be lawyers doing the pursuing. I agree with brassmagnet that anything that draws attention to our insane statutes regarding firearms is a good thing. People that are comfortable seldom get involved. Let's make them a bit more uncomfortable.
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
Federal law regarding armored car crew members

15 U.S.C. § 5902 provides nationwide carry privileges for certain armored car crew members. This overrides all state and local laws restricting the carrying of firearms and other weapons by armored car crew members.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
232
Location
Green Bay
15 U.S.C. § 5902 provides nationwide carry privileges for certain armored car crew members. This overrides all state and local laws restricting the carrying of firearms and other weapons by armored car crew members.

There, issue settled. Lock the thread.
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
I don't know if that settles the issue as it specifically deals with reciprocity among the states for armored car personnel. If they are allowed to carry in one state, they are allowed to carry in all of the states. I do not know if that addresses our conceal carry provision. Muddy waters indeed.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
232
Location
Green Bay
(a) In general
If an armored car crew member employed by an armored car company
(1) has in effect a license issued by the appropriate State agency (in the State in which such member is primarily employed by such company) to carry a weapon while acting in the services of such company in that State, and such State agency meets the minimum requirements under subsection (b) of this section; and
(2) has met all other applicable requirements to act as an armored car crew member in the State in which such member is primarily employed by such company,

then such crew member shall be entitled to lawfully carry any weapon to which such license relates and function as an armored car crew member in any State while such member is acting in the service of such company.
(b) Minimum State requirements
A State agency meets the minimum State requirements of this subsection if
(1) in issuing an initial weapons license to an armored car crew member described in subsection (a) of this section, the agency determines to its satisfaction that
(A) the crew member has received classroom and range training in weapons safety and marksmanship during the current year from a qualified instructor for each weapon that the crew member will be licensed to carry; and
(B) the receipt or possession of a weapon by the crew member would not violate Federal law, determined on the basis of a criminal record background check conducted during the current year;
(2) in issuing a renewal of a weapons license to an armored car crew member described in subsection (a) of this section, the agency determines to its satisfaction that
(A) the crew member has received continuing training in weapons safety and marksmanship from a qualified instructor for each weapon that the crew member is licensed to carry; and
(B) the receipt or possession of a weapon by the crew member would not violate Federal law, as determined by the agency; and
(3) in issuing a weapons license under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2), as the case may be
(A) the agency issues such license for a period not to exceed 2 years; or
(B) the agency issues such license for a period not to exceed 5 years in the case of a State that enacted a State law before October 1, 1996, that provides for the issuance of an initial weapons license or a renewal of a weapons license, as the case may be, for a period not to exceed 5 years.
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
(a) In general
If an armored car crew member employed by an armored car company
(1) has in effect a license issued by the appropriate State agency (in the State in which such member is primarily employed by such company) to carry a weapon while acting in the services of such company in that State, and such State agency meets the minimum requirements under subsection (b) of this section; and
(2) has met all other applicable requirements to act as an armored car crew member in the State in which such member is primarily employed by such company,

then such crew member shall be entitled to lawfully carry any weapon to which such license relates and function as an armored car crew member in any State while such member is acting in the service of such company.
(b) Minimum State requirements
A State agency meets the minimum State requirements of this subsection if
(1) in issuing an initial weapons license to an armored car crew member described in subsection (a) of this section, the agency determines to its satisfaction that
(A) the crew member has received classroom and range training in weapons safety and marksmanship during the current year from a qualified instructor for each weapon that the crew member will be licensed to carry; and
(B) the receipt or possession of a weapon by the crew member would not violate Federal law, determined on the basis of a criminal record background check conducted during the current year;
(2) in issuing a renewal of a weapons license to an armored car crew member described in subsection (a) of this section, the agency determines to its satisfaction that
(A) the crew member has received continuing training in weapons safety and marksmanship from a qualified instructor for each weapon that the crew member is licensed to carry; and
(B) the receipt or possession of a weapon by the crew member would not violate Federal law, as determined by the agency; and
(3) in issuing a weapons license under paragraph (1) or paragraph (2), as the case may be
(A) the agency issues such license for a period not to exceed 2 years; or
(B) the agency issues such license for a period not to exceed 5 years in the case of a State that enacted a State law before October 1, 1996, that provides for the issuance of an initial weapons license or a renewal of a weapons license, as the case may be, for a period not to exceed 5 years.

