• 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

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
This has absolutely nothing to do with law
and everything to do with Stephan E. Nolten. Is he is willing to jeopardize his political aspirations over this case? Highly unlikely. He will drag it out, might even bail and hand it off to an underling, just to destroy MKEGal outside the courtroom. Make her life a living hell.

In the end they will drop the case, get sued, settle without admission of guilt... And good ole Stephan can sleep well at night knowing he did his job. Harassing the innocent.

p.s. Hear that? It's the BIG guns of WCInc cranking up. Stephan f*cked with the wrong crowd.
 
Last edited:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
While I am sure Krysta's lawyer will argue over the meaning of the word 'concealed' as per 941.23, why not ALSO argue that 941.23 (the statute itself) is unconstitutional (it worked for the pizza guy, right?). Whether Krysta likes it or not, this is a test-case, might as well test 941.23 itself rather than limit one's defense to the argument over how to define an undefinable word.

That would put the prosecutor on the defensive, and at the same time make his definition of 'concealed' look all the more ridiculous. A successful outcome can only help the move toward Constitutional Carry (which is what Wisconsin should have).

****
I'm heading over now to PayPal and will be donating to her legal defense fund.

Good luck Krysta!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
...snip.... Hear that? It's the BIG guns of WCInc cranking up. Stephan f*cked with the wrong crowd.

Lock and load, prepare to rock and roll.

MKEGal cannot be allowed to go this alone. Dig deep and dig often. She did not want any of this, but is standing tall.

Can we do any less? I think not! There but for the grace of God go you or I.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Wisconsin Statute Annotations, 941.23

ALSO argue that 941.23 (the statute itself) is unconstitutional (it worked for the pizza guy, right?).
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are
possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit
in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s need
to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid
restriction on that right be unconstitutional, as applied. The right to keep and bear
arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and
sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately
operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State
v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. See also State
v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed
weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise
the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s interest in
concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms
substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute?
and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the
only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear
arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.
This section is constitutional as applied in this case. The defendant’s interest in
exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed
weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state’s interest in
prohibiting him from carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle. State v. Fisher,
2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
While I am sure Krysta's lawyer will argue over the meaning of the word 'concealed' as per 941.23, why not ALSO argue that 941.23 (the statute itself) is unconstitutional (it worked for the pizza guy, right?). Whether Krysta likes it or not, this is a test-case, might as well test 941.23 itself rather than limit one's defense to the argument over how to define an undefinable word.

That would put the prosecutor on the defensive, and at the same time make his definition of 'concealed' look all the more ridiculous. A successful outcome can only help the move toward Constitutional Carry (which is what Wisconsin should have).

****
I'm heading over now to PayPal and will be donating to her legal defense fund.

Good luck Krysta!
I believe that the Judge can not allow such testimony at the Circuit Court level. At the Curcuit court level, her lawyer can argue that she did not break the law, not that the law is unconstitutional.

This case has a chance to define what open carry is in a vehicle, better defining what 'concealed' measn, not challenge the constitutionality of 941.23

Why not? She does not have the resources to do so.
 
Last edited:

gm2max

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
66
Location
Virginia Beach
I guess wisconsin is different than VA in this issue. I got pulled over today and the policeman had NO problem with my glock 19 on the passenger seat...
 

SFC Stu

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
32
Location
, ,
Open carry

How the heck can a person be charged with *concealed* carry, if the officer seen the firearm? This stinks! Please help Krysta with a donation. I will!
 

TyGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
775
Location
, ,
How about a fundraiser raffle? $10-$25 a ticket for some sort of firearm. The firearm could be donated or perhaps bought at cost from a friendly local shop.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
How about a fundraiser raffle? $10-$25 a ticket for some sort of firearm. The firearm could be donated or perhaps bought at cost from a friendly local shop.

Raffles can be tricky, sometimes the state lottery starts a fuss...
 

TaurusToter

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
308
Location
West Bend, WI
Raffles can be tricky, sometimes the state lottery starts a fuss...

I won a XDM 3.8 through a raffle at my gun club. Tickets were $20 per ticket. Had to go through an FFL for the gun, and had to pay the BG check out of pocket. Was still a heck of a deal (2 tickets at $20 each + $13 BG at my local FFL = $53 for a new XDM)

Don't know about the state lottery making a fuss, but I know that it had to be handled through an FFL
 

jag06

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
292
Location
, North Carolina, USA
Sorry to hear about this. I will try and see if I can get a couple dollars together in the next week or two, no promises though. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
 
Last edited:

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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.

Anyone have any general ideas on who "can" get a PD? All I know about the process is from: http://www.wisspd.org/htm/GenInfo/Qualify.asp

I don't think I'd go with a PD if I didn't "have to". WI typically upholds convictions 90% or so of the time.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Anyone have any general ideas on who "can" get a PD? All I know about the process is from: http://www.wisspd.org/htm/GenInfo/Qualify.asp

I don't think I'd go with a PD if I didn't "have to". WI typically upholds convictions 90% or so of the time.
Well, I wanted to go with a lawyer that would do a lowsy job and maybe screw something up, to guarantee I would loose, then appeal with the lawyer that I have on speed dial. That was to challenge 167.31. I OC'd in my vehicle for a year before Act 35 went into effect. Act 35 changed 167.31, so that whole idea is out. I would love to be in Krysta's shoes right now. I could do 9 months easy on Huber. While the appeal is filed.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
How about a fundraiser raffle? $10-$25 a ticket for some sort of firearm. The firearm could be donated or perhaps bought at cost from a friendly local shop.

Think that she needs more immediate relief right now.

Raffles and such take time to set up and one must be aware of all applicable laws regarding such - gaming laws etc.

Not a bad idea though. Are you volunteering? :D
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Raffles and such take time to set up and one must be aware of all applicable laws regarding such - gaming laws etc.
Specifically Wisconsin Statute Chapter 563 Bingo and Raffle Control
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Thanks for the heads up. Support opposing this sort of travesty transcends state boundaries.

Donation to legal fund sent.

You are welcome ATM. This isn't just a WI issue, but something every state can look to to get their laws changed. When I was in IN last year, I was think they would eventually go Constitutional Carry since you just need to pay your tax to carry and pretty much carry everywhere. I don't know exactly how the politics are there (I know employers could no longer prohibit firearms in a locked vehicle anymore), but you too can improve. :)
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
There's a limit to what I can say w/o Rebecca creating new bodily orifices for me...
(Ask McX.)

THANK YOU all for the support, emotional & monetary. (And in one case, turkey. You know who you are. Almost didn't fit in the fridge! Hope you're feeling better.)
Obviously more of both is going to be needed. (Not turkey. This one will last a while.)

Several specific thanks:
Paul for giving me hope. I was on the phone w/ him as it was going down, so I knew I'd eventually be rescued.
Tyler who tried to bail me out. I don't know if we've even met! (I remember faces better than names.)
Dave (e6chevron) who actually did badger them into releasing me Sat. afternoon (his birthday!), then drove me various places until I got my car back. Plus he lent me hundreds of dollars, which I should be able to pay back very soon w/ donations.

protias said:
While I do think the NRA should get involved, especially for one of their trainers, I'll hold my breath and eat my crow if they help.
Since this is a precedent-setting case, affecting the whole state, we're hopeful.
And don't do that to a perfectly nice crow. :D
Did you know crows are really smart birds? They figure out puzzles.

Walls said:
(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)
Talk with Dave as to whether this applies. Or those of you who have seen my car can make an educated guess.

SFC Stu said:
How the heck can a person be charged with *concealed* carry, if the officer sees the firearm?
:confused: Picture me shrugging.
I know exactly where the problem happened, & it wasn't something I had control over.
 
Last edited:
Top