BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Sorry, I didn't mean 'public property', but 'private property that is open to the public'.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OC and drinking in a Class B
- Thread starter BROKENSPROKET
- Start date
Sorry, I didn't mean 'public property', but 'private property that is open to the public'.
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
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.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
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.
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.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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.
msusnVet
Regular Member
Mr. brassmagnet, I am most definitely not a troll who has been banned many times, in fact never banned. I would like to see your proof that involves me in your accusations. Put up or quit harrassing me with your accusations. Thank you.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Two reasons. I was thinking (3)(cx) would trump (3)(g), but realized that is not how exceptions to a prohibition work. NO consumption is a condition of the (3)(cx) exception. NO Consumption is NOT a condtion of the the (3)(g) exception and it is NOT a condition of the prohibition in (2).
But any Any DA would ingore a claim to (3)(g) and prosecute under to (2) on the grounds that the defendant failed to meet (3)(cx). Then (3)(g) would have to be raised at trial. Think like a prosecutor for abit and contemplate just how you would tear apart (3)(g). I know how I would. I could go on could go on and on, but I won't. To me, it's just not worth the risk. Having a beer is not that important to me. If I am armed, I am perfectly content having a soda.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
What hypocrisy?
You say that you know I was joking, which I was.
To be clear, I never said or implied that you should stop having a beer while carrying outright. It contention is all about being clealrly in public view while OC'ing and drinking a beer.
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).
msusnVet
Regular Member
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.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
If they are serving drinks in the restauraunt, not you carrying them into the restauraunt, where you can order it an have it brought to your table, the Class 'B' license MUST cover the restauraunt or they are in violation.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Because that would be a violation of 941.23 if I wasn't carrying under 941.237(3)(cx).
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
941.237(3)(g) does not reqiure that you carry openly.
You claim you are carrying under 941.237(3)(g), receiving permission from the owner. Just because your don't need permission to carry concealed, doesn't mean that you can't get permission.
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.
You are claiming 941.237(3)(g). Are your saying that you would default to 941.237(3)(cx) even if you claim 941.237(3)(g)?
If so, WHY would you defaut to 941.237(3)(cx)?
Last edited:
Plankton
Regular Member
Perhaps you should turn them in to the authorities as quickly as possible. Hurry!
msusnVet
Regular Member
That will not happen mr. plankton. Myself and the owners get along very well. Other situations will warrant consideration.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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?
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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?
Last edited:
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
I already conceded that if you qualified for one of the exceptions under 941.237(3), that was all that was required. Don't assert that I said anything different than that.
You said yourself ........
What I am saying is that you cannot use or not use 175.60 as you please. The fact is that you are a licensee under 175.60, irregardless if your CCL is in your immediate physical possesion or not. If you are detianed or arrested and they find that you are a licensee, your defense that I left my CCL in my vehicle so that I could choose not to be a licensee while I am authorized, armed, and consuming in a Class "B" will be in serious error.
ETA: If you think that you can choose to be a licensee or not for a period of time without your CCL being surrendered, expired or revoked, then by that very logic, anyone who is a licensee and is carrying concealed but does not have thier CCL on them, is not a licensee and is guilty of 941.23
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
:what:^
Like I said in my pervious post; if you aren't taking advantage of the exemptions offered by your CCL, the CCL doesn't matter. Secondly, you are required by law to carry your CCL and DL with you if you are using your CCL. It is clear that if you leave your DL or CCL at home you may not carry under its exemption but you can carry under other exemptions like CC in your business or OC in a bar.
You are grasping at some invisible strings here.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
Like I said in my pervious post; if you aren't taking advantage of the exemptions offered by your CCL, the CCL doesn't matter. Secondly, you are required by law to carry your CCL and DL with you if you are using your CCL. It is clear that if you leave your DL or CCL at home you may not carry under its exemption but you can carry under other exemptions like CC in your business or OC in a bar.
You are grasping at some invisible strings here.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk