Opportunity for Open Holster Event in Green Bay???

imported post

Returning to the topic; a reason that I have lost some interest in boating is because of the additional exposure to various anti-gun agencies that are involved in boating. Primarily the explicitly military branch of the Department of Homeland Severity and the state's anti gun freedom department.

imported post

we are usally out on Winnebago. We launch at the Pioner and head on down to the sandbar just south of there.
With the load exhaust i tend to stay away from the local lakes with lots of local enforcement on them

imported post

Do y'all (2nd person plural) OC on the water?

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Returning to the topic; a reason that I have lost some interest in boating is because of the additional exposure to various anti-gun agencies that are involved in boating. Primarily the explicitly military branch of the Department of Homeland Severity and the state's anti gun freedom department.

Click to expand...

Indeed. My experience with the uscg last year made me want to vomit. Its everything that is wrong with our growing oppressive government.

I was out on Lake Michigan/Milwaukee Harbor/River on a fine day in July. I enjoyed the unconstitutional search courtesy of the uscg under the guise of a "random safety check"

During the 30 minute "detainment" I produced all requisite flares/fire extinguishers/PFD's including throwable,audible distress signal, oil discharg placard, flame arrestor. Oh but wait. One of my brothers kids who was wearing a life jacketturns out the life jacket wasn't "coast guard approved" Thats okI further enjoyed the the "notice of violation" they gave me whichboasted of potentital fines in excess of $1000 (or maybe it was $2000) All because the manufacturer of that life jacket probably didn't want to pay the kings ransom to get it stamped "coast guard approved"

I was then escorted off the water by the 40 foot clipper with roughly a dozen or so government employeeswho "for the safety of the boy who had a non-coast-guard-approved life jacket on" had to hover there until we had the boat out of the water at the launch. Great job boys!!!

I further enjoyed thatI had to deal with someone at the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY in WASHINGTON, DC in order to dispose of the "violation". Felt like Amerika to me!

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Returning to the topic;

Click to expand...

Anyone going th the Green Bay eventtomorrow??? The slips on the river should be all open if you wish to bring your boat....

imported post

A boat is considered a vehicle in the state of wisconsin, so Oepn carry would be considered concealed carry by the definition of a boat being a vehicle, and a vehicle is considered concealment even if it is open view!

As is a snowmobile, a motorcycle, and even a friggin bicycle!

So pleae do not wear a holstered weapon in a boat, you may be looking at a C-C charge against you.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

A boat is considered a vehicle in the state of wisconsin, so Oepn carry would be considered concealed carry by the definition of a boat being a vehicle, and a vehicle is considered concealment even if it is open view!

As is a snowmobile, a motorcycle, and even a friggin bicycle!

So pleae do not wear a holstered weapon in a boat, you may be looking at a C-C charge against you.

Click to expand...

Not a true statement....... Open view isnot CCW. The issue with a car or truck is that on the seat is not considered open view because of the car body.... If you were in the cabin of the boat, this may be a different issue.

The only charge youwould be reasonably charged with is a violation of the transportation administrative code. Basically a "DNR" violation.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Indeed. My experience with the uscg last year made me want to vomit. Its everything that is wrong with our growing oppressive government.

Click to expand...

Among the most honored old families here are the Lighthouse Service descendants. The old widows are just now getting hard to find. The last one that I can recall has just passed within the last month. She walked to the Plum Is. Light as a newly wed and IIRC birthed three children there. She was over 100 and still walked in the Easter Parade and attended Church EVERY Sunday.

My first exposure to the local DHS detachment was a PO3 in BDU, bloused and tailored with a sidearm - and no beard or callouses. I have ZERO respect and too much fear. Things will only be better if the economy drives them away.

Remember that if you live within 100 miles of any border you are also within the no-BoR zone and subject to all sorts of extra-legal harassment.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Indeed. My experience with the uscg last year made me want to vomit. Its everything that is wrong with our growing oppressive government.

I was out on Lake Michigan/Milwaukee Harbor/River on a fine day in July. I enjoyed the unconstitutional search courtesy of the uscg under the guise of a "random safety check"

During the 30 minute "detainment" I produced all requisite flares/fire extinguishers/PFD's including throwable,audible distress signal, oil discharg placard, flame arrestor. Oh but wait. One of my brothers kids who was wearing a life jacketturns out the life jacket wasn't "coast guard approved" Thats okI further enjoyed the the "notice of violation" they gave me whichboasted of potentital fines in excess of $1000 (or maybe it was $2000) All because the manufacturer of that life jacket probably didn't want to pay the kings ransom to get it stamped "coast guard approved"

I was then escorted off the water by the 40 foot clipper with roughly a dozen or so government employeeswho "for the safety of the boy who had a non-coast-guard-approved life jacket on" had to hover there until we had the boat out of the water at the launch. Great job boys!!!

