Police seek charges against gun carrier with permit pending

[Brass Magnet]

Cite or it didn't happen (mainly because I want to read about this...).

Just another example of his legal team giving him advise and NOT reading the OP. I'd ask for my money back.

Now... where are these xxxxxxx? Pics or it didn't happen.

No pix yet.

http://forum.opencarry.com/forums/s...m-soooo-happy-to-oc-now&p=1650408#post1650408

 

[protias]

The leo's are going to do all they can to find 'loopholes' in the interperetations or reinterpret the new CC and the current bills passed to deny us our inalienable constitutional rights. As to OC they are going to do the same. So is it now LEGAL to OC in a vehicle or not? Nik can you answer the question regarding OC in a car?
Pierce count sheriff had this article in our paper. Is she reading the law correctly? http://www.piercecountyherald.com/event/article/id/40855/group/Hunting/.
The more time goes on, the more confusing this all gets. I suppose leos want it that way.

167.31(2) (a) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or
crossbow in or on a motorboat with the motor running,
unless the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(bm), unless the firearm is unloaded, or unless the bow or
crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case
167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or
crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is a handgun,
as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), unless the firearm
is unloaded and encased, or unless the bow or crossbow
is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case
167.31 (2) (c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may load a firearm, other than a handgun, as defined
in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), in a vehicle or discharge a firearm
or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or
from a vehicle.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

I argued once on here that any reasonable person might interpret "possess" as it's noted above to mean carry (which is defined in Act 35), but this particular subsection does not state carry.

If we need to look at what constitutes the definition of concealed as it relates to vehicle carry, we only have case law to reference. So if what you're saying is true (previous case law is irrelevant) that makes things much simpler.

However, the new law does not say one can carry ("go armed with") in a vehicle, it only says possess. Is possess defined somewhere?.

You continue to ignore the fact that 167.31 does not allow you to possess anything. It does not give you the ability to have a handgun in a vehicle openly or concealed inside or outside of its case with or without a WI Carry license.

The only thing 167.31 does is prohibit you from doing a couple of very specific things. As of this Saturday it still prohibits you from discharging a firearm from a vehicle, it prohibits you from having a loaded long gun in a vehicle and it prohibits you from having a loaded long gun on a vehicle in motion.

Having a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal simply because it is not prohibited.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Existing case law prior to ACT 35 is irrelevant. Even your legal team can figure that one out.

Since Act 35 did not amend 941.23 for anyone except licensees, it is 100% relevant and still in place.
It will take a conviction and appeal to the WI Supreme Court to change it.

 

[oak1971]

You continue to ignore the fact that 167.31 does not allow you to possess anything. It does not give you the ability to have a handgun in a vehicle openly or concealed inside or outside of its case with or without a WI Carry license.

The only thing 167.31 does is prohibit you from doing a couple of very specific things. As of this Saturday it still prohibits you from discharging a firearm from a vehicle, it prohibits you from having a loaded long gun in a vehicle and it prohibits you from having a loaded long gun on a vehicle in motion.

Having a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal simply because it is not prohibited.

Act 35 alters 167.31 to exclude handguns from the prohibitions.

167.31 (2) (b) of the statutes is amended to read:

167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or
crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is a handgun,
as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm),

 

[MAC702]

The officer will take the stand and recite the following: "Based upon my observations at the scene, in addition to my training and experience, I believed that the weapon was concealed." Or some variation thereof. Standard procedure during trial to give the impression to the jury that the officer's testimony carries more weight than others. Of course, the training and experience in these cases, in light of the new laws, is woefully inadequate.

If he says that, the good guy's (asexual term) lawyer can now put into evidence all training and experience the cops have in observing holstered weapons in public. I think we'll hear crickets.

 

[Law abider]

Act 35 alters 167.31 to exclude handguns from the prohibitions.

167.31 (2) (b) of the statutes is amended to read:

167.31 (2) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or
crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is a handgun,
as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm),

Ok Oak1971 and Protias: so you are saying that NOW HANDGUNS are EXCLUDED because of:167.31 (2) (c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may load a firearm, other than a handgun, as defined
in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), in a vehicle or discharge a firearm
or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or
from a vehicle. And because of Act 35 now we can OC in a vehicle NOW? Pardon my ignorance. I am bot quite able to digest this soup

 

[oak1971]

Ok Oak1971 and Protias: so you are saying that NOW HANDGUNS are EXCLUDED because of:167.31 (2) (c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person
may load a firearm, other than a handgun, as defined
in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), in a vehicle or discharge a firearm
or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or
from a vehicle. And because of Act 35 now we can OC in a vehicle NOW? Pardon my ignorance. I am bot quite able to digest this soup

My reading of the changes to 167.31 indicates that handguns are OK now, post ACT 35. I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one.

 

[Law abider]

My reading of the changes to 167.31 indicates that handguns are OK now, post ACT 35. I am not a lawyer nor to I pretend to be one.

