Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Legality of actually carrying a gun in case

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Is actually carrying your gunin a case CCW, unless specified like state parks. Here is a stoy out of denver that you may heard of but it may be different in wisconsin.



    Read this story! Scary.


    Man arrested with weapons at Pelosi hotel By AP STAFF Associated Press August 25, 2008
    DENVER (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefly evacuated from her downtown Denver hotel on Saturday when a man carrying two hunting rifles and two pistols tried to check in to the hotel.
    Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said 29-year-old Joseph Calanchini of Pinedale, Wyo., faces a charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police officers at the Grand Hyatt hotel noticed him carrying a rifle-type case while checking in. Calanchini did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety.
    Wiley said authorities were not releasing information about whether the weapons were loaded because the case remained under investigation. Wiley said the charge is the same whether the weapons were loaded or unloaded.
    Pelosi and other guests briefly evacuated the hotel but were never in danger, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said.
    Calanchini told KUSA-TV it was bad timing.
    "I didn't even know the DNC was in town. I don't watch the news," Calanchini told the station from jail before he was released on $10,000 bond. "If I had known, I would have done things differently. It was a simple mistake."
    Calanchini told KUSA he had the weapons because he was getting ready for a hunting trip Aug. 28.
    Authorities were investigating a report that Calanchini was in town on business and had had the weapons worked upon to prepare for the trip.
    "The speaker was never in any danger and she appreciates the quick and professional response of the police," said Daly.







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

    Post imported post

    Well if an encased gun is CCW, then every time you walk out of the store with a new purchase you're breaking the law. Wouldn't make sense.

    The guy in the Denver hotel incident's only mistake was to stay in some sleazy hotel that would have Nancy Pelosi as a guest. Well, once she stayed there, it became sleazy!
    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"

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    Is actually carrying your gunin a case CCW, unless specified like state parks. Here is a stoy out of denver that you may heard of but it may be different in wisconsin.



    Read this story! Scary.


    Man arrested with weapons at Pelosi hotel By AP STAFF Associated Press August 25, 2008
    DENVER (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefly evacuated from her downtown Denver hotel on Saturday when a man carrying two hunting rifles and two pistols tried to check in to the hotel.
    Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said 29-year-old Joseph Calanchini of Pinedale, Wyo., faces a charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police officers at the Grand Hyatt hotel noticed him carrying a rifle-type case while checking in. Calanchini did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety.
    Wiley said authorities were not releasing information about whether the weapons were loaded because the case remained under investigation. Wiley said the charge is the same whether the weapons were loaded or unloaded.
    Pelosi and other guests briefly evacuated the hotel but were never in danger, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said.
    Calanchini told KUSA-TV it was bad timing.
    "I didn't even know the DNC was in town. I don't watch the news," Calanchini told the station from jail before he was released on $10,000 bond. "If I had known, I would have done things differently. It was a simple mistake."
    Calanchini told KUSA he had the weapons because he was getting ready for a hunting trip Aug. 28.
    Authorities were investigating a report that Calanchini was in town on business and had had the weapons worked upon to prepare for the trip.
    "The speaker was never in any danger and she appreciates the quick and professional response of the police," said Daly.
    This charge IMO is trumped up because the convention was in town. A bunch of liberals decide to converge in Denver and all of a sudden every hotel has White House security. I doubt this would have gotten nearly the attention it did if it were opening day of deer season and the Dems were in DC.Remember this if you're still thinking of voting Democrat.

    HOWEVER, depending on the definition of "concealed" (I can't find anything specific, so common-law of "hidden from common observation" is probably the applicable def), what this guy didactually was illegal by the letter of CRS 18-12-105(1b), which states that it is a Class 2 misdemeanorif a person "knowingly and unlawfully... carries a firearm concealed on or about his person".There is nodefense or exception made for carrying into a temporary residence (you have to own or fully control the property on which you are carrying) andthe law is not specific to handguns.

    In Wisconsin, a similar statute (941.23) applies and states that it is a Class A misdemeanor. There is similarly no definition, however case law states that even if the weapon is secured in a container such as a glove compartment, if it is accessible by that person and the person knows it is there, it counts as a concealed weapon.

    I say again though, if it were opening day of deer season the police would never have been called in that situation;hotel check-in would have simply told himeitherthat it has to go inthe valuables vault (if they havea safe big enough for a rifle)or thatit has to stay locked in his car. Felony arrest procedures and $10,000 bond for an offense punishable by a $250-$1000 fine is totally unconscionable; I don't care who was staying in that hotel. And it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation; If he'd uncased the rifle and slung it over his shoulder (thereby not concealing in the slightest) he'd be lucky not to get shot.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Well if an encased gun is CCW, then every time you walk out of the store with a new purchase you're breaking the law. Wouldn't make sense.

    The guy in the Denver hotel incident's only mistake was to stay in some sleazy hotel that would have Nancy Pelosi as a guest. Well, once she stayed there, it became sleazy!
    Good point. At common law, such a case would qualify as necessity. You are allowed to buy a gun, you are allowed to possess it in your home. For you to be able toget the gun from where you bought it to where you're keeping itmust therefore also be lawful, notwithstanding any law to the contrary. It is also generally lawful to transport the gun to a gun-related function such as a range or gun show, as not to be able to do so constitutes frustration of purpose.

    I do not think the same defense applies here. I do not know the specifics of the vehicle he was travelling in, but if it were a car, van, SUV or a truck with a locking top he could have left the gun there, out of sight. Even if he had a truck with an open bed there is usually space behind the seats to stash a rifle. I will presume he had that option, and in that case, because there was no gun-related event occurring IN the hotel, it was not necessary, in the legal sense,to break the law by taking the rifle into the hotel and no other exception generally applies.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Interesting, but if a guy is walking down the street with a cased gun can he technically be charged with CCW?



    Ben

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    Interesting, but if a guy is walking down the street with a cased gun can he technically be charged with CCW?



    Ben
    My own small city still has on their books one of those unenforceable ordinances regarding the carrying of any firearm in any manner. Out of your vehicle, unloaded, in a case, to the repair shop is a local cite - no refs available to it ever being enforced. But a CCW violation is a state thing and such a violation would never stand scrutiny if the city wanted to arrest as such.

    The genesis of the ordinance? Apparently there was a person of limited capacity years ago who enjoyed wearing very little clothing, with a hemostat clamped to each nipple, and patrolling neighborhood sidewalks at port-arms with a long-gun. So the mental giants on the city council threw the baby out with the bathwater.

    "I hollered over at Ethel, I hollered: DON'T LOOK ETH-el !!!

    But it'uz TOO late; she'd already been IN-censed.



  7. #7
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    Interesting, but if a guy is walking down the street with a cased gun can he technically be charged with CCW?



    Ben
    I don't see how the charge would stick. But some years ago I had a discussion with a Madison police officer and asked whether he considered it legal to carry an unloaded gun in one of the fanny packs made for guns. It meets the legal definition of a case (something made to carry a gun that zips or snaps shut and shows no part of the firearm.) His reply was that the "unloaded and encased" requirement was only relevant to vehicle carry, so on foot it would be a concealed weapon.

    I disagree, obviously, and it's simply not true that "unloaded and encased" only applies to vehicle transport, because that is also how one must have a firearm within a school zone... but the school zone requirement doesn't specify "in a vehicle."

    My response was, "So if I wanted to walk a block to show my neighbor my fully automatic Uzi w/silencer I'd have to carry it fully exposed rather than in a case? Hmmm!" No response to that.
    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"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    What I find so scary, shotgun, is that the casual observer to this conversation may consider that argument hyperbole, but in reality, it is the letter of the law in this State!



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Interesting to note that carrying an unloaded, encased firearm by hand is NOT considered CCW, even though it meets the three-prong definition of within reach, hidden from view, person is aware of presence!

    So how then could carrying and unloaded encased firearm on the passenger seat of a car be any different legally!?!?!? This is why I am not afraid to have my pistol unloaded/encased right next to me in my car.

    edit: added legally

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    It's simple once you accept the fact that current Wisconsin law requires a firearm to be concealed in a vehicle. It just has to be concealed in a manner consistent with the vehicle transport law, i.e., unloaded and encased. By statutory definition, a case cannot expose any portion of the firearm. The location of the encased firearm is not specified by law.
    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"

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Another example of how government is SEIZING firearms without cause, just like Para's case.

    http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=99744

    No charges, but can't get the firearms back either.

  12. #12
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    In a case, concealed or not concealed? As far as WI goes, just carry the rifle openly and don't worry about a concealed charge. The State is limiting your options.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    For those that open carry during the Winter in Wisconsin be extra careful. It is difficult to carry a firearm unconceled when we are wearing bulky Winter clothing. The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled that a firearm need not be completely concealed to be considered concealed (whatever sence that makes). The firearm need only be hidden from normal observation to be considered concealed. I really don't understand how it can rule that way but at the same time consider that a firearm carried completely encased is not concealed, but then again the WSC has never won any blue ribbons for use of logic.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484

    Post imported post

    Hunted in Ashland co. along hwy 13, walked along hwy 1/4 mile or so to end of property line open carrying rifle slung on one shoulder and a 1911 on the hip both 1 in the chamber.

    I had a way to go when from the opposite direction a county sheriff in an SUV drove by, to my surprise he kept on driving, I wouldlike tothink that it was his knowledge of state statutes an not just deer season, one could only wish.

    Hope all had a wonderful Thanksgiving.


    P.S. concealed and carried 1911 on property with permission.



    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > §926A


    §926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
    How Current is This?

    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    I would not leave my computer in my car at the hotel. I would not leave my wallet in the car either.

    Why would you leave a firearm in the car?



    What if it was stolen from your vehicle. Would you be charged?



    If you are in your hotel room is that not considered a residence?

    I think all of these laws are

    1) designed to confuse the law abiding citizen.

    2) are an infringement

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    Virtus Honoris wrote:
    I would not leave my computer in my car at the hotel. I would not leave my wallet in the car either. Likewise

    Why would you leave a firearm in the car?
    Not unless having totemporarily disarm for some reason while briefly leaving the car.


    What if it was stolen from your vehicle. Would you be charged? Too many variables.

    If you are in your hotel room is that not considered a residence?
    Yes; it is.
    I think all of these laws are

    1) designed to confuse the law abiding citizen.
    They are both antiquated & formulated by people who have no clue of what it means to throw the baby out with the bath water.
    2) are an infringement - Agreed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled that a firearm need not be completely concealed to be considered concealed (whatever sence that makes). The firearm need only be hidden from normal observation to be considered concealed. I really don't understand how it can rule that way but at the same time consider that a firearm carried completely encased is not concealed, but then again the WSC has never won any blue ribbons for use of logic.
    Lammie, while it is always helpful to point out caselaw to the forum's readers, it is even more helpful if you provide the case citation, and doubly so if you provide quotations along with it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    In regards to some misinformation about legal transport of a "dangerous weapon" in Wisconsin.

    In Court of Appeals
    No. 99-2258-CR
    State of Wisconsin v. Nick Alloy

    Alloy was charged and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon for having a encased handgun on the seat of his vehicle. Alloy argued that he was following Wis. Stat. 167.31 when he encased the handgun. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and says that one must comply with both statues by placing the encased weapon out of reach. The court did not provide a determination of "out of reach" but the trunk is your best bet. The court did footnote saying "complying with 167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for the purpose of transporting it."

    The court is saying that an encased weapon on your person or within you reach is a concealed weapon but a possible defense to a ccw charge is that I was in the process of transporting. State v. Hamdan exempts your home and place of business so I would suggest that one transport an encased weapon on your persons in other locations as little as possible in Wisconsin. Assume that that you will be charged with violating 941.23 if the police find a "dangerous weapon" concealed in a firearms case, within your reach, or on your person. Only use cases that have locks, or can be secured with a lock, and keep them locked. If your walking out of Cabela's with a big smile on your face and a new gun look inside that case, there's a lock and a key for that case, use it before you walk out the door. Keep the key off your keyring, keep it in the change pocket of your jeans or somewhere similar. Do not give consent to law enforcement to search any locked container. Do not tell law enforcement that you have an encased weapon. If you are unfortunately charged with carrying a concealed weapon, do not take a plea bargain. Go to Trial. It will help protect all of us.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    So basically they have some contradicting laws. In Wisconsin state parks you must have your gun in a case and unloaded, however I wilderness camp in a BIG state park in Vilas county no buildings just dense woods on a lake with one campsite on the far south part of the lake, we are at least a mile or more away from anybody with no car, only a boat so I take along the glock with me when we go and keep it cased and unloaded but I keep right by me when were sleeping in the tent. We catch lots of fish and cook em up the last thing I want is a bear coming to us looking for some fish and finding us, I'm guessing if a warden were to some and talk to us he wouldn't even say a thing but still it's always good to know.



    Ben

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I have been arguing the conflict of statutes 197.31 and 941.23 with the DNR since March 2006. First of all let me state that it is my opinion that the Court of Appeals judgement in State v Alloy is flawed. I say that because it can only apply to vehicles that are physically constructed so that it is possible to carry the encased firearm out of reach. Second it does not define what "out of reach means" and of whom. i.e. driver, all passengers, firearm owner). My opinion is the ruling is too vague to be universally applied and can only be used as applied. I wish the case would have been appealed to the State Supreme Court for clarification.

    As I said earlier I have been "doing battle" with the apparent conflict between the two statutes for nearly three years. The person in the DNR I have been communicating with is Michael Lutz. Mr. Lutz is the top lawer in the DNR. Below I am including an email communication from Mr. Lutz that I received in September 2006. Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and nothing in this post shall be considered legal advice. Also note that Mr. Lutz can only speak for the DNR. How local law enforcement would react is unknown. Interpret and use the information at your own risk.

    The mail is to me from: Lutz-Michael-DNR dated 9/17/2006 10:01AM

    Copied where: Timothy Lawhern, Amy Watson, Amber Smith

    Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX

    In response to your message of September 7, 2006, I would like to reiterate for you the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource's position in response to your concern that compliance with Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) could create a conflict with Wis. Stat. § 941.23.

    The previous memorandum and email that I provided to you on April 18, 2006 did not imply that you must ensure that your gun case is out of reach in order to comply with the concealed carry law. Instead, the email indicated that if you wanted to be absolutely certain you are not in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.23, you could ensure your encased gun was out of your reach. The memorandum provided that recommendation by relying on the unpublished opinion of State v. Alloy, which stated that an "encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach." 2000 WI app 116, P3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000), pet. denied, 2000 WI 88 (Wis. 2000). However, the court's decision in that particular case, which involved a Jeep, should not be construed as requiring all individuals in all types of vehicles to keep their encased weapons out of reach. Instead, the case merely provides additional assurance for individuals in a truck or car who are concerned about complying with both Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) and Wis. Stat. § 941.23.

    As discussed in the memorandum, the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) have been interpreted by a Wisconsin court as an exception to Wis. Stat. § 941.23. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). In that case, the court held that a defendant who left a handgun on the passenger seat of the car he had been riding in had a concealed weapon as defined by Wis. Stat. § 941.23. Id. at 72-73. However, the court was careful to point out that "our conclusion in this case in no way limits the lawful placement, possession, or transportation of unloaded. . .and encased firearms, bows, or crossbows in vehicles as permitted by Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b)." Id. at 69. Therefore, the court did not consider a lawfully encased weapon to be a concealed weapon.

