It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23

[Grapeshot]

So a gun that was either tucked under his legs, or maybe under the seat itself, is considered in plain view even though the officer didn't see it when he first looked in the car (or he certainly would have blown a fuse then, instead of later).
Hmmm...
And only the grip was visible.
Hmmm, again.

Understand the dichotomy of "hidden in plain view" - number one violation is holstered on one's hip.

 

[Nutczak]

HHK,
Act35 made the case law (which you have cited) outdated, null & void, etc etc etc. As did the state constitution.

The cops and the DA in Milwaukee are grasping at straws so feverishly it makes them look like everyone's favorite outlet for the Joyce foundations monies recipient Jeri B.

Does anyone have video recording of the hearings on act 35 in Madison? This was discussed, and I remember the legislators clearly stating that a person can open-carry in a car without needing to unload, case, and all the other bullschmitt without needing the state issued weapons license. Last time I checked, the legislators still write the law, not the police or some DA. Their job is to enforce the law as written, not come up with their own twisted interpretation of it.

 

[Grapeshot]

HHK,
Act35 made the case law (which you have cited) outdated, null & void, etc etc etc. As did the state constitution.

The cops and the DA in Milwaukee are grasping at straws so feverishly it makes them look like everyone's favorite outlet for the Joyce foundations monies recipient Jeri B.

Does anyone have video recording of the hearings on act 35 in Madison? This was discussed, and I remember the legislators clearly stating that a person can open-carry in a car without needing to unload, case, and all the other bullschmitt without needing the state issued weapons license. Last time I checked, the legislators still write the law, not the police or some DA. Their job is to enforce the law as written, not come up with their own twisted interpretation of it.

Agree, that's the court's perview.:uhoh:

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

... twisted interpretation of it.

Agree, that's the court's perview.

Agreed, and recorded as case law stare decisis, here Keith and Walls, that may yet be overturned.

 

[Packer fan]

Can I use this thread as an example of why simply repealing a law is easier then writing a new one?

I live in Arkansas and we are working to allow clear OC here. Many have the mind set that if we simple write a new law allowing OC that it would work; I'm of the mind set that if we just repeal the weapons law would be easier because we don't have this haggling of what laws trump other.

Thanks.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Can I use this thread as an example of why simply repealing a law is easier then writing a new one?

I live in Arkansas and we are working to allow clear OC here. Many have the mind set that if we simple write a new law allowing OC that it would work; I'm of the mind set that if we just repeal the weapons law would be easier because we don't have this haggling of what laws trump other.

Thanks.

Yep, if WI had just repealed 941.23 then we would have concealed carry. Repealing 167.31 would of fixed Krysta's problem as well.

 

[MAC702]

I think all laws should have a mandatory maximum 10-year sunset, like the AWB fortunately had.

Then, if PROVEN to be an effective and Constitutional law, it can be made permanent. Otherwise, automatic repealment.

 

[Nutczak]

I think all laws should have a mandatory maximum 10-year sunset, like the AWB fortunately had.

Then, if PROVEN to be an effective and Constitutional law, it can be made permanent. Otherwise, automatic repealment.

I say a 1-year sunset, then the legislators might earn their money for a change. Oh, Term limits too!

 

[Captain Nemo]

Perhaps timing might come into play for both the discussed cases. Timing can be crutial in the disposition of a case. The case of State v Adam Gonzales is a good example. Gonzales was arrested on Nov. 6, 1998 and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He and his attorney Suzanne Hagopian argued that the concealed weapon statute 941.23 was unconstitutional because of the enactment of Article I section 25.

