Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Traveling to WI

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    I'm going to Wisconsin (Madison) on business tomorrow, and I just want to double-check my understanding of WI gun laws. Please tell me if I got anything wrong in my reading of the law:

    1. I can't conceal. No way, no how.
    2. My weapon must be unloaded and securely encased whenever I'm in a vehicle.
    3. OC is legal, but likely to be a problem.

    My plan is to take the gun in a small safe and pretty much just leave it there, except maybe in the hotel room, when I might put it on the nightstand. Most of the time, accessing it will take me a few seconds to unlock the safe, grab the gun and magazine, insert and rack, but I believe that's the best I can legally do. When I'm not in the car, I'll probably place the safe in my laptop bag (it's small, and fits fine).

    Corrections? Suggestions?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Enjoy all the rather unique atmosphere has to offer.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, I'd be interested in joining a "we" with more clothes than the Emperor's New ones - or is this an Imperial 'we'?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Thanks Pointman.

    I'm not going to OC. Sorry, I'd like to yelp you guys, but getting in any sort of legal trouble 1500 miles from home is a bad idea, no matter how good the cause . I plan to leave the gun in the safe all the time, and just keep the safe nearby. It means I'm 10 seconds from being armed, which sucks, but I figure it should eliminate any possibility of legal trouble.

    As for the traffic; I'm pretty familiar with Madison; been there many times. This is just the first time I've attempted to take a weapon.

    Regarding your comment on storing ammunition separately, are you talking about for the plane, or is that required in Wisconsin? It's not necessary on the plane, I've already checked. I'll unload my magazines, put the cartridges in the original box and put the box in the safe with the guns. According to TSA regs, I could even leave the rounds in the magazines as long as the magazine ends were closed (e.g. in a closeable pouch), but Delta requires them to be in their original container or securely enclosed in fiber, wood or metal boxes.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    WI State Statute items relative to transportation of a modern firearm seem to be scattered.

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Welcome to Madison! The times I've OC'd in Madison have been without incident-- so far. In fact Wisconsin as a whole.

    As far as a magazine being loaded and in the same case, I always do that. If a LEO wants to give me grief because they don't understand the law properly, fine. That's a risk everyone has for ANY law. I'm not going to self-limit my rights just because there's a possibility somebody else (LEO or not) doesn't know the law.

    I hope you enjoy your stay!
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Welcome to Madison! The times I've OC'd in Madison have been without incident-- so far. In fact Wisconsin as a whole.

    As far as a magazine being loaded and in the same case, I always do that. If a LEO wants to give me grief because they don't understand the law properly, fine. That's a risk everyone has for ANY law. I'm not going to self-limit my rights just because there's a possibility somebody else (LEO or not) doesn't know the law.

    I hope you enjoy your stay!
    I also transport with a loaded magazine in the same case. I am following the letter of the law, but not necessarily the spirit. IANAL but DA's don't prosecute on whether you follow the spirit of the law, otherwise nobody would be able to exploit "loopholes" in the law. Bottom line is that I am transporting the pistol legally in the language of the law, so I do not worry.

  8. #8
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hmmm, I'd be interested in joining a "we" with more clothes than the Emperor's New ones - or is this an Imperial 'we'?
    Doug,
    "WE" are a grass roots movement that you would be welcome to become part of. One thing though, you need to ditch the attitude. "WE" are working hard to recover a lost civil right in this state and nobody in this effort is anything more or less than a patriot intent on restoring liberty.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    And 'WE' are anonymous. *I* am not. I am principled and perfectly happy to criticise and reject and fail on principle. The end does not justify the means.

    For instance, without a statement (in no sense 'virtual') of principle rejecting the NRA's means and end any such statement is just Anony Mouse bloviating "no fear!"

    My e-mail is publicly available, my PM is disabled for the poison-pen crap and I will not conduct unpleasant business in private. Convince me right here.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    I suggest that if you have two zippered compartments, you keep the ammunition in the box it came in stored in one compartment, and the firearm in it's case in a different compartment, because that way there is no practical way you will be in trouble.
    It's often necessary to weigh risks against one another, and I think if I were to adopt the approach you suggest, I'd better also keep a supply of rocks in the car that I can throw while I open the safe, open the cartridge box, load the magazine, insert the magazine and, finally, rack the slide. On balance, I think it's probably wiser to take a little risk of a false arrest in order to make the weapon more useful. Particularly since it's very unlikely that I'd end up in a situation where I'm not only stopped but an officer has probable cause to search my gun safe (which just looks like a small, flat black lockable metal case, could be used to transport valuables of any sort).

    Unless I felt I had a reason to open the safe and get the gun to protect myself, it's hard to see how the question about whether I could have a loaded magazine sitting next to the gun would ever arise. If I did have reason to open the safe, well, I'd rather have that ability and take my chances with the fase arrest.

  11. #11
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    I am following the letter of the law, but not necessarily the spirit.
    Really, I thought the WI constitution gives the right for security and defense. That to me would certainly be within the spirit of the law considering the supreme law in Wisconsin. What baffles me is how the WI Supreme Court could interpret that right not applicable while in a motor vehicle. You may defend your life prior to stepping in the vehicle and after exiting the vehicle but have no such right to be armed while you are in the vehicle.

