Open Carry In A Vehicle

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

There are alot of people betting their paycheck on not being charged with a 941.23 violation for holstered carry in a car/truck without a permit. I will be watching the test cases when they happen and wishing them well.... Personally, I will have a permit.

I will as well because I want to carry in government buildings and restaurants that serve alcohol and drive through school zones.

I will be pushing my legislators for repeals and clarifications of existing restrictions, however, and will be advocating true Constitutional Carry.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

I will as well because I want to carry in government buildings and restaurants that serve alcohol and drive through school zones.

I will be pushing my legislators for repeals and clarifications of existing restrictions, however, and will be advocating true Constitutional Carry.

X1....

Outdoorsman1

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

I will be pushing my legislators for repeals and clarifications of existing restrictions, however, and will be advocating true Constitutional Carry.

Excellent... SB93 should only be the first step on our journey to the best Constitutional Carry laws in the nation.

 

[apjonas]

You May Not Be Able to Open Carry in a Vehicle

Please explain how someone is going to Open Carry with the firearm in the trunk....

Unless you make sure the weapon is visible to the satisfaction of whatever LEO happens to nab you. Sorry, sometimes there's just not a satisfactory answer.

 

[apjonas]

As I Said

941.23... Case Law... Court Interpretation...

There has never been such a statute. Frankly, I also don't see a court decision that

"declares a holstered handgun in a vehicle to not be concealed."

But I am open to receiving evidence that this is the case.

 

[Brass Magnet]

There has never been such a statute. Frankly, I also don't see a court decision that

"declares a holstered handgun in a vehicle to not be concealed."

But I am open to receiving evidence that this is the case.

We're waiting for the "memo".....

 

[apjonas]

A Different (Better?) Way of Looking at Concealment

Then by your words, Open Carriers across this state are guilty of 941.23. Once I was standing within 10 feet of 3 LEO at a function, and it was 15 minutes before the realized I was carrying.

WE go shopping everyday, and lieterally thousands of people that we pass do not see it. OR might we be guilty of 941.23 if we are in a crowd of poeple as those other people are concealing our firearms.

For a right handed person, on open carry hoster and firearm are discernable from the passenger side window. That would not be any more concealed than when I stand strong side away from LEO.

In the vast majority of law dealing with concealed weapons, the test is whether or not the average person can look at the item and say (in the case of a handgun) "Gee, that's a handgun." If so, it is not concealed. It matters not whether there is something partially draped over the weapon or that it is in a IWB holster. Likewise if the weapon is disguised as something else - a cell phone or a pen it may likely be considered concealed (as well as a NFA AOW). It is not required that everybody who can see the carrier is able to see the weapon. It suffices that somebody can see it. Otherwise having anybody on your weak side is de facto concealed carry. I think the court in the Walls case went overboard because of concern for the LEO who almost always engages a driver from the left side. For such a LEO, a handgun - plainly visible from most angles would be theoretically more dangerous than one which is truly concealed.

 

[Brass Magnet]

In the vast majority of law dealing with concealed weapons, the test is whether or not the average person can look at the item and say (in the case of a handgun) "Gee, that's a handgun." If so, it is not concealed. It matters not whether there is something partially draped over the weapon or that it is in a IWB holster. Likewise if the weapon is disguised as something else - a cell phone or a pen it may likely be considered concealed (as well as a NFA AOW). It is not required that everybody who can see the carrier is able to see the weapon. It suffices that somebody can see it. Otherwise having anybody on your weak side is de facto concealed carry. I think the court in the Walls case went overboard because of concern for the LEO who almost always engages a driver from the left side. For such a LEO, a handgun - plainly visible from most angles would be theoretically more dangerous than one which is truly concealed.

I'd just like to opine that the court in State v. Walls were being activists as "plain sight doctorine" should have applied as a test. A bag of weed sitting on the seat would have been legally seized under the doctorine therefore a handgun sitting there can not be "concealed".

 

[MKEgal]

A bag of weed sitting on the seat would have been legally seized under the doctrine therefore a handgun sitting there can not be "concealed".

^^^^^ This!
Why is it that ordinary citizens can make sense of things while judges can't?

 

[XD40-OD]

^^^^^ This!
Why is it that ordinary citizens can make sense of things while judges can't?

and a president that doesn't understand economics lol

 

[ccwinstructor]

Arizona passed a statute stating that a firearm in a vehicle was not concealed.

There has never been such a statute. Frankly, I also don't see a court decision that

"declares a holstered handgun in a vehicle to not be concealed."

But I am open to receiving evidence that this is the case.

In Arizona, what we eventually had to do was to pass a statue that said that guns in vehicles were not to be considered concealed.

As partial measures, we passed laws saying that guns in holsters, where the gun had to be taken out of the holster to fire it, was not to be considered concealed in a vehicle, and that "map pockets" and the glove box were legal places to have a firearm, and were not to be considered concealed.

There are multiple ways to attack this problem and I think the legislature would be willing to pass them, given the margin of victory with SB93.

Of course, constitutional carry solves it as well.

 

[Brass Magnet]

^^^^^ This!
Why is it that ordinary citizens can make sense of things while judges can't?

Who you callin' ordinary!?

:lol:

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

There has never been such a statute. Frankly, I also don't see a court decision that

"declares a holstered handgun in a vehicle to not be concealed." But I am open to receiving evidence that this is the case.

We are both saying the same thing. I believe that our premise is the same. You risk a 941.23 citation for carrying a holstered handgun in a car or truck because it is not easily discernible by someone in the immediate area outside of the vehicle. There actually is administrative code which declares that a holstered handgun is not concealed carry by a WI State licensed security guard while on duty. State Statute gives the State Department of Regulation and Licensing the authority to regulate weapon carry by security guards.

440.26 Private detectives, investigators and security personnel; licenses and permits. (3m) RULES CONCERNING DANGEROUS WEAPONS. The department shall promulgate rules relating to the carrying of dangerous weapons by a person who holds a license or permit issued under this section or who is employed by a person licensed under this section.

RL 34.011 Conditions relating to transporting a
loaded firearm in a vehicle. No owner or employee of an
agency may transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle, unless all of
the following apply:
(1) The firearm is in plain view. In this section “in plain view”
means it is visible from ordinary observation to a person outside
the vehicle.
Note: A firearm located in a glove compartment, in a briefcase, under a seat of a
vehicle, or covered by the clothing of an occupant, is not “in plain view.”
(2) If the firearm is a handgun, the owner or employee transports the firearm in a holster which is in plain view.
(3) If the firearm is other than a handgun, the owner or
employee transports the firearm in a device inside the vehicle
which locks the firearm in position and prevents an unauthorized
person from removing the firearm from the locking device and
which is in plain view.
(4) The owner or employee complies with the requirements in
s. RL 34.01

Licensed Private Security guards on duty have an exception to 167.31 also.

167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
bows (4) EXCEPTIONS 4. A private security person who meets all of the following
requirements:

Perhaps someone may successfully use the standard of "concealed" established by this code in their defense should they be cited for carrying because they do not have a permit.

 

[ksks]

947.01 (2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.

addresses disorderly conduct