Posted: 5/10/2009 8:01:53 AM EDT
|
delete |
|
A novel approach, but I could just see this approach leading to an amendment of 941.23 that would make "concealed" truly mean "concealed on your person."
And why, by chance, do you say OC is "utterly inappropriate and dangerous is most circumstances?" You're entitled to your opinion on whether it's appropriate, but you're telling me CC is "less dangerous" than OC? 
|
|
Quoted:
A novel approach, but I could just see this approach leading to an amendment of 941.23 that would make "concealed" truly mean "concealed on your person." And why, by chance, do you say OC is "utterly inappropriate and dangerous is most circumstances?" You're entitled to your opinion on whether it's appropriate, but you're telling me CC is "less dangerous" than OC? Edited for clarity. I meant OC is more dangerous than CCW to the person carrying. If that amendment were made, it would actually be an improvement to the current law. 
|
|
Quoted:
Edited for clarity. I meant OC is more dangerous than CCW to the person carrying. How is that? Quoted:
If that amendment were made, it would actually be an improvement to the current law.
My point was, they'll say "There. What you made a big stink about is fixed now. We're done changing it," and then we'll lose that ammo when actually pushing for CCW legislation. |
|
Quoted:
eddie, offhand what's the case law upholding these various aspects? State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993). ETA: I haven't been able to find an actual copy of Kieth available online, but have a look at the following excerpt from Hamdan: IV. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
¶20. To convict a person of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wis.Stat.§941.23, the State must prove three elements. First, the State must show that a person who is not a peace officer went armed with a dangerous weapon. State v. Dundon, 226 Wis.2d654, 661, 594 N.W.2d780 (1999) (citing State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d529 (1977)). Second, the State must show that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon. Id. (citing Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433). Third, the State must show that the weapon was concealed. Id. (citing Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 432, 230 N.W. 76 (1930)). Over the years, every element of the statute has been vigorously litigated. ¶21. Hamdan asks the court to withdraw a series of appellate decisions interpreting the first element, which is based on the statutory phrase "goes armed." For more than 70 years, Wisconsin courts have defined the phrase "goes armed" in the CCW statute to mean that "the weapon was on the defendant's person or that the weapon must have been within the defendant's reach and that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon." Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433-34 (citing Mularkey, 201 Wis. at 432); see also State v. Fry, 131 Wis.2d153, 183-84, 388 N.W.2d565 (1986); Wis JI––Criminal 1335. ¶22. One of the leading cases in the interpretation of the "goes armed" element is State v. Keith, 175 Wis.2d75, 498 N.W.2d865 (Ct. App. 1993). In Keith, the court of appeals upheld the CCW conviction of a woman who was carrying a concealed weapon while she was standing on the front porch of the duplex where she was living. Id. at 77.6 Rejecting the defendant's argument that the "goes armed" language requires a finding of locomotion, the court held that "there is no separate element requiring that a person actually go somewhere, and, therefore, carrying a concealed weapon 'does not necessarily import the idea of locomotion.'" Id. at 79 (quoting 94 C.J.S. Weapons §8a (1956)). ¶23. Hamdan contends that Keith was wrongly decided. He argues that the CCW statute's use of the term "goes armed" necessitates a requirement of some locomotion on the part of a defendant. Comparing CCW statutes from other states that merely prohibit "carrying" concealed weapons, Hamdan reasons that the "goes armed" language of Wis.Stat.§941.23 represents an implied exception for a person's residence or place of business. Under this view, Hamdan did not "go armed" while carrying his weapon because he never left his own store. ¶24. We reject Hamdan's proposed construction of the CCW statute and continue to adhere to prior interpretations of the "goes armed" language... The folks who've been making this argument for a while aren't just pulling the facts out of thin air. There is case law that (in the instance of Mularkey) dates back almost 80 years when it comes to 941.23. As for those that don't think Eddie's idea is a good one, Justice Abramson once made the statement that Hamdan would open up the door for folks to make "swiss cheese" out of 941.23 if the legislature didn't act. Instead of trying to carve out holes to the CCW prohibition through the courts, we've most spent almost a decade since whining about how duplicitous politicians are. I like the idea of making some cheese. |
|
I'm on board with this idea. How do we go about it? Pointed letters to the editor? How do we make the general shooting and hunting public aware that they are constantly violating the law? How do we "push" for enforcement of this law? Every pocket knife, every cased bow, every handgun in the nightstand is a concealed deadly weapon. The number of people in violation of the statute is staggering. |
|
Quoted:
