Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: having a gun in a Pick Up truck

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I understand that when you have a gun in a vehicle, it has to be in the Trunk in a case and unloaded, correct? What about a Pick Up Truck? I have a Lock Box in the bed on my truck, do I put my gun in there in the same manner as a vehicle trunk??

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Arguably the requirement is to be out of reach rather than "in the trunk". This is from case law and not statutes.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Technically you could lock it in the lock box in the bed of your truck. However it would probably be more secure inside the cab of your truck.
    The fire arm should be unloaded, encased and in the farthest out of your reach location in the cab of the truck.
    Plain sight is best as placing the fire arm behind the seat and out of sight could be considered concealment.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Then is it true that Guns Have to be in the trunk of a car like I mentioned? If I can have it in the Cab of my truck, then why Not inside a car, out of reach? Or am I wrong about a gun Having to be in the trunk, Only of a car? My Pick Up is a Small One, I can actually reach the gun from where I sit in the drivers seat, from anywhere the gun can be in the cab. Just another wonder is all. Thanks.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Also, is it written anywhere about How you can have your Gun in a car or truck from this State? Where can I find that written, if it is? Thanks again.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    You tell me whether you want me to answer I-ANAL or continue your conversation with the cop giving you legal conclusions?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I am not a Cop.

    167.31 SAFEGUARDS Not certified under s. 35.18 (2), stats.

    “vehicle” has the meaning given for “motor vehicle” in s. 29.001
    (57).
    (2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
    ROADWAYS. (a) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may
    place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a
    motorboat with the motor running, unless the firearm is unloaded
    or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying
    case.
    (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 enclosed in a carrying case.

    Farthest out of your reach is a CYA.

    Or I am sure you will get a much more extravagant version from the front porch law offices of Doug Huffman

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    The laws as we have access to in printed form, say absolutely nothing about "Out of reach" or "in the trunk" or ammunition needing to be out of the case or in a locked container. it does state fully closed case, and unloaded.

    What has happened is that attorneys have appealed wrongful convictions of their clients , and the supreme court twisted things around and made things very unclearin setting precedent in case law.

    For instance;
    State V. Alloy is used as a reference alot in this forum, the guy was convicted of having a concealed firearm even thoughthe gunwas encased in 2 different cases while in his vehicle. But nowhere in any info about the case does it state if this gun was loaded or empty. And the guy was also acquitted on several other charges including attempted murder and manslaughter. I feel the courts were just trying to get anything to stick to this guy, got him on concealed. and now screws the rest of us with conflicting transport laws.

    I carry my firearms in the cab of my truck, on the front seat, in full view in a case specifically made for firearms with no fears of harassment. I am not suggesting you do this, it is just what I do due to the way I understand the law as originally written.



  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Musicmaker73 wrote:
    I understand that when you have a gun in a vehicle, it has to be in the Trunk in a case and unloaded, correct? What about a Pick Up Truck? I have a Lock Box in the bed on my truck, do I put my gun in there in the same manner as a vehicle trunk??
    Musicmaker WELCOME to the forum. Please feel free to browse around and continue to ask questions.

    Here: fiorst post of this thread:http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=57 has a PDF you can download that covers the RIGHT fairly well.

    Again, WELCOME and Carry On.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    I wish our midwestern states would change some of their laws.
    During my stint of living in Colorado it was legal to carry a loaded handgun anywhere in your vehicle, concealed or not, and shotguns and rifles were legal to carry anywhere provided there was not a round in the chamber. The mags/tubes could be loaded, just not one in the chamber........As happy as I am to be back in the great lakes area, there are a few things that I do miss about Colorado.
    Rand Paul 2016

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Or I am sure you will get a much more extravagant version from the front porch law offices of Doug Huffman
    Why must you perpetuate this BS? Neither of you are a member of the state Bar and neither are lawyers. If you want to push that Federal Civil Rights statute, then hire a good lawyer and get on with it. Doug (and others) doesn't think that it applies to us, but that doesn't mean that a court won't say otherwise. Until you finish your JD and file suit ,please check your attitudes at the keyboard prior to stopping by OCDO.
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thank you for mentioning me in such positive terms, but I don't recall having expressed that opinion. I do believe that 42 USC 1983 is pretty remote from our issues.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    PvtSchultz,

    You might want to check the posts above and see that I have perpetuated nothing. I was simply responding to a post and was once again harassed by Doug Huffman.

    It is funny how many of you will jump on his band wagon simply because his name has "state researcher" behind it.

    That doesn't make him any different then any one of us.

    The fact that his rudeness and his poor communication skills have more than likely chased more people away then not, should be a good indication to him that he should change his demeanor if he wants to make a good impression on new members.

    It is amazing, he claims to not be a Cop hater, but yet he posts something like the above.

    Maybe there should be a poll and the people who feel the same as I do should take their support for this cause some where else? Some place where we are treated as equals.

    By his actions it is obvious the OCDO doesn't need the membership.

    By the way do you see anything in my post above concerning a civil rights suit? I don't. So who keeps perpetuating the BS?

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Mr. Gleason, I think that you know what I'm talking about. Not from the posts above, but from posts in several other threads which you seen to be instigating in this one.


    OK, politely then,

    please give!
    --> TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
    Every person (this means exactly what it says, no exceptions except for judicial officers as stated below)who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, (this even includes the trespass statute) custom, or usage (Custom or usage means Store or company policy even though it may be customary), of any State (even in Wisconsin)or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected (by having them removed or arrested by the police), any citizen (to include grocery shoppers, even armed grocery shoppers)of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, (wait for it, there it is) shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    The funny thing here is, I am not arguing what a land owners rights are. I guess I am totally lost as to where a person open carrying in the store violates the owners rights. I am not arguing that maybe they feel uncomfortable but how is this a rights violation? I am only arguing the FACT that having some one removed from the store for legally and lawfully open carrying is as stated above a rights violation and is grounds for a civil suit in equity as clearly stated above.
    It also states," or other proper proceeding for redress" which is basically what happened in DC changing the laws in general and does not involve equity. Either way is a win situation.

    I was taught in Constitutional Law and Criminal Law not to over read the statutes or Codes. just read them as they are.

    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Pvt Schultz,

    How can you disagree with that post? I said nothing wrong, nothing incorrect and nothing invalid.

    I am not trying to "one up" anyone here. The Code is an act of Congress which is a very powerful tool in our tool chest and to be read as written. This whole argument has been ridiculous and started the same way as the argument at the beginning of this thread did.

    Unless you can prove that USC Title 42 Chapter 21 SubChapter 1 1983 can not or could not ever apply in the circumstance that I had mentioned in the other thread, then you have no argument. I have seen no proof of that yet. Oh wait, yeah some one said it doesn't apply, my bad. Seroiusly, where is the proof? I am simply reading the code as it is written.

    By the way why do you bring one thread into another? No one on this thread even mentioned a Civil Rights violation.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Farthest out of your reach is a CYA.
    Um, no.

    In Wisconsin, a gun in plan sight inside a vehicle is both in violation of the encased requirement, Section § 167.31,and considered unlawfully concealed. State v. Walls[/i][/b], 526 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. App. 1994) (A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section). See also State v. Keith[/i][/b], 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993) (To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden).


    Further, an encased gun is unlawfully concealed in a vehicle if the case is not "out of reach," arguably wingspan plus lunge distance. State v. Alloy,616 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. App. 2000) (affirming concealed carry conviction of man possessing handgun in a vehicle in conformity with Wisconsin Stat. § 167.31 because “Alloy's argument is based on the false assertion that he was trapped by a conflict between Wis. Stat. § 167.31 and Wis. Stat. § 941.23. A person transporting a firearm is governed by both statutes. To comply with § 167.31, the person must encase the weapon. To comply with § 941.23, he or she must place the enclosed weapon out of reach. See[/i] State v. Asfoor[/i][/i], 75 Wis.2d 411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d 529 (1977). A person complying with § 167.31 is not required to violate § 941.23. The encased weapon can be lawfully transported out of reach.”)


    Locking the gun in the glove box is also still unlawful concealment. State v. Fry[/i][/b], 388 N.W.2d 565 (Wis. App. 1986) (defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with a gun locked in a glove compartment).

    It would be most helpful if the gun rights experts on this board would educate folks to the stark reality of Wisconsin's draconian gun laws. Until the legislature reforms the statutes, these judicial holdings above ARE the law in Wisconsin.


  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    So, if I take my hand gun and unload it and place it in the case, close the case and place it in the location farthest out of my reach, I am violating the law?

    How so?

    I stated farthest out of your reach was CYA because there is nothing addressing this in the statutes. The average person or new member not memorizing every case law in the books would not know of the case laws you mentioned above and would rely on the state statutes.

    Didn't mean to mislead anyone.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    According to what the public has access to when looking for printed information regarding transporting of firearms,
    this is all that I had found VIA DNR publications regarding transportation of firearms. Link; http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...9regs14-21.pdf

    Nowhere in the regulation book does it state any of the case-law requirements as shown in Keith, Alloy, or any of the other cites. So by using the information published by the DNR. I do not see how we could be found guilty in court for following the printed materials as guidelines. I see nothing about "Out of reach" or "In the trunk" noted anywhere. Therfore these are the guidelines I follow.
    I am not arguing that the case-law does not have merit, but who the heck is going to go above and beyond printed regulations that are handed out by a state governing agency? If someone is convicted for following the DNR publications. I would suspect "Entrapment" could be claimed.

