Am I violating 167.31

imported post


[align=left]To add more confusion: It would appear that by case law a person can not carry a firearm in or on a vehicle unless it is unloaded, encased and carried out of reach. On a number of vehicles, including ATV's, it is not possible to carry a firearm "out of reach". However, Statute 33.33 (3)(e) implies that one of the restrictions of the rules of operation of an ATV is that carry of a firearm is allowed providing the firearm is unloaded and encased, presumably encased in accord with 167.31.[/align]
[align=left]33.33 ALL terrain Vehicles[/align]
[align=left](3) RULES OF OPERATION. No person may operate an all−terrain[/align]
[align=left]vehicle:[/align]
[align=left](a) In any careless way so as to endanger the person or property[/align]
[align=left]of another.[/align]
[align=left](c) On the private property of another without the consent of[/align]
[align=left]the owner or lessee. Failure to post private property does not[/align]
[align=left]imply consent for all−terrain vehicle use.[/align]
[align=left](d) On Indian lands without the consent of the tribal governing[/align]
[align=left]body or Indian owner. Failure to post Indian lands does not imply[/align]
[align=left]consent for all−terrain vehicle use.[/align]
[align=left](e) With any firearm in his or her possession unless it is[/align]
[align=left]unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow unless it is[/align]
[align=left]unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case.[/align]
[align=left](f) To drive or pursue any animal except as a part of normal[/align]
[align=left]farming operations involving the driving of livestock.[/align]
[align=left](g) When within 150 feet of a dwelling at a speed exceeding[/align]
[align=left]10 miles per hour.[/align]
[align=left](h) On the frozen surface of public waters within 100 feet of[/align]
[align=left]a person not in or on an all−terrain vehicle or motor vehicle or[/align]
[align=left]within 100 feet of a fishing shanty at a speed exceeding 10 miles[/align]
[align=left]per hour.[/align]
(i) In a manner which violates rules promulgated by the department



Can someone protect us from our protectors?

imported post

protias wrote:

southside wrote:

the law says unloaded and cased..........and the loaded clip can be in the case (not in gun).............i go to the range or my gun club and have the gun on the seat next to me........the within reach thing seems pretty gray

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Don't sweat the little stuff......

When you can get Ruger, Remington, etc to use the correct nomenclature in their advertising, owners' manuals, etc... My give-a-crap meter will start to register when people use the terms clip and magazine interchangeably in casual conversation....... :dude:

imported post

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Nick Alloy was arrested, charged and went to trial on ALL of the following charges:

940.01(1) 1st Degree Intentional Homicide

941.30(1) 1st Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety

940.30 False Imprisonemt

940.19(1) Battery

941.23 Carrying a Concealed Weapon

941.23 Carrying a Concealed Weapon

imported post

According to the court summary they were all separate charges any of which he could have been found not guilty by the jury. On counts five and six he was found guilty by the jury for carrying a concealed weapon even though it is apparent that the weapon was properly encased in accordance with 167.31.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

According to the court summary they were all separate charges any of which he could have been found not guilty by the jury. On counts five and six he was found guilty by the jury for carrying a concealed weapon even though it is apparent that the weapon was properly encased in accordance with 167.31.

Click to expand...

He was found guilty of counts 3, 4, 5 and 6.

The summary states that the gun was in a metal box. It does not state that is was a gun case. What you stated was that it was in the center console, which is not legal.

I really wish that eveyone could put State vs. Alloy into context.

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

Just throw it in trunk, you'll be fine.

Click to expand...

In what sense? How would someone be fine if there gun is in the trunk when they need it.

imported post

The only charges he elevated to the appeals court were the concealed weapon charges. Paragraph 1 of the Court of appeals listing of facts is, and I quote.
¶1 PERCURIAM.Nick Alloy appeals a judgment convicting him of carrying a concealed weapon, a handgun contained in a zipper case inside a metal box between the bucket seats of his Jeep Wagoneer.[size=[u][1][/u]][/size] He argues that the trial court erred and denied him his constitutional right to testify in his own defense when it disallowed questions designed to show that the handgun was encased because Wis. Stat. §167.31(2) (1997-98)[size=[u][2][/u]][/size] requires that a firearm be encased when it is transported in a vehicle. Because complying with §167.31 does not provide a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, the trial court properly disallowed this irrelevant testimony.

The emphasis is mine. I took nothing out of context. These are the actual words of the Court.

imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:

Landose_theghost wrote:

Just throw it in trunk, you'll be fine.

Click to expand...

In what sense? How would someone be fine if there gun is in the trunk when they need it.

Click to expand...

