Holstered Carry in a Car with no WI Carry License = 941.23 Violation Charge

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Holstered Carry in a Car with no WI Carry License = 941.23 Violation Charge (Page 1 of 5)

Posted: 11/11/2011 12:07:55 PM EDT

Some individuals are of the opinion that 941.23 case law is outdated and irrelevant now that Act 35 has passed. Several individuals proudly proclaimed that beginning November 1st they would holster their handgun on their belt and proceed to drive their car around. A woman was arrested last night for doing just that....

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:09:16 PM EDT

[#1]

Huh. Interesting that people would think 941.23 had ceased to exist, or something.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:11:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Originally Posted By no one in particular:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now

First off do you realize people on there are quoting you? I would cease to post there.

Second off, do they really think they are the ones responsible for getting CCW in WI?

And they're all running around as if the PLO took someone hostage. She OC'd in a car, pay your dues with the State and don't do it again.

To me that person is an idiot. Why open carry in a car (which means CONCEALED now) without a CCW? Idiot, pure and simple.

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:18:29 PM EDT

[#3]

I assumed I_K posts on both forums. I don't post over there because they do believe they're responsible for all achievements, based on what I see when I visit. And I have tier 3 tinfoil, because it doesn't seem to work––I can't believe the conspiracy theories, and how big brother is targeting them and everything.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:20:48 PM EDT

[#4]

Seems like there are a few morons over there in that thread.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:33:14 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

I assumed I_K posts on both forums. I don't post over there because they do believe they're responsible for all achievements, based on what I see when I visit. And I have tier 3 tinfoil, because it doesn't seem to work––I can't believe the conspiracy theories, and how big brother is targeting them and everything.

I saw the words "condition yellow" mentioned. Does that mean they're so scared someone pee'd themselves? Or what?

Big brother is out to get them, because they CONTINUOUSLY break the law.

Come on over to the house Glenn, I have some Tier One tin foil I've been saving just for times like this!!

(It also works well on Tri-tips!)

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:34:53 PM EDT

[#6]

I think this is the lady who got arrested at the church.My question is what in the world is she doing at 49th & roosevelt at 2:23am?I don't get that at all!

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:40:00 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I think this is the lady who got arrested at the church.My question is what in the world is she doing at 49th & roosevelt at 2:23am?I don't get that at all!

Apparently free Wi Fi from someone else with their permission.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:42:54 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

I think this is the lady who got arrested at the church.My question is what in the world is she doing at 49th & roosevelt at 2:23am?I don't get that at all!

On her computer?

"oI'm sitting @ Sherman Perk, using internet.

Owner knows I do, says it's OK, leaves it on all night on purpose.

PD wants to know what I'm doing... sitging in car w/ computer...

what does it look like I'm doing?

Now they're running my plate.

Told them they can call the owner & he knows it's OK."

Better WIFI??

Curious as to what happens if they hit "Condition Red"??? Ninja suits or Riot gear???

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:54:54 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I think this is the lady who got arrested at the church.My question is what in the world is she doing at 49th & roosevelt at 2:23am?I don't get that at all!

So she is getting arrested twice for the same thing? What a stupid thing to do. I mean really CCW hasn't been out for 10 days and she thinks that the law doesnt apply to her now. Its things like this that gives OC a bad name and makes it harder for the rest of us in the long run.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:56:43 PM EDT

[#10]

12:23.... Not 2:23.

And yes while there are some interesting people over there, there are plenty of good ones too.

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:58:16 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
12:23.... Not 2:23.

And yes while there are some interesting people over there, there are plenty of good ones too.

No doubt. I just happen to see the crazy ones first. They stand out more

Posted: 11/11/2011 1:59:03 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think this is the lady who got arrested at the church.My question is what in the world is she doing at 49th & roosevelt at 2:23am?I don't get that at all!

So she is getting arrested twice for the same thing? What a stupid thing to do. I mean really CCW hasn't been out for 10 days and she thinks that the law doesnt apply to her now. Its things like this that gives OC a bad name and makes it harder for the rest of us in the long run.