I further enjoyed thatI had to deal with someone at the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY in WASHINGTON, DC in order to dispose of the "violation". Felt like Amerika to me!

Click to expand...

Howhard is it to follow a few simple rules???

Anyone who owns a boat knows that you need approved flotation devices and that children need to be wearing them.Nearly every single new device is approved. Children need smallerdevices than adults. This is common sense. Just because they get caught with their pants down does not mean that the CG are a bunch ofJBT pricks.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

A boat is considered a vehicle in the state of wisconsin, so Oepn carry would be considered concealed carry by the definition of a boat being a vehicle, and a vehicle is considered concealment even if it is open view!

As is a snowmobile, a motorcycle, and even a friggin bicycle!

So pleae do not wear a holstered weapon in a boat, you may be looking at a C-C charge against you.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if this is just a waterfowl hunting issue but a gun need not beenclosed in a carrying casewhile transporting in a boat, it is required to be unloaded while the motor is running. A gun can be transported on a atv without a gun case at certain events like field trials also.

imported post

Welcome Mr Winken!

Because one can doesn't make it legal or remove ones liability to interference by the DNR.

If you know of published law or cases, please cite them. Please read the Forum Rules http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/

imported post


[align=justify]http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/regs/08Waterfowl.pdf[/align]
[align=justify]Firearms transport (S): [font="Times LT Std,Times LT Std"][font="Times LT Std,Times LT Std"]Carry in or on a motor-driven boat while the motor is running, any firearm or bow unless such firearm is unloaded or such bow is unstrung or enclosed within a carrying case.[/font][/font][/align]
[align=justify][font="Times LT Std,Times LT Std"][font="Times LT Std,Times LT Std"][/align][/font][/font]

imported post

I know I read it somewhere, at this timebut I cannot confirm uncased firearm transport on atv at a field trial.

imported post

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/regs/08Waterfowl.pdf

4. Guns and Ammunition

While pursuing migratory game birds, it is illegal to:

[ ... ]

Firearms transport (S): Carry in or on a motor-driven boat while the motor is running, any firearm or bow unless such firearm is unloaded or such bow is unstrung or enclosed within a carrying case.

Click to expand...

imported post

Howhard is it to follow a few simple rules???

Click to expand...

Interesting comment.

Do you wear your seatbelt everytime you get in your vehicle?

Do you pay sales tax on all internet purchases?

Do you willingly exceed speed limits?

Damn Hypocrite. How hard is it to follow a few simple rules?

Anyone who owns a boat knows that you need approved flotation devices and that children need to be wearing them

Click to expand...

Before we left the house I asked my brother if the boys had life jackets. He said they did. We aren't talking about little rinky-dink jackets or a set of inflatable water-wings. These were nice properly fitting type 3 pfd's with a between the leg strap. The only thing they were missing was the king's stamp of approval.

Just because they get caught with their pants down does not mean that the CG are a bunch ofJBT pricks.

Click to expand...

First, kiss my ass. Second,unless you live your life100% between the lines, you've got a lot of nerve (or ignorance) to toss your self-righteous condescention my direction.

Lastly, perhaps you missed the part of my post were I mentioned the stop with no probable cause and unconstitutional search.

And if you missed both of those, and don't care about constitutional rights maybe the incredible inefficiency and overkill of my having to deal with someone in WASHINGTON DC at the department of homeland security to dispose of the "violation" might be interesting to you.

I'm not going to indulge and explain the whole process but before Bush's "department of homeland security" and subsequent power-consolidating-freedom-stealing initiatives, when you got a violation you just corrected it and stopped by the local coast guard unit, showed them, and that was the end of it.

I use to get along REALLY well with the Coast Guard here in Milwaukee. I knew most of them by name, even had several of them out on my boat for cocktails when they were off duty.

Somewhere between 2001 and now, the coast guard (locally) went from the most agreeable helpful "public servants" that I had the pleasure to deal with to a bunch of pricks who's imaginary dicks are too big for their pants.

Anyone who owns a boat knows

Click to expand...

