• 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.

Vehicle OC misinformation being spread?

Armed_Orca

Newbie
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2
Location
Under da sea
Greetings all,

In light of the recent ruling of State v. Grandberry, I am seeing a lot of firearm websites declaring that you need a permit to carry in a vehicle now, period. None of them do anything but cite the case ruling. None of them point specifically to any one paragraph or statement in the ruling. Wikipedia was one of them (it looks like it has since been modified), as well as http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf. I believe this is misinformation, mistaken or deliberate. I cannot find any reference in the actual ruling that specifically states that you MUST have a permit to carry in your vehicle now, no if, ands, or buts. As such, I do not believe this affects permitless "above the window line" OC carry.

State v. Grandberry
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=210924

My reasoning is as follows:

- State v. Grandberry simply affirmed that carrying a CONCEALED handgun in a vehicle requires a permit.

- The ruling in State v. Grandberry does not change the parameters for open car carry set out by State v. Walls. An individual is not concealing a dangerous weapon in a vehicle provided it isn't hidden from ordinary observation outside of the vehicle. "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." (State v. Walls) It is almost universally accepted among the WI OC community that this ruling allows one to openly carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a permit, provided it is placed above the window line and not concealed in any manner.

- State v. Granberry further confirms and acknowledges the ruling of State v. Walls, in regards to what constitutes an illegal concealed weapon in a vehicle. These elements are that the defendant was unlicensed, the weapon must be concealed (indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity), loaded, and within reach. As evidenced in Kelly's affirmation:

¶55 And now, a postscript of sorts: Given Wisconsin's
proud hunting heritage, it's worth noting the Concealed Carry
Statute's shockingly broad proscriptions. In amending our
statutes to offer the opportunity to carry concealed handguns,
the legislature simultaneously made it unlawful to carry a
concealed rifle or other long gun. This may have been
inadvertent, but we give effect only to what the legislature
does, not what it tried to do.2 The Concealed Carry Statute
prohibits an individual from carrying a "dangerous weapon."
Wis. Stat. § 941.23(2). A "[d]angerous weapon" is, inter alia,
"any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded." Wis. Stat.
§ 939.22(10). There is no exception for rifles, shotguns, or
other long guns. A person can, of course, obtain a permit to
carry a concealed weapon, but they are available only for
handguns, electric weapons, and billy clubs. Wis. Stat.
§ 941.23(2)(d) (2015-16); Wis. Stat. § 175.60(1)(j) (2015-16).
So if you hunt, you may not put your rifle in a case. And if
you put your rifle in the passenger compartment of a vehicle,
you must display it in such a way that it is readily observable.
Mularkey, 201 Wis. at 432 ("If the weapon is hidden from
ordinary observation it is concealed. Absolute invisibility to
other persons is not indispensable to concealment. The test is,
was it carried so as not to be discernible by ordinary
observation." (citation omitted)).[/] The State is aware of this
overbreadth, which is why it instructs game wardens to ignore
the Concealed Carry Statute as it relates to hunters and their
long guns. In the course of arguing this case, the State
acknowledged that "as a practical matter, the DNR does not treat
rifles in a case as 'concealed.'"

¶56 Finally, a post postscript. The Concealed Carry
Statute also puts at risk all those who do not have concealed
carry permits who nonetheless bring their handguns to shooting
ranges. To comply with the statute, one would have to keep the
handgun uncased at all times, and if placed in the passenger
compartment of a vehicle, it would have to be situated so that
it is readily observable.


¶57 Neither of these postscripts, however, affect Mr.
Grandberry, so his conviction remains sound. Therefore, I
concur and join the court's mandate.

