OC and drinking in a Class B

[BROKENSPROKET]

: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

That is not how it works. If a person has been issued a CCL, then they are a licensee. Simply not having it in your immediate possession does not make you a non-licensee. Until such time your CCL is expired, revoked or surrendered, you are a licensee, irredardless of whether you are carrying conceealed or open. Your CCL does not make you a licensee, it only identifies you as a licensee. Whether or not you are a licensee depends on your status with the WI-DOJ CIB, not the card you carry.

Yes, you are required to carry you CCL and state issued photo ID when you are carrrying concealed, but that is not what we are talking about.

 

[Brass Magnet]

If you are not in possession of your CCL, you can not carry under the CCL exemption. If what you are arguing for was true, it could also be said that a cop can ask for your CCL with lawful authority ANYWHERE, even when carrying in your own home because somehow the CCL exemption trumps other exemptions.

So let's say you are the owner of the bar and you have a CCL. By your logic, you could not have a beer in your own establishment while CC or OC because somehow being a licensee trumps the exemption of being on your own property. It's silly.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[HandyHamlet]

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

So if I'm skipping down the sidewalk, making Vroom vroom! noises while pretend steering, I must be driving? I already have the license. Therefore I MUST be driving since the license says I can't not be driving? Even if I leave the license at home?

 

[davegran]

Anybody got any butter?

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

If you are not in possession of your CCL, you can not carry under the CCL exemption.

Wrong. You are required to have you CCL and state issued photo ID whenever you carry concealed outisde your own property. However, if you do not have your CCL on your possession as requried under 175.60(2g), that does not make you a non-licensee and in violation of 941.23(2). It makes you subject to a state forfeiture penalty of $25, except that you may have 48 hours to produce the required documentation to avoid the $25 forfieture penalty.

Whether you are a licensee or not is not determined if you have your CCL in your immediate possession. It is deteremined by your status at the WI DOJ-CIB. Your CCL only identifies you as a licensee. Law Enforcement will still run your CCL information to determine if you are a licensee or not. It is your status at the DOJ that determines that.

NOT HAVING A CCL IN YOUR IMMEDIATE POSSESION DOES NOT MAKE YOU A NON-LICENSEE.

Likewise, not have a DL on you does not make you a non-licensed driver and subject to OAS or OAR charges. There is a small foreiture penalty for not having it on you. They run your DL to make sure it's valid, so its your status with the DOT that deteremines if you are licensed, not the actual possesion of the DL.

Carrying a credit or debit card does not mean your have money. It's the money in the bank or borrowing limit minus balance that determines that, not possessing the cards.

If what you are arguing for was true, it could also be said that a cop can ask for your CCL with lawful authority ANYWHERE, even when carrying in your own home because somehow the CCL exemption trumps other exemptions.

I thought only HH would go that far.

941.23 (2) Any person, other than one of the following, who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(e) An individual who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on land that he or she owns, leases, or legally occupies.

So let's say you are the owner of the bar and you have a CCL. By your logic, you could not have a beer in your own establishment while CC or OC because somehow being a licensee trumps the exemption of being on your own property. It's silly.

No. Not by my logic, but but by you tiwisting your logic to make mine appear in error.

They are on there own property, so they exemp under 941.23(2)(e). They is also an exception under 941.237(3)(d).

 

[HandyHamlet]

I thought only HH would go that far.

Why thank you goodly Sir Knight. Compliment excepted. Happy Weekend to you and yours!

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Why thank you goodly Sir Knight. Compliment excepted. Happy Weekend to you and yours!

Your Welcome.

I do appreciate your humor. Sarcasm, not so much.

 

[HandyHamlet]

I know. I know.

Still, You should try to make it to Lizzy's at least once. I know it's a cruise but it is worth it.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Wrong. You are required to have you CCL and state issued photo ID whenever you carry concealed outisde your own property. However, if you do not have your CCL on your possession as requried under 175.60(2g), that does not make you a non-licensee and in violation of 941.23(2). It makes you subject to a state forfeiture penalty of $25, except that you may have 48 hours to produce the required documentation to avoid the $25 forfieture penalty.

Whether you are a licensee or not is not determined if you have your CCL in your immediate possession. It is deteremined by your status at the WI DOJ-CIB. Your CCL only identifies you as a licensee. Law Enforcement will still run your CCL information to determine if you are a licensee or not. It is your status at the DOJ that determines that.

NOT HAVING A CCL IN YOUR IMMEDIATE POSSESION DOES NOT MAKE YOU A NON-LICENSEE.

Likewise, not have a DL on you does not make you a non-licensed driver and subject to OAS or OAR charges. There is a small foreiture penalty for not having it on you. They run your DL to make sure it's valid, so its your status with the DOT that deteremines if you are licensed, not the actual possesion of the DL.

Carrying a credit or debit card does not mean your have money. It's the money in the bank or borrowing limit minus balance that determines that, not possessing the cards.





I thought only HH would go that far.

941.23 (2) Any person, other than one of the following, who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(e) An individual who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on land that he or she owns, leases, or legally occupies.




