State v. Brian Grandberry, 910 N.W.2d 214

Brian Grandberry was stopped in Milwaukee; he told officers a handgun was in his glove compartment and that he had a concealed-carry license; database check showed no valid license; officers found a loaded handgun in the glove compartment.
Charged with one count of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon under Wis. Stat. § 941.23(2).
Grandberry argued he complied with the Safe Transport Statute, Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b), which allows handguns to be transported loaded and uncased in vehicles, and thus could not have "carried" a concealed weapon for § 941.23(2).
He also argued the Concealed Carry Statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied because ordinary people would think compliance with the Safe Transport Statute suffices.
The court of appeals affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Grandberry)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient because compliance with the Safe Transport Statute precludes "carrying" under the Concealed Carry Statute	Compliance with § 167.31(2)(b) (Safe Transport) lawfully permits placing a loaded handgun in a vehicle, so that conduct cannot satisfy the first element ("carried") of § 941.23(2)	The statutes regulate different conduct (transport vs. carrying); they are not impossible to comply with simultaneously; a person can comply by getting a license or placing the gun out of reach	Held: Statutes are not in conflict; evidence sufficed because a weapon within reach can constitute "carrying" and Grandberry could have complied with both statutes by a license or placing the firearm out of reach. Conviction affirmed.
Whether the Concealed Carry Statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied	Reading the Safe Transport and Concealed Carry statutes together leaves ordinary people without fair notice of what vehicle placements are lawful; prosecutors and police can enforce arbitrarily	The Concealed Carry Statute gives sufficient notice: carrying a concealed dangerous weapon is prohibited unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies; as-applied Grandberry had actual knowledge he needed a license	Held: As-applied challenge fails. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Grandberry; ordinary people have notice that carrying a concealed weapon is unlawful absent an exception.

Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 230 N.W. 76 (Wis. 1930) (early Wisconsin authority equating "go armed with" to having a weapon "within reach")
State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565 (Wis. 1986) (confirmed elements of concealed-carry offense include weapon on person or within reach)
State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis. 2d 411, 249 N.W.2d 529 (Wis. 1977) (discussed "going armed" as on person or within reach)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (Fourth Amendment line describing passenger compartment as within arrestee's reach for searches incident to arrest)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (formative Fourth Amendment rule on arrestee's immediate control/area within reach)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (void-for-vagueness doctrine framed for penal statutes)
State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994) (noting transport of unloaded/encased firearms is permitted under vehicle statute; discussed in footnote context)