If you believe I am in error, I would appreciate if you could specifically cite an area in the State v. Granberry ruling showing such, as after scouring the ruling publication, I cannot.
I can't get an answer anywhere else either, it seems everyone is just lulled into a state of complacency because of the permit system now, so the standard answer is, "Who cares, get a permit." Some of us still like to carry without nanny's permission slip, that's why I care.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,341
Location
Valhalla
YES/NO – Without a permit

?- Without a License


The Wisconsin Supreme Court on 4/10/18 ruled that a person must have a permit that is valid in Wisconsin to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle. The law also specifically states you must not come within 1000 feet of a school. Under Federal law, you can go within the 1000 feet zone if the gun is unloaded and secured.


The Law
167.31
948.605

https://tinyurl.com/yb26sr2n

Good luck not going within 1000 feet of a school...:uhoh:
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,079
Location
here nc
Greetings all,

In light of the recent ruling of State v. Grandberry, I am seeing a lot of firearm websites declaring that you need a permit to carry in a vehicle now, period. None of them do anything but cite the case ruling. None of them point specifically to any one paragraph or statement in the ruling. Wikipedia was one of them (it looks like it has since been modified), as well as http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf. I believe this is misinformation, mistaken or deliberate. I cannot find any reference in the actual ruling that specifically states that you MUST have a permit to carry in your vehicle now, no if, ands, or buts. As such, I do not believe this affects permitless "above the window line" OC carry.

Snipp....

If you believe I am in error, I would appreciate if you could specifically cite an area in the State v. Granberry ruling showing such, as after scouring the ruling publication, I cannot.
I can't get an answer anywhere else either, it seems everyone is just lulled into a state of complacency because of the permit system now, so the standard answer is, "Who cares, get a permit." Some of us still like to carry without nanny's permission slip, that's why I care.
First the pleasantry, Welcome to the Open Carry Forum.

Now, let's clarify a few things on the defendant's first case:

1. Pulled over by LE's for a traffic stop, allegedly without any identification.

2. Asked by LE's if there was a firearm in the vehicle ~ YES loaded in glove box!

3. Asked by LE's if he had a Concealed permit ~ YES was the response!

4. LE's did a record check and found the defendant LIED!

So, the defendant's appeals was based on "... because a person of ordinary intelligence..." these areas are unconstitutional ~ see below to see if that tactic has been used previously!

Well, while some who know me might disagree, being of ordinary intelligence myself, I sure as the devil would not waive my right to self incrimination and freely admit to the LEs who had just stopped me for a minor traffic infraction while I had absolutely no identification on my person that: 1) I had a firearm; 2) Lie to the LEs about having a permit; 3) then act surprised when I get cited!

Especially since there is absolutely no mandate in WI to immediately notify LEs you're armed.

175.60(2) (c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed. HUZZAH lay that firearm in the glove box on the dash, front seat, somewhere in plain sight!

Now in my humble opinion your opening paragraph about what you believe, from "lots" of unnamed internet websites as well as the infamous Wiki reference which was of course changed before you posted (?) and you couldn't find anything in the WI statutes, yet in the small print if you look in the WI statutes:

quote

941.23(3)(d) This subsection does not apply to a licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27; 2011 a. 35; 2015 a. 68, 149, 197.

The burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she is a peace officer and within the exception. State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973).

A defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with a gun locked in a glove compartment. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986).

To “go armed" does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant's person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon's presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden. State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

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. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).

There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999), 97-1423.

Under the facts of the case, the privilege of self-defense was inapplicable to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538, 638 N.W.2d 280, 00-0744.

The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional, as applied. 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. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056. See also State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01-0350.

A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.

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.

unquote. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/23

So Armed_Orca, seems there are quite a few court cases over the years prior to this 2018 that "a lot" of the firearm sites failed to research and perhaps even why Wiki changed their verbiage!

As for your perceptions of the school carry language, I am not stepping into an interpretation of Fed USC/State Statutes, especially with the current climate on heighten awareness on schools and firearms.

Again welcome to the Open Carry forum.
 
Last edited:

Armed_Orca

Newbie
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2
Location
Under da sea
To clarify, I wasn't attempting to challenge the nuances of unlicensed carry near school zones, or even the facts of the case. Grandberry was clearly in violation of the concealed carry statute, and really the WI SC did nothing more than confirm that.

