Simple Question (but there may be no "simple answer")

imported post

Shotgun-

The law in IL for FOIDs only applies to state residents, i.e., not to us. So long as you don't go through Chicago itself, you can be in posession of a unloaded and encased gun anywhere else in the state (unless they also have a handgun ban) if you have a valid DL from another state. This also applies to ammunition, as a non-resident can buy ammo in IL with a DL, because the law doesn't allow for issuance of FOIDs to non-residents. I always take my .45 when traveling to visit the inlaws near Chicago's South Side, but because I'm not in the city, I'm legal to posess it. When traveling, I definately keep it in the trunk, to fall under the protection of the federal law.

imported post

smithman wrote:

I keep my pistol encased and unloaded in my passenger compartment. I keep a magazine in the case but not in the gun. The pistol is stashed underneath the passenger seat so I can get to it relatively quickly with a small reach but not have it in view of a cop should I be stopped.

Click to expand...

That's iffy.
Wisconsin statutes167.31 and 941.23 conflict with each other in this scenario.

I hate to play devils advocate, but the State Supreme Court ruling in State V. Keith seems to indicate what you have does not fall under the definition of an encased weapon, but as a concealed weapon. The tie breaker goes to your statement that you can get to it (and assumingly load the mag and turn it into a functioning weapon)
relatively quickly.

But I'm only playing devils advocate. It doesn't diminish the fact that Wisconsins laws on carrying arms are stupid, contradictory, and unconstitutional.

imported post



Statutes 941.23 and 167.31(2)(b) without doubt conflict with each other. Below is a letter I sent on the subject to the Attorney General Office, My State Senator and My State Representative. I have not received any response as of yet but am anxiously awaiting one.




August 16, 2008


xxxxxxx
Assistant Attorney General
Deputy Administrator, Legal Services
17 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857


cc: Senator xxxxxxxxx
Representative Jxxxxxxx
Mr xxxx:


Thank you for taking time from your schedule to read this letter. In May of 2007 you and I communicated on my concern that under certain conditions State statutes 941.23 and 167.31(2)(b) may conflict with each other. Your response neither agreed or disagreed with my concern. It was reserved response because of State statute that prohibits the Attorney General Office from giving legal opinion to private citizens. At that time I accepted that restriction and response. However, since then I have found additional information that renews my concern. I obtained from the Department of natural Resources information which disclosed that in the hunting year of 2006 there were 31 citations issued by the DNR for carry of unconcealed firearms on an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV). An ATV being one of the type vehicles I referenced in our earlier correspondence.


I know you are aware of the following references but I would like to list them for the purpose of this letter.


Reference:
1. Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose”.


2. Statute 941.23: “Any person other than a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class a misdemeanor”.


3. Statute 167.31(2)(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 encased in a carrying case”.


4. Statute 167.31(1)(b) “Encased means enclosed in a case expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed”.


5.Statute 23.33(3)(e): No person may operate an all-terrain vehicle; with any firearm in his or her possession unless it is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or a bow unless it is unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case”.


Note: There is a huge difference in penalties concerning violation of 941.23 and 167.31.
The penalty for violating 941.23 is up to $10,000 fine or 90 days in jail or both. The penalty for a violation to 167.31 is a forfeiture not to exceed $100.


6. In State v Hamdan the Wisconsin Supreme Court acknowledged that there are no exceptions to statute 941.23, including the activities contained in Article I section 25.


7. In State v Hamdan the SSC ruled that if the State prohibits a manner of carry it must provide an alternate manner or yield to the amendment.


8. In State v Hamdan and State v Kieth the SSC set down the three conditions that must be present that would allow the State to prosecute a violation to statute 941.23. Namely:

1. The person must know the weapon is present.
2. The Weapon must be within reach.
3. The weapon must be hidden from view.

Based on the referenced information the following become clear. The carry of a firearm on an all-terrain vehicle is lawful 23.33(3)(e). The State prohibits ATV carry from being visible(167.31(2)(b)). The State prohibits ATV carry from being concealed(941.23). The State provides no reasonable alternative manner of carry as instructed by the SSC. The physical construction of an ATV, make it impossible for a weapon encased in accord with 167.31 to avoid the three conditions that the SSC says defines concealment.