I'm on board with this idea. How do we go about it? Pointed letters to the editor? How do we make the general shooting and hunting public aware that they are constantly violating the law? How do we "push" for enforcement of this law? Every pocket knife, every cased bow, every handgun in the nightstand is a concealed deadly weapon. The number of people in violation of the statute is staggering. Carefully, and with both LE and lawyers involved. LE is necessary because even simlple contact where the officer exercises discretion needs to be documented. Lawyers are necessary because 1) you may get a NutCaseCop™ who actually will jack you for 941.23 even though you are in compliance with 167.31 and 2) once any documented LE contact (with or without charges) or public notoriety occurs about the conflict in the statues, some form of estoppel merit brief (I'm sure I've got the details wrong on that - attorneys please chime in) will need to be filed with the courts. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm on board with this idea. How do we go about it? Pointed letters to the editor? How do we make the general shooting and hunting public aware that they are constantly violating the law? How do we "push" for enforcement of this law? Every pocket knife, every cased bow, every handgun in the nightstand is a concealed deadly weapon. The number of people in violation of the statute is staggering. Carefully, and with both LE and lawyers involved. LE is necessary because even simlple contact where the officer exercises discretion needs to be documented. Lawyers are necessary because 1) you may get a NutCaseCop™ who actually will jack you for 941.23 even though you are in compliance with 167.31 and 2) once any documented LE contact (with or without charges) or public notoriety occurs about the conflict in the statues, some form of estoppel merit brief (I'm sure I've got the details wrong on that - attorneys please chime in) will need to be filed with the courts. So, I have a lawyer on retainer, and the suggestion is that perhaps if I'm pulled over, with a cased gun in the car, I mention to him that I'm lucky he's such a great guy for not writing me up on a CCW charge? Then we have either A) An example of discretion that hurts the foundation of the law, or B) A public case over CCW that should make some headlines? I'm just trying to get the gist of the how. I've got the why. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm on board with this idea. How do we go about it? Pointed letters to the editor? How do we make the general shooting and hunting public aware that they are constantly violating the law? How do we "push" for enforcement of this law? Every pocket knife, every cased bow, every handgun in the nightstand is a concealed deadly weapon. The number of people in violation of the statute is staggering. Carefully, and with both LE and lawyers involved. LE is necessary because even simple contact where the officer exercises discretion needs to be documented. Lawyers are necessary because 1) you may get a NutCaseCop™ who actually will jack you for 941.23 even though you are in compliance with 167.31 and 2) once any documented LE contact (with or without charges) or public notoriety occurs about the conflict in the statues, some form of estoppel merit brief (I'm sure I've got the details wrong on that - attorneys please chime in) will need to be filed with the courts. So, I have a lawyer on retainer, and the suggestion is that perhaps if I'm pulled over, with a cased gun in the car, I mention to him that I'm lucky he's such a great guy for not writing me up on a CCW charge? Then we have either A) An example of discretion that hurts the foundation of the law, or B) A public case over CCW that should make some headlines? I'm just trying to get the gist of the how. I've got the why. I just deleted about 4 paragraphs of scenario (giving away the store on a public forum isn't the best idea). I was rambling anyway. You're on the right track, but think a bit more deviously creatively. Apply any similar scenario you can think of to every gun owner, coupled with letters to the editor, instigation of similar incidents by like-minded provocateurs, all working to force the AG to sink or swim on the inconsistencies in court. The state can't argue that 941.23 doesn't apply to someone complying with 167.31 the moment an attorney hits them with an estoppel argument. IOW If one cannot carry in a case legally, one must be able to transport and carry openly. 167.31 becomes a toothless law at the expense of maintaining 941.23, or 941.23 must be weakened in order to retain 167.31 - either way, they cannot coexist. Couple a weakened 941.23 with lots of folks carrying openly (since it's the only way to legally carry or transport firearms), and you have the sheep clamoring for CCW legislation to hide those scary guns. Even better, weaken 941.23 enough, and we won't even need that legislation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My point was, they'll say "There. What you made a big stink about is fixed now. We're done changing it," and then we'll lose that ammo when actually pushing for CCW legislation. If you can carve out enough exceptions, why push for legislation? So you'd be okay with absolutely NO new CCW legislation, and instead be content with amendments to 941.23 that allow for encased, unloaded firearms carried in hand anywhere? You honestly believe that we can create an "exception" in the law to allow for a CCW permit system by these means? Those opposed to us will never go "Gee, they can't carry unloaded, encased firearms to the range with the way the law is set up, might as well go the full mile and let them carry loaded, concealed weapons on their person!" Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to justify your "OC is more dangerous than CCW" claim, eddiein1984. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My point was, they'll say "There. What you made a big stink about is fixed now. We're done changing it," and then we'll lose that ammo when actually pushing for CCW legislation. If you can carve out enough exceptions, why push for legislation? So you'd be okay with absolutely NO new CCW legislation, and instead be content with amendments to 941.23 that allow for encased, unloaded firearms carried in hand anywhere? You honestly believe that we can create an "exception" in the law to allow for a CCW permit system by these means? Those opposed to us will never go "Gee, they can't carry unloaded, encased firearms to the range with the way the law is set up, might as well go the full mile and let them carry loaded, concealed weapons on their person!" Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to justify your "OC is more dangerous than CCW" claim, eddiein1984. I could follow this. CCW, people ought not know about the pistol. OC, you have to deal with police encounters, possible gun snatchers, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My point was, they'll say "There. What you made a big stink about is fixed now. We're done changing it," and then we'll lose that ammo when actually pushing for CCW legislation. If you can carve out enough exceptions, why push for legislation? So you'd be okay with absolutely NO new CCW legislation, and instead be content with amendments to 941.23 that allow for encased, unloaded firearms carried in hand anywhere? You honestly believe that we can create an "exception" in the law to allow for a CCW permit system by these means? Those opposed to us will never go "Gee, they can't carry unloaded, encased firearms to the range with the way the law is set up, might as well go the full mile and let them carry loaded, concealed weapons on their person!" Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to justify your "OC is more dangerous than CCW" claim, eddiein1984. I could follow this. CCW, people ought not know about the pistol. OC, you have to deal with police encounters, possible gun snatchers, etc. Hit the nail on the head. CCW is no different than being unarmed, from the perspective of panicky police and panicky retards calling the police and drawing attention to you. OC prompts encounters with the police, prompts reaction from the public. When you OC in public, you are creating heightened tension, and intentionally drawing attention to yourself. To put it in perspective, if a stray bullet from the police ever killed a bystander as a result of an OC encounter gone wrong (police negligent discharge, for example), I have no doubt that a reckless homicide charge would result, AGAINST THE PERSON CARRYING. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My point was, they'll say "There. What you made a big stink about is fixed now. We're done changing it," and then we'll lose that ammo when actually pushing for CCW legislation. If you can carve out enough exceptions, why push for legislation? So you'd be okay with absolutely NO new CCW legislation, and instead be content with amendments to 941.23 that allow for encased, unloaded firearms carried in hand anywhere? You honestly believe that we can create an "exception" in the law to allow for a CCW permit system by these means? Those opposed to us will never go "Gee, they can't carry unloaded, encased firearms to the range with the way the law is set up, might as well go the full mile and let them carry loaded, concealed weapons on their person!" Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to justify your "OC is more dangerous than CCW" claim, eddiein1984. I could follow this. CCW, people ought not know about the pistol. OC, you have to deal with police encounters, possible gun snatchers, etc. Hit the nail on the head. CCW is no different than being unarmed, from the perspective of panicky police and panicky retards calling the police and drawing attention to you. OC prompts encounters with the police, prompts reaction from the public. When you OC in public, you are creating heightened tension, and intentionally drawing attention to yourself. To put it in perspective, if a stray bullet from the police ever killed a bystander as a result of an OC encounter gone wrong (police negligent discharge, for example), I have no doubt that a reckless homicide charge would result, AGAINST THE PERSON CARRYING. +1, except I bet this red part would vary from county to county, DA by DA. |
|
Quoted:
I could follow this. CCW, people ought not know about the pistol. OC, you have to deal with police encounters, possible gun snatchers, etc. Police Encounters are no big deal as long as the police are properly educated about the rights of an OCer, and the OCer is not an idiot. Look at all of the encounters since Van Hollen's opinion. Can you name one that resulted in shots fired, or even an example of Flynn's "troops" taking someone to the ground forcibly? As far as "gun snatchers," if you're stupid enough to carry in a non-retention holster, you may deserve your firearm being stolen from you. Next. Quoted:
Hit the nail on the head. CCW is no different than being unarmed, from the perspective of panicky police and panicky retards calling the police and drawing attention to you. OC prompts encounters with the police, prompts reaction from the public. When you OC in public, you are creating heightened tension, and intentionally drawing attention to yourself. Yet OC is still legal in a vast number of states around the country, and you never hear about a lawful OC incident leading to anything worse than a discussion with police (In WI's case, the worst would be arrest, confiscation of your firearm, release without charges, and return of your firearm in, at most, months). People should have the right to carry openly if they please, and they should consequently realize what attention would come to them because of their carrying openly. To put it in perspective, if a stray bullet from the police ever killed a bystander as a result of an OC encounter gone wrong (police negligent discharge, for example), I have no doubt that a reckless homicide charge would result, AGAINST THE PERSON CARRYING. Oh please. I doubt such a charge would lead to a conviction against the OCer, as they're engaging in a lawful activity. However, If they threaten the police in any way by drawing/brandishing/etc, inciting the police to draw and possibly fire, they would deserve such a