    Snipped from the DNR regulation book for 2009
    Arms transportation:

    All firearms must be unloaded and completely enclosed within carrying cases designed to carry a firearm when in or on any vehicle whether moving or stationary. A holster is not a legal carrying case for a handgun unless it completely encloses the handgun. All firearms must be unloaded when in or on any motor driven boat while the motor is running.
    Note:
    Firearms are considered unloaded if the shell or cartridge is removed from the chamber and the magazine of a firearm, any clip, magazine or cylinder attached to the firearm; the cap is removed from a percussion muzzleloader; the flashpan is cleaned of powder from a flint lock muzzleloader; or the powder and projectile is removed from the barrel of an electronic ignition system muzzleloader.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    The average person or new member not memorizing every case law in the books would not know of the case laws you mentioned above and would rely on the state statutes.
    And you are absolutely correct...But they’d STILL be arrested and charged whether they know the case law or not just like they’d still be arrested if they never knew the statute in the first place. Case law is the court’s interpretation of the intent of the statutes. When you are arrested and charged where do you go? Court. What will the court base it’s decision on? The previous judicial holdings. I don’t understand why people don’t think the jurisprudence is important.



    Mike wrote:
    It would be most helpful if the gun rights experts on this board would educate folks to the stark reality of Wisconsin's draconian gun laws. Until the legislature reforms the statutes, these judicial holdings above ARE the law in Wisconsin.
    Before; I would usually mention that a guy probably wouldn’t get charged if the weapon is properly transported in compliance with 167.31, but whether or not I think I will actually get charged the fact remains that I would be relying on the “good graces” of the LEO and DA. I don’t want to rely on any government agents “good graces” and I don’t want anyone else being lulled into a false sense of security that they can. The last paragraph in Mikes post is the final nail in the coffin for my old perspective and I think I understand what he is getting at as well.



    The people that come on this board need to know how bad we’ve actually got it here with no sugar coating what so ever. The worse it looks, the more it will piss them off. The more pissed off everyone is, the more they will want to change it. The more pissed off people contacting the legislators, the more the legislatorswill want to change it.



    Sugar coating the reality is not doing a service to anyone. We need to look at the statues and case law in their least favorable application both for legal reasons and for future change.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I totally agree with you, Jurisprudence is very important. But if two people are arrested and 1 is charged with illegally transporting because of lets say the above mentioned circumstances and he is found guilty and the other goes into another court and is found not guilty, what does this say for jurisprudence?

    My point is, if all you own is a pick up truck and lets say for the sake of argument that this pick up truck with a single cab is a flat bed, you are really left with no choice but to transport your fire arm in the cab of the truck.

    If you follow all other statutes, regulations and case laws and transport the fire arm unloaded, encased and in a location farthest away from you inside the cab with out being concealed (behind the seat or in the glove box for example) then is this not within the law?

    I am not trying to be difficult here, this is important and is definitely something we all need to work together on to help people who are in this situation.

    I realize I live in small town USA and the cops here would more than likely be satisfied with this method of transport. But what about Milwaukee or someplace like that?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I taught my daughter now 'doctor' well that "the road to hell is lined with what-ifs." 'Hypotheticals' is merely jargon for what-ifs.

    I do not advise risking another's freedom on "more than likely be satisfied." Risk your freedom as you will.

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


  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    I totally agree with you, Jurisprudence is very important. But if two people are arrested and 1 is charged with illegally transporting because of lets say the above mentioned circumstances and he is found guilty and the other goes into another court and is found not guilty, what does this say for jurisprudence?


    I would say that it doesn't say anything for it. That’s quite the hypothetical and it would be nigh impossible to have two people in exactly the same situation who said exactly the same thing to the police, who had the exact same lawyers and the exact same judge. There’s too many holes in that to even get a “what if” out of it. They'd even have to be tried at the exact same time. Hamdan and Cole were companion cases dealing with the same statute but the differences were enough to make the decisions different.



    J.Gleason wrote:

    If you follow all other statutes, regulations and case laws and transport the fire arm unloaded, encased and in a location farthest away from you inside the cab with out being concealed (behind the seat or in the glove box for example) then is this not within the law?
    No, because if you can reach it you aren't following all the statutes, regulations, and case law.



    No offense;and to put it bluntly, the bottom line is:Who cares?!

    Why sugar coat it? You know the statutes and case law, and they’re easily accessible to anyone who uses the forum. If someone comes on the forum and asks just tell them like it is.



    I live in a small town too butI realize that my previous“ah, you’ll be OK” kind of attitude isn’t helping anybody.


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:

    No offense;and to put it bluntly, the bottom line is:Who cares?!

    Why sugar coat it? You know the statutes and case law, and they’re easily accessible to anyone who uses the forum. If someone comes on the forum and asks just tell them like it is.
    That says it all

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    The court erred. It's called "legislating from the bench."
    And if the court is an appeals court, then its the law, and the legislature is presumed to know of the construction, and must change the statute if they want the law to be different.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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