Even though they put together a very good agument contesting the constitutionality of ss941.23 Gonzales was found guilty. The Wisconsin supreme court ruled June 13, 2002 that Article I section 25 was not in effect at the time Gonzales was arrested (Nov. 6, 1998) even though it was ratified by the voters three days earlier on Nov. 3,1998. The WSC ruled that the amendment was not in effect until the referendum vote was verified by the state elections board. That verification was made on Nov. 30, 1998. This is just another example of the extreme the liberal supreme cout of that time and many current courts will go to in order to preserve the police state

The timing of the events in these cases and the effective dates of Act 35 and the revision to
ss167.31 could likewise come into play. Let's hope not.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

If I'm right about American jurisprudence; whenever there is a conflict between the meanings of two laws the most recent interpretation/statute is prevalent over the older.
That way when the law says that women have the same rights as men, they don't have to get out the quill pen and amend documents to say "...All men (and women) are created equal..."

 

[GreenCountyPete]

I think all laws should have a mandatory maximum 10-year sunset, like the AWB fortunately had.

Then, if PROVEN to be an effective and Constitutional law, it can be made permanent. Otherwise, automatic repealment.

very wise words ,I have long thought that any law not prosecuted / used in 10 years should come up before a board and a need for it must be proven or it should be repealed

then we could stop hearing about stupid laws , and things could be made more clear and precise to the desired intent of the law and not is poor wording.

 

[MKEgal]

To catch people up on court happenings,

the latest news (from this morning @ court) is that I'm now allowed to handle & use firearms while teaching at a range, which is HUGE for me. I tried working with students without being able to handle pistols, & it was a safety nightmare.

Also, we have a trial date: 01MAY. Hopefully we can get a jury which will listen to the law.

Finally, we won the motion for jury instructions that will keep Walls out of at least my trial. The judge didn't allow the DA to add anything to the current instructions. (He'd wanted to include language from Walls saying that if it's not visible from outside the car it's concealed.)
So again a big win for me, + a step toward getting rid of Walls entirely, because this is setting precident.

 

[kemo]

I hope you kick their butts in court. I believe they overstepped in charging you. I think the proscecutor is hoping he hasn't made a mistake by charging you. Good luck and show Milwaukee they have screwed up.

 

[Grapeshot]

To catch people up on court happenings,

the latest news (from this morning @ court) is that I'm now allowed to handle & use firearms while teaching at a range, which is HUGE for me. I tried working with students without being able to handle pistols, & it was a safety nightmare.

Also, we have a trial date: 01MAY. Hopefully we can get a jury which will listen to the law.

Finally, we won the motion for jury instructions that will keep Walls out of at least my trial. The judge didn't allow the DA to add anything to the current instructions. (He'd wanted to include language from Walls saying that if it's not visible from outside the car it's concealed.)
So again a big win for me, + a step toward getting rid of Walls entirely, because this is setting precident.

Very encouraging.

Time passes so slowly sometimes though. Keep your spirit up, we're behind you all the way.

 

[Helorob]

So again a big win for me,

Yep.

More so than I think many realize. This is very good for setting precidence in a number of different ways. The law is significantly different now and it seems the Judge realizes that. Good . Great . Outstanding :lol:!

I'm glad you'll now be able to pursue gainful employment in your vocation (that has been previously denied). I imagine it would be like trying to teach surgery without being able to touch the patient. Or arresting someone without any crime/violation.....oh, I digress.

Thanks MKEgal. Good luck.

HeloRob

 

[Motofixxer]

Keep it up...Every victory counts toward the end goal.

 

[protias]

They are going to have a very difficult time saying it was concealed since they can't use Walls. And besides that, 167.31 has no mention of open or conceal.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

I can just see the officer testifying that it was concealed in Plain veiw.

Always had a problem with Walls IMHO that ruleing was just an anti gun judge doing his up most to make vehicle carry hard.

 

[HandyHamlet]

I can just see the officer testifying that it was concealed in Plain veiw.

Totality of the circumstances...

It was dark. They were wearing sunglasses...

 

[pepsiaddict]

Is there a dash cam video you have access to for your case? Obviously not one that we'd be able to see [yet]. Just curious if your incident was recorded and will be used in trial.

Ooops, forgot to make my biweekly donation. Paypal-ing you momentarily...