User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 2:16:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Personally, I don't think it will have any bearing on legislation for CCWing in our state. It would be nice if it did, but I don't think it will change things one iota. I hope I eat them words.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 2:55:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Have you read it yet Jeff? It's mentioned that the manor in which one goes about armed is something that can be regulated. I doubt highly that the Heller decision will help us with CCW here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 4:18:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Our only hope is that we can get past a veto in the legislature or to oust Doyle.
The Heller decision specifically said that regulating how arms are carried could still be constitutional even if it's ever incorporated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 6:25:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Yes I have read the opinion. I actually consulted my favorite attorney today and he agrees.
There is a section from page 19 of the slip that I believe is very relevant: Opinion of the Court c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed Wisconsin BANS CCW and thats the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 6:30:25 PM EDT
[#5]
But open carry is NOT illegal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 7:00:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Until you get a DC.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2008 7:13:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Even if you get one, you have to be found guilty, it has to go to the appeals court, you need to win there, and the decision needs to be published. Then you satisfy 1 part of Hamdan if you get pinched for CCW(and didn't have to use the gun to defend yourself) after that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 1:41:27 AM EDT
[#8]
More like a disturbing the peace then a disorderly conduct |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:20:09 AM EDT
[#9]
I don't see Heller changing anything in Wisconsin. Heller says you can limit the right. That's not a surprise, as all the other rights have restrictions as well.
It's the same argument the WI Supreme Court used. Your rights are strongest within the home, and weakest in public. I see the feds going the same way. They didn't address whether licensing was constitutional. They also seemed to feel that RKBA would be limited to arms in common use, so no machine guns. (I find that one particularly ironic, since the reason machine guns aren't in common civilian use is because they were regulated, and haven't been manufactured since '86. So, apparently, they can continue to be restricted, since they aren't in common use, because they are regulated, so they're not in common use, so they can be regulated... That's one part of the minority opinion I agree with, where it says the circular argument used by the majority was incredibly self-serving.) Anyway, the only route I see for Wisconsin is either open carry marches, performed at the right time and when a CCW bill is actually up for consideration, and/or an override of Doyle's veto, and/or getting Doyle out. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:31:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Glenn,
I respect your thoughts. I am not a lawyer I am just using my own knowledge and common sense.  In my mind since Wisconsin law forbids CCW it is unconstitutional. I understand the exceptions that the WI SC has carved out but those must be made after arrest and the burden of proof is on the accused to meet the standard. As I read Justice Scalia's majority opinion, reasonable restrictions are ok but outright bans are not. In my view it is a place to start with in the courts. It would be a proactive measure versus the strategy of waiting for the next election and hoping for the best. What could it hurt? Regarding open carry. DC made the argument that since you could have a long guns and as long as they were disassembled it didn't violate the second amendment. The majority disagreed. I heard that in the orals. If a firearm was disassembled when needed the practical effect was to ban them. I feel that is similar to saying you can open carry but practically you are subject to arrest for a different offense or at least significant scrutiny if you do. Comparing the first to second amendments. Both are individual rights recognized by constitution and thus the federal government and subject to reasonable restrictions. Would anyone say that confining free speech to the home or office was a reasonable restriction? Lastly why can't JB Van Do Nothing at least be approached to offer us some support? Jeff |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 12:04:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Well, here's the deal. I agree that it is unconstitutional for you to not be able to carry. Therefore, there is nothing stopping you. BUT, I don't do it yet because I fear if I do get caught I would spend money I don't have fighting it. But, what are the chances of getting caught if you're not waving your pistol around everywhere. Probably not real good. Unless it is real obvious that you're carrying. But again, nothing is stopping you constitutionally. If more of us had Gonads like others and not worried about that, it could POSSIBLY become an accepted thing. Possibly even with some Law Enforcement. Maybe it already is with some. That, however, I doubt. But I could be wrong. Man, that all sounded very middle of the road, didn't it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:20:43 PM EDT
[#12]
The section from page 19 is what will eventually give us CCW. The line, "we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" will push our arguement over the edge. Most confrontations usually happen in public and a state law saying we can't carry concealed very clearly conflicts with that statement. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 4:46:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Nah, the Wisconsin Constitution already says, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." Except not in public, while concealed, according to the Wisconsin supreme court. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see Heller changing anything. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 4:50:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Any guess as to what year we'll get CCW?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:19:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Take the time to read the document. Scalia clearly states that prohibiting CCW is not in violation of the 2A. On page 2 under #2 he states that "...concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment..."
