Conceal carry is clear.... no...repeat...no alcohol.....

"We're starting to see more of these gun-related calls," Larsen said. "Is it a lot? I don't know, but I know it's more." - What the heck? How was this a call and how was it gun related? It clearly states the guy was stopped for SPEEDING, a TRAFFIC STOP!

@less tolerant -- A gun-related call doesn't necessarily mean the call was initially called in as gun-related. It means that guns were involved somehow in the report.

How was this a gun-related call? So you label it a gun-related call when it was really a SPEEDING violation, THEN driving while intoxicated, and FINALLY the guy let the cop know about the gun, that was NOT concealed, but was in a HOLSTER? And you wonder why people think the media is biased?

I'm not labeling it gun-related, the Lt. and the DAs office did when they arrested and charged the guy. I'm the messenger my friend, I"m not judging it. I didn't write the law that says -- irregardless of whether you are licensed to carry, you shouldn't be having one when you've been drinking. Actually, if you'll look at all of the stories I've written on the conceal carry law, you'll notice that a number of people have visited this site specifically because I'm not biased.

Here's the link: http://caledonia.patch.com/search?keywords=conceal+carry

Sounds like a traffic stop that is made every night somewhere in Southeastern WI but then GUN was thrown in the story and turned into a gun story, when really the gun had nothing to do with the actions or the outcome of the stop. And seems that although the driver did the wrong thing driving after drinking, and by speeding but did the correct thing with the gun.

When I see the word "irregardless" used by the author while trying to defend her story, I guess nothing more really needs to be argued.

How can you not not not take that serious? Irregardlessnessly of your views and whatnot?

Having a gun while intoxicated is _not_ a reason to lose a cc license. I ask the officer to show us which statute supports his assertion... but we'll be waiting a long time, because there isn't any & the legislature isn't in session.
DUI is a misdemeanor. Carrying under the influence is a misdemeanor.
What should be pointed out in articles like this is that if he's convicted the gun will be kept by the police & destroyed. That's a lot more expensive than a cc license. (Though since the car was also used in the DUI, it should be seized & destroyed too, along with everything else in it. No? The law says that property used in a crime is seized & destroyed. Happens to guns even if they weren't directly used in a crime, just present.)

Just seems the story has that common spin

But you really should check out my other coverage...

Denise wasn't biased or judgmental in her story. The cop is being quoted on any opinion statements, even the part about losing the gun to DUI is a cop quote. This cop just wants guns out of citizens hands. Some are like that. They don't realize they get to the scene after a person has been killed, not in time to save them.

If you have any questions regarding the CWP law or training contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.

I dont see a distinct bias in this story. But I DO see evidence of stupidity on the part of the Officer to not know the law.

"It is a class A misdemeanor (9 months jail and/or $10,000 fine) for any person, whether or not they are a licensee, to go armed with a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant. Wis. Stat. § 941.20(1)(b)."

It says nothing about revoking his permit. Only Felons cannot posses a weapon. So this guy might lose the gun...which is a crock btw...but he is not subject to immediate or subsequent revocation based on the current statutes.

Perhaps it would have been better to simply point out that all DUI is bad...gun or not. But making the fact that he might lose his CCW the main point of the story seems a little fishy. (Or more like something JSOnline would do)

Before anyone gets worried about 'spin,' check if the major facts were present. A guy gets stopped for speeding, he points to (but doesn't pick up, thankfully) his weapon, and the officer relieves him of the weapon and the car (on suspicion of OWI). Possession of a weapon while under the influence is serious. A CCW permit is a privilege, like a drivers license, not a right. The officer is _not_ going to remove the weapon, or pull his driver's license? The guy is going to drive off home? Let's get real.

Now, you may want to argue (in court) that the driver was not too inebriated to carry a weapon, or that possession of a firearm while intoxicated is OK. But at the scene, at Douglas & 4 MI Rd at 2:47 am, for community peace and safety, the officer should do his best to separate the (most probably drunk) driver from the car, and from the gun.

Now, separate from the likely legal argument, why are people upset that a gun, and CCW, was part of the reported story? Could it have been left out? No. Could the gun part have been buried somehow - like the CCW left out of the headline? Maybe, but that's what makes it newsworthy and noteworthy. Did that inclusion somehow denigrate people who like CCW permits? If so, they missed the best part - the stopped driver knew how to handle his weapon by only pointing to it. Would a person who had the weapon without a CCW know how to behave? (maybe, maybe not) I think CCW supporters should be cheering this story, not slamming it.