charge and conviction. I doubt an officer's testimony of "He was obeying the law, being cooperative with me, had his firearm in a holster and did not touch it at all, yet I drew my weapon and had a negligent discharge and it's still his fault" would convince a jury. To accuse someone carrying in a lawful manner of being responsible for a police officer's negligent discharge is as nonsensical as substituting any other lawful activity in place of the OC. For the record, I'd rather have CCW than OC, as I currently CCW up in ND around the town when I'm not in class at college. We have OC up here too, and I OC with a suppressor on my firearm almost as much as I CC. People turn a blind eye to it. I do think the plan in this thread is a dead end, though, as, like I said before, us complaining about the "catch-all" in the law would make those opposed to CCW simply clarify concealed as "on a person," as opposed to unloaded and encased in a container. I feel a better way to get a CCW law passed is to encourage OC, and when confronted/scorned for doing so, say that you would gladly CCW instead, but OC is the only way you can lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense at the current time. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I could follow this. CCW, people ought not know about the pistol. OC, you have to deal with police encounters, possible gun snatchers, etc. Police Encounters are no big deal as long as the police are properly educated about the rights of an OCer, and the OCer is not an idiot. Look at all of the encounters since Van Hollen's opinion. Can you name one that resulted in shots fired, or even an example of Flynn's "troops" taking someone to the ground forcibly? As far as "gun snatchers," if you're stupid enough to carry in a non-retention holster, you may deserve your firearm being stolen from you. Next. Quoted: Hit the nail on the head. CCW is no different than being unarmed, from the perspective of panicky police and panicky retards calling the police and drawing attention to you. OC prompts encounters with the police, prompts reaction from the public. When you OC in public, you are creating heightened tension, and intentionally drawing attention to yourself. Yet OC is still legal in a vast number of states around the country, and you never hear about a lawful OC incident leading to anything worse than a discussion with police (In WI's case, the worst would be arrest, confiscation of your firearm, release without charges, and return of your firearm in, at most, months). People should have the right to carry openly if they please, and they should consequently realize what attention would come to them because of their carrying openly. To put it in perspective, if a stray bullet from the police ever killed a bystander as a result of an OC encounter gone wrong (police negligent discharge, for example), I have no doubt that a reckless homicide charge would result, AGAINST THE PERSON CARRYING. Oh please. I doubt such a charge would lead to a conviction against the OCer, as they're engaging in a lawful activity. However, If they threaten the police in any way by drawing/brandishing/etc, inciting the police to draw and possibly fire, they would deserve such a charge and conviction. I doubt an officer's testimony of "He was obeying the law, being cooperative with me, had his firearm in a holster and did not touch it at all, yet I drew my weapon and had a negligent discharge and it's still his fault" would convince a jury. To accuse someone carrying in a lawful manner of being responsible for a police officer's negligent discharge is as nonsensical as substituting any other lawful activity in place of the OC. For the record, I'd rather have CCW than OC, as I currently CCW up in ND around the town when I'm not in class at college. We have OC up here too, and I OC with a suppressor on my firearm almost as much as I CC. People turn a blind eye to it. I do think the plan in this thread is a dead end, though, as, like I said before, us complaining about the "catch-all" in the law would make those opposed to CCW simply clarify concealed as "on a person," as opposed to unloaded and encased in a container. I feel a better way to get a CCW law passed is to encourage OC, and when confronted/scorned for doing so, say that you would gladly CCW instead, but OC is the only way you can lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense at the current time. That's great. So do I. Now how do you propose to get more people to OC? I don't for the simple fact that I don't want to handle the gun every time I get in and out of a vehicle. So the plan above, while it may not net us Vermont style CCW, it may very well net us OC in a vehicle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I could follow this. CCW, people ought not know about the pistol. OC, you have to deal with police encounters, possible gun snatchers, etc. Police Encounters are no big deal as long as the police are properly educated about the rights of an OCer, and the OCer is not an idiot. Look at all of the encounters since Van Hollen's opinion. Can you name one that resulted in shots fired, or even an example of Flynn's "troops" taking someone to the ground forcibly? As far as "gun snatchers," if you're stupid enough to carry in a non-retention holster, you may deserve your firearm being stolen from you. Next. Quoted:
Hit the nail on the head. CCW is no different than being unarmed, from the perspective of panicky police and panicky retards calling the police and drawing attention to you. OC prompts encounters with the police, prompts reaction from the public. When you OC in public, you are creating heightened tension, and intentionally drawing attention to yourself. Yet OC is still legal in a vast number of states around the country, and you never hear about a lawful OC incident leading to anything worse than a discussion with police (In WI's case, the worst would be arrest, confiscation of your firearm, release without charges, and return of your firearm in, at most, months). People should have the right to carry openly if they please, and they should consequently realize what attention would come to them because of their carrying openly. To put it in perspective, if a stray bullet from the police ever killed a bystander as a result of an OC encounter gone wrong (police negligent discharge, for example), I have no doubt that a reckless homicide charge would result, AGAINST THE PERSON CARRYING. Oh please. I doubt such a charge would lead to a conviction against the OCer, as they're engaging in a lawful activity. However, If they threaten the police in any way by drawing/brandishing/etc, inciting the police to draw and possibly fire, they would deserve such a charge and conviction. I doubt an officer's testimony of "He was obeying the law, being cooperative with me, had his firearm in a holster and did not touch it at all, yet I drew my weapon and had a negligent discharge and it's still his fault" would convince a jury. To accuse someone carrying in a lawful manner of being responsible for a police officer's negligent discharge is as nonsensical as substituting any other lawful activity in place of the OC. For the record, I'd rather have CCW than OC, as I currently CCW up in ND around the town when I'm not in class at college. We have OC up here too, and I OC with a suppressor on my firearm almost as much as I CC. People turn a blind eye to it. I do think the plan in this thread is a dead end, though, as, like I said before, us complaining about the "catch-all" in the law would make those opposed to CCW simply clarify concealed as "on a person," as opposed to unloaded and encased in a container. I feel a better way to get a CCW law passed is to encourage OC, and when confronted/scorned for doing so, say that you would gladly CCW instead, but OC is the only way you can lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense at the current time. Re. the blue: 1. You stated the assumption you are relying on right there: that the LEO knows his stuff and is not being asinine about it; 2. That there are no other negative externalities not mentioned factoring into the situation Yeah, retention holsters are great, but if someone makes a grab for a gun having a retention holster may help you deal with the incident: but the incident still occurred, he may have friends, and you may lose your pistol in the scuffle/beaten unconscious. A bit dramatic, but the risk is there. Re. the orange Precisely. So they confiscate your pistol, you get arrested, you'll likely have to spend money retaining a lawyer to to be on the safe side, and I've heard stories about how (in West Allis where I live amongst other areas) when you get your pistol back it is mangled, spray painted, missing parts, etc. Sure, you bring a small claims action against the city. You may win some or all of your money back, but you've now spend how many hours on this? |
|
Quoted:
So you'd be okay with absolutely NO new CCW legislation, and instead be content with amendments to 941.23 that allow for encased, unloaded firearms carried in hand anywhere? You honestly believe that we can create an "exception" in the law to allow for a CCW permit system by these means? How about practical CCW with no permit? Would that be okay? Those opposed to us will never go "Gee, they can't carry unloaded, encased firearms to the range with the way the law is set up, might as well go the full mile and let them carry loaded, concealed weapons on their person!".
You've missed the point entirely. If 941.23 can no longer be treated a strict liability offence by the state (a couple of court cases accompanied by public pressure from both Antis and ProGun folks could do this), then we have legitimate arguments for CCW/OC in cars, on the way to the range, etc. If there's even a hint that there are folks looking to push that issue, cops and DAs will start erring on the side of discretion, where otherwise lawful activity where there happens to be a firearm is looked at as a non-incident. |
|
Quoted:
That's great. So do I. Now how do you propose to get more people to OC? I don't for the simple fact that I don't want to handle the gun every time I get in and out of a vehicle. So the plan above, while it may not net us Vermont style CCW, it may very well net us OC in a vehicle. Perhaps. Seeing as the OP is vehemently against OC, though, I doubt he'd be happy with such a concession. As far as encouraging people to OC, the more that do, the more that will. You have to handle a firearm in a case every time you get in and out of a vehicle anyways, how is handling it to OC different, save loading it and chambering a round? Quoted:
Re. the blue: 1. You stated the assumption you are relying on right there: that the LEO knows his stuff and is not being asinine about it; 2. That there are no other negative externalities not mentioned factoring into the situation 1 is a requirement of a law enforcement officer. With Van Hollen's opinion, and the pending lawsuits against LEOs and towns who violated the rights of OCers, I think we won't have to worry about that so much (Look what happened at Grand Avenue last weekend, too; while I don't agree with the disarmament, the cop didn't tackle and cuff the OCer, he simply talked to him). 2, if those externalities are your doing, like I said, will lead to a justification of force/charges. I'm certainly not saying you don't have to be careful when you OC, but it is entirely possible to do it in a perfectly lawful manner which, by law, does not warrant your arrest or disarmament. Quoted:Yeah, retention holsters are great, but if someone makes a grab for a gun having a retention holster may help you deal with the incident: but the incident still occurred, he may have friends, and you may lose your pistol in the scuffle/beaten unconscious.
A bit dramatic, but the risk is there. Very dramatic. Something like that is just a risk you have to take when you OC. That argument is one I would make for CCW myself, but certainly not an argument I would accept as a reason to not carry at all, since CCW is out of the question with the law as it is now, leaving OC the only option. I'd rather OC than be unarmed, period. Re. the orange Precisely. So they confiscate your pistol, you get arrested, you'll likely have to spend money retaining a lawyer to to be on the safe side, and I've heard stories about how (in West Allis where I live amongst other areas) when you get your pistol back it is mangled, spray painted, missing parts, etc. Sure, you bring a small claims action against the city. You may win some or all of your money back, but you've now spend how many hours on this? I've been following all of the major OC cases and haven't heard of any defacement of returned firearms from LEOs. Have any links? Quoted:
How about practical CCW with no permit? Would that be okay? Talk about a goal so lofty that it'll happen when pigs fly. You're crazy if you think that's obtainable in WI with the legislators in Madison and Milwaukee the way they are now. Hell, only VT can pull that off right now anyways. Let me know if TX/TN/KY/etc gets that passed, and then I'll take the idea seriously. Quoted:
You've missed the point entirely. If 941.23 can no longer be treated a strict liability offence by the state (a couple of court cases accompanied by public pressure from both Antis and ProGun folks could do this), then we have legitimate arguments for CCW/OC in cars, on the way to the range, etc. If there's even a hint that there are folks looking to push that issue, cops and DAs will start erring on the side of discretion, where otherwise lawful activity where there happens to be a firearm is looked at as a non-incident. A lofty goal, which depends on many different people thinking a certain way, and MANY gradual steps to permissible CCW. I'd rather make a big enough deal of OC to get Doyle to allow us to "Put those guns away" concealed. |
|
I read the original post before deletion. First off, I think that we need to bring out these ideas and discuss them. Even if an idea is shot down by every person responding, it still may lead to another idea or thought.
My first reaction to the idea was: "Why would this be any big help? Why would hunters, the DNR, etc push for CCW when they could more easily just push to 'clean up' the laws to regarding cased firearms vs concealed?" After some of the posts here, I'm more interested in the idea. It could do a number of good things: ie, removing the 'strict liability', improving the laws on vehicles, etc. It's not a golden bullet or anything, but count me interested at least. And I don't think it would need to be OC or this. Both could be used to our advantage. ETA: MrGreg: I don't think that the OP is vehemently against OC. He just feels that CCW is a better idea for him. |
|
Quoted:
You're crazy if you think [VT-style CCW] is obtainable in WI with the legislators in Madison and Milwaukee the way they are now. 
Stop thinking like this for Pete's sake. Your rights don't come from Government, nor should you have to ask the government for permission to legally exercise them. We don't need to ask the legislature if it's okay if we do something and wait for Doyle to agree, rather we need to force the issue through the courts, and the court of public opinion. That's the whole point of calling for "enforcing the laws as they are now to the fullest". If those laws conflict with our rights, the courts must redefine how those laws are enforced. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, retention holsters are great, but if someone makes a grab for a gun having a retention holster may help you deal with the incident: but the incident still occurred, he may have friends, and you may lose your pistol in the scuffle/beaten unconscious. A bit dramatic, but the risk is there. Mr. Greg's response: Very dramatic. Something like that is just a risk you have to take when you OC. That argument is one I would make for CCW myself, but certainly not an argument I would accept as a reason to not carry at all, since CCW is out of the question with the law as it is now, leaving OC the only option. I'd rather OC than be unarmed, period. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– It's easy to say that when you live in North Dakota... it's quite different to live in Flynn's Milwaukee and West Allis at that (not to mention just finishing school and applying for jobs next year and not wanting to be involved in a legal dispute and explaining that in interviews). The risks and demographics/crime are radically different in Milwaukee and downtown, where I am much of the time, than they are elsewhere in the state. The risks are proportionately larger as well. OC might work fine and dandy in MANY areas, but in urban cities I'd take CCW any day of the week and twice on Sunday. re. externalities Again, you're making an assumption that the externalities are caused or controlled by the OCer. I'm thinking that in many cases they may not be. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like walking through downtown, the east side (hippy area), etc, with a pistol/revolver strapped to your hip. People are liable to react in any number of ways. What if someone starts threatening you? What if someone starts throwing things at you? Spitting? Would these aggravating factors, let alone any response (reasonable or not) that the OCer undertakes in turn to protect themselves or leave the area going to get them in trouble? "Officer, a man with a gun is running through the neighborhood!" My point is, there are countless ways and means through which this could RAPIDLY spiral out of control and the person most likely to foot the blame (and the attorney bill) is the OCer. re. damage to the guns/conversion You'd have to flip through this forum. It was back several months when this came up, and this is my only source. So take it for what it's worth on all counts. I would throw out another factor to consider as well: 1000 ft from a school. Try OCing downtown or a nearby neighborhood and staying 1000 ft from a school at all times. I live within 1000 ft of a school WOULD be liable to be arrested if I OCed off my property (or even on my property?) There are TONS of problems with OC that you simply avoid or severely mitigate with legalized CCW. |