  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    What baffles me is how the WI Supreme Court could interpret that right not applicable while in a motor vehicle. You may defend your life prior to stepping in the vehicle and after exiting the vehicle but have no such right to be armed while you are in the vehicle.
    It is puzzling, isn't it?

    Likewise, there is a court of appeals case where it was opined that a handgun sitting on the car seat is "concealed." Whereas, had it been drugs, we all know police could seize it without a warrant because it was "in plain view." LOL, apparently in Wisconsin a physical object on the seat of a car is either concealed or in plain view depending upon whether it is drugs or a gun. Make one wonder what they would have argued if there had been a bag of drugs sitting next to a gun on a car seat.... "umm... that is a, umm,concealed weapon sitting next to that umm,plainly visible...."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Likewise, there is a court of appeals case where it was opined that a handgun sitting on the car seat is "concealed." Whereas, had it been drugs, we all know police could seize it without a warrant because it was "in plain view." LOL, apparently in Wisconsin a physical object on the seat of a car is either concealed or in plain view depending upon whether it is drugs or a gun. Make one wonder what they would have argued if there had been a bag of drugs sitting next to a gun on a car seat.... "umm... that is a, umm,concealed weapon sitting next to that umm,plainly visible...."
    One of many BS Standards. IF LEOS see contraband on your seat in plain view they can search your car. But a gun in plain view on a seat is hidden. BS I say.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    NOT(CONCEALED) != (IN PLAIN VIEW) and vice versa. And remember that different courts often have inconsistent interpretations. It is also quite conceivable that the WI Supreme Court might reverse the "gun on the seat" rule if given an opportunity.

    Also there are (very limited and probably inapplicable to the OP) situations where CC is legal. If you meet all the prongs of the Hamdan test, you are ok.

    Folks in Wisconsin ought to vote on 4/1 (Supreme Court). This decision will impact OC and CC law for the next decade. A win for Gableman does not necessarily mean a pro-gun majority but a win for Butler guarantees an anti-gun majority. If you cheeseheads don't vote and Butler wins, don't whine on OCDO when you get a bad decision.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Carrying a handgun, even if unloaded, as you describe is a violation of 941.23. Outside of a vehicle, you can carry openly (with exceptions). Inside a vehicle. you simply cannot carry - you will either violate the car carry law (if open) or the CC statute (otherwise). The trunk is an option but not of much value. It doesn't have to make sense - it's the law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    Carrying a handgun, even if unloaded, as you describe is a violation of 941.23.
    You're referring to the gun on the seat, right? Not the gun in the locked container.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Are "peace officers" super-citizens?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    This is an open carry forum, not a concealed carry forum.

    Wisconsin State Constitution:

    Article I section 25
    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, recreation, hunting or any other lawfull purpose".

    The State Supreme Court has affirmed that statute 941.23 prohibits concealed carry by private citizens period. It also says that if the State restricts one manner of carry it must provide an alternate or yield to the amendment. That alternative of course is open carry. It's obvious open carry is lawfull. Try shooting trap with a concealed shotgun.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    To be clear for those not familiar with Wisconsin Statutes, Pointman's post seems to be a copy from http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0941.pdf

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    This is incorrect. If it were true, Munir Hamdan would have been convicted.

    Lammie wrote:
    This is an open carry forum, not a concealed carry forum.

    Wisconsin State Constitution:

    Article I section 25
    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, recreation, hunting or any other lawfull purpose".

    The State Supreme Court has affirmed that statute 941.23 prohibits concealed carry by private citizens period. It also says that if the State restricts one manner of carry it must provide an alternate or yield to the amendment. That alternative of course is open carry. It's obvious open carry is lawfull. Try shooting trap with a concealed shotgun.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    No. Under state law, a "dangerous weapon" does not have to be loaded. Placing an unloaded pistol in a container, while meeting the section 167 requirements, is a violation of 941.23. Search this forum for the detailed analysis I provided.



    swillden wrote:
    apjonas wrote:
    Carrying a handgun, even if unloaded, as you describe is a violation of 941.23.
    You're referring to the gun on the seat, right? Not the gun in the locked container.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Apjonas:
    You are technically correct. The SSC itself did not say that the prohibition of concealed carry by private citizens was absolute. It did say in paragraph 48 of Hamdan that the statute was a strict liability statute because the legislature did not allow any exceptions. The SSC then went on and made an exception to the statute as applied to Hamdan. In my opinion the SSC erred in three ways in Hamdan. It restricted the definition of the word security to only security of ones business or property from perceived danger. The Court purposely omitted that the definition of security also applies to the security of ones self, family, state or country. The Supreme Court responsibility is to interpret law, not make new law or recommend new law. By asking the legislature to develope a CC permit system it recommended law. By making an exception to concealed carry in Hamdan's case it in effect made new law because it added conditions to 941.23 that it said the legislature did not allow. Finally: When article I section 25 says "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, recreation, hunting or any other lawfull purpose" the amendment makes no distinction of uniqueness or authority among the activities. They are all equal. So how can concealed carry be declared uncontitutional for one small segment of one of the activities and not for the total amendment? Unfortunately the Supreme Court has uncontestable rule.

    I stand corrected on my statement that the State Supreme Court specifically said that 941.23 had no exceptions. The Court said that the legislature allowed no exceptions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •