• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wisconsin Open Carry

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

pkbites wrote:
I've gotten into some arguments with other officers about open carry not meeting the definition of disorderly conduct.
do most of the officers you work with frown on open carry and look to arrest or cite those that would/do?
 

JSK333

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
190
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

If your State Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and concealed carry is already illegal on the books, then what other way is there to bear arms?

If you get charged with DC or IP, then you need to file a color of law civil suit until the LEAs train their agents to obey the Constitution as they swore to do.
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

That sounds good in theory, but it does not work in real life.

People do not have the time to go around being arrested and harassed and booked by LE.Governmenthas an infinite amount of taxpayer money to spend on lawyers, while the average citizen does not.

Even if you sue, you cannot really win because of the disconnect between the time when an outrage occurs and when you get a court to agree that you indeed have been done in and the 10 or 15 years of appeals are over.

In the meantime you have spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on legal fees and who knows how many days in court. Most people cannot spend that kind of time or money.

Until we take away the immunity and impunitywith whichLEOs can act with absolutely no consequence to themselves, this will not change. I do not have an answer to how we can do this and not make things even worse though. Ironically, the way things are now,there is far less consequencefor a LEO to violate the rights of anlaw abidingperson than to violate the rights of a non-law abiding one. There is immediate consequence for violating the rights of criminals in the form of the criminal being tossed free. There is no penalty at all (or at least none that matters)for violating the rights of the law abiding citizen.

This is not really a problem with LEOs themselves. Basically they are not the bad guys in this whole situation, although a few probably are. They are stuck with the system the miserable politicians came up with. Voters have a fair amount of clout with the politicians though, and that is where we will find relief, if we ever find it.

Best idea for nowis to try and educate LE and the court system about what the law really is.

A good start might be to get an AG opinion. A state legislator would be a good place to have an opinion requested. Once a favorable opinion was written, it could be disseminated to every LE agency in the state. Those desirous of open carrying could carry a copy of the opinion.

The basic problem with this is that it is so limited an option. Since you cannot OC even in your own vehicle, you are left with the problem of trying to load and unload, case and uncase, etc. It is legal but impractical.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

ilbob wrote:
A good start might be to get an AG opinion. A state legislator would be a good place to have an opinion requested. Once a favorable opinion was written, it could be disseminated to every LE agency in the state. Those desirous of open carrying could carry a copy of the opinion.
ilbob - I don't think this would be a good idea given the current AG's attitude. If things go as expected in November, the people in Wisconsin will have a new governor and concealed carry will be on the books by early 2008. I think this may take away what little enthusiasm there is for an open carry challenge.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Good discussion!

Just to recap, possession of hanguns inside auto is illegal in WI, whether concealed or carried openly.

As packing.org summarizes:

"Date updated: Dec 7, 2005 @ 3:59 pm

Open Carry is legal but you will attract the attention of every police officer in the area. As opposed to the southern states Open Carry is prohibited in cars but OK on the body! Here are the limits:

941.235 You cannot open carry in a government building.

941.237 You cannot open carry a LOADED FIREARM in a place that sells liquor.

167.31(2)(b) You can not open carry a loaded firearm in a car.

167.31(3)(a) In an airplane. The chamber must be empty and the magazine out or empty itself."

The key statute is 167.31(2)(b) - read it - it prohibits generally possession of firearms in cars unless unloaded and encased - but an encased handgun is concealed - and as that is generally banned in WI, well, there's your answer - no carry of handguns in cars in WI, period.

Open Carry appears legal in WI except in vehicles, government buildings, and the following: vehicles, government buildings, and "any premises for which a Class “B” or “Class B” license or permit has been issued under ch. 125."