No. The first incident where she was arrested she was wrongfully arrested, and in fact they ended up not charging her with anything and she sued and won a judgement for wrongful arrest and illegal search & seizure.

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:01:53 PM EDT

[#13]

deleted, no point in causing hard feelings.

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:04:35 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think this is the lady who got arrested at the church.My question is what in the world is she doing at 49th & roosevelt at 2:23am?I don't get that at all!

So she is getting arrested twice for the same thing? What a stupid thing to do. I mean really CCW hasn't been out for 10 days and she thinks that the law doesnt apply to her now. Its things like this that gives OC a bad name and makes it harder for the rest of us in the long run.

No. The first incident where she was arrested she was wrongfully arrested, and in fact they ended up not charging her with anything and she sued and won a judgement for wrongful arrest and illegal search & seizure.

OK good to know. I lost track of that last case after she got arrested in the initial report. So sorry if I came off wrong and uninformed, its my own fault.

I am curious though as to the facts of this arrest and her thought process on her actions or in-actions. It sounds as if she had a firearm holstered on her hip in her car and didnt have a CCW permit.

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:05:03 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And yes while there are some interesting people over there, there are plenty of good ones too.

"You're judged by the company you keep."

Or, if you prefer,

"If a man can be known as nothing else, then he may be known by his companions."

If/when the nutjobs take over the asylum, do the doctors remain?

I guess we are screwed here too then huh?

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:06:13 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I guess we are screwed here too then huh?

Yup. It's just the hole isn't quite as deep.

edit: deleted my original comment above––no point in stirring the pot.

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:33:03 PM EDT

[#17]

News Article

Sounds like she may have resisted? Not good for her "cause".

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:36:41 PM EDT

[#18]

Loitering or prowling? I'm not familiar with those offenses––city ordinance, and if so, why the custodial arrest? Seems like an incomplete news story (as most are).

Posted: 11/11/2011 2:40:22 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Seems like an incomplete news story (as most are).

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel... No more needs to be said...

At least they are clever enough to check out OCDO...

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:08:38 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Loitering or prowling? I'm not familiar with those offenses––city ordinance, and if so, why the custodial arrest? Seems like an incomplete news story (as most are).

From their website:
Milwaukee ordinance,

106-31. Loitering or Prowling. The activities of

loitering or prowling set forth in subs. 1 to 9 are

unlawful within the limits of the city.

1. LOITERING. Loiters or prowls in a

place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for lawabiding

individuals under circumstances that

warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property

in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which

may be considered in determining whether such

alarm is warranted is the fact that the actor takes

flight upon appearance of a peace officer, refuses

to identify himself or manifestly endeavors to

conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the

actor or other circumstances makes it

impracticable, a peace officer shall prior to any

arrest for an offense under this section, afford the

actor an opportunity to dispel any alarm which

would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him

to identify himself and explain his presence and

conduct. No person shall be convicted of an

offense under this section if the peace officer did

not comply with the preceding sentence, or if it

appears at trial that the explanation given by the

actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer

at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:15:08 PM EDT

[#21]

Well, obviously I'm not Milwaukee's attorney––or any attorney at all––but I'm surprised that ordinance is allowed to stand. It seems to read as follows:

"It's unusual that you're here. I have no suspicion you have committed or are about to commit any particular crime. But you have to identify yourself anyway, even though I don't have RAS of a crime, just because I think this is unusual, or else I can arrest you for this ordinance."

I'm not particularly against "fail to identify" ordinances, but the ones I know about require reasonable suspicion before identification can be demanded. This one seems to read like you can demand ID just because the person is out late at night. If I understand that correctly––and I might not––that seems over the top.

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:20:17 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I mean really CCW hasn't been out for 10 days and she thinks that the law doesnt apply to her now. Its things like this that gives OC a bad name and makes it harder for the rest of us in the long run.

I don't think she thought that, I just believe her interpenetration of the new law is that OC'g on your hip wasn't considered concealed. Again, that is my opinion. It's not like she would be the only one who thought/thinks that is the case. I have read thread from several people who were out driving around with the holstered guns on hip on November 1st.

This is the wording from the Act 35 FAQ.

page 44 of CCW FAQ:
If I do not have a CCW license how do I transport weapons in a vehicle?