The law does not allow you to have it ready if you need it.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

The only charges he elevated to the appeals court were the concealed weapon charges. Paragraph 1 of the Court of appeals listing of facts is, and I quote.
¶1 PERCURIAM.Nick Alloy appeals a judgment convicting him of carrying a concealed weapon, a handgun contained in a zipper case inside a metal box between the bucket seats of his Jeep Wagoneer.[size=[u][1][/u]] He argues that the trial court erred and denied him his constitutional right to testify in his own defense when it disallowed questions designed to show that the handgun was encased because Wis. Stat. §167.31(2) (1997-98)[size=[u][2][/u]] requires that a firearm be encased when it is transported in a vehicle. Because complying with §167.31 does not provide a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, the trial court properly disallowed this irrelevant testimony.

The emphasis is mine. I took nothing out of context. These are the actual words of the Court.

Click to expand...

The current emphasis in mine.Ibelieveyou did.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

According to the court summary they were all separate charges any of which he could have been found not guilty by the jury. On counts five and six he was found guilty by the jury for carrying a concealed weapon even though it is apparent that the weapon was properly encased in accordance with 167.31.

Click to expand...

Empahais mine.

WRONG.

"....ina metal box........"

Was it in a case thatwas "expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm"?

imported post

'Sproket:

Read the statute. 167.31 only requires that a firearm be properly unloaded and encased in a case designed to carry a firearm. The fact that it is then placed in a secondary container is moot.

Bear in mind, there are a number of "metal boxes" available that are specifically designed to contain a firearm and therefore meet all requirements of 167.31. There is nothing in 167.31 that says a firearm encasement must be of a specified configuration, only that it be manufactured for the purpose of containing a firearm.

We don't know if the "metal box" was an approved device or not. Alloy was never able to provide his encasement defense. We do know that according to the Appeals Court's words in paragraph 1 that the firearm was apparently properly encased in a zippered case and then placed in the metal box.If Alloy had merely placed the bare gun ina plain metal box not designed to contain a firearm and then placed it between the seats, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion .

The situationis little different than properly encasing a firearm and placing it in a suitcase. In that scenario the issue of "out of reach" may come into play as it did in Alloy but that wasn't your comment. Your comment was that you know of no case where a person was convicted of concealed carry of a firearm when it was properly encased as required by 167.31. If Alloy had an unloadedfirearm in a case designed to contain a firearm and that firearm was totally concealed from view by being zippered, tied, snapped velcroed, or buttoned closed then it was properly encased. Doesn't matter what other container it was in.

If you read paragraph 1 of Alloy you will see that the principle reason Alloy elevated his case to the appeals court level was that he felt his firearm was properly encased but the trial court judge did not allow him to present that defense. Unfortunately the Court of appeals upheld the circuit judge's decision and made it's decision, concerning the issue of concealment, totally on the "out of reach issue".

imported post

Lammie,

I understand what you are trying to get trough my thick skull. When you really study the statutes and case law, your position, which I will never condemn anyone for choosing, is what is SAFE. In other words, what puts you at the least risk of being harassed by an LEO.

My position is what I know I can get away with. No DA will take me to trial, IF I am in full unquestionablecompliance with 167.31 with a firearm case within reach, and have committed no other crimes. I know that I put myself at some risk of being harrased by an LEO and charged under 941.23. But, If I am charged, it is highly unlikely that a DA will prosecute. Although it may be more likely in the southern counties, its still not a probability.

My motivation is NOT to see what I can get away with. Itis put myself in the best position to protect myself and my family AT ALL TIMES. Not just when it is clearly legal. I rationalize what I risk with LEO, is worth that I gain with BG.

When people cite State vs. Alloy, (which I did not know until you pointed it out,thatanunpublished opinion does not set precedent) I get annoyed. Nick Alloy was charged with homicide along with 5 other charges. A neighboring county dropped 3 charges when Brown County began prosecution. He has had Domestic Abuse Restraining Order filed against him. He was convicted of bail jumping in four counties. Could be even more as not everyting from every county get listed on CCAP. Compare that to myself getting pulled over because my tail light is out.

Now that I openly OC everywhere I can, it is getting around that I do. I can imagine that my risk factor may have just increased a slight bit. The sheriff dept. knows that I OC almost every day in the Kwik Trip right across the street from them and all the county offices.

In the strictest technical sense, I concede that you are correct. But after all the studying I have done and after very thorough contemplation, I will be somewhere in the gray area.

We really should not be spending our energy debating the issue with each other. We both know the law sucks. That is where our energy should go. Getting the laws changed. Let me rephrase that. I fear that may sound a little condesending, like you are not doing enough. What I meant is that I want to do more and these debates 'amongst the choir' can be distracting for me.

CARRY ON!