Anybody knows what a class B permit is, exactly?
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
imported post

apjonas wrote:
ilbob wrote:
A good start might be to get an AG opinion. A state legislator would be a good place to have an opinion requested. Once a favorable opinion was written, it could be disseminated to every LE agency in the state. Those desirous of open carrying could carry a copy of the opinion.
ilbob - I don't think this would be a good idea given the current AG's attitude. If things go as expected in November, the people in Wisconsin will have a new governor and concealed carry will be on the books by early 2008. I think this may take away what little enthusiasm there is for an open carry challenge.
I can't see a state AG deliberately fudging an official opinion just because he does not like what he is forced to conclude, especially where the law is so clear.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

Class “B” or “Class B” license or permit has been issued under ch. 125."

Anybody knows what a class B permit is, exactly?

Watch those quotation marks! Straight from the Department of Revenue....


  • Class "A" fermented malt beverage licenses allow retail sale of fermented malt beverages (beer and most "coolers") for consumption off the premises. Examples: grocery or convenience stores.


  • "Class A" liquor licenses allow retail sale of intoxicating liquor (including wine) for consumption off the premises. Examples: liquor stores or grocery stores with full liquor sales sections.


  • Class "B" fermented malt beverage licenses allow retail sale of fermented malt beverages (beer and most "coolers") for consumption on or off the premises. Examples: restaurants, "beer bars."


  • "Class B" liquor licenses allow retail sale of intoxicating liquor (including wine) for consumption on the premises, and wine in original containers for consumption off the premises. If the community elects to, it may also permit sale of not more than four liters of intoxicating liquor (there are no limits on wine), in the original container, for consumption off the premises. Check local ordinances for the allowance. Examples: taverns and restaurants with full alcohol service.


  • "Class C" wine licenses allow the sale of wine for consumption only on the premises.


  • Temporary Class B licenses (often called picnic licenses) allow retail beer and/or wine sales, for consumption on the premises, at temporary events like fairs and festivals. Only certain organizations qualify for such a license. They must be bona-fide clubs, county or local fair associations, churches, lodges, or societies that have been in existence for at least six months.
There are several other locally issued licenses or state issued permits that allow retail sale of alcohol beverages under certain circumstances. The licenses listed above are the most common, however.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Notice the prohibition against carrying in an establishment with a Class B liquor license specifically prohibits HANDGUNS, so presumably a rifle or shotgun is OK!

Regarding the open carry discussion in Wisconsin, if one listens to the oral arguments in the Hamdan case, the Attorney General's office specificallyargues that concealed carry isn't necessary in Wisconsin because people have the right to carry openly. When one of the justices asked if that wouldn't be risking arrest for disorderly conduct for walking down Madison's State Street with a holstered gun, the state's lawyer says that it shouldn't happen, and that the position of the AG's office is that this would be an "un-constitutional misapplication" of the disorderly conduct statute.

I have a recent email from the Madison Police Department's public information officer who stated the police would never harass someone for carrying a legal weapon. Ahem, we'll see.....
 

ProguninTN

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
416
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

pkbites wrote:
ilbob wrote:
maybe it is time for wi gun owners to organize some OC walks like what happened in Ohio.
What really needs to happen is for the WSSC to rule that the State constitution right to bear arms clause covers open carry, and that it's not disorderly conduct.

The problem is, the court right now is left leaning, so don't hold your breath for any such ruling. In fact, just a few weeks ago the court handed down a very bad ruling against a tavern owner whom had a pistol in his truck, saying the state constitution clause didn't cover that. The amendment to bear arms in our S.C. is very specific & well worded. How they came to that bad ruling is beyond me. Look it up & read it. It's state v fisher I believe.

The case indeed is State v. Fisher. In Fisher, the court cited State v. Cole and State v. Hamdan as relevant precedents. I did observe that a dissent in Fisher, cited State v. Dundon. At a glance, it seems that Dundon is a beacon hope for the WI Supreme Court.

ProguninTN
 

ProguninTN

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
416
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I originally found the Fisherruling on Lexis Nexus, but that requires a paid subscription and login. (I have free access as a college student using my school account.) However, the decision can also be read at the link below. Notice at the bottom, Hamdan and Dundon are cited in the dissent.


Fisher case
http://www.courts.state.wi.us/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25165

Dundon case

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wisconsin+v.+Dundon



I hope this helps.

