few questions about transportation

[apjonas]

Futher Thoughts

ok, I'll take a chance.

I don't know if these words or ideas were from the Hamden case or another since 1998. But I believe one of the statements in the decision basically said that "since there was no alternative" the person had "no other choice to do what was done". Since Art 1, sec 25 allowed a person to keep and bear arms for defense and security, and there was no criminal intent, a person who is doing the best they can to obey the law(s) should be in the clear. I drive a small pickup and every place in the cab is within reach. If I place the gun, encased and unloaded, on the front seat, I am clearly not hiding it. If I were to get stopped for traffic violation and the officer saw the gun case, he/she would assume there is a firearm in the vehicle and probably ask me to step out of the car. I would do so, but lock the car behind me. If I try to have a gun out of reach, I would have to leave the gun at home and my right to defense and security is in effect being denied. My choice to drive is an option, but I don't think I need to walk, carrying my handgun on my hip, 8 miles to town to make sure I am exercising my right.

If Art 1, sec 25 had not been passed, there would be no "fall-back position", but there again, if I drove my truck, there would be no alternative.

If there is a passenger on the front seat, the unloaded and encased handgun goes behind the seat. As Shotgun has said, ready access to my gun is denied because I have to get the case, remove the gun, and load it. Not having ready access is important.

Quite possibly. I just haven't read any cases where the court used this type of test. And the part of Hamdan test weighing the interests of the state vs. individual is the most problematic. Showing that concealment was the only practical alternative and that you had no criminal intent (even though it is the prosecution's burden to prove the opposite) is relatively easy.

Court cases have set some criteria for legal acts, but the Keith and Walls decisions did not have Art 1,sec 25 for any defense. Hamden did have it as part of the defense, and the decision reflected it.

I am not a lawyer. I am only trying to reason out the situation as logically as I can given the information available to me. I know, logic is not a defense. Maybe we should take this to a Vulcan court.

The fact that no one has been convicted of a crime when a handgun was unloaded and encased and on the front seat must be meaningful. It is not a game of chance anymore. Years of precedent have been set under the same conditions.

Have there been such cases?

In Hamden, the justices said that 941.23 was unworkable in light Art 1 Sec 25. A gedanken experiment (or even a test case) would be to carry a loaded gun in a vehicle for the purpose of security or defense and be arrested for such violation. Is Art 1, Sec 25 strong enough on it's own to support a defense? I don't know (and I am not going to try it). All through history, the WI courts have tried to balance the "security of the person" and personal rights, with the "security of the state". The trump card in the past has been that the state had the stronger argument to maintain civil security and the individual right suffered.
One could also apply the logic to the State Park, GFSZ, etc but if choices can be made by the individual to not break the law(s) without giving up the right, then defense weakens.

Doesn't the Fisher case perform the experiment? It is post-Sec. 25 and post-Hamdan. The only difference between Fisher and your scenario is that a gun on the seat (encased or not) would not be considered concealed while a gun in the glovebox was concealed. If Fisher had left the gun exposed (and the Walls definition of concealed were overturned), he would have been convicted.

941.23 - ANNOT.

This section is constitutional as applied in this case. The defendant's interest in exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state's interest in prohibiting him from carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04-2989.

One can even extend the argument to open carry. Is a person's right to open carry stronger than the state's obligation to "keep the peace" (therefore DC)? The State AG certainly alluded to the personal right being stronger in the absence of any criminal activity.

(I am also remembering the Jackson Co. DA and the Clark Co. judge.)

I don't think these arguments are new, but you asked for it. ok, I've rambled enough. There may be a sequel.

Thanks for the input. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of any case, I think we've put together the most likely arguments (on either side).

 

[phred]

Doesn't the Fisher case perform the experiment? It is post-Sec. 25 and post-Hamdan. The only difference between Fisher and your scenario is that a gun on the seat (encased or not) would not be considered concealed while a gun in the glovebox was concealed. If Fisher had left the gun exposed (and the Walls definition of concealed were overturned), he would have been convicted.

941.23 - ANNOT.

This section is constitutional as applied in this case. The defendant's interest in exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state's interest in prohibiting him from carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04-2989.



Thanks for the input. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of any case, I think we've put together the most likely arguments (on either side).

After reading State v. Fisher, it is clear why Fisher lost. At the time of the wrongdoing and "getting caught", he did not "need" security. He also messed up by leaving loaded guns in an unlocked car which in fact was stolen. The Justices could see where the security of the state had been breached. Also, the Justices did not recognize the strength of Fisher's need for security. Black River Falls was not rampant w/crime and threats to defend against where not as evident as noted in the Hamden case.

All of the court cases cited have a distinct set of conditions that create necessarily different outcomes.

Fisher's gun was loaded. bingo - illegal
Wall's gun was loaded. bingo - illegal
Keith was prior to Art. ! sec 25
Hamden shows some give in 941.23

So when I unload and properly encase my firearm as per 167.31, I think I am pretty safe no matter where I put it in my vehicle. And like I noted earlier, "has anybody has "done time" or paid a fine for doing so?"

 

[apjonas]

Do you

know of an actual court case where the distinction between loaded or unloaded played a role in the decision? I understand your feeling that uncased and unloaded is relatively safe but is it legal in fact as well as practice? I think Hamdan involved a loaded weapon but the key factor was he was at his place of business. Walls pivoted on the fact that the gun was "concealed" - I don't think an unloaded condition would have changed that. Walls was also pre-Hamdan but given the result in Fisher, that isn't a game changer. Certainly the fact that it would take two discrete actions (and more than two movements) to make your gun operational would mitigate in your favor. I am just not sure that such a rule is the current law and thus am looking for any decisions to support this theory. The fact that 167.31 mandates unloaded and encased suggests that the legislature took it for granted that firearms would be carried in vehicles and compliance would not be a violation of 941.23 (assuming 941.23 came first). Of course, the argument could be made (as I have) that it is difficult, but not impossible to comply with both laws. The open question is whether or not that is a reasonable demand especially in light of Art. I, Sec. 25. Barring a case squarely dealing with this issue, only new legislation can clarify the murkiness. Thanks again for your contribution. Please post any info you find on relevant cases.

After reading State v. Fisher, it is clear why Fisher lost. At the time of the wrongdoing and "getting caught", he did not "need" security. He also messed up by leaving loaded guns in an unlocked car which in fact was stolen. The Justices could see where the security of the state had been breached. Also, the Justices did not recognize the strength of Fisher's need for security. Black River Falls was not rampant w/crime and threats to defend against where not as evident as noted in the Hamden case.

All of the court cases cited have a distinct set of conditions that create necessarily different outcomes.

Fisher's gun was loaded. bingo - illegal
Wall's gun was loaded. bingo - illegal
Keith was prior to Art. ! sec 25
Hamden shows some give in 941.23

So when I unload and properly encase my firearm as per 167.31, I think I am pretty safe no matter where I put it in my vehicle. And like I noted earlier, "has anybody has "done time" or paid a fine for doing so?"

 

[Brass Magnet]

Of course, the argument could be made (as I have) that it is difficult, but not impossible to comply with both laws.

I hope you don't mind me sticking my snout in here but how is it possible to comply with both laws?

If a firearm is "within reach" inside a vehicle and therefore considered a concealed weapon as it's supposedly "indiscernable through normal observation" how is it not "within reach" when you are carrying the encased weapon. A person could say that as long as it's in a case specifically designed to hold a firearm it would appear to be a firearm even in the case and that would satisfy that it is discernable through normal observation BUT, not all cases specifically designed to hold a fierarm look like a firearm case. A rectangular gun case looks a heck of a lot like some guitar cases for instance.

I'd like to hear your counter argument to that.

Also, although it's not WSC precedent, Let's not forget about Vegas and Schultz. It was determined that Vegas passed the Hamdan/Fischer test "as applied" and Schultz found 941.23 unconstiutional "on it's face". These have only set precedent in the areas they have jurisdiction over but other non activist judges will use them as reference in other jurisdictions.

So my basic assertion is that you may be arrested and charged for having an encased and unloaded firearm sitting next to you on a car seat but you would have a near 100% chance of winning in court as long as no wrongdoing was afoot. On the other hand you also won't likely be arrested and charged.

A good example is that the sheriffs deputies around here take Hamdan as gospel (or rather the annotations to 941.23) in that some of them actually encourage CCW in your home or business; YET, you can still be charged and arrested for CCW in your home or business although you'd probably win in court. Notice the language from Hamdan: (The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises) "Sometimes" leaves it up to the courts; once again.

Anyway, like I said, I'm interested in this as well.

 

[apjonas]

Well....off the bat two solutions..

I hope you don't mind me sticking my snout in here but how is it possible to comply with both laws?