Edited to say: I can hear the question being asked, if I don't want to be distracted, then why do I choose to participate. Becasue I cannot help it. I like a good debate. It's my own faullt. But, I came to the realization today that I may spend more time debating with the choir and getting others to join the choir. If am may stretch a metaphor.

imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:

I understand what you are trying to get trough my thick skull. When you really study the statutes and case law, your position, which I will never condemn anyone for choosing, is what is SAFE. In other words, what puts you at the least risk of being harassed by an LEO.

My position is what I know I can get away with. No DA will take me to trial, IF I am in full unquestionablecompliance with 167.31 with a firearm case within reach, and have committed no other crimes.

Click to expand...

And this type of thinking is why Wisconsin statutes remain unchanged.

imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:

hduc2005 wrote:

I bought my wife a Pink Taurus Pro 9mm this week and here I sit at Gander Mountain asking myself if I walk out the store with the gun cased(CONCEALED) and in arms reach is it consider a violation? This is just a question because I have been reading this forum almost nonstop all week. LOL





THE ATF should be a convenience store NOT a agency!!!!

Click to expand...

A firearm in a 'gun case' is not concealed if you are carrying it to and from your vehicle. IF it is in a purse, under your clothing, or ina case that is not recognizable as a gun case, would be a Concealed Carry offense.

Some will argue that 'within a vehicle' it must be out of reach. Though I feel that is just an opinion, it is the 'safe way' to go.

I will argue that full inarguable compliance with 167.31 will not get a 941.23 charge, regardless of where in the vehicle it is. But that is my gamble to take. If one is not comfortable with it, DON'T.

I have gained friends and advasries alike, because I am one to challenge and push the issue when others won't.

Click to expand...

This is too damn confusing....so Ive got a craftsman toolbag which has a slot on the bottom where I slide my case into very nicely and put the other gear in the top section. Do I need to remove the case from the bag while transporting it so that the case itself is in plain view? Does the bag make it a concealed weapon?:banghead:

imported post

'Sproket:

You hit the nail on the head. The statute is too damned confusing. Even the Wisconsin court sytem gets it all screwed up. That is why we have to work together and pound on the legislature to get rid of the statute. Even off duty cops must comply with the statute. They have an exclusion only when they are on duty or going to and from work.

imported post

protias wrote:

southside wrote:

the law says unloaded and cased..........and the loaded clip can be in the case (not in gun).............i go to the range or my gun club and have the gun on the seat next to me........the within reach thing seems pretty gray

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why are the .45's sans primer?

imported post

proneblocked wrote:

This is too damn confusing....so Ive got a craftsman toolbag which has a slot on the bottom where I slide my case into very nicely and put the other gear in the top section. Do I need to remove the case from the bag while transporting it so that the case itself is in plain view? Does the bag make it a concealed weapon?

Click to expand...

This is not confusing - the law of concealed carry generally in most states, not just Wisconsin, makes forearms unlawfully concealed about your person if they are not in plain sight while they are within arms reach - encasing them conceals them - many states have statutory exception for this purpose to transport securely wrapped to/from certain locations, e.g., gun dealers, shooting ranges, etc.

The issue is proximity - they cannot be within reach and concealed at the same time.

imported post

forearms?

imported post

Mike wrote:

proneblocked wrote:

This is too damn confusing....so Ive got a craftsman toolbag which has a slot on the bottom where I slide my case into very nicely and put the other gear in the top section. Do I need to remove the case from the bag while transporting it so that the case itself is in plain view? Does the bag make it a concealed weapon?

Click to expand...

This is not confusing - the law of concealed carry generally in most states, not just Wisconsin, makes forearms unlawfully concealed about your person if they are not in plain sight while they are within arms reach - encasing them conceals them - many states have statutory exception for this purpose to transport securely wrapped to/from certain locations, e.g., gun dealers, shooting ranges, etc.

The issue is proximity - they cannot be within reach and concealed at the same time.

Click to expand...

He's strong to the finish

'cause he still eats his spinach

He's Popeye the sailor man...toot, toot.

imported post

Mike wrote:

proneblocked wrote:

This is too damn confusing....so Ive got a craftsman toolbag which has a slot on the bottom where I slide my case into very nicely and put the other gear in the top section. Do I need to remove the case from the bag while transporting it so that the case itself is in plain view? Does the bag make it a concealed weapon?

Click to expand...

This is not confusing - the law of concealed carry generally in most states, not just Wisconsin, makes forearms unlawfully concealed about your person if they are not in plain sight while they are within arms reach - encasing them conceals them - many states have statutory exception for this purpose to transport securely wrapped to/from certain locations, e.g., gun dealers, shooting ranges, etc.

The issue is proximity - they cannot be within reach and concealed at the same time.

Click to expand...

Mike: my forearms are always within arms reach.