ProguninTN
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Everyone, please read Wisconsin Statute 948.605. This is one of the reasons why open carry in Wisconsin is a dangerous proposition. If they don't pop you for disturbing the peace, they can and will pop you for carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school, and since it's a felony, if you get convicted, you can never possess a firearm ever again unless you wait many years and spend thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars.

948.605 Gun−free school zones. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this
section:
(a) “Encased” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet−firing
gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any
starter pistol.
(am) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.
8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the
school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the
school forest under s. 120.13 (38).

This is contained the Chapter "Crimes Against Children". This was missed by a lot of folk in this page.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

This confusing mess is the way the government likes it. It allows a selective enforcement of the law. You can carry openly in Wisconsin the law is clear! But the law is equally clear not in a vehicle! Further, carry openly down the street the law is silent. Stray within a 1000 Ft. of a school and the law is clear! You’re a felon. Have you ever taken a city map and drawn 1000ft radius around the perimeter of all the public and private school properties. In most cities and towns a pedestrian would not be able to navigate from one end to the other without infringing on a gun free school zone.

Bicycle would be ok just don't pedal by the school. I think that sums it up pretty well. The laws are just the way they want them. You have your constitutional rights in tact in Wisconsin just don't you dare to exercise them!
 

ProguninTN

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
416
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

It certainly seems like what lockman describes. It reminds me of GA's list of off-limits places along with "public gatherings". Selective enforcement and vagueness. What issues to deal with. :banghead:

ProguninTN
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The nice thing is that there are absolutely no schools near the state capitol or downtown Madison, e.g., State Street. Which is exactly where the legislature and supreme court people roam about.

Notice the school zone prohibition says one must KNOWINGLY take a gun into a school zone. Presumably right now one must carrya gun case with them and as one approaches a school zone unload and encase the firearm until one passes out of the zone. sheesh...

Then there's that curious provision for a "license" to takea firearminto the school zone. Would be interesting to see if the response if one applied for one!
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
The nice thing is that there are absolutely no schools near the state capitol or downtown Madison, e.g., State Street. Which is exactly where the legislature and supreme court people roam about.

Notice the school zone prohibition says one must KNOWINGLY take a gun into a school zone. Presumably right now one must carrya gun case with them and as one approaches a school zone unload and encase the firearm until one passes out of the zone. sheesh...

Then there's that curious provision for a "license" to takea firearminto the school zone. Would be interesting to see if the response if one applied for one!
I would think it insane to attempt to open carry in Madison. I can envision everyone in the vicinity freaking out over it. Also, the majority of the buildings in that area are city/state owned, constituting a "public building", so going indoors while armed would be legally difficult.

I think the license the law mentions has to do with the permit the Department of regulations & Licensing issues to armed guards & private detectives to carry [non-concealed] firearms. I've yet to see armed security working at a school though, outside of University Police at colleges.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

pkbites wrote:
I would think it insane to attempt to open carry in Madison. I can envision everyone in the vicinity freaking out over it. Also, the majority of the buildings in that area are city/state owned, constituting a "public building", so going indoors while armed would be legally difficult.
Insane? What's insane about a couple ofgun owners meeting up at the closest StarBucks to the Calitol and having a latte while open carrying and discussing the latest news and gossip?

Open Carry is not illegal in Wisconsin, and the Governor of Wisconsin recommends it:

"If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip," Doyle said, patting his hip (see http://www.dellstours.com/print/2).
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I saw it - the school zone problem. Obviously violate a zone "knowingly" - it's a federal offense already to do that without a carry permit.

Even better, recon the site to avoid violation en route or while sipping latte.

Open carry will get you news and will assist fight for conceal carry, and those permits will presumably be good within the 1,000 ft school zones.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

I would wait until after the November elections on that score. Having open carry may screw up concealed carry forces up there, and we can afford to do them a favor if it can gain us open carry rights in our cars (similar to Washington, Alabama, Pennsylvania, etc). However, if Doyle does win, I suggest speaking with Monkeyleg from THR and start doing open carry rallies.
 
Top