1. You can simply not transport a firearm by vehicle.
2. You can transport out of reach - for example, in the trunk.

If a firearm is "within reach" inside a vehicle and therefore considered a concealed weapon as it's supposedly "indiscernable through normal observation" how is it not "within reach" when you are carrying the encased weapon.

It is "within reach" or it may be considered on your person. Carrying an encased firearm while walking down the street is a violation of 941.23. As has been pointed out, carrying an encased firearm while walking from your bedroom to bathroom may be (but probably isn't) a violation.

A person could say that as long as it's in a case specifically designed to hold a firearm it would appear to be a firearm even in the case and that would satisfy that it is discernable through normal observation BUT, not all cases specifically designed to hold a fierarm look like a firearm case. A rectangular gun case looks a heck of a lot like some guitar cases for instance.

I'd like to hear your counter argument to that.

To what? Any case large enough could hold a pistol or broccoli. It is whether the pistol itself is visible or not. Likewise walking around with a big sign saying "Concealed Pistol" here with an arrow pointing towards your BVD's doesn't "unconceal" the weapon.

Also, although it's not WSC precedent, Let's not forget about Vegas and Schultz. It was determined that Vegas passed the Hamdan/Fischer test "as applied" and Schultz found 941.23 unconstiutional "on it's face". These have only set precedent in the areas they have jurisdiction over but other non activist judges will use them as reference in other jurisdictions.

Remind everybody about those cases (background, details, etc.). The reality is that anything short of a WSC (perhaps Court of Appeals) decision has no statewide impact on law enforcement.

So my basic assertion is that you may be arrested and charged for having an encased and unloaded firearm sitting next to you on a car seat but you would have a near 100% chance of winning in court as long as no wrongdoing was afoot. On the other hand you also won't likely be arrested and charged.

You'll forgive me if I don't share your enthusiastic certainty. With reference to 941.23 only, what difference does it make if the pistol is loaded?

A good example is that the sheriffs deputies around here take Hamdan as gospel (or rather the annotations to 941.23) in that some of them actually encourage CCW in your home or business; YET, you can still be charged and arrested for CCW in your home or business although you'd probably win in court. Notice the language from Hamdan: (The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises) "Sometimes" leaves it up to the courts; once again.

Anyway, like I said, I'm interested in this as well.

Well, Hamdan is "gospel" - the problem is it's confusing gospel. I am confident enough to carry concealed in my own home and business. Provided I have no illegal intent, this is minimal Hamdan protection. Carrying in a vehicle is another matter. If you believe encased and unloaded is good, then encased and loaded or uncased and loaded should be good as well (in reference to 941.23).

 

[Nutczak]

Nothing in alloy states if his gun was loaded or not! So I ignore that case.

All this thread has proven is that WI gun laws are contradictory and confusing. If a an unloaded cased firearm was a violation of WI laws, We could pay off the entire deficit during one weeks worth of fines during deer season.

 

[Big Dipper]

All this thread has proven is that WI gun laws are contradictory and confusing. If a an unloaded cased firearm was a violation of WI laws, We could pay off the entire deficit during one weeks worth of fines during deer season.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Don't give them any ideas.

 

[Brass Magnet]

1. You can simply not transport a firearm by vehicle.
2. You can transport out of reach - for example, in the trunk.

1. That's avoiding 167.31, not attempting to comply with it.
2. No because you would have to case it to put it into a trunk.

It is "within reach" or it may be considered on your person. Carrying an encased firearm while walking down the street is a violation of 941.23. As has been pointed out, carrying an encased firearm while walking from your bedroom to bathroom may be (but probably isn't) a violation.

Possibly you missed what I was getting at. You stated that you could comply with both statutes. I was attempting to prove that wrong. It seems to me that you agree that anytime you encase the firearm; it's concealed for the purposes of 941.23. So are the knives in your kitchen drawer. Therefore you can't comply with both statutes.

Remind everybody about those cases (background, details, etc.). The reality is that anything short of a WSC (perhaps Court of Appeals) decision has no statewide impact on law enforcement.

It doesn't have statewide impact necessarily however; one of them was decided in the most populous disctrict and has impact on many living there.

State v. Vegas (pizza delivery guy in milwaukee)
State v. Schultz (guy carrying knife in private apartment in clark county) Not sure if it was his apartment.

You'll forgive me if I don't share your enthusiastic certainty. With reference to 941.23 only, what difference does it make if the pistol is loaded?

