WI: State v. Fisher - Supreme's Screw Us Again!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dolomite

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
57
Chalk one up for the criminals! WI is now prime hunting ground.

In sum, we conclude that § 941.23 is constitutional as applied to Fisher. His 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.
In other words: "String him up!"

http://www.courts.state.wi.us/supreme/sctoday.jsp

Wonder how much this has to do with the NRA convention in town this week?

Again, here we have more government officials hiding (and kissing the) behind (of) Law Enforcement:

The objectives behind the concealed carry statute as identified in Hamdan include that carrying a concealed weapon allows individuals to more easily act violently on impulse. Id., ¶54.

Those objectives also include that other individuals, including law enforcement officers, should be placed on notice when they are dealing with someone who is carrying a dangerous weapon, along with the related concern that concealed weapons facilitate the commission of crime by creating the appearance of normality and catching people off guard.

It's good to know what caste I belong in now.
 
I was born in WI, chose to raise my family and make my career here, love the outdoor opportunities, general beauty of the landscape, and enjoy the midwest culture. Between the confiscatory taxes and general disregard for liberty via this ruling and previous legislative failures I am, for the first time, considering leaving for a more freedom-loving state.

The effect of lower taxes will immediately raise my family income. And I consider my safety, and that of my family's, more important than my risk of being arrested for carrying. Thanks to Doyle, state Democrats, and now the Supremes, I will engage in criminal acts that are an otherwise recognized right in 48 other states.

How sad:(

I don't know what it is here, it's like a cloud of toxic socialist pollution left over from the early 20th century hovers over the state and warps the mind of the ruling class. Damn them all!!!
 
the way I read this decision, it looks like the court said that you have the right to carry concealed in the defense of your family in the home and at your privately owned business, but must show a need that is greater than the interest of the state's general security, health, and welfare while outside of those two places, hence, the court will reconsider whether you can carry a concealed weapon in your vehicle after you've been murdered during a carjacking. At that time, if you would be subject to being a crime victim again in your car, the concealed carry statute will then be ruled unconstitutional.

have a nice day. :banghead: :banghead:
 
The way I read it, the state presumes the presence of a handgun in one's vehicle causes a person to behave criminally. They seem to be saying that because a gun is in the car, a person may , at the drop of a hat, decide to snap. Like the gun can influence someone's mind, ala, "The Shining". Interesting concept of prevention in that court. I guess they have a better crystal ball. Will criminals heed this decision?
Josh
 
If the court hadn't gone from a 4:3 conservative majority when Dianne Sykes left to the 4:3 liberal majority we have now, the outcome of this case would have been different.

"...the court will reconsider whether you can carry a concealed weapon in your vehicle after you've been murdered during a carjacking. At that time, if you would be subject to being a crime victim again in your car, the concealed carry statute will then be ruled unconstitutional."

Yep. Call them when you die.
 
We have a very good chance with Green. He's running approximately 50/50 with Doyle in most polls right now, and that's very, very, bad news for a seated incumbent. Especially considering that the race hasn't even really started yet. When Thompson was playing footsie with running for WI governor, before bowing out, he was running something like 60%, which is also bad news for Doyle, illustrating just how weak he is, even if Thompson is (thankfully) not running.

Then there's the fact that, right or wrong, the WI GOP has shrewdly placed a gay-marriage ban, and a death penalty referendum on the Fall '06 ballot. In other states this has been done, it worked well to turn out the conservative (and mostly) pro-gun base. That will also help. These are also good wedge issues for chipping away at the socially conservative segments of the Democratic base like blue-collar union members, and religiously conservative minorities.

There is also the voter ID issue that's languished in WI, and been defeated by Doyle and Democrats several times, and that'll also probably become a hot-button issue again in the face of all the sudden illegal immigration concerns that have swept the nation in the past few months.

Then there's the School Voucher/Choice issue that's also the biggest wedge issue between the Teacher's Union/Democrats and inner-city minorities. That might also have an impact.

And on top of that, the productive class is getting frustrated with the lack of meaningful tax reform, or a spending-control amendment as well

All this adds up to a "perfect storm" for the WI GOP this fall, if they play their cards right. However, the November elections are a ways off, and anything can happen, do despite the initial good news, nothing is set in stone. So support your candidates and the WCCM. :)
 
The California Supreme Court is just as bad... along with the Ninth Federal District Court.

L.W.
 
AJ's spot on with regard to Doyle. National Democrat Party polls show him as one of the three weakest governors going into the fall elections.

We can't count on Green beating Doyle as our only hope, though. We need to keep at least a simple majority in both the senate and assembly.

Obviously, we can't count on the state supreme court anymore (at least not until 2008, when Doyle appointee Justice Louis Butler will have to run for election to the court).

And I don't believe we can count on the merits of CCW swaying the public, especially since we can't get a forum for our ideas.

At this point it's purely political, and that means money. I know I harp on that all the time. But the study of the Ohio 2004 elections that found that 95% of candidates who outspent their opponents won the election almost certainly applies to Wisconsin as well.

I've received a list of the priority candidates for state senate and assembly. As soon as I'm given the OK to release the list, I'm going to push for people to start giving those candidates money.
 
Like most appellate judges, these judges believe their job is to decide for the rest of us what the best public policy is. In actuality, they are supposed to simply and dispassionately determine what the law ACTUALLY is, and so rule. They have become tyrants, and deserve a tyrant's fate.
 
The way I read Wisconsin information on packing.org, one can carry concealed in a car, but it must be "on the body". On the seat or in the glove compartment, even unloaded, is considered concealed and is not okay. You can open carry but not in a car. WI apparently has no concealed carry except in that one instance in a vehicle (on the body).
 
wisconsin law on transporting firearms in a vehicle

DON'T LOOK AT PACKING.ORG FOR LEGAL ADVICE!!
read the state statutes if you want to know what the law is!

The Wisconsin law on transporting firearms in a vehicle is found in chapter 167
as noted below :

167.31(2)(b)
(b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.

167.31(4)
(4) Exceptions.
167.31(4)(a)
(a) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to any of the following who, in the line of duty, place, possess, transport, load or discharge a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat or aircraft or discharge a firearm from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway:

167.31(4)(a)2.
2. A member of the U.S. armed forces.

167.31(4)(a)3.
3. A member of the national guard.

167.31(4)(a)4.
4. A private security person who meets all of the following requirements:

167.31 - ANNOT.
NOTE: Subd. 4.(intro.) is shown as amended eff. 11-1-06 by 2005 Wis. Act 169. Prior to 11-1-06 it reads:

167.31 - ANNOT.
4. A private security person, as defined in s. 440.26 (1m), who meets all of the following requirements:

167.31(4)(a)4.a.
a. He or she holds either a private detective license issued under s. 440.26 (2) (a) 2. or a private security permit issued under s. 440.26 (5).

167.31(4)(a)4.b.
b. He or she holds a certificate of proficiency to carry a firearm issued by the department of regulation and licensing.

167.31(4)(a)4.c.
c. He or she is performing his or her assigned duties or responsibilities.

167.31(4)(a)4.d.
d. He or she is wearing a uniform that clearly identifies him or her as a private security person.

167.31(4)(a)4.e.
e. His or her firearm is in plain view, as defined by rule by the department of regulation and licensing.

167.31(4)(am)
(am)
167.31(4)(am)1.
1. Subsections (2) (a), (c) and (d) and (3) (a) and (b) do not apply to a peace officer who, in the line of duty, loads or discharges a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat or aircraft or discharges a firearm from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway.

167.31(4)(am)2.
2. Subsection (2) (b) does not apply to a peace officer who places, possesses or transports a firearm in or on a vehicle, motorboat or aircraft while in the line of duty.

167.31(4)(am)3.
3. Subsection (2) (b) does not apply to a person employed as a peace officer who places, possesses or transports a firearm in or on a vehicle while traveling in the vehicle from his or her residence to his or her place of employment as a peace officer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the law on concealed weapons in Wisconsin:

941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

941.23 - ANNOT.
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).

941.23 - ANNOT.
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).

941.23 - ANNOT.
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).

941.23 - ANNOT.
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.

941.23 - ANNOT.
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.

941.23 - ANNOT.
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.

941.23 - ANNOT.
Judges are not peace officers authorized to carry concealed weapons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
941.235(1)
(1) Any person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

941.235(2)
(2) This section does not apply to peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1).

We may eventually get legislation in Wisconsin allowing licensed private citizens to carry concealed weapons. In the meantime, not knowing what the law actually says can get you in trouble. The law doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it means what it means.

This is a link to the Wisconsin State Statutes on line:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/stats.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top