The part that ultimately concerned me was how these firearm law websites came to the conclusion that ANY kind of carry in a car was now illegal without a permit because of State v. Grandberry. Wikipedia has since been changed to reflect the court's decision. Handgunlaw.us has agreed to change their verbiage upon contacting them and asking for clarification based on my argument. But both had the exact same phrase stating that carry in a vehicle had to be licensed, period. No distinction was made between concealed and open. It was almost like someone just copy and pasted it without doing any research, and simply citing the case in its entirety with no specifics, sloppy really.

In regards to what you said here;
175.60(2) (c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed. HUZZAH lay that firearm in the glove box on the dash, front seat, somewhere in plain sight!
I thought someone (Mularkey?) had already been convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, even though the firearm was on the seat, it was considered hidden from plain view because no one could observe it readily from outside the vehicle, hence the "dash carry" technique.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
760
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
I thought someone (Mularkey?) had already been convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, even though the firearm was on the seat, it was considered hidden from plain view because no one could observe it readily from outside the vehicle, hence the "dash carry" technique.
In 2012 and '13 I attended a couple of LE conferences and workshops. At one of them Assistant Attorney General Dave Perlman said, and at another [then] Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen reiterated that open carry in a vehicle without a CCL was now legal. And both talked about what they considered to be open carry pertaining to vehicles. I've been wondering myself about that ruling pertaining to open carry in a vehicle. Are they talking about any carry or just concealed carry? And if they mean all carry then the supremes opinion trumps that of the AG.



All of this illustrates why we must continue to push and fight for constitutional carry and end all this tyranny that allows the state to license a right.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,779
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
In Ohio any loaded gun in your vehicle is considered concealed and illegal unless you have a conceal license. How these states came to that conclusion I don't know. Especially those states that have castle doctrine declaring your home and car as equal. No conceal license required in the home or business, but required in your car. The only way they can come to this conclusion is because your car is licensed.

The only why to change this is to pound on your legislators to change the law.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,016
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
In Ohio any loaded gun in your vehicle is considered concealed and illegal unless you have a conceal license. How these states came to that conclusion I don't know. Especially those states that have castle doctrine declaring your home and car as equal. No conceal license required in the home or business, but required in your car. The only way they can come to this conclusion is because your car is licensed.

The only why to change this is to pound on your legislators to change the law.
(my bold)

And for those not from Ohio, or from Ohio and not fully aware of the law, the only type of loaded gun you can have in a vehicle is a **sidearm**, and then only if you have a CCW license which Ohio recognizes.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,341
Location
Valhalla
(my bold)

And for those not from Ohio, or from Ohio and not fully aware of the law, the only type of loaded gun you can have in a vehicle is a **sidearm**, and then only if you have a CCW license which Ohio recognizes.
Whew! So criminals won't carry then. I'm sure that will make people feel better...:p
 
Last edited:

Gary Slider

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
69
Location
, ,
I have corrected that info on Handgunlaw.us It was corrected late evening of the 23rd. It was an error on my part. I saw this tread this evening and wanted to set the record straight. It now states this:

Open Carry is legal without a permit with the Wisconsin Open Carry Community stating; it allows one to openly carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a permit, provided it is placed above the window line and not concealed in any manner. The Wisconsin Supreme "Court Ruled" on 4/10/18 that a permit was needed to carry a “Concealed” handgun in a vehicle.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,779
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I have corrected that info on Handgunlaw.us It was corrected late evening of the 23rd. It was an error on my part. I saw this tread this evening and wanted to set the record straight. It now states this:

Open Carry is legal without a permit with the Wisconsin Open Carry Community stating; it allows one to openly carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a permit, provided it is placed above the window line and not concealed in any manner. The Wisconsin Supreme "Court Ruled" on 4/10/18 that a permit was needed to carry a “Concealed” handgun in a vehicle.
Thanks for the reply. You got a tough job staying on top of this stuff, let a loan, deciphering the law. But, what about tinted windows? Some states base in plain view on not if you can see it, but if under normal observation could the object be perceived or recognized. Example: if the gun is on the dash, the front windshield is not tinted, from normal observation is the gun discernible? The answer is yes, because even though the cop did NOT look in the windshield does not make gun concealed.
 

Gary Slider

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
69
Location
, ,
Window Line to me would be the bottom of the side windows and up. The firearm has to be visible to someone approaching the vehicle. Now that depends on the officer. This situation is a good opportunity to say that when you see something not correct about firearms on the internet call the person on it if it is in a forum like this one. If it is a Blog comment on it and set them straight. If you have links that support your point of view post them. Your opinion carries more weight if you have support from others. If it is a site supplying information like Handgunlaw.us contact them and tell them they are incorrect. I appreciated it when contacted and I do it all the time and tell sites they need to update etc etc and send them links etc to support my point of view. No one is perfect and when it comes to laws and not just the laws governing firearms and carrying them not everyone agrees with what the wording means. If we all agreed on what they said the amount of posts on boards like this would be a lot less.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,079
Location
here nc
Window Line to me would be the bottom of the side windows and up. The firearm has to be visible to someone approaching the vehicle. Now that depends on the officer.

This situation is a good opportunity to say that when you see something not correct about firearms on the internet call the person on it if it is in a forum like this one.

If it is a Blog comment on it and set them straight. If you have links that support your point of view post them. Your opinion carries more weight if you have support from others.

If it is a site supplying information like Handgunlaw.us contact them and tell them they are incorrect. I appreciated it when contacted and I do it all the time and tell sites they need to update etc etc and send them links etc to support my point of view.

No one is perfect and when it comes to laws and not just the laws governing firearms and carrying them not everyone agrees with what the wording means.

If we all agreed on what they said the amount of posts on boards like this would be a lot less.
While previously stated, please accept my praise on the exemplary work your site does in assuring appropriate statutory info is available, cited, and correct for this country’s citizens!

Please keep up the outstanding work, this gentleman appreciates the time and energy spent!

Cheers...
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,341
Location
Valhalla
Thanks for the reply. You got a tough job staying on top of this stuff, let a loan(sic), deciphering the law. But, what about tinted windows? Some states base in plain view on not if you can see it, but if under normal observation could the object be perceived or recognized. Example: if the gun is on the dash, the front windshield is not tinted, from normal observation is the gun discernible? The answer is yes, because even though the cop did NOT look in the windshield does not make gun concealed.
How the gun is carried and/or where it is most often depends on the position of the viewer.

If one is OCing in a telephone booth, it is still OC. Strong side to the wall in a restaurant booth is still OC. Standing on the other side of a hedge or wall is still OC. Asleep on a blanket at a park picnic while laying on your strong side qualifies as OC IMHO.


 

Wstar425

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
565
Location
Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
I would like someone to explain to me how a handgun laying in plain view on a car seat is considered to be concealed, but drugs laying on the same seat would be considered to be in plain view?

As far as open carry, I like to say if you CAN’T see it, that’s on me. If you DON’T see it, that’s on you. But, this certainly doesn’t cover every possible scenario, such as being covered by Superman’s Cape in a phone booth.....
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,186
Location
northern wis
Easy The powers to be has decided such.

Not that it is right.

If it is a bag of dope in comes under plain view if it is a firearm it is concealed.

I didn't see any mention of the Wisconsin right to bear arms amendment in the argument maybe I missed it.

Wouldn't that amendment and the 2nd amendment be the first arguments you would use when defending a weapons case.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,779
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I would like someone to explain to me how a handgun laying in plain view on a car seat is considered to be concealed, but drugs laying on the same seat would be considered to be in plain view?

As far as open carry, I like to say if you CAN’T see it, that’s on me. If you DON’T see it, that’s on you. But, this certainly doesn’t cover every possible scenario, such as being covered by Superman’s Cape in a phone booth.....
It is called legal chicanery.
 
Top