None with reference to 941.23; only with reference to 167.31.

Well, Hamdan is "gospel" - the problem is it's confusing gospel. I am confident enough to carry concealed in my own home and business. Provided I have no illegal intent, this is minimal Hamdan protection. Carrying in a vehicle is another matter. If you believe encased and unloaded is good, then encased and loaded or uncased and loaded should be good as well (in reference to 941.23).

Yes, being allowed to carry in your private residence has more important caselaw behind it. However; I maintain that you could still be charged. Remember that Hamdan found that 941.23 was unconstitutional "as applied" to Hamdan, not unconstitutional "on it's face". It leaves it open for varying interpretations just as vehicle carry does.

So, once again, even with Hamdan, I contend that one can not possibly comply with both 941.23 and 167.31 unless you were to case your firearm within your house, put it into your car that's parked in your garage and drive around with it in your trunk while never taking it out again until you get back into your garage.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Nutczak,
I don't believe we are really letting Alloy into the mix. Alloy said it was possible for compliance with both statutes but I'm contending that's false and didn't bring up Alloy.


ETA: BTW, does anyone have a link to State v. Walls? I need to add that one to my collection.

 

[apjonas]

Summary

I have put together a table, summarizing what I think might be agreement about this issue. The columns are generally self-explanatory. Under the Statute numbers an "X" means illegal, "OK" means legal. 941(xW) means 941 but interpreted without the Walls decision. That is a pistol/case on a seat is not "concealed" simply because it might not be visible from the outside. My formatting skills need work, sorry. Comments?

CONDITION......STORAGE........LOCATION......167....941....941(xW)
loaded..............cased.............glovebox.......X.......X........X
loaded..............cased................seat..........X.......X........OK
loaded...........not cased...........glovebox........X.......X........X
loaded...........not cased.............seat............X.......X........OK
unloaded.........cased..............glovebox........OK......X........X
unloaded.........cased................seat............OK......X........OK
unloaded......not cased...........glovebox..........X.......X........X
unloaded......not cased.............seat..............X.......X........OK

 

[phred]

I don't know where to find the origin of various statutes but I have heard that concealed carry prohibition in Wisconsin has been around for 130 yrs, long before the automobile was invented and in common use. The only legal way to carry a firearm was open carry. Now, I will assume that some people, like hunters, might place their firearms in a case or box for transportation and/or storage. I will bet that this action was not considered concealing the firearm. The guns were probably stored and transported unload, but that may not be the case. I might even say that a hunter might just put their gun in the back of the wagon along with the shot game and be on his way. As the state became more "civilized" and safety conscious, a law requiring the unloading and encasing of firearms was enacted. Do you think some guy stood up in Madison and said "hey wait, if we require them to be encased, is not that concealing the gun"? My guess is NO! At the time it made perfect sense, from a safety, game management, and enforcement perspective to require encasement. Concealing the gun and encasing an unloaded gun are mutually exclusive. If the gun is unloaded and properly encased, then it is not concealed. One can only conceal a gun if it is not in a proper case and/or loaded. Even an unloaded gun if concealed is illegal. But once the unloaded gun is properly encased, illegality is removed. If the above logic were not true and valid, there would be thousands of arrests and convictions for concealment of a unloaded firearm in a proper case. Since these cases do not exist, the above reasoning must be valid. The cases cited, Hamden, Fisher, Keith, Walls, Cole all have some part of "unloaded and properly encased" missing from how the firearm was "carried" or placed. None of these people had an unloaded and properly encased firearm. Once that condition is violated, the door has been open for concealment.

 

[Nutczak]

Thank you Phred!

 

[Uziel Gal]

Still looking for the definitive test case, hope Walker will beat us to it.

Two interesting cases to look at;

State v. Fitzpatrick (2005)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...+weapon+shining&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_ylo=1992

interesting look at if a encased unloaded firearm is still considered a firearm or a dangerous weapon

and

State v. Seals (2007)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...oncealed+weapon&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_ylo=1992

The interest here is its a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon and in the facts it states the police "discovered in the car's unlocked glove compartment a boxed handgun whose bullet magazine was "out." This sounds like it may be a case of the old "smoking" unloaded and encased firearm in the glove box. Hard to know for sure with the limited description but that may be intentional.

As a side note to Nutczak who so easily dismisses Alloy based on the lack of information regarding the "loaded" status do you also dismiss Hamdan for the same reason or do you keep the ones you like? Most of these cases do not include information as to whether or not a dangerous weapon is loaded since it has no bearing on it being a dangerous weapon.