I'll consult Glenn on SB93 aka Act35. He is a JD.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

.. And because of Act 35 now we can OC in a vehicle NOW? Pardon my ignorance. I am bot quite able to digest this soup

Because of Act 35, Chapter 167 no longer prohibits you from having a handgun in or on a vehicle. It does not "allow" you to have a handgun in a vehicle. In order to carry concealed with a WI License, this prohibition had to be removed. It is still illegal to have a handgun "hidden" without a license. Case law says that the body of a car causes a handgun to be hidden. You must be able to see it while walking up to the vehicle. If you can not see it until you put your face against the window then it is "hidden" according to case law. It will take a test case to change this unless the legislature amends current Statutes to negate the case law.

 

[oak1971]

Because of Act 35, Chapter 167 no longer prohibits you from having a handgun in or on a vehicle. It does not "allow" you to have a handgun in a vehicle. In order to carry concealed with a WI License, this prohibition had to be removed. It is still illegal to have a handgun "hidden" without a license. Case law says that the body of a car causes a handgun to be hidden. You must be able to see it while walking up to the vehicle. If you can not see it until you put your face against the window then it is "hidden" according to case law. It will take a test case to change this unless the legislature amends current Statutes to negate the case law.

Your opinion of the case law, unless you can site a specific case and documented court opinion. You know like...State vs insert name here.

 

[Da Po-lock]

....You must be able to see it while walking up to the vehicle.......

And what exact distance might that be ?

 

[oak1971]

And what exact distance might that be ?

Maybe we should all carry huge chrome plated revolvers so the vision impaired officers can see them from a mile away. :lol:

 

[Teej]

As much as I want to see MKEGal prevail...I'd say State v Walls is going to be tough to beat.

State v. Walls, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. App. 1994)

The officers
approached the vehicle with their guns drawn, at
which time the driver fled on foot. Walls remained
standing outside the automobile with its door open.
Upon inspecting the vehicle, the officers spotted an
Intratec 9-mm semi-automatic handgun lying on the
front seat. The handgun was approximately thirteen
inches long from the tip of the barrel to the handgrip,
and had a blackened, gun-metal finish. The automobile
front seat was red in color. After they found
the handgun, the police arrested Walls for carrying a
concealed weapon. The parties stipulated to most of
the facts and the court, therefore, concluded it would
reach a verdict based solely on the question of whether
the handgun was “concealed” within the meaning
of § 941.23, Stats.
After both reviewing briefs submitted by the parties
and upon hearing arguments on the issue, the trial
court concluded that the handgun was concealed
within the meaning of the statute. The court determined
that regardless of whether the police could see
the black handgun lying on the red front seat upon inspecting
the vehicle, the handgun was concealed to
“ordinary observation” as the automobile traveled
down the street prior to being stopped. Thus, the trial
court found Walls guilty because the handgun was
concealed and violative of § 941.23, Stats.

 

[Da Po-lock]

Maybe we should all carry huge chrome plated revolvers so the vision impaired officers can see them from a mile away. :lol:

And then maybe hanging on the rear view mirror (like one of those pine scented air fresheners) on a retractable lanyard so it swings around and glittered in royal majesty...

 

[RetiredOC]

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/133935443.html

Stand by C Lecter, MilProGuy will be here soon to thank you for posting.



I can't stand reading stuff like this. It just boils my blood. Why in the world are the police harassing someone peacefully sitting in their car using a laptop? There are rapes and murders going on daily in this country and we pay tax dollars for some weak sauce form of 'protection.' Instead of getting that they are harassing random people for doing nothing....literally...sitting in your car using a laptop...doing nothing....

 

[oak1971]

As much as I want to see MKEGal prevail...I'd say State v Walls is going to be tough to beat.

State v. Walls, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. App. 1994)

Finally at least someone bothered to cite a case.

 

[Jason in WI]

The court determined
that regardless of whether the police could see
the black handgun lying on the red front seat upon inspecting
the vehicle, the handgun was concealed to
“ordinary observation” as the automobile traveled
down the street prior to being stopped. Thus, the trial
court found Walls guilty because the handgun was
concealed and violative of § 941.23, Stats.

This case law is silly and very outdated. I'm not saying it's going to be easy or cheap and I really hope it's not MKEGal that has to find out, but unless the legislators change it; it will be challenged. Of course IANAL or Paul Fisher.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

Because of Act 35, Chapter 167 no longer prohibits you from having a handgun in or on a vehicle. It does not "allow" you to have a handgun in a vehicle. In order to carry concealed with a WI License, this prohibition had to be removed. It is still illegal to have a handgun "hidden" without a license. Case law says that the body of a car causes a handgun to be hidden. You must be able to see it while walking up to the vehicle. If you can not see it until you put your face against the window then it is "hidden" according to case law. It will take a test case to change this unless the legislature amends current Statutes to negate the case law.

i_k .. arguing this is becoming pointless, some people are just too thick to get it.

 

[Teej]

This case law is silly and very outdated. I'm not saying it's going to be easy or cheap and I really hope it's not MKEGal that has to find out, but unless the legislators change it; it will be challenged. Of course IANAL or Paul Fisher.

I agree with you on silly. I agree it should be overturned. I hope she doesn't have to find out, too.

But "outdated"? 17 years might as well be this morning in terms of precedent. 80 year old case law is still taken as gospel in many courts. I'm pretty sure I've seen it cited in dozens of cases and referenced plenty here on OCDO...part of why I don't feel like I'm feeding info to the other side - they know that case full well.