CCW a Felony?

[Shotgun]

I would just like to point out that CCW=Concealed Carry of a Weapon, and the definition of a "Weapon" is any item that can be used offensive or defensively to harm another. Which means that one could get hit with a CCW charge for something like carrying a knife in their pocket (and really, most people do carry pocket knives) along with any other item the person might have for defensive use. Personally I find it too vague and rather stupid.

I don't think that is quite accurate. A "weapon" isn't "any item that can be used offensively or defensively to harm another."

As you pointed out, almost ANY item could be used in a manner that could harm another person. As a consequence, it is absurd to regard almost EVERY item to be a weapon.

The courts tend to use a somewhat less broad and vague definition, which to me is also more reasonable. A "weapon" is any item that is either A) designed to function as a weapon, or B) actually employed as a weapon. This definition is infinitely more reasonable because clearly something designed to be a weapon is a weapon. And it is not unreasonable to charge someone with carrying a concealed weapon, or assault with a weapon or other weapons charges, if they actually have employed an item as a weapon even though it was not designed as such. Baseball bats, pool cues, Swiss army knives, screwdrivers, ice picks, shards of broken glass, brass candle sticks, lengths of chain, razor blades, bottles of chemical or household solvents, and thousands of other items you can name are not designed as weapons. And they are not weapons unless and until they are employed as such.

 

[MrBubba]

Walker has done absolutely great things for the future of the state of Wisconsin, to the point that I would call him a hero. But, I will not simply give Walker a pass on this issue becasue of that. I don't feel that he has earned enough political points to be the allocator of Constitutional Rights. I have aproximately 6 months to contemplate this. I gave my word and it will be very difficult for me to retract from that. It may come down to desperately wishing I never see a Recall Walker petition because I don't want to sign it, but if I am asked, I will becasue I said I would.

Or you could just admit you were wrong to say what you did in the heat of the debate. Governor Walker has never said that he wouldn't sign constitutional carry, he simply said that he preferred that the bill be permit based and have a training requirement. None of this contradicted anything he said before the election. To support the recall of the most pro-gun governor Wisconsin has ever had because you think that he has broken a promise he never made is completely irrational. I don't think anyone would hold you to a statement made in anger before all the facts were out.

If anyone can get Gov. Scott Walker on record saying that he may publicly support Constitutional Carry in a year or two after the anti-gun liberals see the blood won't be running in the streetsor something like that I would be inclined to change my mind.

Again, Governor Walker has never said that he has changed his mind and will no longer support constitutional carry. So far he hasn't broken any of his campaign promises, including the promise to sign constitutional carry if the legislature passes it. Like any other Wisconsin resident, he was fully within his rights to express his views about what the bill should include. I was personally shocked by the number of people on this and other Wisconsin gun forums who expressed preferences for permits and mandatory training.

I swear this, Wisconsin will not be the 49th state to get Constitutional Carry.

I think that is a very foolish promise to make for someone who takes his word so seriously! If gun owners like you decide to support the recall of the most pro-gun governor Wisconsin has ever had because he didn't live up to a promise he never made, no elected official in this state will ever support gun rights again. Why should they? We won't be the 49th state to get constitutional carry or even the 50th. If this is how we gun owners treat our friends in government who have given us more than we have ever received before, we will never get constitutional carry or anything else.

 

[theoicarry]

not to be too critical since you admit to still be developing your thoughts on this, but let me get this straight. Someone who has said on this forum that they will support recalling the governor unless the governor signs a constitutional carry bill (whether or not the legislature even passes one) now wants to make the exact same act a felony for certain non-felons?

I think this illustrates an important phenomena. The "political continuum" is really a circle. The most liberty minded of us are often the most likely to become the worst authoritarians (myself included). I have noticed that in other permit states you are most likely to be challenged for your permit by another permit holder (since we know best what to look for). I think that this is an excellent reminder that we will all need to be on guard not to become the enemies of other peaceable people’s freedoms once we finally obtain our own.