 

[davegran]

A Candidate for Phase Two of Gun Reform in Wisconsin

....Most of these cases do not include information as to whether or not a dangerous weapon is loaded since it has no bearing on it being a dangerous weapon.

After we get Constitutional Carry in Wisconsin, we need to get our lawmakers to change the definition of "Dangerous Weapon". An unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a brick or a fist or two pounds of frozen hamburger and our laws should reflect that.

 

[Brass Magnet]

After we get Constitutional Carry in Wisconsin, we need to get our lawmakers to change the definition of "Dangerous Weapon". An unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a brick or a fist or two pounds of frozen hamburger and our laws should reflect that.

I've been saying the same thing for years. Just changing this one law would allow people not to worry about whether an unloaded weapon was concealed. Now, if you've got a bayonet attached, that's a different story.

 

[Nutczak]

As a side note to Nutczak who so easily dismisses Alloy based on the lack of information regarding the "loaded" status do you also dismiss Hamdan for the same reason or do you keep the ones you like? Most of these cases do not include information as to whether or not a dangerous weapon is loaded since it has no bearing on it being a dangerous weapon.

Another thing with Alloy which invalidates the case-law associated with it. I do not know If I am using the proper terminology, but does "Unpublished" fit?

 

[apjonas]

If we accept that

there is a difference between concealment and encasement (encasement being a situtation where although you cannot see the actual firearm any sentient person would look at the item and say "Hey, that's a firearm." or at least "Hey that's a container for a firearm and there may be a firearm therein.") a distinction to which I have grown more accepting of, then I generally agree with you. However, I would say that the loaded or unloaded condition is only relevant for 167.31. If the firearm is not concealed, 941.23 does not come into play even if there is a round in the chamber. To the extent determinable, the cases cited do have in common (1) a firearm not encased and (2) concealed in some form. The loaded/unloaded status is less clear and not relevant to 941.23 cases but relevant to 167.31 cases. Since a loaded pistol would be more ready in case of need, it seems reasonable to evaluate the difference (if any) between the consequences of a 167.31 violation vs. that of 941.23. Of course, there is always the possibility of a Hamdan defense, which if successful should shield against either statute. The sad fact is that Fisher shows the individual must anticipate and correctly analyze the environment in which he is carrying.* In an otherwise identical fact pattern, you would not be charged if you used the firearm in lawful self-defense even though you would been have if a LEO had seen the weapon five minutes earlier. The exception appears to be for "intrinsically dangerous jobs" such as a pizza delivery guy or convenience store owner in Milwaukee. Everybody else would have to be attacked first. The Hamdan test is arbitrary and dopey but I suppose "better than nothing" applies. Perhaps the WSC could provide a list of localities and occupations that qualify for Hamdan protection. Something tells me that Fisher might have won but for his carelessness in having his vehicle stolen with the weapon inside.

*This situation parallels what I was taught in the Army years ago. (a) You have the duty to obey a lawful order. (b) You have the duty to disobey an unlawful order. (c) You'd better be doggone sure whether the order is lawful or not because if you fail to do either (a) or (b), you are in deep doo-doo. Some cases are absolutely clear but many are less so. Making a large late night deposit in Milwaukee? No problem. Taking the wife for a Sunday afternoon drive in Wood County? Probably not. Perhaps the solution is to always carry a bag of cash and a deposit slip.

I don't know where to find the origin of various statutes but I have heard that concealed carry prohibition in Wisconsin has been around for 130 yrs, long before the automobile was invented and in common use. The only legal way to carry a firearm was open carry. Now, I will assume that some people, like hunters, might place their firearms in a case or box for transportation and/or storage. I will bet that this action was not considered concealing the firearm. The guns were probably stored and transported unload, but that may not be the case. I might even say that a hunter might just put their gun in the back of the wagon along with the shot game and be on his way. As the state became more "civilized" and safety conscious, a law requiring the unloading and encasing of firearms was enacted. Do you think some guy stood up in Madison and said "hey wait, if we require them to be encased, is not that concealing the gun"? My guess is NO! At the time it made perfect sense, from a safety, game management, and enforcement perspective to require encasement. Concealing the gun and encasing an unloaded gun are mutually exclusive. If the gun is unloaded and properly encased, then it is not concealed. One can only conceal a gun if it is not in a proper case and/or loaded. Even an unloaded gun if concealed is illegal. But once the unloaded gun is properly encased, illegality is removed. If the above logic were not true and valid, there would be thousands of arrests and convictions for concealment of a unloaded firearm in a proper case. Since these cases do not exist, the above reasoning must be valid. The cases cited, Hamden, Fisher, Keith, Walls, Cole all have some part of "unloaded and properly encased" missing from how the firearm was "carried" or placed. None of these people had an unloaded and properly encased firearm. Once that condition is violated, the door has been open for concealment.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I think what this really boils down to is that at least one dissenting justice in Hamdan was right that; to paraphrase, you don't just make swiss cheese of the statute and read in exceptions, you declare it constitutional or unconstitutional and let the legislature fix it. Interestingly though; because the majority TOLD the legislature they need to fix the statute while simultainiously ruling it constitutional on it's face, it leaves open the argument that since they didn't fix it the WSC; in the least, should give the state the burden of proof instead of the individual.

