| Author | Post |
|---|
RugerMan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 08:08 pm |
|
Hi everybody, I'm moving to Green Bay, WI in November. I will be coming by way of the Sunshine State, where, as a gun owner, I have significant legislated protections regarding protecting myself with deadly force.
I've frequented these boards, lurking, and reading in the past. I came back to research my new home's laws on a right I hold dear. And I am disappointed.
In Florida, we enjoy the right to keep a loaded firearm in the glove box without a license. We enjoy the right keep our weapons in our car while at work, regardless of company policy (with a CCW permit). We enjoy the right to carry our weapons most places and never have to disarm while in our vehicle. (again, with the CCW permit) Let's not forget the protected right to protect our home and families with deadly force, no questions asked.
I know that, as this is the premier forum on Open Carry, most of you detest the fact that open carry is unlawful in Florida. While I wish it wasn't so, you cannot deny the states' respect of it's citizens 2nd amendment rights overall.
I will go on record as stating I am for unlicensed open carry and licensed concealed carry; making the latter a definite matter of preference. I am this way for a few reasons:
Concealed Carry makes it easy for a law-abiding citizens to protect himself while not having to defend his choice to do so constantly to the "sheep" or LEO's summoned by those same sheep.
It provides a way to bypass waiting periods and background checks by showing your permit.
It is not a mandatory "hoop" to jump through in order to practice a right you already were granted if concealed carry were not the only option.
Florida is not perfect, but I believe is on the right track to allowing open carry.
As I look into Wisconsin, I was disappointed that Wisconsin neither acknowledges my CCW permit not provides another route to carry concealed.
I was even more disappointed by the fact that the only legal way to bear arms in the state is wrought with turmoil and impediments.
As I have become accustomed to carrying my weapon at all times, I must now choose to either protect myself (and new wife) risking arrest and hysteria, or go unarmed and risk the loss of my life.
I am likewise concerned about dealing with the prohibition of loaded firearms within a motor vehicle. How do I holster up without manipulating my weapon and causing alarm? Even I might be alarmed if I saw anyone, LEO or Citizen actively manipulating a handgun in public.
I conduct myself in a discreet and professional manner and dress business casual most often.
To start off, I have the following questions:
What are my chances of being detained/arrested in Green Bay and surrounding area for OC?
What is the lawful, smart way to deal with clear dichotomy between OC outside the car and having no loaded weapons inside the car?
How helpful would a folder containing copies of statutes, amendments, resolutions, Attorney General/Supreme Court opinions, and other relevant areas of legislation/law be in explaining in a professional manner to a LEO the law and the rights afforded me as a citizen in respect to OCing?
Are there any good INDOOR pistol ranges in the area?
Thank you for your advice in advance.
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 08:31 pm |
|
Welcome to Wisconsin and OCDO.
Some of your premises are a bit 'off', like detesting a fact.
Re LEO. They are not professionals by any definition that I know and certainly not required to argue with a citizen. 'Argue' in the professional use of the word.
I moved here from SC and surrendered my SC, NH and PA permits. Welcome.
|
RugerMan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 08:38 pm |
|
Hmm. Not the kind of help I was looking for.
Let it be clear, I respect Law Enforcement as a whole. I have know many good men who truly do serve and protect. And I applaud them for taking on a role few wish to do so in our society. However, I'm not naive to think I could turn around an encounter with an Officer/Deputy/Trooper whom only sees me as a threat.
My narrative was not posted for debate (just yet), but is there to tell you where I'm coming from and where I think I fit in in the grand scheme of things. I'm asking for advice from those who live in Wisconsin and hopefully some who have experiance in/around Green Bay.
|
Shotgun
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
Welcome to Wisconsin....
I believe there's an old post somewhere on here from a member who OC'ed in Green Bay without incident.
I guess you'd have to say that we're still pretty much in the ground-laying stage for more widespread OC in Wisconsin. But a number of us are working on the many rough edges that are still in need of refinement and I expect the climate will continue to improve...
Although, speaking of climate... moving to Green Bay from Florida in November will probably require a bit of an adjustment. Good luck with that. Fortunately the proximity to Lake Michigan can tend to moderate the temperature a few degrees compared to other parts of the state at that latitude. Not that you'll notice. 
Sorry I don't know where you can shoot indoors in that area, but I'd be surprised if isn't something decent available.
|
RugerMan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
Shotgun, thank you for your kind words. I'm originally from Boston, Ma so I'm prepared for the cold climate (In regards to both the weather and 2nd ammendment).
My greatest concern is the nonsense of not being able to carry in your car. How do I go from unloaded to mag in, round racked, weapon holstered outside the vehicle without "brandishing"?
|
Shotgun
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 12:51 am |
|
That's a good question. I had an email exchange with a Madison Police Seargeant from their training section which included that very topic. I explained that unfortunately current law requires loading and unloading much more frequently than one would want, but since it was unavoidable such administrative handling could not be considered "brandishing." He didn't seem to disagree.
|
RugerMan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 03:21 am |
|
Oh man, that makes me about as nervous as it would anyone thinking I was a BG.  It is generally understood that handling a firearm in public is not a good idea unless you intend to use it. I always have a round in the chamber, but racking the slide everytime I stepped from my car seems like I would eventually end up on the busisness end of a LEOs weapon.
I can see it now: I get out of my car at the grocery store, wife in tow, I step from my car, unlock my gun case, load up, rack the slide and holster the weapon. I turn from locking my car and find myself staring down the barrel of Glock  and before I know it, both my wife and I have our noses in the pavement.
Is there provision to hang a loaded, holstered handgun in a window?
For those of you that OC in Wisconsin, how do you deal with this Dilemma?
|
Shotgun
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
RugerMan wrote: For those of you that OC in Wisconsin, how do you deal with this Dilemma?
Very discreetly.
|
BJA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
Welcome to wisconsin make sure you do sum ice fishin n what not. What i'd say, as you and I both alike law abiding citizens is make sure your gun is pointed towards the ground rack it, don't make eye contact with anyone keep your eyes on your gun and then stand up slowly keep gun pointe dtowards ground and holster. All of this can be done in 5 seconds no big deal  , all you need to know is to remember to respect the safety aspect of firearm owning and respect yourself as a law abiding citizen by being confident in what you do.
It's our right! don't be afraid! be confident!
Ben
|
smithman
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 03:37 am |
|
Glad to have another pro-gun person moving to WI who carries. Welcome in advance! I have read stories of people OCing in Green Bay before.
In all honesty your chances of being detained while OCing are good. Most police departments would consider that standard procedure. Madison seems to be the exception for a metropolitan area, as Shotgun has said they will likely hang back and "observe". As for being arrested, different LEOs have different ideas unfortunately. DC is the ONLY thing they can threaten you with as long as you are not in a prohibited area from carrying. No DA has ever successfully prosecuted a case for DC for OCing, in fact no records have been found of a person ever being charged with DC for OCing. It's BS...DA's know it. However, the average LEO with 6 months of law training does not.
In a car it has to be "unloaded" and "encased". Legally you can have a loaded magazine as long as it's not in the gun. And no, a holster doesn't count as a case.
View http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com as this organization is the one leading for recognition at the county level of OC being lawful, and hoping to have something official said by our AG VanHollen.
|
Shotgun
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:06 am |
|
I certainly can't guarantee that you won't have a problem with OC in Madison. The training sergeant with whom I've been communicating stressed that they don't normally get a call of "just a man with a gun" but usually it's a case of a "man with a gun making threats, or off meds, or arguing." The notion that you could have a "man with a gun" who is merely peacefully going about his business seemed a bit foreign. He said that in such a situation, however, he considered the proper response to be to stay back and observe and evaluate. He also added that any particular officer might view the situation differently and feel that a different response is justified. The father of a former co-worker of mine is a Madison LEO and told her that he thought an instance of OC would bring an immediate disorderly conduct charge. So, it's possible that I've been just lucky with my OC in Madison so far. In any event, I told the sergeant that I would make suggestions to the chief of police on how to modify the department's policy manual to give consistent guidance to its officers on what is an appropriate response to instances of legal OC. (Working on that.)
I did find the sergeant's response and exchange of a number of emails to be encouraging after years of trying to get straight answers from MPD. I think my points have been made to them, and I haven't been rebuffed. I truly believe that education is key to getting police agencies comfortable and accepting of OC. It's hard work and isn't dramatic like a big court case would be, but I believe it's a good approach for us to take. Yes, there are many law enforcement departments within the state, but they do not operate in isolation from one another and I'm confident information about OC will move through interdepartmental grapevines.
Regarding holsters as "encased." It's my understanding that a holster CAN be considered a case as long as it meets all the requirements, particularly the "leaving no part of the firearm visible" requirement. So basically it would involve some sort of flap holster than few if any would be likely to employ, but I'm pretty sure that I've read somewhere in the past that a holster can meet the definition of a case, as long as it has all the characteristics of a case as defined under the law.
|
trailblazer2003
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:52 am |
|
Shotgun wrote: So basically it would involve some sort of flap holster than few if any would be likely to employ, but I'm pretty sure that I've read somewhere in the past that a holster can meet the definition of a case, as long as it has all the characteristics of a case as defined under the law.
Sounds like Illinois's infamous fanny pack carry. Whether true or not. Is that what you were referencing?
|
Shotgun
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 06:17 am |
|
I was referring to flap holsters.
But... a "case" has to be made expressly to hold a firearm, so just any ol' fannypack won't do, but I think you could make an argument that those that ARE made to hold firearms should be considered a legal case. Nothing in the law says it has to look like a traditional case. I did have a Madison police officer disagree with me about this a number of years ago however... but as we know, they're not lawyers or judges.
|
springfield 1911
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 12:57 pm |
|
• All fi rearms must be unloaded and completely enclosed within carrying cases designed
to carry a fi rearm when in or on any vehicle whether moving or stationary.
A holster is not a legal carrying case for a handgun unless it completely encloses
the handgun. From wi. 2008 deer hunting regulations also in small game regulations.
|
Lammie
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
This post is not specific to open carry but it does address the issue of vehicle carry. Included is a letter I sent to Ken Lee of the State Attorney General Office. I also sent copies to my State Representative and State Senator. The letters were sent mid August this year. So far I have not received a response from any of the contacts.
Mr Lee:
I acknowledge that state statutes prevent the office of the Attorney General from giving advice to private citizens. I present this information to you not for that purpose but to provide the AG office with information it may not be fully aware of. You and I have discussed the subject of the letter back in March of 2007. It concerns the apparent conflict between two of the state statutes. The statutes being 941.23 and 167.31. 941.23 is the statute that prohibits the carry of concealed weapons by anyone except a peace officer. 167.31 is the statute that requires that a firearm be empty and completely concealed when carried in or on any vehicle.
In State v Hamdan the State Supreme Court said in paragraph 48 that the legislature has drafted statute 941.23 so that it is a strict liability statute that has no exception, including the activities contained in Article I section 25 of the state constitution. That amendment reads: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. In addition the Court has laid down the conditions that define concealed. Initially it did so in State v Kieth and repeated the conditions in at least State v Hamdan. The conditions the Court laid down are:
The person knows the weapon is present.
The weapon is concealed from normal view.
The weapon is within reach.
The Court did not exclude the carry in or on a vehicle from these conditions. In fact the cases of State v Fry, Cole, Fisher and Vegas support the notion that the Court intends those conditions to apply under all manners and methods of carry.
Statute 167.31 on the other hand requires that when a firearm is carried in or on a vehicle it must be unloaded and hidden from view.
The SSC has visited this apparent conflict of statutes and has stated that the Court does not see that there is a conflict, because, if a person wishes to avoid a conflict the weapon need only be carried “out of reach”, thereby removing one of the conditions that define concealment.
My opinion is that the SSC erred in that comment. It made the assumption that the firearm would always be carried on a vehicle that was constructed so that it is possible to carry the weapon “out of reach”. That of course is not true. There are a number of single passenger type vehicles on which firearms may be carried that are constructed so that it is not possible to carry the weapon out of reach. One such vehicle being an All Terrain Vehicle.
State statute 23.33 is specific to All Terrain Vehicles. Subparagraph 23.33(3)(e) under the Rules of Operation require that if a firearm is carried on an ATV it must be unloaded and concealed in a carrying case. That would be in accord with statute 167.31. Paragraph 23.33G(b) provides a piece of additional information that the State does in fact, by state statute, allow carry of firearms on ATV's. The complexity it presents is that an ATV is constructed so that it is not possible to carry the concealed firearm out of reach and avoid the conditions that the SSC says defines concealment.
In State v Hamdan the SSC visited the constitutional impact of constitutional amendment Article I section 25 on the concealed weapon statute 941.23. It decided that even under the breadth of the amendment 941.23 was constitutional because it addressed the manner of carry. The Court recognized two manners of carry, visible and hidden. More importantly the Court ruled that if the State prohibits a manner of carry it must provide an alternate or yield to the amendment. The conundrum that produces, is that, although statute 23.33 allows the carry of a firearm on an ATV for hunting, recreation or for that matter any lawful purpose the State has not provided a means that is not subject to penalty. A person can not carry the weapon hidden, as prohibited by statute 941.23, at risk of being charged with a gross misdemeanor and the person can not carry the firearm visible as prohibited by statute 167.31, at risk of being charged with a forfeiture <$100. The person has no reasonable way to avoid either condition.
Information I have obtained from the State Department of Natural Resources states that in the hunting seasons of 2006 31 people were issued citations for carrying uncased weapons on an ATV. Thirty-one persons that were forced to pay a penalty for violating a statute when their only alternative was to violate a more sever statute. A statute that carries with it potential jail time. The sportsmen and citizens of Wisconsin should not be put in a position that they have to make a decision on which statute they would prefer to violate.
I am not writing this letter to ask for an AG opinion I am writing this letter to voice my opinion. This years hunting seasons are about to start. If this apparent conflict of statutes is not clarified by the Attorney General there will be additional citizens of Wisconsin charged with crimes they can't avoid.
Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXX
|
WIG19
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 03:20 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: I moved here from SC and surrendered my SC, NH and PA permits. Welcome.
I travel, so I'd never surrender a non-res permit. PA issues to non-residents from states with NO permit process (like WI). The PA gets you the NH. Unfortunately as more states insist on recognizing only people matched with residency (like MI and CO) with no provision for states that don't have a permit process at all, right or wrong the permit in the wallet is a good thing and the OP will be giving that up.
Given the versatility of the FL permit OP may want to look into simply filing a change of address now, pay whatever fee and get it changed to a non-res FL permit anyway.
Welcome to WI and good luck.
|
RugerMan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 02:00 am |
|
Yeah, I intend to just change my address and make it a non-res permit. I'd never give my permit up, especially since I've my nearly $150 for it, and it is accepted in other states I may wish to travel to.
I think the amount of OCing that I do will be limited by the laws about vehicle carry, because, again, I don't fancy handling my weapon in public. I have a locked case teathered to my passenger side seat that I'll generally carry it in. I'll probably start slinging a belt holster over the seat from now on too. I doubt I'll use it often though.
When I'm settled, I'm gonna build relationships with LEOs in my neighborhood and church, and start some dialogue with the PD and get a true sense of the general climate before I start OCing.
I'll also attend any OC events in the state and be an outspoken supporter of the only way the law provides for me to excersize our 2nd ammendment rights in the state of Wisconsin: Open Carry.
|
WIG19
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
RugerMan wrote: I think the amount of OCing that I do will be limited by the laws about vehicle carry, because, again, I don't fancy handling my weapon in public.
You're correct that it's a concern. Anywhere else I've carried there is no hue & cry upon exiting the vehicle armed with a holstered firearm to go do whatever. Stopping after you pull into a parking lot somewhere and standing outside your car to load, chamber & holster calls much more attention to oneself and then could be the source of much scrutiny and "the phone call."
The other issue is simply that from a statistical point of view, more unnecessary gun handling is inherently less good.
I believe a case could be made - but not until someone is swept up into one because of being restrained from exercise - that the foregoing restricts the only legal carry remedy "granted" by the WI courts from the perspective of being simply impractical in execution if one complies with the law.
Much to the consternation of a few in the CC-as-ultimate-solution camp (I'm not in one camp or another) I continue to badger my reps to get a declaration from the AG* with statewide guidance to law-enforcement which addresses OC and vehicle carry given totality of circumstances. In most cases LE will work situations based on guidance they have as law & caselaw & move on. While there have been notable exceptions they generally don't make stuff up on the spot if they've had guidance on a particular area.
* And, to a person, elected reps I've talked to are sorely disappointed with the AG and have told him so to his face.
|
Lammie
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 06:03 pm |
|
Read the following with caution. I'm not advising anyone else to do as I do. Their decision must be entirely their own. I have not had an encounter with the law so my method has not been tested. My opinion is that after reviewing all pertinent state statutes my method of carry is not unlawful.
I modified a flap holster by adding a piece of leather to the opening at the butt area of the firearm thereby covering the opening so that the butt of the gun can't be seen when the flap is closed. I sewed a piece of leather on the front of the holster to make a pouch for the magazine. I wear the holster and unloaded firearm on my belt. I have a loaded magazine in the pouch on the holster. As far as I can determine my setup complies with the vehicle carry statute. It's not an ideal setup but it eliminates manipulating the firearm each time I exit or enter a vehicle. It takes me 4 seconds to draw the firearm, insert the magazine and rack the slide. Not very fast but better than forever.
|
smithman
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 04:06 am |
|
Lammie wrote: Read the following with caution. I'm not advising anyone else to do as I do. Their decision must be entirely their own. I have not had an encounter with the law so my method has not been tested. My opinion is that after reviewing all pertinent state statutes my method of carry is not unlawful.
I modified a flap holster by adding a piece of leather to the opening at the butt area of the firearm thereby covering the opening so that the butt of the gun can't be seen when the flap is closed. I sewed a piece of leather on the front of the holster to make a pouch for the magazine. I wear the holster and unloaded firearm on my belt. I have a loaded magazine in the pouch on the holster. As far as I can determine my setup complies with the vehicle carry statute. It's not an ideal setup but it eliminates manipulating the firearm each time I exit or enter a vehicle. It takes me 4 seconds to draw the firearm, insert the magazine and rack the slide. Not very fast but better than forever.
IANAL of course but I believe this is legal. Not in the spirit of the law, but DA's cannot prosecute a person for disobeying the "spirit".
The only problem would be an officer asking you to step out of the car, which is legal for them to ask. "Um, sorry officer, can you hold on for 20 seconds while I remove my belt and this nice leather thing attached to it." Once you are out of the car, then the situation may change legally.
|
Current time is 08:52 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
