• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

loaded car carry

jeff niles

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
68
Location
Milton, WI
I just seen on the news ch-3 nov 1 you can have a loaded, uncased handgun in a car in plane view not with in reach? Lot of good that will do in my back seat!
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I just seen on the news ch-3 nov 1 you can have a loaded, uncased handgun in a car in plane view not with in reach? Lot of good that will do in my back seat!

Lies by the media. Act 35 took out the requirement for handguns to be unloaded and encased. You can have it on your hip and IMHO, loaded in your glove box.
 

jrclen

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
80
Location
Central Wi
I saw that. It was really lame. The channel 3 guys acted all surprised by this. "Did they know this was in there?"
And these idiots are supposed to be reporters. Why don't they just read the bill like all the rest of us did? It's all spelled out "what's in there."
More Madison liberal anti gun bias. And then they get it wrong to boot. :banghead:
 

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
But it did not eliminate the prohibition of it being concealed unless you are a licensee.

That's how I read it too.

- - - -

The DOJ agrees in the Concealed Carry FAQ:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw-faq-20111020.pdf

Go to the section on "TRANSPORTING WEAPONS" on page - 44 -

Pay attention to the
IMPORTANT NOTE: Persons who do not have a CCW license may still not carry weapons concealed. In a vehicle this means that the firearm cannot be hidden or concealed and within reach.
 
Last edited:

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
So... According to the law, if I sit strong side towards a wall in a booth at a restaurant I'm considered concealed.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
...Could that also not be said if I was carrying openly and someone approached me from my weak side?
There are alot of things which could be said and then we have reality. There is not a reasonable expectation of being cited for carrying openly so long as your clothing is not obstructing the view of your handgun even if an officer approaches you from your weak side. There is not a reasonable expectation of being cited for carrying openly while sitting in a restaurant booth.
There is a reasonable expectation that in some municipalities you may be cited for carrying openly while driving your car and the firearm is on your hip or otherwise hidden by the body of the car as case law supports this and this is the understanding of many if not most LEO departments.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
So, Could someone please explain how a handgun could be considered to be "within reach" while in a closed glove compartment...................................
You guys are reading too far into the law again and making assumptions, most likely wrong assumptions.

We can OC in a car without the permission slip. Plain and simple. We also no longer need to unload and encase a handgun while in a car. So being in a closed container makes it "Out OF Reach"
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
So, Could someone please explain how a handgun could be considered to be "within reach" while in a closed glove compartment...................................
You guys are reading too far into the law again and making assumptions, most likely wrong assumptions.

We can OC in a car without the permission slip. Plain and simple. We also no longer need to unload and encase a handgun while in a car. So being in a closed container makes it "Out OF Reach"

I agree with you 100%, but I also agree with I_K that there may be LEO's and DA's don't see it the way and the difference of opinion may have to be settled by a jury.
 

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
Lies by the media. Act 35 took out the requirement for handguns to be unloaded and encased. You can have it on your hip and IMHO, loaded in your glove box.

Be careful friend. Yes it can be loaded and unencased, but you still need a permit to CCW. And a gun in reach, and on your hip or in your glove box or even just sitting on your seat is considered a concealed weapon in the state of wisconsin.

http://opencarry.org/wi.html

In Wisconsin, a gun in plan sight inside a vehicle... is considered unlawfully concealed.
State v. Walls, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. App. 1994) (A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section).
 

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
So... According to the law, if I sit strong side towards a wall in a booth at a restaurant I'm considered concealed.

The letter of the law maybe yes, but there is no case law to support that. Vehicles on the other hand, there is case law.
 

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
So, Could someone please explain how a handgun could be considered to be "within reach" while in a closed glove compartment...................................
You guys are reading too far into the law again and making assumptions, most likely wrong assumptions.

We can OC in a car without the permission slip. Plain and simple. We also no longer need to unload and encase a handgun while in a car. So being in a closed container makes it "Out OF Reach"


Wrong. encased does not equal out of reach. We aren't reading into anything. This is actual law, and we have case law to also support it. Please don't make statements like that when you have no cite to support it.

An encased gun is unlawfully concealed in a vehicle if the case is not "out of reach," arguably wingspan plus lunge distance.
State v. Alloy, 616 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. App. 2000) (affirming concealed carry conviction of man possessing handgun in a vehicle in conformity with Wisconsin Stat. � 167.31 because .Alloy's argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. � 167.31 and Wis. Stat. � 941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with � 167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with � 941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35. It is the courts duty to interpret the will of the legislature on a question of the law or interpret it in light of the constitutions as applied or on it's face. With the changes to both I have to believe that the case law would change if someone is cited in the manner we are talking about. Also, Alloy is not cite-able jurisprudence which has been argued many a time on this forum.

Once again, one would take a chance by openly carrying in a car without a permit; but for the other side of the argument the case law is NOT as clear as it's made out to be by some because of the differences I talked about above.
 

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35. It is the courts duty to interpret the will of the legislature on a question of the law or interpret it in light of the constitutions as applied or on it's face. With the changes to both I have to believe that the case law would change if someone is cited in the manner we are talking about. Also, Alloy is not cite-able jurisprudence which has been argued many a time on this forum.

Once again, one would take a chance by openly carrying in a car without a permit; but for the other side of the argument the case law is NOT as clear as it's made out to be by some because of the differences I talked about above.

I think that's sorta my point, as you mentioned. If you're going to OC in a vehicle and you don't have a CCW permit, be prepared to fight a legal battle.
 

McNutty

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
84
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin
Remember that Walls was decided before our state RKBA was passed and before ACT 35. It is the courts duty to interpret the will of the legislature on a question of the law or interpret it in light of the constitutions as applied or on it's face. With the changes to both I have to believe that the case law would change if someone is cited in the manner we are talking about. Also, Alloy is not cite-able jurisprudence which has been argued many a time on this forum.

Once again, one would take a chance by openly carrying in a car without a permit; but for the other side of the argument the case law is NOT as clear as it's made out to be by some because of the differences I talked about above.

Agree - I don't think Walls would be (at least it shouldn't be) decided the same way after the passage of Act 35. It cites, in particular, the old stat section 167 in discussion of the legal transport of a firearm. I'd still be nervous about it because Walls basically said that the firearm was concealed just based on the fact that the firearm was in a moving vehicle traveling down the road and not readily observable by others passing it even on the highways.

The DOJ's comments give me little comfort because while they state that you can now legally possess a loaded firearm in a vehicle without a CCW permit they note that a person who doesn't have a CCW permit can not carry concealed which they state means hidden or concealed and within reach. Logically, I would think this means that if I don't have a CCW permit I can't keep the loaded handgun under the newspaper on the passenger seat for example. But in case law, like Walls, just the mere fact that you have the firearm in a vehicle meets the definition of concealed under 941.23.

So while I think Walls might not be decided the same way as the definition of concealed in a vehicle would need to be tailored to meet the newly amended version of 167, I'd be concerned that this will still be tested in court.
 
Top