A. Handguns
The law now allows a person to do the following without a CCW permit:
 place, possess, or transport a handgun in a vehicle without being unloaded or encased. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(b).
 load a handgun in a vehicle. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(c).
 operate an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with a handgun in the operator‘s possession. Wis. Stat. § 23.33(3)(a).
 place, possess, or transport a handgun in or on a motorboat with the motor running without being unloaded or encased. Wis. Stats. § 167.31(2)(a), (b), (c).
 place, possess, or transport a handgun in or on a noncommercial aircraft.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.

It's not exactly crystal clear... so I can only transport and load my handgun while holding it up by a window? how do I transport my handgun in an aircraft, tape it to the window? the way that law is written it sure does imply that if your handgun is in the open that it's not concealed.

I can see both sides of it, I didn't push it while I was waiting for my permit... but I can't blame others for doing so...

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:22:47 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Well, obviously I'm not Milwaukee's attorney––or any attorney at all––but I'm surprised that ordinance is allowed to stand. It seems to read as follows:

"It's unusual that you're here. I have no suspicion you have committed or are about to commit any particular crime. But you have to identify yourself anyway, even though I don't have RAS of a crime, just because I think this is unusual, or else I can arrest you for this ordinance."

I'm not particularly against "fail to identify" ordinances, but the ones I know about require reasonable suspicion before identification can be demanded. This one seems to read like you can demand ID just because the person is out late at night. If I understand that correctly––and I might not––that seems over the top.

That is how I read it as well, and had the same reaction as you did.

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:32:54 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
It's not exactly crystal clear... so I can only transport and load my handgun while holding it up by a window? how do I transport my handgun in an aircraft, tape it to the window? ..

Above the window line such as a holster on the dash is viewable from all windows. When was the last time a LEO walked up to an airplane and looked in a window?

Quoted:
the way that law is written it sure does imply that if your handgun is in the open that it's not concealed...

On your hip while you are sitting in your car seat is not in the open.
The "law" which is applicable is not 167.31 but 941.23. You are getting hung up on 167.31 which only addresses loaded and cased not concealed. 167.31 does not "allow" anything, it simply defines what is prohibited. You are confusing the 2 concepts.

Quoted:
I can see both sides of it, I didn't push it while I was waiting for my permit... but I can't blame others for doing so...

There are 2 separate Statutes mentioned in that FAQ and only 1 is cited by Chapter. 167.31 previously required all firearms to be unloaded and encased to be in or on a vehicle. This Statute has ZERO to do with whether or not the handgun is hidden/concealed. This Statute had to be amended in order to allow a licensee to carry in a car.
941.23 Prohibits the carry of a concealed weapon unless you are a licensee. Case law says that a handgun which is within your reach and indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view and therefore concealed. In case law, ordinary observation is clarified as someone who does not have their face up against your window but simply walking up to or even walking past the vehicle.
If it is below the window line, it is hidden using this case law.

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:40:32 PM EDT

[#25]

Another comment..
That has to be one of the most problematic FAQs ever produced. It has obviously failed to break things down so that people clearly understand Act 35.

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:46:26 PM EDT

[#26]

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

If she was driving an American made convertible muscle car then yes, God has her back.

But this chick seems prone to drama, what she needs is a boy friend with whom she can share her love of guns.

Posted: 11/11/2011 3:49:38 PM EDT

[#27]

The "concealed from ordinary view" test is the natural result of the "reasonable person" standard coupled with the removal of intent from criminal law. We reap what we sow.

Posted: 11/11/2011 4:08:26 PM EDT

[#28]

Quite a bit of

over there.

Posted: 11/11/2011 6:23:13 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quite a bit of

over there.

I dont think you read the Dale Carnegie book did you???

Posted: 11/11/2011 6:55:13 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

But this chick seems prone to drama.

The drama only comes from standing up for herself. While I don't know what happen on this particular event, the only drama she had in the past is because guys with superiority complexes didn't like the fact she knew and exercised her rights.

what she needs is a boy friend with whom she can share her love of guns.

