GreenBayPressGazette.com Editorial: Gun ban timing suspect

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

That's not a gun case under Wisconsin law.

Click to expand...

It is not "Encased" under WI law. WI does not define "case"...... Show me where it does...

imported post

This case/holster's enclosure is an example of the continuum fallacy or the 'fallacy of the heap'.

The fallacy can be described in the form of a conversation:
Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do three grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No....
Q: If we add one, do one hundred grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: Therefore, no matter how many grains of wheat we add, we will never have a heap. Therefore, heaps don't exist!

Is the gun enclosed if it slightly exposed? Our correspondent says yes.
If we cut just a little bit away, is it still encased? He might say yes.
If we cut just a little bit more away, is it still encased? He might say yes.
...
When we cut away the last little bit then it is clearly not encased. When did it cease to be encased?

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

That's not a gun case under Wisconsin law.

Click to expand...

It is not "Encased" under WI law. WI does not define "case"...... Show me where it does...

Click to expand...

167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(a) “Aircraft” has the meaning given under s. 114.002 (3).
(b) “Encased” means enclosed in a case that is 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.

imported post

Simple logic:

It is pretty much understood what a "case" is from the language of the statute, i.e., is something "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."

1) "Encased" means "inside a case"
2) A "case" is something "expressly made for the purpose of contain a firearm" (which includes holsters--- provided they meet the other requirements (i.e., "completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed." m

That holster has "part of the firearm exposed" therefore it fails the definition.

A breadbox can hold a gun, but it would not qualify as a gun case because it meets all the requirements except that it is not expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm. Holsters are expressly made to contain firearms, but the majority of them, including the sample discussed here, leave part of the firearm exposed. To be legally "encased" it has to be "in a case" that meets ALL of the requirements. You can't conveniently ignore one of the requirements.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

When did it cease to be encased?

Click to expand...

The moment it left even the slightest portion exposed.

One cannot be "slightly pregnant."

imported post

I like the idea of the clear case. I know that there are clear cases that can be purchased (from cheaper than dirt I think) that are inarguably made for a firearm and should meet the requirements of any park rules.

imported post

cheezhed wrote:

I like the idea of the clear case. I know that there are clear cases that can be purchased (from cheaper than dirt I think) that are inarguably made for a firearm and should meet the requirements of any park rules.

Click to expand...

Except for the "exposed" part.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Except for the "exposed" part.

Click to expand...

Exposed means outside of the case. "Encased" is only vehicles and school zones. This is very specific language. Enclosed in a case does NOT equal "encased" or they would have used teh specific language of encased.

imported post

The acronym I-ANAL is such an apropo double entendre. It means I Am Not A Lawyer.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Simple logic:


1) "Encased" means "inside a case"
2) A "case" is something "expressly made for the purpose of contain a firearm" (which includes holsters--- provided they meet the other requirements (i.e., "completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed." m

That holster has "part of the firearm exposed" therefore it fails the definition.

Click to expand...

The only definition it fails is that specified for it to be "Encased". A case being "something expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm" only applies in order to conform to the definition of "Encased". Back to the source of the proposed language which is a hunting regulation... To satisfy "enclosed in a case", it need not be a case "expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm.....Outside of "Encased", find where this is required. Ouside of "Encased" find where no part of the firearm may be exposed in order to properly be in a "case"..

imported post

This argument has been circular. The point which I am attempting to get across is that a "case" is non specific. "Enclosed" is not specific. A handgun would be enclosed until it is not enclosed. If it is enclosed on all 6 sides but part of it is exposed, it is still enclosed. Since a case is not defined, then anything could be used as a case. If they intended for it to be "Encased" which is strictly defined including what type of case can be used and the fact that no part may be exposed, then they would have simply stated "encased" in the statute. The fact that "encased" was not used appears to be deliberate based on the use of it in multiple other places.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

cheezhed wrote:

I like the idea of the clear case. I know that there are clear cases that can be purchased (from cheaper than dirt I think) that are inarguably made for a firearm and should meet the requirements of any park rules.

Click to expand...

Except for the "exposed" part.

Click to expand...

Exposed does not equate to visible based on the context it is used. Exposed means not covered by the case once it is completely zippered, buckled, latched, etc....

If a case which is explicitly designed for holding a gun were transparent, then it would fit the definition of a case within the context of "Encased"...


The rain coat cases available from CTD and others fit the strict requirement of a case found in the "encased" definition.

imported post

"Specifically Made to House a Firearm"
Lets use a vehicle glove compartment asan example,
Even though your glove compartment completely encloses the gun with no part showing, it fails the defenition of a case on 2 parts. it is NOT specifically made to house a firearm, And the encasement cannot be removed from the vehicle before placing the firearm inside, or removing it from the compartment.
Wisconsin law states that the gun must be fully enclosed in a case before being placed in or on a vehicle. Using that example, and past firearm court cases as further example;
If you had a locking gun-safe bolted to the floor of your truck that required 4 operators to turn keys simultaneously, and even required multi-character access codes sent from satellite through your OnStar system,It still would not meet the needs of the law, Because you would need to completly remove the entire safe from the vehicle before being able to place or remove a firearm from the safe. The only way to get around this goofy requirement is to fully case the firearm in a case before it is placed in the safe.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

"Specifically Made to House a Firearm"

Click to expand...

[align=left]The verbage is "expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm" and is only used in the context of "encased". Nobody is debating "Encased". If they intended to specify "encased" they would have done so as they didin otherStatutes. They merely used the lesser restrictive language of "enclosed in a case"... [/align]
[align=left]I am in the process of getting clarification from the DNR today regarding enforcement policy for the current statute.....[/align]

imported post

I spoke to the "go-to guy for the DNR and he explained that their lawyers are of the opinion that"enclosed" refers to being completely/fully enclosed. He also stated that it can be a clear case. Visible is not an issue. It can be fully enclosed but still visible. Also, anything that you personally modify to hold a firearm could be used as a case as you personally explicitly designed it to do so. A pair of jeans wrapped around the gun would not work, but if you cut a leg off and sewed one end closed and attached a shoelace to the other end so that it would hold the flap closed over that end it would qualify. A clear purse with something added to the inside to secure the handgun would work. The same goes for a tupperware container, etc. A M12 would require something added (velcro, etc) tofully enclose the exposed portion of the pistol butt. Imay use a ziplock bag attached to the M12 holster.

imported post

Maybe a nice sticker stating "I'm not covered, I'm ENCASED!"
on a zip-lock bag would make it a qualified custom case.
For safety of a false charge I would use the double seal ones.....:banghead:
Or would they offer to defend you to stop the bad publicity of their
bags unzipping and letting a gun fall out.

But what about the laser sight, and scope? Can you have them hanging
out in the breeze? They aren't technically part of the gun. just expensive
modifications for our poor eyesight.

imported post

I have two observations. The road to hell is paved with what-ifs. The DNR cowboys aren't doing the 'enforcing' that is at issue.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

They aren't technically part of the gun. just expensive
modifications for our poor eyesight.

Click to expand...

They are attached to it, so they are part of it, and therefore must be "enclosed" and not "exposed" while they are "encased".

Caffeine much?:lol: