BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
I would assume drinking in public would be illegal due to open container laws.
Sorry, I didn't mean 'public property', but 'private property that is open to the public'.
I would assume drinking in public would be illegal due to open container laws.
But if anyone was arrested for 941.237(2) for consuming alcohol in a class 'b' while armed, any claim of 941.237(3)(g) being a defense would be ignored by a prosecutor and they would prosecute anyway. A DA would take it to trial and make it a test case. A test case like this would embarass the 2A community and hurt our cause. The liberal media would thoroughly enjoy it. Is this really what we want the next test case to be?
All things considered, the fact that you do or do not have a CCL has no bearing on the (g) exemption. It's all about whether or not you are carrying under the exemptions of your CCL or not. It is REQUIRED BY LAW that you have your CCL and DL with you when carrying under it's exemption; therefore, if you don't have it with you, you are not carrying under it's exemption.
HHK, msusnVet is most definitely a troll, and the same troll that's been banned many times under various user names. I also know who you are and I think that secret is out of the bag for pretty much everyone on the WI forum by now. Besides having to run your posts through my plain English translator I believe you were and are an asset to this forum but I did have an issue with your use of sock-puppets. If you continue your defense of logablemsusnVet the suspicion of sock-puppetry will be mighty thick.
As Mr Hamlet stated, why did you go off on a tangent saying it was illegal? I would agree an arrest for this would give WAVE fodder, however, I don't care! WAVE twists stuff for their purposes all the time. Me not having a beer won't cause them to drop their cause.
I know you are joking but you just made an argument that i should stop doing something legal (having a beer while carrying) because it might give fodder to wave and then you say that you would commit a felony.
I love hypocrisy.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Let's look at it this way then...I am fairly certain that Lizzies Green Cafe does NOT have a Class B license, The Twilight Lounge DOES have a class B license. They are separate businesses which means...I'll have my drink and open or CONCEAL carry in the restaurant...legally. There is no law against having a drink while carrying openly or concealed in a non class b establishment.
Let's look at it this way then...I am fairly certain that Lizzies Green Cafe does NOT have a Class B license, The Twilight Lounge DOES have a class B license. They are separate businesses which means...I'll have my drink and open or CONCEAL carry in the restaurant...legally. There is no law against having a drink while carrying openly or concealed in a non class b establishment.
Ya know what, why don't you just coneal it, ask the owner for permission. That not illegal either under your loophole. There is no mention of conceealed or not concealed anywhere in 941.237.
Agian, if you are claiming 941.237(3)(g) as an exception to 941.237(2), neither mention 'conceealed' or 'not concealed', so either way, it should be legal. You are already skating on the very edge of what's legal already, so why not?
BTW, .04 would be a slam dunk conviction for 940.20(1)(b).
Because that would be a violation of 941.23 if I wasn't carrying under 941.237(3)(cx).
http://www.ehow.com/about_4567237_wisconsin-liquor-license-regulations.html
Since they serve intoxicating beverages in the cafe part and if they do not have a class b liquor license they are begging for a citation.
Perhaps you should turn them in to the authorities as quickly as possible. Hurry!
Your stance is that if it's not illegal, then is it legal. Where does it say that you can't ask the owner for permission to carry conealed with a permit.
Really? I have to cite 941.23? OK, a quick refresher, where can we conceal carry?
Without a license:
On your property, at your place of work.
With a license:
All sorts of places.
So.... please tell me where exactly in 941.23 it says I can ask for permission to conceal?
You are are asking for autorization to POSSESS a handgun on the premises under 941.237(32)(g). Because you have a CCL, you can legally conceal it.
Because you are using 941.237(3)(g) and getting authorization for a 'specific even of limited duration', 941.237(3)(cx) does not apply.
The question is: Where does it say that you cannot conceal it anywhere in 941.237?
941.23 does not apply because you have a CCL.
Seriously?
If I am concealing, unless I am doing it via 175.60, I am in violation of 941.23 (except my property or my business) and if I am using 175.60 to exempt myself from 941.23 I put myself under 941.237(3)(cx).
Did you forget EVERYTHING we talked about over the last several months about Act 35?
IF? You were issued a CCL, therefore you are a licensee under 175.60, until you surrender it, it expires or it gets revoked. You cannot just leave it in the car and think for that period of time that your CCL is not in your immediate possesion, you are not a licensee.
Thank You. You just proved my point for me.
So, you interpret the law to suit your point. With your reasoning, someone would have to qualify under EVERY part of 941.237(3). So... who do you know who is a cop and a corrections officer going armed and a member of the US armed services and a private security person blah blah blah.
With your logic, you had better watch out because YOU don't meet every criteria of 941.23 (2) which means a WI leo who is an out of town LEO and a former officer and has a license and is in his own house.
You are wrong, the ways laws are written are very clear. If you meet one of the criteria, you are covered, you don't have to meet all of them unless the law says so.
.... if I am using 175.60 to exempt myself from 941.23 I put myself under 941.237(3)(cx).