What also becomes clear is that there is a vast amount of confusion surrounding the carry of weapons in or on a variety of vehicles. This confusion does not involve only ATV's but other “single passenger” vehicles as well, snowmobiles, utility vehicles, trail bikes, bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, rubber rafts and others under the broad definition of vehicle in State statutes. Vehicles constructed such that it is not possible to carry an encased weapon out of reach and therefore comply with both statutes 941.23 and 167.31. On those types of vehicles a person has a decision to make, either violate the concealed weapon statute with it's severe penalties or violate the vehicle transport statute with its lessor penalty.


I presume statute 167.31(2)(b) was enacted with the intent to assist the DNR in reducing the illegal taking of game animals from or off vehicles. I appears to me that 167.31(2)(c) and 167.31(2)(d) would be adequate for that purpose. The transport of a firearm is of itself an innocent activity. It is the use and discharge of a weapon that makes it a possible criminal action.


With the upcoming 2008 hunting seasons additional citations may be issued by the DNR against persons for carrying a visible weapon on an ATV. Perhaps the DNR is unaware of the statutes, the constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court decisions that have been made since the “vehicle carry laws” were put into effect years ago. Those actions have had a dramatic effect on not only vehicle carry laws but on many State firearm laws. If the DNR, or for that matter, the Attorney General Office is aware of those impacts and is ignoring those impacts, that is in my opinion unacceptable. It is unacceptable because we citizens should not be put in a position that when trying to comply with one statute we may put ourselves in jeopardy of violating another. Nor should we be at the mercy of law enforcement as to which statute they wish, or have the whim, to enforce.


From the information I have provided it is apparent to me that either statute 941.23 or statute 167.31(2)(b), or perhaps both, infringe on Article I section 25. As a minimum they ignore the SSC instructions contained in State v Hamdan that the State must provide a manner of carry in support of Article I section 25.


In 1998 the citizens overwhelmingly ratified Article I chapter 25. The record 75% voter approval demonstrates that the citizens of Wisconsin cherish their firearm and hunting rights. There is no question that constitutional amendment Article I section 25 (1995) statute 66.0409 (1998) and the supreme court decision on State v Hamdan (2003) have all had a dramatic effect on Wisconsin's firearm laws yet nothing has been done by the Attorney General Office or the Legislature to “houseclean” legacy statutes so affected.


I submit this information not to ask for an opinion but to voice a concern.


Respectfully,
xxxxxxx

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

Shotgun-

The law in IL for FOIDs only applies to state residents, i.e., not to us. So long as you don't go through Chicago itself, you can be in posession of a unloaded and encased gun anywhere else in the state (unless they also have a handgun ban) if you have a valid DL from another state. This also applies to ammunition, as a non-resident can buy ammo in IL with a DL, because the law doesn't allow for issuance of FOIDs to non-residents. I always take my .45 when traveling to visit the inlaws near Chicago's South Side, but because I'm not in the city, I'm legal to posess it. When traveling, I definately keep it in the trunk, to fall under the protection of the federal law.

Click to expand...

I'm aware that you can have guns in Illinois, but I believe they HAVE to be transported in the trunk-- or trunk equivalent (i.e. locked up) anywhere in that fine state, even for residents with FOID.

imported post

Illinois

Article 24. Deadly Weapons

5/24-1 Unlawful use of weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowinfly:

(4) Carries or posses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection(a)(4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or

(ii) are not immediately accessible; or

(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, fire-arm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

===========================================================

So if you are traveling through Illinois and do not have a FOID it appears the firearm must be either broken down in a non-functioning state or not immediately accessible (whatever that means). There is no mention that it must be carried in a vehicle's trunk.

imported post

"Not immediately accessible" means trunk or locked container. Broken down? Whoo.. what does it take? 30 seconds to reassemble a Glock while blindfolded?