Any CCW arrests lately?

[Shotgun]

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

An encased firearm is not "within reach" -- it's in a case. If you think otherwise, then I have to state again that I've had the Crown Jewels of England within my reach.

Can you cite this please?

And how many of the incident reports from the Madison area involve encased firearms if any?

Absolutely none. Madison PD seems to understand that an unload and encased firearm is not a "concealed weapon."

Can I cite? Do you mean my vacation in England?

Find a cite-able opinion that held a properly unloaded and encased gun transported in a vehicle must be also "out of reach."

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

I was thinking more of Ireland, those limeys are not very hospitable.

Anyways, I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is nothing stopping the coppers from making arrest either.

It is one of those things where you fall upon the officers discretion. Let's hope he has some.

Otherwise I was referring to this:

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).

Now anywhere within the lunge area is within reach, that has already been determined.

Placing the firearm, even an encased firearm under the seat is removing the firearm from plain sight in fact making it hidden.

Do you then not meet the elements for a violation?

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

I was thinking more of Ireland, those limeys are not very hospitable.

Anyways, I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is nothing stopping the coppers from making arrest either.

It is one of those things where you fall upon the officers discretion. Let's hope he has some.

Well every arrest involves a certain amount of discretion on the part of the LEO. Like everyone, a cop has a right to an opinion.

It's what happens in court that ultimately matters and will either put you in jail or keep you out of jail.

I found the "Limeys" quite hospitable-- and happy to see "Yanks" instead of just more German tourists.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

I was thinking more of Ireland, those limeys are not very hospitable.

Anyways, I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is nothing stopping the coppers from making arrest either.

It is one of those things where you fall upon the officers discretion. Let's hope he has some.

Well every arrest involves a certain amount of discretion on the part of the LEO. Like everyone, a cop has a right to an opinion.

It's what happens in court that ultimately matters and will either put you in jail or keep you out of jail.

I found the "Limeys" quite hospitable-- and happy to see "Yanks" instead of just more German tourists.

That's only because they are in hot watter over the Oil spill!

Just kidding, hope you had a great vacation. Maybe next time you will give Ireland a try.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

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).

Now anywhere within the lunge area is within reach, that has already been determined.

Placing the firearm, even an encased firearm under the seat is removing the firearm from plain sight in fact making it hidden.

Do you then not meet the elements for a violation?

A couple of problems with Keith-- it was decided before Article 1, Section 25 came into being, before Hamdan-- which said there are times when concealing a weapon is necessary and legal-- and it did not involve an unloaded and encased firearm.

I'll repeat... an encased firearm is not "within reach."

Let propose the following scenario. You're really pissed at me. I'm standing with my nose two inches away from 4 inches of bullet proof glass. You're a foot away on the opposite side of the glass. Go ahead, punch me in the nose. Am I within your reach? Am I immediately accessible?

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

Does the applicability of the annotation of elements of a crime depend on those things, the chronology or the details of the case that led to the incorporation? I asked elsewhere here, what is the effect of an annotation, is it an extension of the black letters of the statute or a clarification or is it binding on the courts? To me, a mere legally armed citizen not a lawyer and a coward and an assh0le, it's clear that I don't want to be the test case.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

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).

Now anywhere within the lunge area is within reach, that has already been determined.

Placing the firearm, even an encased firearm under the seat is removing the firearm from plain sight in fact making it hidden.

Do you then not meet the elements for a violation?

A couple of problems with Keith-- it was decided before Article 1, Section 25 came into being, before Hamdan-- which said there are times when concealing a weapon is necessary and legal-- and it did not involve an unloaded and encased firearm.

I'll repeat... an encased firearm is not "within reach."

Let propose the following scenario. You're really pissed at me. I'm standing with my nose two inches away from 4 inches of bullet proof glass. You're a foot away on the opposite side of the glass. Go ahead, punch me in the nose. Am I within your reach? Am I immediately accessible?

Maybe not, but an officer could charge you with threats, disorderly conduct, or what ever he so chooses. My point again is that this will all fall under officer discretion and to be totally honest, none of them are really on our side or so it seems.

It is one of those issues where you just have to choose your poison. As it has been stated here before it is better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

But I will remind you that something that works with Madison Cops may not work with small town Wisconsin Cops and speaking directly towards Calumet county You would be hard pressed not to be railroaded through the entire system as that is general practice here.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

That's fine, I don't really care whether an officer chooses to write a citation or doesn't. I don't think we need to rehash the cases in Wisconsin where individuals have been cited by LEOs and it didn't stand up, e.g., Gonzalez (X2), Krause, Yates, Hannon-Rock, et al.

I can't agree that none of the police seem to be on our side. Some are, some aren't, some are just confused. And even among those who aren't "on our side" many stay within the law and don't try to enforce their opinion.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Does the applicability of the annotation of elements of a crime depend on those things, the chronology or the details of the case that led to the incorporation? I asked elsewhere here, what is the effect of an annotation, is it an extension of the black letters of the statute or a clarification or is it binding on the courts? To me, a mere legally armed citizen not a lawyer and a coward and an assh0le, it's clear that I don't want to be the test case.

I think the published annotations are meant as clarification and merely for informational purposes. Some annotations refer to AG opinions, which are not binding on any court, I believe. The opinion behind the annotation binds lower courts but no state appeals court opinion binds the state supreme court. Nor does a prior supreme court opinion, since they may reverse a prior court's opinion.

Doug here's a interesting read from the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/preface.html

Apparently not all Wisconsin laws are printed in the statutes! It even says that omitted laws are just as valid as those they do print: "The omission of a general statute from the Wisconsin Statutes has no effect upon its validity. General statutes which are not printed, and special, private and local laws are found in the volumes of the Wisconsin Session Laws for the year of enactment."