is someone cooking BBQ CROW
No part of the statutes does it say it has to be out of reach.
What part of the criminal element of carrying a concealed weapon which must be "on the defendants person or within reach" are you incapable of seeing? It is right there in the statute. State v. Keith (1993) You do realize that we have been talking all along about violating 941.23 not 167.31 right? You can see that it says in the statute that if a dangerous weapon is hidden and within ones reach it is a technical violation of 941.23. You might want to listen to the oral arguments in State v. Hamdan where the State argues that dangerous weapons concealed in the home are a violation of 941.23 but because they do not bring charges it remains constitutional. That line of reasoning is probably the sole reason that Hamdan allowed for ccw in the home and place of business. If some of you want to take a fanatical position on this that is your right, if some have no desire to attempt compliance with both statues that is your choice, but to continue to delude oneself and others makes me rethink how ready we are for constitutional carry. Perhaps we do need some mandated professional instruction and paper permits.
941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except
a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding s.
939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not
include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission warden.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
The burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she is a peace officer and within
the exception. State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973).
A defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with
a gun locked in a glove compartment. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565
(1986).
To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of
s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).
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).
There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed
weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999),
97−1423.
Under the facts of the case, the privilege of of self−defense was inapplicable to a
charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538,
638 N.W.2d 280, 00−0744.
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.
Judges are not peace officers authorized to carry concealed weapons. 69 Atty. Gen.
66.
