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

Thread: Vehicle Carry

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I started a new thread on this topic so that it doesn't get tangled up with the GFSZ and vehicle carry petition drive. SB-442 was introduced November 16, 2005 by Senator Decker and others as an Act to change the vehicle carry statute 167.31. Specifically 167.31 (2)(b). The Act would remove the requirement that a firearm, bow, and crossbow be encased while being transported in or on a vehicle. The requirement that the weapon be unloaded remained. Of course we would prefer that the whole encasement and loaded/unloaded restriction be removed entirely, but it is the encasement requirement that is the biggest impediment to open carry. The bill was introduced and then sent to the committee on Natural Resources and Transportation where for obvious reasons it died. There was very little public attention given to the Bill so it died a quiet death by trickery.

    The Democrats are nowthe majority in the legislature and the senator who introducedBill SB-442 in 2005 is now the state senate majority leader, Senator Decker.

    Open carry of firearms has become recognized as a fundamental right of all lawful Wisconsin citizens. In 2005 open carry rights were words you only spoke in a dark room behind locked doors. Today it is common language. Significant court judgements in Vegas and Krause. Public announcement by the Attorney General. Increasing tolerance by law enforcement. Recognition by local political governments. Open carry demonstrations. Very little public objection. Acceptance by the majority of businesses.Those areall things that we only wished for in 2005. Now they are real.

    We have lost some minor battles but we will win the war. We won't win the war unless we make a lot of noise. I feel that the change of political control of the state legislature and that the original sponsor of the Bill is now the Senate majority leader present a good opportunity to insist that SB-442 (2005) be re-introduced. It won't happen without letting those that can make it happen know our opinions. Following is a December 2009 letter I wrote to Senator Decker concerning vehicle carry and the conflict between vehicle carry restrictions and the prohibition of concealed carry. Copied on the letterwere my legislative representatives and the state Attorney General. 2010 is an election year and I intend to re-submit the letter to those individuals again soon. I will do it again nearer to election time. I will do it until they get the message and tell me to stop.

    It will take more than justone personto get some action. All of you need to get involved. I think we have a good chance to at least get half a loaf concerning vehicle carry of firearms. Feel free to use my letter or any portion thereof, or draft your own, but now is the time to speak up.

    A copy of the Bill, and its sponsors,as submitted in 2005 can be found at the following link.
    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/SB-442.pdf



    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Senator Decker:



    I am not one of your constituents but I hope you will give me the honor of reading this document. It is a long document but is so out of necessity. As state senate majority leader I hope you will afford me the patience to read it. I send it to you because I am aware that you are an avid sportsman and hunter and that you take our hunting and firearm rights to heart.



    This document concerns the conflict between two state statutes, 941.23 and 167.31. S941.23 is the statute that prohibits the carry of concealed weapons by anyone except a peace officer. Statute 167.31 is the statute that requires a firearm be empty and completely concealed when carried in or on any motor vehicle.



    In State v Hamdan the State Supreme Court (SSC) saidthe legislature has drafted statute 941.23 so that it is a strict liability statute that has no exception, including the activities contained in amendment Article I section 25 of the state constitution (p48). The SSC also laid down the conditions that define weapon concealment. Initially it did so in State v Kieth and repeated the conditions in at least State v Hamdan. The conditions the Court laid down are:



    The person knows the weapon is present.

    The weapon is concealed from normal view.

    The weapon is within reach.



    In voicing those conditions the SSC did not exclude the carry in or on a motor vehicle. In fact the cases of State v Fry, Cole, Fisher and Vegas support the notion that the Court intends those conditions to apply under allmethods of carry, including vehicles.



    Statute 167.31 on the other hand requires that when a firearm is carried in or on a motor vehicle it must be unloaded and concealed from view. There is no requirement that it be carried “out of reach”.



    The District III Court of Appeals has visited this apparent conflict of statutes in State v. Nick Alloy (No.99-2258-CR) and stated the Court does not seethere is a conflict. If a person wishes to avoid a conflict the weapon need only be carried “out of reach”, thereby removing one of the conditions that define concealment. The Court does not define “out of reach”. It is significant to note that in footnote 3 of it’s opinion the Court acknowledged that there is condition where there is a conflict of the statutes. It said “ While complying with WIS. STAT. s167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it, those facts are not present here. We do not address hypothetical arguments”. The opinion made by the appeals court is unpublished and may not be used as binding precedent therefore it’s legal reach is uncertain.



    My opinion is that the Court erred in its opinion. It made its opinion based on the assumption that a firearm would always be carried in or on a motor vehicle that is constructed so that it is possible to carry the weapon “out of reach”. That of course is not true. There are a number of single passenger type vehicles on which firearms may be carried but are constructed so that it is not possible to carry the weapon out of reach, one such vehicle being an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) another being a snowmobile.



    State statute 23.33 is specific to All Terrain Vehicles. Subparagraph 23.33(3)(e) under the Rules of Operation requires that if a firearm is carried on an ATV it must be unloaded and concealed in a carrying case. Presumably in accordance with statute 167.31. Statute 23.33 also strongly implies that the State does consider the carry of firearms on ATV's as lawful. The complexity it presents is that an ATV is constructed so that it is not possible to carry the concealed firearm out of reach in order to avoid the conditions that the SSC says defines concealment. Therefore, a person carrying a firearm on an ATV is caught between a conflict of statutes 941.23 and 167.31 and has no means by which to exercise their Article I section 25 rights accorded by the State constitution.



    In State v Hamdan the SSC visited the constitutional impact of constitutional amendment Article I section 25 as applied to the concealed weapon statute 941.23. It decided that even under the breadth of the amendment, 941.23 was constitutional, because it addressed the manner of carry and not specifically the right to carry. The Court recognized two manners of carry, visible and hidden. More importantly the Court ruled that if the State prohibits a manner of carry it must provide an alternate or yield to the amendment,the State can not eviscerate the rights given by Article I section 25. Although statute 23.33 allows the carry of a firearm on an ATV the State has not provided a means to do so. A person cannot carry the weapon hidden, as prohibited by statute 941.23 and the person cannot carry the firearm visible as prohibited by statute 167.31. The person has no reasonable way to avoid either condition. Each and every hunting season hunters are issued citations for violation of the vehicle carry statute while transporting a firearm on an ATV, yet if they do comply they subject themselves to the more serious crime of carrying a concealed weapon.



    With the 1998 addition of Article I section 25 to Wisconsin’s constitution there is no question that either statute 941.23 or 167.31, or perhaps both, are unconstitutional. If a decision has to be made as to which statute is unconstitutional my opinion is that 167.31 should be declared so and rescinded.



    It is my understanding the intent of s167.31(2)(b) is to restrict the illegal shooting of game animals from in or on a vehicle. It is not needed for that purpose.



    Companion statute 167.31(2)(c) reads: "No person may load or discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or from a vehicle".



    In addition statute167.31(2)(d) reads: "No person may discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or a crossbow from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway".



    Both of those statutes provide the necessary restrictions needed to discourage illegal taking of game animals from in or on a vehicle. Statute167.31(2)(b) serves no purpose other than being an infringement of Article I section 25 which reads: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.




  2. #2
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    I cut and pasted your letter to a word document. I will take a lood at it during my ride to Milwaukee friday. I will tweek it a little to fit my communication style.

    What I want is 167.31 to be ammended to excclude a properly holstered handgun by anyone who can legally own a gun. Other than that, keep 167.31 fully intact.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Brokensproket:

    167.31 already allows the carry of a "properly holstered handgun".

    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.

    What kind of case can be more expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm than a holster. As long as the holster is a type that completely conceals the handgun it is a lawful encasement.

    In other words you would like to see no changes made to 167.31?

  4. #4
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Post imported post

    Reads fine, except I take issue with the first sentence "I am not one of your constituents but I hope you will give me the honor of reading this document."

    That should say "I am a tax payer and you will read the following or I will vote you out of office."


  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:

    What kind of case can be more expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm than a holster. As long as the holster is a type that completely conceals the handgun it is a lawful encasement.

    In other words you would like to see no changes made to 167.31?
    Even military holsters with the fold-over snap cover do not "completely conceal the handgun" as the butt is still visible.

    And are you forgetting the part about the encased, unloaded weapon being out of reach?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    anmut wrote:
    Reads fine, except I take issue with the first sentence "I am not one of your constituents but I hope you will give me the honor of reading this document."

    That should say "I am a tax payer and you will read the following or I will vote you out of office."
    Ahhhh, heck, QFT

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constituent

    Noun

    [ ... ]

    2. a resident of a place represented by an elected official

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Sparticus:

    I made no endorsement of any type of holster. I merely listed the qualifications a holster must meet to be a lawful concealment in or on a vehicle. I use a flap type holster on which I sewed a piece of leather over the hole that typically does not conceal the butt of the weapon. It is a lawful encasement by definition.

    I also made no reference that if a firearm was in such a concealment that it was excluded from the "out of reach" restriction, it is not.

  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Brokensproket:

    167.31 already allows the carry of a "properly holstered handgun".


    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.

    What kind of case can be more expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm than a holster. As long as the holster is a type that completely conceals the handgun it is a lawful encasement.

    In other words you would like to see no changes made to 167.31?
    I have not seen a hoster yet that leaves no part of the firearm exposed.



  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Like this for my gorgeous Luger?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Ahh, like this.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Ahh, like this.
    Ah the 70's era p.08, what caliber?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    9 mm I believe the only caliber in which this run was made.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    I want one of these

    The Mauser C96 (Construktion 96) is a semi-automatic pistol that was originally produced by German arms manufacturer Mauser from 1896 to 1937 Unlicensed copies of the gun were also manufactured in Spain and China in the first half of the 20th century.
    The main distinctive identifying characteristics of the C96 are the integral box magazine in front of the trigger, the long barrel, the wooden shoulder stock which can double as a holster or carrying case, and a grip shaped like the end of a broom's handle. The gun's distinctive appearance earned it the nickname "Broomhandle" in the English-speaking world (from the shape of its grip), and in China, the C96 was nicknamed the "box cannon" (Chinese: 盒*炮;pinyin: hézip*o) because of both its square-shaped internal magazine and the fact it could be holstered in its wooden box-like detachable stock.
    The Mauser C96, with its shoulder stock, long barrel and high-velocity cartridge, had superior range and better penetration than most other standard pistols; the 7.63x25mm Mauser cartridge was the highest velocity commercially manufactured pistol cartridge in existence until the advent of the .357 Magnum cartridge in 1935.
    Approximately 1 million C96 pistols were manufactured by Mauser alone, with the number produced in Spain and China being large but unknown due to the loss, non-existence, or poor upkeep of production records from those
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    9 mm I believe the only caliber in which this run was made.
    They came in the 7.65x22 (.30 cal)aswell, and I hear a rumor that they Manufactured a few in .45 too (wouldn't mind gettin my mitts on one of those ).U having any feed problems with Commercial Ammo?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    9 mm I believe the only caliber in which this run was made.
    They came in the 7.65x22 (.30 cal)aswell, and I hear a rumor that they Manufactured a few in .45 too (wouldn't mind gettin my mitts on one of those ).U having any feed problems with Commercial Ammo?
    Not the Interarms run.

    Yes, P-08 was made in '.30 Luger caliber' (7.65x22) and 9 mm and not a half dozen in 0.45, but this run was only about 1500 in 9 mm.

    The .45 were custom made as test subjects for the US Army's consideration. If I recall correctly, the most recent of those to reach the market asked about a million dollars.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    I want one of these

    The Mauser C96 (Construktion 96) is a semi-automatic pistol that was originally produced by German arms manufacturer Mauser from 1896 to 1937 Unlicensed copies of the gun were also manufactured in Spain and China in the first half of the 20th century.
    The main distinctive identifying characteristics of the C96 are the integral box magazine in front of the trigger, the long barrel, the wooden shoulder stock which can double as a holster or carrying case, and a grip shaped like the end of a broom's handle. The gun's distinctive appearance earned it the nickname "Broomhandle" in the English-speaking world (from the shape of its grip), and in China, the C96 was nicknamed the "box cannon" (Chinese: 盒*炮;pinyin: hézip*o) because of both its square-shaped internal magazine and the fact it could be holstered in its wooden box-like detachable stock.
    The Mauser C96, with its shoulder stock, long barrel and high-velocity cartridge, had superior range and better penetration than most other standard pistols; the 7.63x25mm Mauser cartridge was the highest velocity commercially manufactured pistol cartridge in existence until the advent of the .357 Magnum cartridge in 1935.
    Approximately 1 million C96 pistols were manufactured by Mauser alone, with the number produced in Spain and China being large but unknown due to the loss, non-existence, or poor upkeep of production records from those
    Does Han know you took the heat shield off his Blaster?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Landose_theghost wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    9 mm I believe the only caliber in which this run was made.
    They came in the 7.65x22 (.30 cal)aswell, and I hear a rumor that they Manufactured a few in .45 too (wouldn't mind gettin my mitts on one of those ).U having any feed problems with Commercial Ammo?
    Not the Interarms run. Yes, P-08 was made in '.30 Luger caliber' (7.65x22) and 9 mm and not a half dozen in 0.45, but this run was only about 1500 in 9 mm.
    The man knows his Lugers. All said and done tho, how much did she set you back?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    I want one of these