Not sure if shes has a boyfriend at this time but she does have a love of motorcycles. I believe she sees a firearm as just a tool, she has been a victim of a violent crime in the past and purchased a firearm so that she wouldn't have to be in a defenseless position again. I trip on more firearms on the way to my bathroom, then she owns.

Posted: 11/11/2011 8:27:50 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

But this chick seems prone to drama.

The drama only comes from standing up for herself. While I don't know what happen on this particular event, the only drama she had in the past is because guys with superiority complexes didn't like the fact she knew and exercised her rights.

what she needs is a boy friend with whom she can share her love of guns.

Not sure if shes has a boyfriend at this time but she does have a love of motorcycles. I believe she sees a firearm as just a tool, she has been a victim of a violent crime in the past and purchased a firearm so that she wouldn't have to be in a defenseless position again. I trip on more firearms on the way to my bathroom, then she owns.

SP explain to me why you are convinced she is innocent. Were you ther? I am not trying to troll, just asking. I started asking over at OC, and suggesting that perhaps she could be guilty and all of a sudden I am called a troll and other assorted names.

Please correct me if I am wrong, if you are someone is "open carrying on their body while in a vehicle, how can it be open carrying anymore? Would'nt it be concealed carrying then?

Posted: 11/11/2011 8:45:06 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Originally Posted By no one in particular:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now

First off do you realize people on there are quoting you? I would cease to post there.

Second off, do they really think they are the ones responsible for getting CCW in WI?

And they're all running around as if the PLO took someone hostage. She OC'd in a car, pay your dues with the State and don't do it again.

To me that person is an idiot. Why open carry in a car (which means CONCEALED now) without a CCW? Idiot, pure and simple.

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

if she has a right to OC outside of her vehicle, why should in her vehicle be any different?

Posted: 11/11/2011 8:49:37 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Originally Posted By no one in particular:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now

First off do you realize people on there are quoting you? I would cease to post there.

Second off, do they really think they are the ones responsible for getting CCW in WI?

And they're all running around as if the PLO took someone hostage. She OC'd in a car, pay your dues with the State and don't do it again.

To me that person is an idiot. Why open carry in a car (which means CONCEALED now) without a CCW? Idiot, pure and simple.

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

if she has a right to OC outside of her vehicle, why should in her vehicle be any different?

Is it open to view on her hip? I would guess not.

Posted: 11/11/2011 8:53:19 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Originally Posted By no one in particular:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now

First off do you realize people on there are quoting you? I would cease to post there.

Second off, do they really think they are the ones responsible for getting CCW in WI?

And they're all running around as if the PLO took someone hostage. She OC'd in a car, pay your dues with the State and don't do it again.

To me that person is an idiot. Why open carry in a car (which means CONCEALED now) without a CCW? Idiot, pure and simple.

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

if she has a right to OC outside of her vehicle, why should in her vehicle be any different?

Is it open to view on her hip? I would guess not.

im just confused as to how being on a dash is any different than being on a vacant passenger seat or in a OWB holster so long as it is not covered with a shirt.
hell, i was listening to 1130 WISN on nov 1 and the NRA attorney who was being interviewed stated that open carry in a vehicle was 100% ok now, be it sitting on the seat next to you, or holstered in a OWB holster.
does this mean that he was wrong, or this woman will be getting another settlement?

Posted: 11/11/2011 10:03:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Originally Posted By no one in particular:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?96858-Being-hassled-by-Milwaukee-PD-right-now

First off do you realize people on there are quoting you? I would cease to post there.

Second off, do they really think they are the ones responsible for getting CCW in WI?

And they're all running around as if the PLO took someone hostage. She OC'd in a car, pay your dues with the State and don't do it again.

To me that person is an idiot. Why open carry in a car (which means CONCEALED now) without a CCW? Idiot, pure and simple.

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

if she has a right to OC outside of her vehicle, why should in her vehicle be any different?

Is it open to view on her hip? I would guess not.

im just confused as to how being on a dash is any different than being on a vacant passenger seat or in a OWB holster so long as it is not covered with a shirt.
hell, i was listening to 1130 WISN on nov 1 and the NRA attorney who was being interviewed stated that open carry in a vehicle was 100% ok now, be it sitting on the seat next to you, or holstered in a OWB holster.
does this mean that he was wrong, or this woman will be getting another settlement?

I don't know if he is right or wrong.

It's all about what is considered concealed. If she wants to be the trial case, then great. The rest of us probably have more to lose.

Posted: 11/11/2011 10:40:33 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
im just confused as to how being on a dash is any different than being on a vacant passenger seat or in a OWB holster so long as it is not covered with a shirt.
hell, i was listening to 1130 WISN on nov 1 and the NRA attorney who was being interviewed stated that open carry in a vehicle was 100% ok now, be it sitting on the seat next to you, or holstered in a OWB holster.
does this mean that he was wrong, or this woman will be getting another settlement?

Her first "settlement" was because they did not have RAS to search her vehicle, not that she had not violated any Statutes.
If someone is walking past the car, a handgun on the dash is easily discernible. If it is on your hip or laying on the seat, you would have to put your face up to the passenger window if you have any chance of seeing it and you may not even be able to see it then if the car has a console and it is on your hip.
For now, the NRA attorney is wrong (my personal opinion as IANAL but I have spoken with actual attorneys who are of this opinion). It will take a test case run back up to the WI Supreme Court to change that.
Current Case law regarding 941.23 is still listed in the annotations including the court's statement that a handgun laying on the seat not otherwise covered was hidden from ordinary view. If it is below the window line, it is hidden from view using this reasoning.

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).

Posted: 11/12/2011 12:43:39 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not exactly crystal clear... so I can only transport and load my handgun while holding it up by a window? how do I transport my handgun in an aircraft, tape it to the window? ..

Above the window line such as a holster on the dash is viewable from all windows. When was the last time a LEO walked up to an airplane and looked in a window?

What I don't understand is, if what they want is your handgun on the dash why don't they say that... instead of giving some convoluted explanation about how I can transport and load my handgun in my vehicle but don't tell me where... then in some note (which isn't part of the actual law) tell me that I can't hidden or conceal my OPENLY carried handgun while doing so is just beyond me... I'm sorry, it might be clear to you, but it's not to the rest of the normal population. The only reason I know anything about it is because I spend several hours a day on firearm forums... a normal citizen shouldn't have to do all of that to figure out the law. And it's not like the case law regarding 'concealed and within react' is easily found either.

Quoted:

Quoted:
the way that law is written it sure does imply that if your handgun is in the open that it's not concealed...

On your hip while you are sitting in your car seat is not in the open.
The "law" which is applicable is not 167.31 but 941.23. You are getting hung up on 167.31 which only addresses loaded and cased not concealed. 167.31 does not "allow" anything, it simply defines what is prohibited. You are confusing the 2 concepts.

Again, I'm not confusing the 2 concepts, all I'm saying is that the FAQ doesn't make it clear like that, you have to be either a lawyer or someone seriously into gun forums to put that information together. It's not laid out like that in the FAQ, which is what the normal citizen is reading... they are setting people up to fail, plain and simple.

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see both sides of it, I didn't push it while I was waiting for my permit... but I can't blame others for doing so...

There are 2 separate Statutes mentioned in that FAQ and only 1 is cited by Chapter. 167.31 previously required all firearms to be unloaded and encased to be in or on a vehicle. This Statute has ZERO to do with whether or not the handgun is hidden/concealed. This Statute had to be amended in order to allow a licensee to carry in a car.
941.23 Prohibits the carry of a concealed weapon unless you are a licensee. Case law says that a handgun which is within your reach and indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view and therefore concealed. In case law, ordinary observation is clarified as someone who does not have their face up against your window but simply walking up to or even walking past the vehicle.
If it is below the window line, it is hidden using this case law.

I completely understand how you come up with your conclusion, and I'm not saying you a wrong.... what I'm saying is that based on what is written in the FAQ on the DOJ website, which is what most people are ready to figure out what they can and can't do regarding carrying a weapon, I can see how one can thing it's OK to open carry a handgun in a car. Your follow up comment is more what I'm talking about, the FAQ is confusing.

Looks like someone in WI needs to develop a chest holster, or a holster hat to get those people's guns higher up... [shakes head]

Posted: 11/12/2011 5:10:36 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Looks like someone in WI needs to develop a chest holster, or a holster hat to get those people's guns higher up... [shakes head]

....or get a CCW permit. End of problem with it being "concealed". No problems with GFSZ.

I've been keeping my pistol on the dash for now, to avoid being charged with CCW. As soon as i get my permit, it will remain fully concealed. Open carry is not ideal for all circumstances, IMHO.

Posted: 11/12/2011 5:35:22 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Well, obviously I'm not Milwaukee's attorney––or any attorney at all––but I'm surprised that ordinance is allowed to stand. It seems to read as follows:

"It's unusual that you're here. I have no suspicion you have committed or are about to commit any particular crime. But you have to identify yourself anyway, even though I don't have RAS of a crime, just because I think this is unusual, or else I can arrest you for this ordinance."

I'm not particularly against "fail to identify" ordinances, but the ones I know about require reasonable suspicion before identification can be demanded. This one seems to read like you can demand ID just because the person is out late at night. If I understand that correctly––and I might not––that seems over the top.

Best translation of a city ordinance ever. Just sayin.

Posted: 11/12/2011 5:38:02 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

But, I am sure someone will come along and tell me it was her God given right to do so. Ugh.

If she was driving an American made convertible muscle car then yes, God has her back.

But this chick seems prone to drama, what she needs is a boy friend with whom she can share her love of guns.

She is not prone to drama... In case you missed it. She is a certified firearms instructor for I believe both Utah permit and NRA. She's actually quite nice and was very helpful to me when I first found OCDO. The first time she was arrested it was VERY wrong, which is why all charges were dropped and she won a civil suit against the brookfield PD.

Posted: 11/12/2011 5:45:59 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
SP explain to me why you are convinced she is innocent. Were you ther? I am not trying to troll, just asking. I started asking over at OC, and suggesting that perhaps she could be guilty and all of a sudden I am called a troll and other assorted names.

Please correct me if I am wrong, if you are someone is "open carrying on their body while in a vehicle, how can it be open carrying anymore? Would'nt it be concealed carrying then?

It wasn't the fact that you asked, it was how you asked. That said, remember we are supposed to presume everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The last time she was in such a situation, the same thing happened where people were like "what makes you think she was innocent". But then when the ORR was made and the facts were discovered, she was not only proven innocent, but won a judgement because they violated her rights in several ways. She knows her rights, and she is a law-abiding citizen.

Could she be guilty of a crime? Of course. But I will presume she is innocent until proven guilty. Does that mean I'm "convinced" she's innocent? No. But I am giving her benefit of the doubt given her past run-in with the law.

As for the open carry in a vehicle. There have been a few legislators who indicated their intent was that open carry should be allowed. However when they passed Act35, they were not aware of state V Wells, and did not realize that a gun 'in the open" in your vehicle may still be considered concealed. Also remember this bill said you can load/unload a gun in your car. But how do you do that without holding up in front of your face so everyone can see it without looking foolish or drawing attention to yourself? The legislators intent was that OC would be legal. It's the muck of what is considered "concealed" that is the hangup. Even the DOJ FAQ is confusing, as it says you can open carry in your vehicle but not if it's concealed. Yet it makes no mention of State V Wells (and case law is different than a statute).

However, you CAN open carry in a vehicle and not be subject to state V Wells. Some have mounted holsters on their dash.

Posted: 11/12/2011 5:47:20 AM EDT

[#42]

If she planned to apply for a CCW permit or already has applied for one she has pretty much screwed herself, at least temporarily. At least she will if she ends up getting charged with something. I'm not sure what effect municipal charges or a ticket would have, but if she's charged with an actual State misdemeanor her application will either be rejected, delayed, or she won't be able to apply if she hasn't already. Question 7 on the App. will probably be the disqualifying factor. Why poke the bear when all you have to do is wait a little and never have to worry about it again? Just another reason for the media and Jeri Boniva to give gun owners a black eye. Dumb, plain and simple.

Posted: 11/12/2011 5:52:28 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
If she planned to apply for a CCW permit or already has applied for one she has pretty much screwed herself, at least temporarily. At least she will if she ends up getting charged with something. I'm not sure what effect municipal charges or a ticket would have, but if she's charged with an actual State misdemeanor her application will either be rejected, delayed, or she won't be able to apply if she hasn't already. Question 7 on the App. will probably be the disqualifying factor. Why poke the bear when all you have to do is wait a little and never have to worry about it again? Just another reason for the media and Jeri Boniva to give gun owners a black eye. Dumb, plain and simple.

She applied on day 1. Also, what is "dumb, plain and simple"? Has she been convicted of a crime, or is she once again a victim of overzealous police who were told, by the police chief no less, to forcefully take down anyone with a gun, take it away from them, and then decide whether they can legally have it or not. "shoot first ask questions later". Even though open carry is COMPLETELY legal in this state, and in fact ACT35 added crimes for police who do such things. Something to keep in mind, the police who arrested her in all this, if she is found innocent, could be charged with a crime themselves now.

She wasn't trying to "poke the bear". Remember you and her are on the same side. Just because you may differ in your opinion on OC doesn't mean you are somehow better than her or that anything she does while OC is "asking for trouble".

Posted: 11/12/2011 6:17:33 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

But this chick seems prone to drama.

The drama only comes from standing up for herself. While I don't know what happen on this particular event, the only drama she had in the past is because guys with superiority complexes didn't like the fact she knew and exercised her rights.

what she needs is a boy friend with whom she can share her love of guns.

Not sure if shes has a boyfriend at this time but she does have a love of motorcycles. I believe she sees a firearm as just a tool, she has been a victim of a violent crime in the past and purchased a firearm so that she wouldn't have to be in a defenseless position again. I trip on more firearms on the way to my bathroom, then she owns.

SP explain to me why you are convinced she is innocent. Were you ther? I am not trying to troll, just asking. I started asking over at OC, and suggesting that perhaps she could be guilty and all of a sudden I am called a troll and other assorted names.

Please correct me if I am wrong, if you are someone is "open carrying on their body while in a vehicle, how can it be open carrying anymore? Would'nt it be concealed carrying then?

I wasn't there, I also never said she was innocent in this case. Krysta is a friend of mine and I can honestly say that if she was resisting an officer It would be way out of character for her. Now apparently the charge is for resisting or obstructing an officer, I'm guessing the officer felt she was obstructing his investigation and that is why she was charged. Many people who have applied there rights have been charged with obstructing and the charges have mostly been dropped. Again I wasn't there, hopefully there will be video and audio so we can all see what happened.

As far as the loitering and prowling charge, I got nothing. If this sticks I'll be dumb founded. I am also assuming what she posted is correct and I have no reason to doubt her.

Now the whole open carry thing, that there is no charges for; could be a subject into itself. You are correct in your last statement, it is against the letter of the law to have a firearm below the window line as I understand it and I made sure I emphasized it in the other thread where we could carry unloaded rifles in our vehicles. I also think walls is ripe for a challenge as it was pre a whole lot of things, but I would never purposely tell anyone to conceal a firearm. Since she hasn't been charged with concealing, either she wasn't or they feel she wasn't breaking the law.

Posted: 11/12/2011 6:21:39 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
.. The last time she was in such a situation, the same thing happened where people were like "what makes you think she was innocent". But then when the ORR was made and the facts were discovered, she was not only proven innocent, but won a judgement because they violated her rights in several ways. She knows her rights, and she is a law-abiding citizen.
...

She was not "innocent" the last time. The charges were dropped. The main reason she was not tried for what she was charged with was because they violated her rights. She publicly admitted that they were correct in the fact she had a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

Posted: 11/12/2011 6:23:11 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
.. The last time she was in such a situation, the same thing happened where people were like "what makes you think she was innocent". But then when the ORR was made and the facts were discovered, she was not only proven innocent, but won a judgement because they violated her rights in several ways. She knows her rights, and she is a law-abiding citizen.
...

