imported post
I have pursued the obvious conflict between statutes 941.23 and 167.31(2)(b) quite vigorously. Staute 941.23 being the statute we are all familiar with that prohibits common citizens from carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon and statute 167.31(2)(b) requiring a firearm to be unloaded and encased in a carrying case if it is transported in or on any motor vehicle.
The State Supreme Court has ruled that if the following three conditions are met the State has cause to charge a violation of 941.23 (State v Hamdan 2003). 1) The weapon is within reach 2) The weapon is hidden from ordinary view 3) The person knows the weapon is present. On the surface it's obvious that compliance with 167.31(2)(b) puts a person at risk of violating 941.23. However, the SSC has reviewed this apparent conflict and ruled that it didn't see a particular problem because if a person was concerned with violating 941.23, while complying with 167.31(2)(b), the person needs only to carry the weapon "out of reach" (whatever that means, the Court doesn't define out of reach or out of reach of who). Carrying the weapon out of reach removes one of the conditions that define concealment.
Concerned with the stupidity of those comments I contacted my state senator, the top lawyer at the Department of Natural Resources and the Attorney General Office. Initially the DNR and my senator quoted the above comments and more or less said end of argument. However, I reminded them that statute 167.31(2)(b) says any vehicle and that there are many vehicles used in the sport of hunting or firearm recreation that are constructed so that it is impossible to carry a weapon "out of reach". Some examples I used were snowmobiles, ATV's, trail bikes, motorized wheel chairs and small rubber rafts propelled by an electric trolling motor. It is lawful to carry a firearm on any of those vehicles but doing so in compliance with 167.31(2)(b) definitely violates all three conditions of concealment.
After a few more rounds of discussion both the DNR and my senator agreed that under the conditions I described there was a conflict between the two statutes. When I asked each of them what they intended to do about the situation. Their response was disturbing. My senator said that firearm issues were not "on the floor" and that the legislature would unlikely do anything about it. The response from the DNR was even more disturbing. The DNR said that even if enforcement under the conditions I described was questionable, the DNR would continue to enforce it on all vehicles, and turn their head concerning 941.23. The DNR said how local law enforcement would view the situation is a matter for their judgement.
The Attorney General Office responded by saying that state staute prevented it from answering questions from the general public so it could not comment. It did say that I had obviously done good research and presented a good argument. (reading between the lines it seems the AG supports my opinion but can't endorse it because I am a private citizen).
Because satute 167.31 can't be uniformally applied to all vehicles without putting a person at risk of violating 941.23 and because carrying a weapon on certain lawful vehicles prevents a person from exercising rights given by Article I chapter 25 of the state constitution (you can't carry it concealed and you can't carry it unconcealed) there is no question in my mind that one or both of the statutes is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, because it takes some extaordinary situation or activity to get the legislature or law enforcement or the attorney general to fix bad laws it falls on private citizens to get arrested and spend time and money and go through the judicial system to get anything to happen. That being the case we are going to be under the shadow of the two statutes and at the enforcement whim of the agency that is involved for quite some time. For example: If you are riding your trail bike through town on your way to a shooting range and have a handgun in a "rug", local law enforcement would probably come unglued and claim you are carrying a concealed weapon. On the other hand a DNR conservation officer would see that the firearm is properly encased and that you are on your way to exercise one of the activities in Article I chapter 25 and tell you to have a good day.
One thing I did find out is that the Attorney General must give opinion to any legislative representative. Mine probably won't get involved but if one of you has a gun friendly representative or senator that would be willing to present the "single passenger vehicle" argument, and ask for an AG opinion, this mess can get resolved.
This vehicle carry restriction is the only real impediment we have to open carry. We can live with the only other restrictions of carry in government buildings, on sale liquor establishments and school zones.