This means in very simple terms that an objection to CCW prohibitions as being in violation of the 2A have zero chance of being recognized at this time by a majority of the current 9 members of the SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:28:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Probably in 2012. The day before the world ends. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:29:19 PM EDT
[#17]
only way WI will get CCW is with a differnt gov in place.
im not to worried about getting nailed for doing it. as a matter of fact one time when i worked for road patrol towing in milwaukee i was hooking up a police tow down town. cop arrested a drunk drive and i was taking his car to impound, wile under the rear of the car i heard a real weird mattlic sound.. kinda like a 1911 hitting the pavment. and i know the cop was standing about 2 feet behind me so all the sudden i rembered i had my 1911 in a small of the back type holster and it hit me. i just lost my gun. i turned around thinking the cop was going to be slapping the cuffs on me next when he said "you realy should pick that up before someone see's it" its all a matter of how you carry and why you do...dont be a idiot and you shouldnt have any problems ray |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:30:47 AM EDT
[#18]
That's what I'm talking about. I think some law enforcement might recognize that going to certain areas unarmed, is just not a good idea for law abiding citizens. But some of us for work need to. Thank God I don't need to any longer. But I used to every day. And I kept one very close. All the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:01:50 AM EDT
[#19]
You just admitted to breaking the law.... But as long as you're not worried about getting nailed. What do we always say about "it's ok because we're law abiding citizens" in our gun advocacy arguments? This is just a wee bit of a contradiction, no? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 4:50:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Ever drive over the posted speed limit? Always come to a complete stop? Ever pull the tags off of your mattress?  When it comes to personal defense, making a conscious decision to act in a way which may be contrary to current law and may result in a fine is an option... Sometimes you need to man-up and do what it takes to protect yourself and Loved ones.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:05:53 PM EDT
[#21]
just because I forget....what's the penalty for speeding, versus getting caught with a concealed firearm? not to mention, it's still breaking the law. we all use the argument that no matter what gun laws, criminals will still get a hold of guns.....well, you're saying that because they choose to do so, we have a 'right' to? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:21:43 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:41:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Dear Mom: Please send a new sarcasm meter to camp. Mine is broken...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:44:56 PM EDT
[#24]
As men, we have an obligation to defend our own lives and the lives of those around us. Because there are "bad" men with guns, we "need" guns to counter this very real threat.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 4:18:04 AM EDT
[#25]
You still completely ignored my questions. But basically you are telling me that yes, you feel you have the right to break THAT law, but others who break the same laws (the ones we call non-law-abiding citizens) are "bad" men with guns. Interesting contradiction. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 4:21:09 AM EDT
[#26]
And I agree we have a right to bear arms, but the state of Wisconsin says we do not have a right to carry concealed. I am not sure why that is that difficult to understand.
I would like to know however, if everyone on here feels this way. EDIT: and how many of you actually do carry daily? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 8:53:07 AM EDT
[#27]
You will not get a direct answer, nor should you. IK has answered your posts well, and with truth. If you truly do not understand, I don't think any amount of explaining will allow you to "get it". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 9:25:33 AM EDT
[#28]
We're talking about people who carry weapons illegally to defend themselves v. people who carry weapons to commit crime and violence against others? What contradiction? c361 Stan |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 9:28:39 AM EDT
[#29]
i know of a lot of people in wi that ccw daily. im about the only one that will comeout and say i do. when i was towing car for the city of milwaukee only about 2% of the time we had police with us. the other 98% of the time we had to take the cars by our self. when your up about 68th and bobbalink or 35th and silverspring or 12th and locus
you need to be armed. iv been shot at to maney times to care what the wi law says about ccw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 9:49:17 AM EDT
[#30]
Isn't the law still the law? That is what I meant by contradiction. How do we have a right to break the law to protect ourselves? I am just being devils advocate. I never realized that fellow arfcommers carried illegally. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:07:48 AM EDT
[#31]
in WI, can they take our guns away or anything besides a citation, if caught while carrying concealed? Fuck, if this is how it's looked at, I'll start carrying then. jesus.