    The Mauser C96 (Construktion 96) is a semi-automatic pistol that was originally produced by German arms manufacturer Mauser from 1896 to 1937 Unlicensed copies of the gun were also manufactured in Spain and China in the first half of the 20th century.
    The main distinctive identifying characteristics of the C96 are the integral box magazine in front of the trigger, the long barrel, the wooden shoulder stock which can double as a holster or carrying case, and a grip shaped like the end of a broom's handle. The gun's distinctive appearance earned it the nickname "Broomhandle" in the English-speaking world (from the shape of its grip), and in China, the C96 was nicknamed the "box cannon" (Chinese: 盒*炮;pinyin: hézip*o) because of both its square-shaped internal magazine and the fact it could be holstered in its wooden box-like detachable stock.
    The Mauser C96, with its shoulder stock, long barrel and high-velocity cartridge, had superior range and better penetration than most other standard pistols; the 7.63x25mm Mauser cartridge was the highest velocity commercially manufactured pistol cartridge in existence until the advent of the .357 Magnum cartridge in 1935.
    Approximately 1 million C96 pistols were manufactured by Mauser alone, with the number produced in Spain and China being large but unknown due to the loss, non-existence, or poor upkeep of production records from those
    Does Han know you took the heat shield off his Blaster?
    Thats it,...I am buying one next year. they are all over gunbroker for $3000.00 I already spent my gun budget for this year. Then have El Paso Saddlery make me a custom Leather Holster for it...
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    RE: Glock34-

    $3000:what:I could build 3 Bada$$ AR's with that kinda scratch! Altho, considering the rarity of that gun, one would think that's a fair price.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    All said and done tho, how much did she set you back?
    I'd have to look at the receipt but I think about $600 in the early Seventies - and mucho grief from Luger-philes for having made it a shooter. NIB is three or four times that I think.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    RE: Glock34-

    $3000:what:I could build 3 Bada$$ AR's with that kinda scratch! Altho, considering the rarity of that gun, one would think that's a fair price.
    Like a 6.8mm AR?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    Landose_theghost wrote:
    RE: Glock34-

    $3000:what:I could build 3 Bada$$ AR's with that kinda scratch! Altho, considering the rarity of that gun, one would think that's a fair price.
    Like a 6.8mm AR?
    No, in a 5.56/.223, I never was a big fan of the 6.8mm, But I do think they have a kit that uses the FNS2000 type Mags in the 6.8mm, but like I said, I'm just not a fan.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    protias wrote:
    Landose_theghost wrote:
    RE: Glock34-

    $3000:what:I could build 3 Bada$$ AR's with that kinda scratch! Altho, considering the rarity of that gun, one would think that's a fair price.
    Like a 6.8mm AR?
    No, in a 5.56/.223, I never was a big fan of the 6.8mm, But I do think they have a kit that uses the FNS2000 type Mags in the 6.8mm, but like I said, I'm just not a fan.
    Everyone has their preferences.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    Landose_theghost wrote:
    protias wrote:
    Landose_theghost wrote:
    RE: Glock34-

    $3000:what:I could build 3 Bada$$ AR's with that kinda scratch! Altho, considering the rarity of that gun, one would think that's a fair price.
    Like a 6.8mm AR?
    No, in a 5.56/.223, I never was a big fan of the 6.8mm, But I do think they have a kit that uses the FNS2000 type Mags in the 6.8mm, but like I said, I'm just not a fan.
    Everyone has their preferences.
    Indeed, but I will meet you at the fact that the 6.8mm does have more stopping power than the 5.56 anyday of the week.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Wish you hadn't shown me that Doug. I've been salivating over a Luger for years. Unfortunately my wife has said 43 guns is enough. So I'll just look at the picture with lust.

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
  •