ANYONE who boats on the great lakes knows what a bunch of pricks the coast guard are. Go on ANY online boat forum. READ any boating magazine. You'll find thousands of stories every year of people who were treated like international terrorists for petty minor infractions of our nanny-governments rules.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

perhaps you missed the part of my post were I mentioned the stop with no probable cause and unconstitutional search.
ANYONE who boats on the great lakes knows what a bunch of pricks the coast guard are. Go on ANY online boat forum. READ any boating magazine. You'll find thousands of stories every year of people who were treated like international terrorists for petty minor infractions of our nanny-governments rules.

Click to expand...

Authority:

Click to expand...

Section 89 of Title 14 of the United States Code authorizes the Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., anytime upon the high seas and upon waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, to make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures and arrests.

Click to expand...

Never heard of implied consent????

I don't follow every single law. Not a day goes by that I do not violate some statute. The difference is that I do not whine and complain when I get caught and am asked to pay the penalty.

Thelabel is how coast guard personnel know that the device is approved. They are not omniscient and can not be expected to know the rating of every device ever produced just by sight.

Doing a safety inspection violates none of your constitutional rights.

If you do not like the rules and you are not prepared to face the penalties if found in violation you have the choice to stay off of the water.

I have a real problem with people going off in boats which are not serviceable to be on the water and then expecting CG personel to come save their sorry butts.. The same goes for people who are not prepared for the weather. You may see the violation for no approved child flotation device as minor, but if the child really needed it and it was not up to the task, it would be an absolute unnecessary tragedy and gross negligence on the part of the responsible adult who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The tag shows the CG personnel that it is truly approved. flotation devices are cheap compared to a fine.


hugh jarmis wrote:

And if you missed both of those, and don't care about constitutional rights maybe the incredible inefficiency and overkill of my having to deal with someone in WASHINGTON DC at the department of homeland security to dispose of the "violation" might be interesting to you.

Click to expand...

If you are not willing to give actual details of your traumatic ordeal necessary to get thenotice dismissed, you are just blowing hot air for the sake of doing so...
Why would a notice with no penalty have to be dismissed? Are you concerned about a smudge on your otherwise perfect record??

imported post

The difference is that I do not whine and complain when I get caught and am asked to pay the penalty.

Click to expand...

So you are a good little sheep. You obey all the kings rules or quietly accept your punishment when you don't. If that works for you, I'm happy for you.

I'm not a good sheep. Sorry. If I **** up, I take accountability for it, if

I make my decisions about right and wrong based upon the reality of how my behavior affects other people. I'm more concerned about my brothers kids on my boat than the government is. I put life jackets on them not because the government tells me to, but because I want them to be safe. The life jackets they had on were safe. They just weren't stamped.

If you do not like the rules and you are not prepared to face the penalties if found in violation you have the choice to stay off of the water.

Click to expand...

Thats the kind of mentality that propels our country further towards a police state. If I don't like the rules, bet your ass I'm going to speak out against them. If I think rules are uncosntitutional bet your ass I'm going to speak out against them. You can throw the pejorative label of "whining" on my comments but the reality is that "whiners" as you call them bring injustice to the public discussion.

Doing a safety inspection violates none of your constitutional rights.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Why do you have to have probable cause to stop someone driving down the road, but if they are out on a boat, they are allowed to stop you whenever they please? Makes no sense to me.

Never heard of implied consent????

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the letter of the law. I'm also of the belief that many of our laws are flatly unconstitutional.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

I put life jackets on them not because the government tells me to, but because I want them to be safe. The life jackets they had on were safe. They just weren't stamped.

Click to expand...

Says you. Those who risk their lives to help stranded boaters when they are not smart enough to help themselves go by the standards they are given. If you do not like the standard, go ahead and try to change it. Until then, the safety rules are there for the sake of the children and adults. Your word is not good enough. Manufacturers go through alot of trouble to prove that their products are safe and meet the standard. Not having a tag removes all proof that it is indeed safe and meets the standard.

imported post

Those who risk their lives to help stranded boaters

Click to expand...

Spare me... "those who risk their lives" blah blah blah blah...

Save me the histrionics.

Sounds like you need a nanny-government fepowered. I don't. Carry on.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

I'm also of the belief that many of our laws are flatly unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

If you truly believe that safety inspections are unconstitutional, you have the right to sue. You have somewhere between a zero chance and a snowball's chance in hell of the Wisconsin or US Supreme Court ruling so.

hugh jarmis wrote:

Sounds like you need a nanny-government fepowered. I don't.

Click to expand...

Here is a gold star sticker.....:quirky

Prayyou never need the Coast Guard to help you when you are in trouble. Fortunately for others, we are there to help.....