    Furthermore, my email stated that in the Department's view, "a gun case that is clearly a gun case and which in effect 'advertises' the contents of what is inside does not result in a violation of the concealed carry law."

    Therefore, as both my April 18, 2006 email and attached memorandum indicated, if you unload and encase your weapon and then transport it in a vehicle in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(b), with the cased gun clearly visible, the Department does not view you as violating Wis. Stat. § 941.23. However, the email and memorandum recommended that if you were still concerned about compliance with both statutes, you could make absolutely certain you do not violate either law by ensuring your encased weapon is out of reach while transporting it in a vehicle. This advice was offered with the notion that you would be using a car or truck to transport the encased weapon, and was not meant to impose an impossibility. Of course other types of vehicles make it difficult, or even impossible, to ensure an encased weapon is out of reach. Consequently, if you are transporting an encased weapon in a vehicle such as a motorcycle, snowmobile, or trail bike, as long as the weapon case makes it evident a weapon is contained inside and the case is clearly visible, the DNR does not view transportation of the encased weapon to be a violation of the concealed carry law.






    -----Original Message-----
    From: DaleXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:00 PM
    To: Lutz, Michael - DNR
    Cc: Hassett, P Scott - DNR; Rep Gunderson; Meyer, George
    Subject: Statures 167.31(2)(b) and 941.23

    Mr. Lutz:

    March 30 of this year I sent an email to DNR secretary Hassett concerning a question I have about what I perceive to be a conflict between Wisconsin statutes 941.23 and 167.31(2)(b). In recap the statutes read as follows.:
    941.23 Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    167.31(2)(b) No person may place, posses, or transport a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle unless the firearm is unloaded and encased in a carrying case. Companion statute 167.31(1)(b) requires that no part of the firearm be exposed.

    As stated in my March email my question was precipitated by my review of Wisconsin supreme court judgments in State vs Walls, State vs Fry, State vs Kieth, State vs Hamdan. and since then State vs Fisher. The significance of these cases is that in Walls, Fry, Keith and Fisher the state supreme court found that a firearm need not be hidden on a person's body to be declared concealed and in Keith and Hamdan the Court described the conditions needed for the State to charge a violation of the concealed weapon prohibition statute 941.23.
    1. The person must know the weapon is present.
    2, The weapon must be hidden from view.
    3. The weapon must be within reach.

    Statute 167.31(2)(b) can cause all of these elements to be present.

    Secretary Hassett assigned my question to you for resolution. You in turn assigned it to an intern in your department a Mr Martinez. Mr Martinez did a very thorough job of research and prepared a report on the subject. He referenced some historical state supreme court cases concerning the issue. He quoted court statement that said to avoid a conflict of the statutes a person need only transport the weapon "out of reach". Mr Martinez concluded that was his opinion as well. In your response to me you stated you did not see a conflict between the statutes and you agree with Mr. Martinez that if a person wants to be sure to not violate the concealed weapon statute the person need only transport the weapon in a motor vehicle "out of reach". and remove one of the conditions of concealment.

    I have been pondering your response the last few months and find that I am confused by it. I was of the opinion that it was lawful to transport a concealed weapon in any motorized vehicle including a small motorized duck boat, a snowmobile, a motorcycle, an all terrain vehicle, a utility vehicle or other vehicles of the like. I see no practical way a firearm can be transported on any of them so that it is out of reach. Or is it in fact unlawful to transport a weapon on any of those type vehicles because it is impractical, if not impossible, to avoid meeting all the conditions of being charged with "going armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon" as per statute 941.23?

    If I transport a firearm in accordance to 167.31(2)(b) on a trail bike to my hunting stand can you assure me that I won't be in danger of being cited by a local law enforcement officer for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of 941.23?

    Hunting season is fast approaching. I anxiously wait for you response.

    Respectfully,



Posting Permissions

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