 i'd like to stay a law-abiding citizen, while still protecting mine and my wife's life |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:30:27 AM EDT
[#32]
Depending on how you look at it, they don't, or to answer with more specificity: It is likely that they believe they may have an affirmative defense to prosecution based on the WISC's opinion in State v. Hamdan. Edit: IOW, one may truly be breaking the law, but if doing so happens incident to privileged conduct, it would be a defense to prosecution.
IIRC, the penalty for a 941.23 violation is up to a $900 fine and up to 9 months in jail. The weapon will be confiscated, and the fair market vale of the weapon should be applied to the fine if you are convicted and they do not return it. For a first offence, the most likely outcome is closer to ~$500 in fines and court costs less the value of the weapon and no jail time. Realize that 941.23 applies to concealed weapons period. Meaning that you can be prosecuted for having a Spyderco in your pocket just as easily as you could for a Glock in your waistband. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:33:04 AM EDT
[#33]
Interesting. So it's unanimous that the benefits outweigh the risks? (I am honestly not trolling, I just was surprised, but now I see the reasoning behind it) |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:37:41 AM EDT
[#34]
The risk/benefit analysis is something that you will have to do yourself, and I will say with certainty that it is not a unanimous decision among arfcommers. Analyze your situation, familiarize yourself with the law, talk to an attorney, and then act as you feel you should. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:38:43 AM EDT
[#35]
thnx bud. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:44:00 AM EDT
[#36]
NP, pal. To be crystal clear: I am not advocating, condoning, or encouraging anyone to violate the law, rather; as I look at things, I can fully see where the letter and spirit of the law can come into direct conflict with doing the right thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 10:45:04 AM EDT
[#37]
no question about it. I just looked at it on the other side of the law. I appreciate the input though. I just thought this should really be open for discussion, as I've not seen it talked about on here before. def. something to think about |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 12:37:31 PM EDT
[#38]
One word.... Vegas. Apparently, the courts feel that it is justified I don't know why this all is so difficult to understand.  You are posting on a pro-gun site. You are posting in a local forum on subject matter which the members feel passionately about. You should realize that your line of questioning and comments appears to be trolling... The "devil's advocate" explaination is normally just a poor excuse....
You have come VERY late to the discussion and it is generally understood that life safety comes first..... There is no need to discuss it further. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 1:14:44 PM EDT
[#39]
I disagree that Heller won't change anything. We have not been able to find redress with the state legislature or courts. But the Heller decision made it crystal clear that "to bear" means to carry, such as in preparation for confrontation, and that we have an individual right to do so. Now we know that in Wisconsin, we can neither carry concealed or openly. That is the definition of being deprived of a civil right under the U.S. Constitution. Once it is established that the 2A is incorporated against the states by the 14th Amdmt, I think we have a fair shake of challenging the enforcement scheme of charging "disorderly conduct" against persons openly carrying in Federal Court. At a very minimum, we can use the threat of Federal lawsuits as an implicit threat against the legislature to get something done on concealed carry permitting. I just sent a letter to my state senator and rep and to the editors of four different newspapers to express the same opinion. Maybe ya'll should do the same?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 6:49:07 PM EDT
[#40]
The other option is to exercise our open carry options. Taking Fido for a walk? Put one on your hip. Mr. Doyle has said that he prefers it that way, and if law abiding people are getting hassled or threatened with arrest for carrying openly, it will help force the issue in the courts. If we can't carry concealed OR openly, then its clear we have no legal way to exercise our right to bear arms.