|
Quoted:
You're entitled to your opinion on whether it's appropriate, but you're telling me CC is "less dangerous" than OC? [hijack] You're also entitled to your opinion, but I find any claim that OC is safer than CC laughable. Unless you're wearing a duty belt, the level 3 Safariland holster isn't going to work. And a thumbsnap hardly qualifies as great retention. There's a laundry list of disadvantages that make OC less desirable than CCW. And not many advantages to OC. I'm not saying OC should be banned for the children. But I'd consider the trade of CCW for OC a heck of a good deal. (Yes, having both would be best...but I don't see that happening.) 99.9% of the populace is never going to open carry down Main Street...but 5% would CCW. [/hijack] |
|
I am so tired of every one waiting for the legislators to fix this, this is a problem the courts need to figure out.
Like FMD said, why beg the legislators to allow you to exercise your rights. You already have the rights don't let a bunch of politicians tell you how to exercise them. We should use the courts system and tell them how we will exercise them. The courts as always been the way to go on this matter. No amount of lobbying will get it done. Have we learned nothing from our past failures? Briam |
|
Quoted:
I am so tired of every one waiting for the legislators to fix this, this is a problem the courts need to figure out. Like FMD said, why beg the legislators to allow you to exercise your rights. You already have the rights don't let a bunch of politicians tell you how to exercise them. We should use the courts system and tell them how we will exercise them. The courts as always been the way to go on this matter. No amount of lobbying will get it done. Have we learned nothing from our past failures? Briam Courts are all well and fine, however, it is perhaps the least effective approach possible. Consider the astronomical downsides: 1. Cost burden. The litigant will be responsible for fighting the cases, which allocates a large amount of expenses on the relative few. Legislature lobbying, etc, spreads out the cost. 2. Unpredictability. Courts may support us, but they could also really hurt us. Going through the legislature can at least assure some level of predictability. It could take a LOT of effort, time, etc, to reverse a poor decision. That said, despite the cost and the risk: it's still the best and likely only option. eta: which is kind of sad to read the last part after posting |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're crazy if you think [VT-style CCW] is obtainable in WI with the legislators in Madison and Milwaukee the way they are now.
Stop thinking like this for Pete's sake. Your rights don't come from Government, nor should you have to ask the government for permission to legally exercise them. We don't need to ask the legislature if it's okay if we do something and wait for Doyle to agree, rather we need to force the issue through the courts, and the court of public opinion. That's the whole point of calling for "enforcing the laws as they are now to the fullest". If those laws conflict with our rights, the courts must redefine how those laws are enforced. I know full well rights don't come from the Government. Playing that card in this game won't work though, in my opinion. If people today actually believed in (or even known of) the ways this Government was set up as far as the rights of an individual, and the roles of government, Ron Paul would of won last November. Instead, a big-government candidate offering handouts won, and the honchos in power in WI these days would love nothing more than to kiss his feet. I seriously don't think this avenue will get us very far, unless someone on here is a lawyer/is rich enough to hire a lawyer, and is willing to spend years dragging the state through case after appeal after case to slowly chisel away at 941.23. Is it a good idea in principle? Sure. Practicality given the situation? Not so much. |
|
Quoted:
It's easy to say that when you live in North Dakota... it's quite different to live in Flynn's Milwaukee and West Allis at that (not to mention just finishing school and applying for jobs next year and not wanting to be involved in a legal dispute and explaining that in interviews). The risks and demographics/crime are radically different in Milwaukee and downtown, where I am much of the time, than they are elsewhere in the state. The risks are proportionately larger as well. I'm in school in ND; at home I live in Greenfield, around 75 feet from the Milwaukee city limits on 27th St. I know what cops back home are like, and I use discretion when carrying (IE I don't take a jaunt down Wisconsin Ave. with my Sig, but I feel free to go to local stores in Greenfield and Milwaukee while carrying). I too don't have time/money/etc to be a test case, but I'll go on OCing at home like I always have been before Van Hollen's opinion. OC might work fine and dandy in MANY areas, but in urban cities I'd take CCW any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Same here. It's just how we go about getting that CCW ability that's being discussed here. Again, you're making an assumption that the externalities are caused or controlled by the OCer. I'm thinking that in many cases they may not be. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like walking through downtown, the east side (hippy area), etc, with a pistol/revolver strapped to your hip. People are liable to react in any number of ways. What if someone starts threatening you? What if someone starts throwing things at you? Spitting?
Would these aggravating factors, let alone any response (reasonable or not) that the OCer undertakes in turn to protect themselves or leave the area going to get them in trouble? "Officer, a man with a gun is running through the neighborhood!" My point is, there are countless ways and means through which this could RAPIDLY spiral out of control and the person most likely to foot the blame (and the attorney bill) is the OCer. Good points, but like I said, it all comes down to the OCer. If you decide to OC in public, you realize you're taking your future into your hands. If you aren't prepared to deal with these problems, and remain a law abiding citizen doing a law abiding activity, OC isn't for you. I can't say I'm prepared for every situation, but since I publicly lead my college's chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, I'm used to being confronted and yelled at, and know how to keep my cool. Different strokes for different folks. I would throw out another factor to consider as well:
1000 ft from a school. Try OCing downtown or a nearby neighborhood and staying 1000 ft from a school at all times. I live within 1000 ft of a school WOULD be liable to be arrested if I OCed off my property (or even on my property?) OC is just fine on your property, even if you live 10 feet from a school. There's an exception carved out of the school zone statue for private property. You're correct, though, walk off of your property OCing and you're violating the law. You're land locked in a school zone. There are TONS of problems with OC that you simply avoid or severely mitigate with legalized CCW.
Which I have no problem with. Like I said, I prefer CCW to OC (And would love it if my Utah permit would be valid in WI, so I don't have to disarm in St. Paul before driving over the bridge into Hudson when I drive home). I just don't want OC thrown under the bus, nor spend years in courts arguing about rights to chisel away slowly at 941.23, to get a CCW law. |
|
Looking through the statue, I found this note from Hamdan:
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.
While the "state's interest" is a variable that cannot be predicted, and is obviously based on the activity in question, question 2 is of interest. When transporting an unloaded/encased firearm to a shooting range by car or hand/target stand while hunting/etc, I'd think that concealment was the "only reasonable means under the circumstances," as, in most of the situations, a law would be broken if someone were to do otherwise. While a law/case amendment would surely help to clarify this further, I think number 2 is an affirmative defense to, for example, the gentleman at Grand Avenue unloading and encasing his firearm, and placing it in his car, and I highly doubt the state would disagree (How else was he to get it home? Walk and carry it openly avoiding School Zones?), which is why he was not arrested. |
|
Quoted:
Looking through the statue, I found this note from Hamdan: A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.
While the "state's interest" is a variable that cannot be predicted, and is obviously based on the activity in question, question 2 is of interest. When transporting an unloaded/encased firearm to a shooting range by car or hand/target stand while hunting/etc, I'd think that concealment was the "only reasonable means under the circumstances," as, in most of the situations, a law would be broken if someone were to do otherwise. While a law/case amendment would surely help to clarify this further, I think number 2 is an affirmative defense to, for example, the gentleman at Grand Avenue unloading and encasing his firearm, and placing it in his car, and I highly doubt the state would disagree (How else was he to get it home? Walk and carry it openly avoiding School Zones?), which is why he was not arrested. I agree with you, so much as what the WI Supreme Court would likely hold. However, who wants to be the test case? Get arrested, charged, subject yourself to the whims of an elected trial judge in Milwaukee? I think not. It may be an affirmative defense, but only after you've let the state cornhole you for a couple years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looking through the statue, I found this note from Hamdan: A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.
While the "state's interest" is a variable that cannot be predicted, and is obviously based on the activity in question, question 2 is of interest. When transporting an unloaded/encased firearm to a shooting range by car or hand/target stand while hunting/etc, I'd think that concealment was the "only reasonable means under the circumstances," as, in most of the situations, a law would be broken if someone were to do otherwise. While a law/case amendment would surely help to clarify this further, I think number 2 is an affirmative defense to, for example, the gentleman at Grand Avenue unloading and encasing his firearm, and placing it in his car, and I highly doubt the state would disagree (How else was he to get it home? Walk and carry it openly avoiding School Zones?), which is why he was not arrested. I agree with you, so much as what the WI Supreme Court would likely hold. However, who wants to be the test case? Get arrested, charged, subject yourself to the whims of an elected trial judge in Milwaukee? I think not. It may be an affirmative defense, but only after you've let the state cornhole you for a couple years. +1 eddie |