I still do not see where it allows the carrying of concealed weapons in violation of Wisonsin state law. I just may be dense.
I remember listening to the audio of a Wisconsin supreme court case, it most likely was Hamdan where the Assistant DA said something very close to, "Other then a peace officer,there is no affirmative defense to a conceal carry charge". Meaning there is nothing in the state statutes that allows it, period. I may be dead wrong on this but I think it merit investigating further.
 

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Spartacus, you don't seem to appreciate the degree of injustice when LEOs can arrest/ticket someone when no crime has been committed (Madison 5) and also ignore others for clearly violating the law. If certain groups want to get special treatment under the law, then they need to petition the lawmakers to change the law. If they are law breakers then they need to be treated as such. I think this is an issue worth pursuing and I agree with you it should be lawyers doing the pursuing. I agree with brassmagnet that anything that draws attention to our insane statutes regarding firearms is a good thing. People that are comfortable seldom get involved. Let's make them a bit more uncomfortable.


My head hurts...
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
An Attorney Should Know

That this is false. For instance in Wisconsin, such crew members could not carry concealed (not that they would want to). Just as the Average Joe is restricted in the manner of carry, so is an employee of Bill Fargo. In fact, the employing company is probably more restrictive than state law would be. This provision simply allows an ACCM, with a (federally qualifying) license from State X to conduct business in State Y without being forced to be licensed by State Y also. It is not carte blanche to ignore any and all of State Y's laws regarding the carrying of firearms.

15 U.S.C. § 5902 provides nationwide carry privileges for certain armored car crew members. This overrides all state and local laws restricting the carrying of firearms and other weapons by armored car crew members.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Don't Be a Semantic Gymnast

"Indiscernible" can mean one of two things. (1) The object cannot be seen or (2) The object can be seen but it is impossible to tell what the object is.

Walls only addressed "indiscernible" weapons.

As opposed to?

Uncased discernible weapons in vehicles are not violations of the CCW statute, only of the vehicle transport statute.

Who said otherwise?

And the vehicle transport statute has an exception for licensed security guards and private detectives.

Which is why such people who vehicle transport weapons that can be seen (and seen as weapons) do not have a problem with 941.23. Perhaps we're in agreement?
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Brother Spartacus, you enjoy Oktoberfest. Jump back in the debate tomorrow when you are sober. We will still be here battling it out. Stay out of trouble tonight.
 
Last edited:

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
That this is false. For instance in Wisconsin, such crew members could not carry concealed (not that they would want to). Just as the Average Joe is restricted in the manner of carry, so is an employee of Bill Fargo. In fact, the employing company is probably more restrictive than state law would be. This provision simply allows an ACCM, with a (federally qualifying) license from State X to conduct business in State Y without being forced to be licensed by State Y also. It is not carte blanche to ignore any and all of State Y's laws regarding the carrying of firearms.

I share your view on the matter. I think that if I am standing on the sidewalk and an armored truck pulls up and I cannot possibly see the guns I know they are wearing, they are guilty of violating the prohibition of conceal carry according to our state courts. IMHO
 

otter

New member
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
25
Location
West Bend, Wisconsin, USA
What's the conflict? 941.23 prohibits concealed weapons by anyone other than a peace officer. No DRL rule has an exception to 941.23 in it.

Well, I guess more specifically, it would be the case law attached to 941.23, not the statute itself.

That being said, it's still a moot point. Security guards aren't going to be arrested for CCW if they are patrolling unless they aren't properly licensed and a copper has a reason to interact with them.

RE: the federal law for armored car crews; that law only comes into play if the company bothers to get a security license in WI. Since it's not required, I don't know how many of them do. As I said earlier, one of the 2 different companies I worked for never had a Private Detective Agency permit (what a security company needs to get) and didn't bother licensing any of its' guards. Employees of that company probably wouldn't have been protected by the federal code when they went into IL because they held no license at all in WI.

Again, moot point, because cops aren't going to willfully stir up **** with an armored car crew unless they have a reason to. More to the point, it illustrates perfectly that some people are more equal than others in the enforcement of the law in WI.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
232
Location
Green Bay
Go ahead and enforce this. Don't cry however when you lose your job. For without these guys moving money around, the economy simply wouldn't exist.
 
Top