She was not "innocent" the last time. The charges were dropped. The main reason she was not tried for what she was charged with was because they violated her rights. She publicly admitted that they were correct in the fact she had a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

You are correct I forgot that was the case. Although it should be noted that her having a loaded gun inside her vehicle had nothing to do with why the police were called or stopped her in the first place.

Posted: 11/12/2011 6:24:59 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If she planned to apply for a CCW permit or already has applied for one she has pretty much screwed herself, at least temporarily. At least she will if she ends up getting charged with something. I'm not sure what effect municipal charges or a ticket would have, but if she's charged with an actual State misdemeanor her application will either be rejected, delayed, or she won't be able to apply if she hasn't already. Question 7 on the App. will probably be the disqualifying factor. Why poke the bear when all you have to do is wait a little and never have to worry about it again? Just another reason for the media and Jeri Boniva to give gun owners a black eye. Dumb, plain and simple.

She applied on day 1. Also, what is "dumb, plain and simple"? Has she been convicted of a crime, or is she once again a victim of overzealous police who were told, by the police chief no less, to forcefully take down anyone with a gun, take it away from them, and then decide whether they can legally have it or not. "shoot first ask questions later". Even though open carry is COMPLETELY legal in this state, and in fact ACT35 added crimes for police who do such things. Something to keep in mind, the police who arrested her in all this, if she is found innocent, could be charged with a crime themselves now.

She wasn't trying to "poke the bear". Remember you and her are on the same side. Just because you may differ in your opinion on OC doesn't mean you are somehow better than her or that anything she does while OC is "asking for trouble".

You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be disqualified for applying for or receiving a CCW permit.
Question 7: Are you currently free on bond or bail for a pending felony or misdemeanor offense, or as a witness, where the court has ordered you not to possess a dangerous weapon.
If she is charged with the actual State crime as a misdemeanor, and once the judge is made aware of the circumstances of the arrest, you can damn well bet that he/she will issue a "no weapons possession" order as a condition of her PR bond. And the judge may even take it one step further and take steps to contact the DOJ to have CCW permit suspended, canceled, revoked, or whatever the legal process is.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that I'm somehow better than her. And yes, I stand by my opinion that she was poking the bear. I don't know the specific details of the Brookfield incident nor this incident, but if you insist on kicking a dog, you may get away with it, and he may not bite you the first time, but if you keep pressing your luck, eventually you're going to get bitten.

Posted: 11/12/2011 6:35:19 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Question 7: Are you currently free on bond or bail for a pending felony or misdemeanor offense, or as a witness, where the court has ordered you not to possess a dangerous weapon.

Not sure the court will order her not to possess a weapon because she was loitering.

Posted: 11/12/2011 7:15:40 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

I'm not sure where you got the notion that I'm somehow better than her. And yes, I stand by my opinion that she was poking the bear. I don't know the specific details of the Brookfield incident nor this incident, but if you insist on kicking a dog, you may get away with it, and he may not bite you the first time, but if you keep pressing your luck, eventually you're going to get bitten.

Ok then please tell me. What did she do in the brookfield incident that was "kicking the dog", and in this most recent incident, "poking the bear"? You "don't know the details" yet insist she was somehow stirring the pot or causing trouble. Yet you don't know the details...

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Posted: 11/12/2011 7:17:42 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be disqualified for applying for or receiving a CCW permit.
Question 7: Are you currently free on bond or bail for a pending felony or misdemeanor offense, or as a witness, where the court has ordered you not to possess a dangerous weapon.
If she is charged with the actual State crime as a misdemeanor, and once the judge is made aware of the circumstances of the arrest, you can damn well bet that he/she will issue a "no weapons possession" order as a condition of her PR bond. And the judge may even take it one step further and take steps to contact the DOJ to have CCW permit suspended, canceled, revoked, or whatever the legal process is.

My post had nothing to do with whether or not she would be denied or lose her CCW permit. I'm well aware of question 7. My response to you was bout calling her "dumb, plain and simple". See my previous post regarding that accusation/statement. I would like for you to tell me what she did (even though you "dont know the details") that was "dumb" and "poking the bear" and "kicking the dog"?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Holstered Carry in a Car with no WI Carry License = 941.23 Violation Charge (Page 1 of 5)

Hometown » Wisconsin

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us