"Back in 2006, in response to a question on concealed carry legislation, Governor Doyle said such laws don't make sense. 'If you want to wear a gun, wear it on your hip,' Doyle said, patting his hip." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2008 6:51:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Class A misdemeanor = 9 months, $10,000 fine (statute 939.51). I haven't heard of the value of the implement of criminal activity being used to reduce the penalty assessment. Locally, anyway. Usually the court orders it sent to the state crime lab, where it is destroyed if they don't already have a sample of that model. A $500 fine is optimistic. I think it's important to realize this is a pro-gun forum, and expressed opinion is therefore heavily weighted towards carry. Let me play devil's advocate. Wisconsin passes CCW, or the courts demand some sort of permitting system under Heller. But you have a previous weapons violation. Buh-bye. I haven't been in a position where I would have drawn a weapon off-duty. I haven't been shot at off-duty. But I have been in encounters with LE, prior to becoming a cop, where I would have been charged with CCW had I been armed. Like when I was in a car accident and the Trooper was kind enough to render first aid. Everyone here is an adult and will make their own decisions, but life is seldom as black-and-white as it looks on a computer screen. I urge everyone to think carefully whether carrying a weapon illegally is the right thing to do. Maybe you believe you have an affirmative defense under WI SC rulings. And I hate the current situation. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2008 2:56:27 AM EDT
[#42]
A few more thoughts:
Do you have liability insurance? Your homeowner's policy may provide some, or perhaps you have an umbrella policy. Does it cover actions that are a result of illegal activity? IOW, understand that you may be hung out to dry by your insurance carrier when there's a lawsuit. I've never arrested anyone for CCW, who would have been eligible for a CCW permit. But I'd never count on getting a blind eye from LE. Does it happen? Maybe. But just when you count on it... As I said earlier, we're all adults and will make a decision that's best for ourselves. But it's in my job description to respect the law, so I thought I'd be the lone voice in the wilderness--not saying you may not be covered under WI SC rulings, but urging serious consideration before embarking on otherwise-illegal CCW. I hate the current situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2008 6:03:58 AM EDT
[#43]
Glenn,
Thanks for the correction on the max allowable fine. FWIW, I didn't pull those numbers out of my butt. They, along with the fine reduction based on the value of the weapon, are my anecdotal recollections on a couple of recent 941.23 cases I am aware of. The most recent one was a second offense for nothing other than CCW (i.e. not an add-on charge). In that particular case, the low fine was part of a deal for a guilty plea from what I understand. I thought the guy had an excellent chance at a Hamdan ruling pretrial, but the defendant didn't want to get a lawyer.  There are a few here in the HTF who are familiar with the case. If I’ve gotten anything wrong, please step in and correct me (without personal details, of course). Bottom line: $10k and 9mos max for a non-felony, which will probably be lots less for a first time offender. With decent representation outside of MKE and Berkley East, a pre-trial hearing might even get you off. Outside of getting popped in a school-zone, a misdemeanor violation should not be a prohibition IF Wisconsin ever gets a shall-issue permit system. It is a gamble. Folks need to weigh the odds vs. the stakes. Brother, we all respect the law. The question is does the law respect us? We have a right to bear arms under the WI Constitution, yet: CCW is not permitted by statute. There is NO way an individual can legally exercise that right in a motor vehicle. Open carry will result in DC charges in most public areas. Just sayin'. Back on topic, Re: how does Heller affect us. About the only thing I can see the opinion working in our favor is with an incorporation argument based on equal protection / full faith and credit, brought by a petitioner that has a CCW permit from another state. That state would need to have RKBA language in their constitution that is substantially similar to our own. That is one long and expensive process toward forced reciprocity, but the only one I see as having anything close to a 50/50 chance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2008 2:43:21 AM EDT
[#44]
The only hope for WI is for our political leaders to quit bargaining with our rights and to take a stand. JB says he is for 2a rights, and even granted a permit to one of his cronies or somebody (ex-cop). JB NEEDS to make a statement to all prosecutors and LEO to not fuck with open or ccw weapon cases unless "part" of another crime. This is the only tactic I see that can make a diference.
People who carry outside of the law make a personal judgement to exercise thier rights, I have heard politicos talk alot of shit about supporting 2a, it's time to put up or shut up for them IMO. I am starting to think that even LEO's need to make that statement publicly too. Only then can people look at thier leaders EXAMPLE and make thier (personal) stand to exercise thier rights. Lot's of luck to me.... c361 Stan |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2008 7:22:36 AM EDT
[#45]
The question is what is the dollar value of your loved ones and yourself. If you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions of breaking the current law then do what you have to do. The other end of the spectrum is when you carry what are you willing to spend to not get in a altercation that could ruin your life? How much ego will you sacrifice? There are many things to take into consideration before carry a gun
I do not believe Heller will change anything as far a ccw goes in WI. I am not sure anything will change our current ccw problem in this state in the near future. CYFG Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2008 9:24:06 AM EDT
[#46]
Given the current murky state of the law and precedent (Hamdan, etc.), my chosen path is off-body carry in a Galco Day-planner setup. My reasoning is as follows:
#1 -- My position is that all it is is a discreet gun case. If it's illegal to carry a gun in a zippered gun case, what exactly is legal? Where is the line between carrying a cased firearm and carrying a concealed weapon? It's not defined. It's all gray area that can be tested in court. If I throw it on the seat next to me in the car, I'm violating the regulation that requires it to be unloaded, but that is a minor DNR-type penalty compared to a CCW violation. Otherwise, see position #1. I know all the pros and cons of off-body carry, but I'm willing to accept the downside in order to have a marginally more defensible legal position. I think with off-body carry, one has a better chance of talking your way out of a trip to jail. “How’s this different from carrying a gun in a gun case, officer?” |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2008 11:37:33 AM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2008 12:15:15 PM EDT
[#48]
They could charge anyone, even with a properly cased and unloaded gun, with CCW. There are no statutory exceptions, nor any case law guidance to tell you how inaccessible it has to be to the driver before you are no longer considered to be "going armed". All we know for sure is that glove compartment is bad, and on the seat out of normal observation is bad. We know the law makes no distinction betweeen loaded and unloaded firearms, which is key. You are equaly guilty of CCW carrying around an unloaded gun as a loaded one. But we don't have any information about how "cased" firearms are treated, other than that DNR requires a gun to be cased and unloaded when in or on or touching a vehicle. For purposes of the concealed weapons statute, however, is the back seat inaccessible enough to not be considered CCW? If I have a truck, and it's secure in the passenger compartment versus floating around in the bed, am I CCW? If it's in the trunk of a car, but I have a split folding rear seat with a pass-through, are my rear seat passengers CCW? Since you are never 100% safe from a CCW charge (in my opinion), you might as well take advantage of the gray area to your own benefit. Given the foregoing, one could make the case that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Moreover, if I've got the gun in an enclosed nondescript day-planner-style "case" in the car, the officer is going to have to have a higher standard to search that case than to search my person. I can be ordered out of the vehicle and frisked based on a very low standard. But if the gun is cased and remains within the vehicle, he's got to have some sort of probable cause to search the vehicle before he could discover the cased firearm. He may even have to have a higher standard to open the case. Nothing is in plain sight which would raise any reasonable suspicion that there is any firearms related violation going on, given the day-planner's appearance. Right or wrong, that's my reasoning. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:21:01 PM EDT
[#49]
I was just pointing out that that minor DNR violation might not be the only thing you get. That is all. Trust me i've done the risk Vs rewards thing on CCW. I thought about many a different angle of it as well. But when EVERY cop you personally know says that they will not bust someone for CCW unless it is part of another crime, it makes the decision a little easier to make. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:41:46 PM EDT
[#50]
What is the typical penalty for having a loaded pistol in the glove compartment....I'm guessing CCW - Class A Misdemeanor....would this be correct?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
