Reagan was born in IL.Ronald Reagan
Wine
That's all I got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
Reagan was born in IL.Ronald Reagan
Wine
That's all I got.
Instead of looking for statutes that claim carrying an unloaded and encased firearm is a crime, try finding a statute that makes an exception to 941.23 if the weapon is unloaded and encased.
According to you, any properly unloaded and encased gun is considered concealed, even in a safe at home. A court would consider this ludicrous, would they not?
I believe that we have used this argument before:
"If there is not a law against it, then it must not be illegal."
Have not the cases post Art 1 sec 25 treated 941.23 differently than pre-Art 1, Sec 25?
Not according to me, according to the AG's office and according to state statute. I believe a court/jury would indeed find the charge ludicrous but until the statutes are amended, we have what we have. It still may be viewed as a crime and you still may be charged for it. Conviction, not likely.
It is just an open door for LEO harassment. And our legislature needs to fix all of it to align with Art. 1 Sec 25.
I hate to even reopen this pandora's box. We can all be thankful that the opinion is unpublished and not precedential. It does serve the purpose of illustrating the anti-gun mentality of the Wisconsin court system. You asked for a court case that addressed whether or not a properly cased and unloaded weapon is considered a concealed weapon and you asked for a case where the court ruled that a cased firearm must be carried out of reach. Also note that Alloy had the firearm encased in an approved encasement. He did this by his admission to comply with 167.31. The properly encased weapon was then placed between the seats of his vehicle. The court still ruled it was concealed.
And so goes the days of our lives.
....
The only case in Wisconsin I'm aware of that involved having a unloaded and encased gun in a vehicle being considered "a concealed weapon" is Alloy. And the Alloy case absolutely did not create new law. A prosecutor
cannot even mention that case in a courtroom without risking a mistrial.
An encased gun is "not within reach" because it is not immediately accessible. Those who interpret the term "within reach" to mean literally "at a distance within arm's length" are not basing the meaning on how the courts seems to use the term. The courts talk about being immediately accessible. A gun unloaded and in a case is at least two steps away from immediately accessible: 1) must first be uncased, 2) secondly it must be loaded. Then and only then is it immediately accessible.
1 The jury acquitted Alloy on charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless endangerment, but convicted him of false imprisonment, misdemeanor battery and two counts of carrying a concealed weapon. This appeal only challenges the conviction for carrying the concealed handgun.
State v. Jeremy D. Pinnow, Milwaukee Co. Circ. Ct. No. 2010CM1978, 2/11/11
by admin on March 2, 2011
CCW, § 941.23 – Unconstitutional as Applied
Carrying concealed weapon charge dismissed, under as-applied (state) constitutional challenge, Art. I § 25. Pinnow had a cased, unloaded gun underneath the seat of his car, had himself been the recent victim of an armed robbery, believed with reason he was transporting the gun in a lawful manner, and wasn’t carrying the gun for an unlawful purpose. The court applies the multi-factor test of State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44 and State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112 and concludes that Pinnow’s constitutional right to bear arms in the manner he did outweighed any state interest in prosecuting him.
Section 167.31(2) (b) of the Wisconsin Statutes sets forth the legal way to transport a firearm in Wisconsin. Pinnow was properly exercising his constitutional rights and transporting his handgun legally.
There were no practical alternatives for Pinnow to exercise his right to bear arms and to be able to defend himself against the threat (requiring that the handgun is within his reach) \. If carried openly in a holster on his hip in a vehicle, it would still be considered concealed and a violation of the CCW statute. Of carried in front of him while driving, it would be very dangerous driving, would terrify and confound others and would likely constitute disorderly conduct.
Requiring Pinnow to put the encased and unloaded firearm out of reach would effectively deny him his right to bear arms guaranteed by Article 1, sec 25.
The court finds that Pinnow’s compliance with Section 167.31(2)(b) of the Wisconsin Statues was the most reasonable way to exercise his right to bear arms and that other alternatives were impractical.
Finally, while the District Attorney may go forward with Pinnow’s prosecution if he asserts and shows probable cause to believe that the defendant carried the handgun for an unlawful purpose, there appears no such evidence in this record. Without this offer defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted as Section 941.23 of the Wisconsin Statutes is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Pinnow.
IF,,,,
a contraption was built into your car trunk,,
a door with a slot the size of your gun case, spring loaded, so that turning the lock,
instantly opens the door, and instantly slides out your special gun case on a tray,
and the gun case instantly opens as it slides out.
the gun is only concealed in the box when it is locked inside the trunk.
reverse to transport, unload the gun, place it and ammo in the open special gun case,
as it is outside the car, on the tray,
turn the lock, and the tray is instantly drawn into the trunk, the gun case closes, the door locks.
this could be made, kind of rube goldberg, but....
does this satisfy the conflicts in your 2 laws?
to the best of my understanding, the conflict only lasts for the few seconds,
that it takes to close the case and lock it in the trunk, and of coarse the reverse.
LR Yote 312
Originally Posted by phred
Can anyone cite a statute or a court decision that requires an unloaded and encased firearm to be out of reach?
Can anyone cite a a statute or court decision that says a properly encased and unloaded firearm is a concealed weapon?
Thank God Doug is no longer with us....He would argue those points for 6 pages.
LR Yote
I'mmmmmm Baaaaaaack
View attachment 5608
Doug if you still read here let me say hello and take care.
From the Pinnow decision,
"There were no practical alternatives for Pinnow to exercise his right to bear arms and to be able to defend himself from the threat (requiring that the handgun be within reach) and to otherwise to comply with CCW statute (violated if the handgun is within his reach)."
There were no practical alternatives for Pinnow to exercise his right to bear arms and to be able to defend himself against the threat (requiring that the handgun is within his reach). If carried openly in a holster on his hip in a vehicle, it would still be considered concealed and a violation of the CCW statute. If carried in front of him while driving, it would be very dangerous driving, would terrify and confound others and would likely constitute disorderly conduct.
Are you interpreting or paraphrasing?
The full quote from the Pinnow decision
It is an actual quote from the middle of page 9 of the decision. The link is http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/pinnow.pdf
If an unloaded properly cased firearm is considered an illegally concealed weapon, would you please explain to me the exceptions in the GFSZ where it states a person can cross school property with an unloaded cased weapon.
That's the problem, there are no exceptions for the GFSZ. Obeying one statute forces you to violate another. I do not see how anyone could be charged or convicted for violating the CCW ban because the obeyed the GFSZ. Not so with vehicle carry as the "out of reach" is possible in a vehicle, not so when walking in a school zone. Our legislature needs to shi* can all three of these statutes.