No. Not by my logic, but but by you tiwisting your logic to make mine appear in error.

They are on there own property, so they exemp under 941.23(2)(e). They is also an exception under 941.237(3)(d).

Oh, so the property owner who its also a licensee CAN chose what exemption he/she is carrying under but others can't?

Ugh... 941.237 itself has nothing to do with drinking. It has to do with POSSESSION. The exemptions are for POSSESSION. The exemption for licensees says you cant drink while using that exemption to possession. The permission exemption has no such restriction. Being eligible for more than one exemption doesn't restrict ones eligibility to the other exemptions.


I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm trying to understand your convoluted logic. Looks like that won't be happening.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Oh, so the property owner who its also a licensee CAN chose what exemption he/she is carrying under but others can't?

I hadn't even thought of that. If Adam got a license and concealed and had a beer, which one is he exempted under? In my opinion, he is exempted under 941.23(2)(e). Or he could be under 941.237(3)(g) or 941.237(3)(d). He could drink under either of those, he can't under 941.237(3)(cx).

Mr sprocket, I believe you would say that since he would qualify under (cx), he MUST use that one and can't use any of the other exemptions.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

.
Oh, so the property owner who its also a licensee CAN chose what exemption he/she is carrying under but others can't?

The property owner is exempt from 941.23(2) under 941.23(2)(e). The property owner is also expempt from 941.237(2) under
941.237(3)(d). The property owner is not CHOOSING which exemption he is carrying under. The property owner is exempt under both.

941.23(2) and 941.237(2) are two different prohibitions and the property owner is exempt under each.

Ugh... 941.237 itself has nothing to do with drinking. It has to do with POSSESSION.

You are correct to say that 941.237 has to do with POSSESSION. But for a licensee to possess, they cannot be drinking.

941.237(3)(cx) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g), if the licensee or out−of−state licensee is not consuming alcohol on the premises.

The exemptions are for POSSESSION. .The exemption for licensees says you cant drink while using that exemption to possession

The permission exemption has no such restriction. Being eligible for more than one exemption doesn't restrict ones eligibility to the other exemptions.

You say, "The exemption for licensees says you cant drink while using that exemption to possession." A licensee does not have a choice to not fall under that exemption. They are not 'using it' or 'choosing' it. It is the exemption you call under when you become a licensee. The only choice you have to not fall under this exemption is to surrender your CCL and have your status revoked.

I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm trying to understand your convoluted logic. Looks like that won't be happening.

My logic is solid. The problem is that you think it's 'convulted'.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I hadn't even thought of that. If Adam got a license and concealed and had a beer, which one is he exempted under? In my opinion, he is exempted under 941.23(2)(e). Or he could be under 941.237(3)(g) or 941.237(3)(d). He could drink under either of those, he can't under 941.237(3)(cx)..

If the property owner was a licensee, I strongly believe that they would still be exempt under 941.237(3)(d), because that exemption was born from case law, forcing legislators to create it, while 941.237(3)(cx) was born simply from legislative intent.

Mr sprocket, I believe you would say that since he would qualify under (cx), he MUST use that one and can't use any of the other exemptions.

I never said the property owner would qualify under (cx). :banghead: Quote me!

I said the property owner would qualify under 941.23(2)(e) and 941.237(3)(d). They are two different exemptions for two different prohibitions. :banghead:

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

If the property owner was a licensee, I strongly believe that they would still be exempt under 941.237(3)(d), because that exemption was born from case law,

Please cite case law that forced the creation of (d) without a drinking exemption.

(d) was there before Act 35 and before Hamdan so your argument is wrong and Hamdan only covered concealed carry. 941.237(d) says nothing about mode of carry.

Hamdan made them put 941.23(2)(e) in Act 35.

while 941.237(3)(cx) was born simply from legislative intent. I never said the property owner would qualify under (cx). :banghead: Quote me! I said the property owner would qualify under 941.23(2)(e) and 941.237(3)(d). They are two different exemptions for two different prohibitions. :banghead:

So.... the property owner, while being a licensee can choose which exemption he is carrying/drinking under. Gotcha!

 

[Brass Magnet]

So.... the property owner, while being a licensee can choose which exemption he is carrying/drinking under. Gotcha!

Exactly, the property owner is a licensee too.

You say, "The exemption for licensees says you cant drink while using that exemption to possession." A licensee does not have a choice to not fall under that exemption. They are not 'using it' or 'choosing' it. It is the exemption you call under when you become a licensee. The only choice you have to not fall under this exemption is to surrender your CCL and have your status revoked.

Even if you were correct, and I don't think you are, how would a cop or anyone else trying to enforce this find out you even have a CCL? Just show them your permission. They are only allowed to check the DB under specific circumstances and "fishing" isn't one of them.


Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Please cite case law that forced the creation of (d) without a drinking exemption.

(d) was there before Act 35 and before Hamdan so your argument is wrong and Hamdan only covered concealed carry. 941.237(d) says nothing about mode of carry.

Hamdan made them put 941.23(2)(e) in Act 35.

You are right. Hamdan forced 941.23(2)(e) for concealment and 941.237(3)(d) was already there for possesion. I agree with that. And I concede that what I posted was in error. I have to have to think about how a made that mistake.

I never made any claim that the property owner fo a Class "B" could not drink while armed on the premises. I did not make a claim that he could either. I did not bring the 'proprietor' into this discussion. I suppose.... Well, let me say this first. Its not about what expemtion that a person chooses. A person cannot 'choose' which exemption they qualify under. If you qualify under and expemption, you qualify under and expemtion. If you qualify under more than one, then you qualify under more than one. If you qualify for more than one, you cannot choose which one you 'enjoy' and which one not to 'enjoy'. You enjoy them both, and it's not your choice. Having said that, I don't think he could, if he was a licensee. There should be an exemption for the propietor during closing hours and 940.21 should be all that he would have to worry about, but that's not my concern.

Here's the thing. Adam may autorize person's to possess on the Class "B" presmises that he ownsfor a 'specific event of limited duratrion' under 941.237(3)(g). He can do that and I applaud that he does. You as a licensee, do not need that authorization. you qualify for 941.237(3)(cx).I suppose that you could enjoy them both. You cannot 'choose' to not qualify under 941.237(3)(cx) just becasue you don't want to. Well, you could, but you would have to change your status at the WI DOJ-CIB to do that, not the physical location of that card the DOJ gave you.

That is the way I understand the law. Maybe you should focus your energy on changing the law, not twisting. If you were to characterize what i am doing with the law, you could say I was I_K-ing it.

So.... the property owner, while being a licensee can choose which exemption he is carrying/drinking under. Gotcha!

There's that effin word again. You either qualify or you don't, based on the facts, not by choice. You don't choose to qualify or choose not to qualify .

 

[msusnVet]

I would say that if Adamz insurance provider gets a whiff of people carrying handguns and drinking alcohol Adam will be dropped like a bad habit by that insurance carrier. Seriously doubt any insurance provider will touch em.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I never made any claim that the property owner fo a Class "B" could not drink while armed on the premises. I did not make a claim that he could either. I did not bring the 'proprietor' into this discussion.

You are right, I brought it in, but I was using the same argument as you. You were basically saying that if ANYONE (owner, patron) had a license under 175.60, the only way they could be in a bar was under 941.237(3)(cx). I am just saying that isn't true.

Am I saying someone can't get arrested and potentially charged? No. I can get arrested and charged for sitting on my porch if we want to get technical, however, I believe it would prevail.

Am I endorsing drinking and carrying? Not specifically. My point is, and will continue to be, that if I go out with my wife for dinner and decide that we will have a glass of wine, under the correct circumstances, it is not illegal. Just because I want to have a reasonable amount (not materially impaired) of alcohol, I should be left alone.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

You are right, I brought it in, but I was using the same argument as you. You were basically saying that if ANYONE (owner, patron) had a license under 175.60, the only way they could be in a bar was under 941.237(3)(cx). I am just saying that isn't true.

I have said more than once that the owner qualifies, under 941.237(3)(d).

Am I saying someone can't get arrested and potentially charged? No. I can get arrested and charged for sitting on my porch if we want to get technical, however, I believe it would prevail.

What I am saying is that IF you got arrested for consuming while armed in a class B, the DA would be on this like a buck during the rut. It would be a costly legal battle for you and has great potential to embarass WCI. Frankly, if you weren't a member, I wouldn't care as much. The image of WCI is very important to me.

Am I endorsing drinking and carrying? Not specifically. My point is, and will continue to be, that if I go out with my wife for dinner and decide that we will have a glass of wine, under the correct circumstances, it is not illegal. Just because I want to have a reasonable amount (not materially impaired) of alcohol, I should be left alone.

I want for you or anyone else that goes out to a restaraunt with family or friends to have the ability to responsibly enjoy one or two, while carrying concealed. Or even in a bar & grill or a restaraunt & lounge during certain hours of the day. I want that to be legal. But right now it's not.

But never in a place that is just a bar, tavern or dance club. I know that you and many others could handle yourselves very well in those places, but the potential for problems by others that cannot is just too great.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I have said more than once that the owner qualifies, under 941.237(3)(d).

Ok, we seem to be talking in circles. I say that I qualify under 941.237(g). Since you seem to force me to (cx), why don't you also force the owner under that as well?

Anyhow, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[msusnVet]

I have said more than once that the owner qualifies, under 941.237(3)(d).





What I am saying is that IF you got arrested for consuming while armed in a class B, the DA would be on this like a buck during the rut. I would be a costly legal battle for you and has great potential to embarass WCI. Frankly, if you weren't a member, I wouldn't care as much. The image of WCI is very important to me.





I want for you or anyone else that goes out to a restaraunt with family or friends to have the ability to responsibly enjoy one or two, while carrying concealed. Or even in a bar & grill or a restaraunt & lounge during certain hours of the day. I want that to be legal. But right now it's not.

But never in a place that is just a bar, tavern or dance club. I know that you and many others could handle yourselves very well in those places, but the potential for problems by others that cannot is just too great.

Since I am a member of the WCI, I wonder what their official interpretation is of the statutes involved in this debate.