The WSC should have ruled 941.23 unconstitutional "on it's face" as the clark county judge did but they didn't. They could have had another easy way out as well by saying that the states interest in enforcing the statute must heavily outweigh the individuals need to keep and bear arms instead of the reverse. But they didn't do that either.
That's how Clark county got it right.

When a constitutional right comes into play strict scrutiny should be a must. I think that the biggest reason it will be different going forward is that it is now a federally recognized constitutional right, with all the caselaw behind it. Not 2A caselaw; 1A, 4A, 5A, etc. caselaw that actually applies now. I think even the WSC would make a different decision after Mcdonald.

 

[Uziel Gal]

Another thing with Alloy which invalidates the case-law associated with it. I do not know If I am using the proper terminology, but does "Unpublished" fit?

Actually no it really does not. I could argue that its status as unpublished only further validates the law that encased and unloaded must be out of reach. Also most courts have greatly increased the ability to cite unpublished cases since the increase in their online publication. Why do you think that because it was unpublished that the case-law and finding are invalid? Also if you haven't read State v. Fitzgerald that I linked to above you really should, very interesting stuff.
The reason I like it so much is that it is a legal argument along the very lines that some are trying to make here that an encased and unloaded firearm is somehow "magically" different. Now just because I personally believe that "out of reach" is the most legal way to transport I still carry on my persons unloaded and encased firearms but I can say this. We all agree that if a woman has a unloaded firearm in her purse she is carrying a concealed weapon in violation of 941.23. Some her argue that if that purse was manufactured to encase a firearm, like the many carry handbags made by most holster manufactures with a section that would fit the description of a legal gun case, and she has a unloaded firearm completely sealed within this section she is doing nothing illegal within the state. It has magically become something other that a concealed and dangerous weapon on or about her person. This type of circular reasoning is delusional and may lead to poor decision making. If it is found, unless you have a compelling constitutional defense you are in trouble here, regardless of properly encased and unloaded. One should be fully aware of all potential consequences of "going armed" and make appropriate, rational choices based on all the information available. I think that transporting in the trunk or out of reach within the passenger compartment is less risky, from a legal perspective, than at your feet or on the passenger seat. I wish we could all agree on that but I'm well aware of those who cannot. One should at least be aware that you may be taking some additional risk and way the potential rewards and consequences.

 

[Nutczak]

Nothing in WI firearm laws has the words "Out of Reach" in them, and if it did, what is the legal definition of ;Out of reach"?

the wording "in a case specifically designed to house a firearm" means lots in these laws. A purse is not a proper case, but if you had an unloaded handgun completely housed within in a proper case, and then placed in the purse, I see no laws being broken just the same as an ATV with a gun scabbard, or a pick-up truck with a rifle behind the seat, or how I travel, with the gun on the right side front seat.

Other states use terms like "Immediately accessible" to determine legality, and a definition of what the phrase means.

These several pages of dialogue have only shown one thing, that WI laws are contradictory and need to be repealed or at the worst case, fixed!

I hold by my deer hunting analogy, if having an unloaded, encased firearm in the passenger compartment was illegal, then the courts could cover our budget deficit in one weeks time!
Lets use this too, There was a warden here ticketing hunters for not having their guns in a case immediately cased at the close of hunting hours. If a case was illegal concealment, wouldn't any cased gun then be illegal?

The GFSZ laws state that an unloaded cased firearm is not considered a violation of the WI GFSZ law, so using that, it also shows me having an unloaded firearm in a proper case is also not illegal concealment.,