Also related to the above, i hope that you decide to give governor walker a pass on all this assuming that he signs the current substituted bill. It could simply be that our pro-gun elected officials sincerely believe that the quickest way for us to get constitutional carry is through a two step process by passing the best possible permit bill now (which also improves open carry) and come back for constitutional carry in the near future. Please also give some thought to this.

verry well said!!!!

 

[GlockRDH]

So the young, single mom who has her Grampa's 1911 from WWII and can't afford a permit and training and has to work 2cnd shift in a bad part of town is either without protection when she gets out of work, or ends up with the same severity of penalty as her attacker? I don't think so we want that to happen, do we?

im not sure if you read what i had written..use it as enhancer with an adjunct crime...the young single mom is using if for defense...not to hold up a liquor store...

 

[davegran]

im not sure if you read what i had written..use it as enhancer with an adjunct crime...the young single mom is using if for defense...not to hold up a liquor store...

Yes I did read and understand what you wrote; but what you don't understand is that she is committing a crime by concealed carry of her Grampa's gun without a permit so she would fall under your "enhancer" conditions.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Yes I did read and understand what you wrote; but what you don't understand is that she is committing a crime by concealed carry of her Grampa's gun without a permit so she would fall under your "enhancer" conditions.

NO. Do you understand what an 'enhancer' is? The 'act' in and of itself is not the crime, but in conjuunction with a crime, it increases the penatly for the crme, not the 'act'.

Here are some examples.

1. She got pulled over for a defective taillight and the office saw a concealed handgun in her purse while the was getting out her DL, it would not be an enhancer as no other crime was committed.

2. If she got pulled over under the same conditions, and the officer had RAS that she was under the influence and did a raodside sobriety check and determined that she was and placed her under arrest and found meth on her person, to be in possesion of a fireearm w/o a permit would be an 'enhancer' to he drug possession charge.

 

[Drakon]

This is about the dumbest thread I have ever read on here. I'm done.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

This is about the dumbest thread I have ever read on here. I'm done.

Thanks for contributing! :banghead:

 

[Aknazer]

I don't think that is quite accurate. A "weapon" isn't "any item that can be used offensively or defensively to harm another."

As you pointed out, almost ANY item could be used in a manner that could harm another person. As a consequence, it is absurd to regard almost EVERY item to be a weapon.

The courts tend to use a somewhat less broad and vague definition, which to me is also more reasonable. A "weapon" is any item that is either A) designed to function as a weapon, or B) actually employed as a weapon. This definition is infinitely more reasonable because clearly something designed to be a weapon is a weapon. And it is not unreasonable to charge someone with carrying a concealed weapon, or assault with a weapon or other weapons charges, if they actually have employed an item as a weapon even though it was not designed as such. Baseball bats, pool cues, Swiss army knives, screwdrivers, ice picks, shards of broken glass, brass candle sticks, lengths of chain, razor blades, bottles of chemical or household solvents, and thousands of other items you can name are not designed as weapons. And they are not weapons unless and until they are employed as such.

1. device for attack or defense 2. something used against an adversary

Though the main point is that something used defensively is a weapon. Which means that anything you carry to defend yourself is technically a weapon and thus one could potentially be charged with CCW for having something to defend theirself with.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I asked for help with this becasue I will be going to Madison and camping out and testifiying at the public hearing. My opinion is not fully formed on this issue, and I asked for help to accomplish that. But those of who who offer nothing but the one liner " what part of shall not be infringed" are too closed minded to even contmeplate a balance between Consstitutional Carry and tools for Law Enforcement.

Miwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke would support Constitutional Carry if Straw-Purchase was a felony. And the only reason is that Straw-Purchase is not a felony is because it was attached to another measure that failed.

Ideas?

 

[davegran]

NO. Do you understand what an 'enhancer' is? The 'act' in and of itself is not the crime, but in conjuunction with a crime, it increases the penatly for the crme, not the 'act'.

Here are some examples.

1. She got pulled over for a defective taillight and the office saw a concealed handgun in her purse while the was getting out her DL, it would not be an enhancer as no other crime was committed.

2. If she got pulled over under the same conditions, and the officer had RAS that she was under the influence and did a raodside sobriety check and determined that she was and placed her under arrest and found meth on her person, to be in possesion of a fireearm w/o a permit would be an 'enhancer' to he drug possession charge.

Well now, suppose our single mom had to shoot a bad guy with an illegally concealed gun, discharging the gun within the city limits and 500' away from a school? Won't that make her a felon?

 

[Motofixxer]

Legal Clarification:

WEAPON- An instrument of offensive or defensive
combat, or anything used, or designed to
be used, in destroying, defeating or injuring an
enemy. Perry v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 587, 151
S.W.2d 377, 379; People ex rel. Griffin v, Hunt,
150 Misc. 163, 270 N.Y.S. 248. Something to fight
with. Highsaw v. Creech, 17 Tenn.App. 573, 69
S.W.2d 249. (Blacks Law 4th ed, Pg. 1764)

 

[Shotgun]

Legal Clarification:

WEAPON- An instrument of offensive or defensive
combat, or anything used, or designed to
be used, in destroying, defeating or injuring an
enemy. Perry v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 587, 151
S.W.2d 377, 379; People ex rel. Griffin v, Hunt,
150 Misc. 163, 270 N.Y.S. 248. Something to fight
with. Highsaw v. Creech, 17 Tenn.App. 573, 69
S.W.2d 249. (Blacks Law 4th ed, Pg. 1764)

Yup! That's what I said in my earlier post. If it's designed as a weapon, it's a weapon. If it's not designed as a weapon, it's not a weapon, until it is actually used as one.

Swing at fastballs all day and you're fine with your bat. Swing once at my head and it becomes a weapon in the eyes of the law. (It also will become a suppository at that point in time too.)

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Well now, suppose our single mom had to shoot a bad guy with an illegally concealed gun, discharging the gun within the city limits and 500' away from a school? Won't that make her a felon?

Not with SB93, which will law in a few weeks and Castle/Stand Your Ground bills to be passed later this summer.. But with the DARLING-FLYNN-SUDER BILL to be introduced, who knows?

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

yup! That's what i said in my earlier post. If it's designed as a weapon, it's a weapon. If it's not designed as a weapon, it's not a weapon, until it is actually used as one.

Swing at fastballs all day and you're fine with your bat. Swing once at my head and it becomes a weapon in the eyes of the law. (it also will become a suppository at that point in time too.)

ooouuch!!!

 

[jrclen]

I asked for help with this becasue I will be going to Madison and camping out and testifiying at the public hearing.
Ideas?

My idea is the same as I stated. If this is passed, we can kiss constitutional carry goodbye. Concealed carry without a permit will be a felony just as Flynn, Wray, and the other anti gun liberals want. I do not understand why you would be pushing for this. Tell them at the hearing that we have more than enough laws on the books right now to deal with criminals. Ask them to pass the concealed carry bill period, and to move on to more important items. This is a very bad idea.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

My idea is the same as I stated. If this is passed, we can kiss constitutional carry goodbye. Concealed carry without a permit will be a felony just as Flynn, Wray, and the other anti gun liberals want. I do not understand why you would be pushing for this. Tell them at the hearing that we have more than enough laws on the books right now to deal with criminals. Ask them to pass the concealed carry bill period, and to move on to more important items. This is a very bad idea.

The reason that I will be pushing a postition is because Dariling and Suder want to give Flynn what he wants and they will get something. They will. I don't want for what they get to make Constittutional Carry harder to get in the future. Same as you.

Currently CCW is a Misdemeanor. Making CCW w/o a permit, for someone who would be eligible to get a permit, a Forfeiture and not a Felony, is one thing that will help set us up for Constitutional Carry in the future.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

I asked for help with this becasue I will be going to Madison and camping out and testifiying at the public hearing. My opinion is not fully formed on this issue, and I asked for help to accomplish that. But those of who who offer nothing but the one liner " what part of shall not be infringed" are too closed minded to even contmeplate a balance between Consstitutional Carry and tools for Law Enforcement.

Any tool in the wrong hands can be used to harm the innocent. Be careful what you ask for. The concept of a felony enhancer which can be applied to an otherwise minor misdemeanor is a great threat to liberty.... You know what Franklin said regarding security and liberty...