• 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.

Police seek charges against gun carrier with permit pending

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
It has begun: The Circular Firing Squad

I had to quit visiting another supposedly pro carry forum because the site owner was equating Krysta with the Occupy movement and claiming premeditation on her part to start a legal battle. :banghead:
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Interceptor_Knight said:
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.
Again, check with Dave (e6chevron) about visibilty.

oak1971 said:
I had to quit visiting another supposedly pro carry forum because the site owner was equating Krysta with the Occupy movement and claiming premeditation on her part to start a legal battle.
The owner? That's interesting... would you mind sending me a link? Curious what twist of illogic s/he was using to come to those conclusions.
Or maybe I shouldn't get my blood pressure up. Libel can be rather upsetting.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Again, check with Dave (e6chevron) about visibilty.


The owner? That's interesting... would you mind sending me a link? Curious what twist of illogic s/he was using to come to those conclusions.
Or maybe I shouldn't get my blood pressure up. Libel can be rather upsetting.

Link sent via pm.
 

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
Again, check with Dave (e6chevron) about visibilty.
...

Documented, viewed first hand by me, verifiable. I think her Open Carry handgun, on her hip, in her vehicle would NOT be considered: concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.

----------------

State v. Walls, 1994 courts 526 N.W.2d 765 at 72 clarified crime of concealed carry for jury instruction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...4&q=526+N.W.2d+765&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_vis=1

A lesser known exceprt from State v. Walls, gives insight into the point of view of the judges when this opinion was written (1994).

[1]Section 941.23, STATS., provides:

Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

[2]
To read the statute in such a manner would defeat the purpose for which we conclude the statute was created. The carrying of a concealed or hidden weapon has been uniformly considered contrary to sound public policy. See Annotation, Offense of Carrying Concealed Weapon as Affected by Manner of Carrying or Place of Concealment, 43 A.L.R.2d 492, 495-98 (1955), and 43 A.L.R.2d 492 at 107 (Supp. 1992). The rationale for such statutes is well-chronicled:

At common law or by very early statute in England, people were prohibited from going armed that they might not terrorize the King's subjects. That was never the law in this country but from an early date, with the invention of small arms, statutes were enacted condemning the practice of carrying a deadly weapon concealed on or about the person. The reason for these statutes, it has been said, is "because persons becoming suddenly angered and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person."

The usual case law citation, which actually became a jury instruction, I believe, follows:

[3,4]... we conclude that a person is guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile where: (1) the weapon is located inside a vehicle and is within the defendant's reach; (2) the defendant is aware of the presence of the weapon; and (3) the weapon is concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. See State v. Fry But see supra note 2 (discussing lawful placement, transportation, or possession of weapons in vehicles as permitted by § 167.31(2)(b), STATS.).

---------------------------

Does anyone know of anyone in Wisconsin being charged or convicted of 941.23, when Open Carry, wearing a conventional exposed hip holster, NOT in a vehicle, (no overclothes of any kind) but in a situation where 3rd party view of the weapon in the holster, was obscured, such as?

1. carrier sitting in a booth at a restaurant with the holster side against the wall.
2. carrier with holster side leaning against the outside of a car/truck/building.
3. LEO approaches opposite the holster side of a person and does not/cannot see the holster on opposite side of carrier.
4. Any other similar situation, NOT inside a vehicle.

Thanks, for any response you might have.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Documented, viewed first hand by me, verifiable. I think her Open Carry handgun, on her hip, in her vehicle would NOT be considered: concealed, or hidden from ordinary view—meaning it is indiscernible from the ordinary observation of a person located outside and within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.

----------------

State v. Walls, 1994 courts 526 N.W.2d 765 at 72 clarified crime of concealed carry for jury instruction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...4&q=526+N.W.2d+765&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_vis=1

A lesser known exceprt from State v. Walls, gives insight into the point of view of the judges when this opinion was written (1994).


The usual case law citation, which actually became a jury instruction, I believe, follows:


---------------------------

Does anyone know of anyone in Wisconsin being charged or convicted of 941.23, when Open Carry, wearing a conventional exposed hip holster, NOT in a vehicle, (no overclothes of any kind) but in a situation where 3rd party view of the weapon in the holster, was obscured, such as?

1. carrier sitting in a booth at a restaurant with the holster side against the wall.
2. carrier with holster side leaning against the outside of a car/truck/building.
3. LEO approaches opposite the holster side of a person and does not/cannot see the holster on opposite side of carrier.
4. Any other similar situation, NOT inside a vehicle.

Thanks, for any response you might have.

I think that a few of us that have stood, open carrying, having 5-15 minute converstions with an LEO before they noticed and we did not get arrested for 941.23 because the did not see it right away chould be considered.

-in an open carry holster, with no overclothing to conceal it, should be Open Carry, whether or not a officer saw it.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I think that a few of us that have stood, open carrying, having 5-15 minute converstions with an LEO before they noticed and we did not get arrested for 941.23 because the did not see it right away chould be considered.

-in an open carry holster, with no overclothing to conceal it, should be Open Carry, whether or not a officer saw it.

In this I have to agree to the Nth degree. It should always be the paramount test of how the gun is carried, not the perspective of the viewer - where they were standing/sitting or what was interrupting their view.

A booth, wall, tree, vehicle door, armrest or restroom stall can all interrupt/block the unimpeded view of a handgun but do NOT change the condition in which one is carrying.

The gun, in and of itself, is NOT a threat. The action(s) of the person must be the deciding factor. The mere presence of a gun cannot be allowed to be RAS.

Are we to be required to wear shoulder patches and have antenna flags that announce our condition?
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I think that a few of us that have stood, open carrying, having 5-15 minute converstions with an LEO before they noticed and we did not get arrested for 941.23 because the did not see it right away chould be considered.

-in an open carry holster, with no overclothing to conceal it, should be Open Carry, whether or not a officer saw it.

A lawyer could argue that it wasn't concealed and the fact she was arrested because he saw the weapon points to the fact it wasn't concealed. Just because he didn't see it at first doesn't point to the fact it was concealed but to the fact the officer wasn't doing his job properly and not aware of his surrounding. The fact my client is a law abiding citizen and not a wanted harden criminal is why officer 'snuffy" is here today. I wouldn't harass a fellow citizen for the incompitence of this officer but would mandate he get follow up education on dealing with the public.
 
Last edited:

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
Nov. 22, TV story on pending court appearance
http://www.todaystmj4.com/multimedia/videos/?bctid=1288775347001

Wednesday at noon, WTMJ 4 mentioned that Krysta has a court appearance today in a short story titled "CONCEALED WEAPON CHARGES" with video of the Sherman Perk coffee shop parking lot, an OLD clip of Krysta, wearing a handgun on her hip in a inside the waistband holster (NOT the OWB holster and weapon she normally wears in her car), and pictures from the Unitarian Universalist Church West parking lot.

Today, a Gun Rights Advocate, will appear in court, on Concealed WEAPONS Charges. Krysta Sutterfield was arrested earlier this month, outside a Sherman Park coffee shop where she was INSIDE her car, WITH a handgun, USING her computer.

Police are seeking Concealed Weapons Charges against her, because they believe she did not HAVE a Concealed Carry Permit. Last fall, she was arrested for wearing a gun in a Brookfield CHURCH, charges were NEVER filed in that case.

(their words, and emphasis, not mine) The actual holster and weapon, that Krysta was wearing are still in police custody.


---------------------------

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 breasts? Pics or it didn't happen.

KIDS!

Lets stay on topic.
 
Last edited:

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
It would to interesting to know what the beat cops were told when they contacted their supervisor.
 
Last edited:

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I wonder how often a probable cause hearing results in no probable cause being found? Seems like a rubber stamp process.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The prowling/loitering and the other one are city charges and they don't show up in the state system.

City charges + state charge = they're making a federal case out of this :mad:

When do the city charges get heard?

Next stop on the state agenda Jan. 2012.

I'm with this for the duration.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
City charges + state charge = they're making a federal case out of this :mad:

When do the city charges get heard?

Next stop on the state agenda Jan. 2012.

I'm with this for the duration.
State fortietures, misdemeanors and felonies go though Circuit Court and municipal forfeitures go through Municipal Court.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
In the mean time she is disarmed.... :cuss:

Is she not allowed to be armed during this time? I'm assuming she just doesn't have access to THAT firearm anymore. I'd be amazed if one of the locals hasn't made sure she is rearmed by now.
 
Top