Dane Co. man charged with DC while armed.

[MKEgal]

If you are out in public and Open Carrying, and someone wanted to look at your handgun and you consented, how would you do it?

1) Usually the hip twist, so they could see what was sticking out of the holster.

2) ONE time, with a paddle holster I could easily remove, I handed the whole shebang to someone. Pistol stayed holstered, nothing unsafe was done. (He had a question about grip texture.)

:exclaim: This is not something I'd normally recommend, but I knew the person enough to trust him not to do something stupid, & we were at an OC event, sitting down, surrounded by OC people, so I didn't think the general public would be alarmed.

One OC person said he wasn't happy with the situation... not entirely sure if he was joking or not, but I put it back where it belonged shortly thereafter.

Wisconsin most definitely does treat you extra-special for offenses committed while armed, including DC. The cite you have to find is:
939.63 Penalties; use of a dangerous weapon.
(1) If a person commits a crime while possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for that crime may be increased as follows...
(3) This section applies only to crimes specified under chs. 939 to 951 and 961.

Well, I learned something tonight. DC is a crime.

939.12 Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime. [Which is why they can't arrest for 167.31]

939.51 Classification of misdemeanors.
(b) For a Class B misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both.

947.01 Disorderly conduct.
(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Huh... so the crime is DC, & 'armed' is a penalty enhancer.
939.63(1)(a) The maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor may be increased by not more than 6 months.

So it's still a misdemeanor; even with the enhancer it doesn't become a felony.
Betcha Madistan & Killwaukee police are unhappy with that.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

939.12 Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime. [Which is why they can't arrest for 167.31]

I ask politely, do you have any source to back that up, the part that I made red.

I thought that they could "arrest" or hold a person for a bond amount equal to the amount of the citation. In most cases they will not because it is not cost effectiveuse of officer resources, but the offficer does have the discreation. I don't remember where I learned this, but it was a long time ago.

I know that forfietures and ordinance violations are not criminal so I am not questioning that.

 

[MKEgal]

which is why they can't arrest for 167.31

do you have any source to back that up

Closest I can come to an actual legal cite is the Brookfield PD OC memo from APR09,
which says under the Chief's signature that it was approved by the city attorney,
whom I would presume reviewed the contents for legal accuracy.

Page 2, 3rd point up from the bottom:

Arrests should not be made for illegal transport of a weapon under WI stat. 167.31 since there is no statutory authority to arrest for any state forfeiture.

Will poke around in the WI statutes to see if I can find a better source.

ETA: Aha... here we go:
968.07 (1) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
[a-c discuss warrants]
(d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.

There is no E-L. 1m basically says RAS that a person violated a court order.

Those appear to be the allowable reasons for arrest: a warrant, suspicion of a crime, & RAS that a person has violated a court order.

And some other interesting tidbits:
968.07(2) A law enforcement officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of any person, and such person shall have the same power as that of the law enforcement officer.

968.07(3) If the alleged violator under s. 948.55(2)* or 948.60(2)(c)** is or was the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or dies as a result of an accidental shooting, no law enforcement officer may arrest the alleged violator until at least 7 days after the date of the shooting.

* improper storage, permitting access to a minor under 14yo
** giving a firearm to a minor

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Closest I can come to an actual legal cite is the Brookfield PD OC memo from APR09,
which says under the Chief's signature that it was approved by the city attorney,
whom I would presume reviewed the contents for legal accuracy.

Page 2, 3rd point up from the bottom:


Will poke around in the WI statutes to see if I can find a better source.

ETA: Aha... here we go:
968.07 (1) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
[a-c discuss warrants]
(d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.

There is no E-L. 1m basically says RAS that a person violated a court order.

Those appear to be the allowable reasons for arrest: a warrant, suspicion of a crime, & RAS that a person has violated a court order.

See, this is what happens when someone niavely believes what LEO tells them decades before the realize just how much they lie.

I guess I really didn't need to carry the bond amount for a 167.31 violation this whole time.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

See, this is what happens when someone niavely believes what LEO tells them decades before the realize just how much they lie.

I guess I really didn't need to carry the bond amount for a 167.31 violation this whole time.

A friend helped me find it. Chapter 818.02. A arrest can be made for a forfeiture or a local ordinance provided in 818.02(7)and (8), if it is drug related in a very specific way. So, basically, MKEgal, you were right.

 

[MKEgal]

An arrest can be made for a forfeiture or a local ordinance provided in 818.02(7)and (8), if it is drug related in a very specific way.

So there are exceptions. Interesting.
(Just like there are exceptions to the prohibitions about 'felon in possession' or 'minor in possession', and even the current 'no firearms in bars', but they're very narrow.)

So, basically, MKEgal, you were right.

LOL It happens once in a while.
The saying about monkeys, typewriters, & Shakespeare comes to mind. :monkey