Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: WI senate to consider uncased gun bill tuesday

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Hey guys! haven't been signed on in a while, real busy working part time and going to school fulltime. Decker's bill looks like it will be up for debate on tuesday.

    http://host.madison.com/news/state-a...7d34d7530.html








    The state Senate is set to consider a bill next week that would allow people to transport uncased weapons.

    Current Wisconsin law, no one can transport a firearm unless it's unloaded and stored in a gun case. No one can transport a bow or a crossbow unless it's either unstrung or cased.

    The bill would eliminate the case requirement for firearms and eliminate all prohibitions on firearms, bows and crossbows in a vehicle if the vehicle is stationary.

    The Senate is set to take up the measure on Tuesday.

    The bill's main author, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, a Weston Democrat, introduced a similar measure in 2005. Republicans controlled the Senate then and the legislation never got to the floor for a vote.

  2. #2
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Post imported post

    Sounds like a start in the right direction. But it only states that they will be allowed if the vehicle is "stationary."

    Actually, sounds like a compromise to me.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319

    Post imported post

    anmut wrote:
    Sounds like a start in the right direction. But it only states that they will be allowed if the vehicle is "stationary."

    Actually, sounds like a compromise to me.
    I was going to say, if the vehicle is stationary, how is that transporting? I don't think it is illegal to be in your car with a loaded weapon. I am not 100% sure on that though.

    Edit: Yes, I am wrong.
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    anmut wrote:
    Sounds like a start in the right direction. But it only states that they will be allowed if the vehicle is "stationary."

    Actually, sounds like a compromise to me.
    I was going to say, if the vehicle is stationary, how is that transporting? I don't think it is illegal to be in your car with a loaded weapon. I am not 100% sure on that though.

    It currently is most illegal for you to be in or on your car with a loaded weapon. The current WI Statute requires your firearm to be unloaded and encased whether the vehicle is stationary or not.


    The proposed bill allows you to transport an unloaded firearm withoutit being "encased". The vehicle does not have to be stationary. A bow or crossbow must still be encased for transport.

    If the vehicle is stationary, the firearm, bow or crossbow does not have to be encased and it may be loaded.

    This is definitely a compromise, but a step in the right direction. If your loaded magazine is next to your handgun in the vehicle while you drive down the road, it is much better than encased in the trunk.My thought is that this change allows us to have a holster attached to a very visible location inside the vehicle so that the handgun is accessible.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    protias wrote:
    anmut wrote:
    Sounds like a start in the right direction. But it only states that they will be allowed if the vehicle is "stationary."

    Actually, sounds like a compromise to me.
    I was going to say, if the vehicle is stationary, how is that transporting? I don't think it is illegal to be in your car with a loaded weapon. I am not 100% sure on that though.
    It currently is most illegal for you to be in or on your car with a loaded weapon. The current WI Statute requires your firearm to be unloaded and encased whether the vehicle is stationary or not.

    Hmm, I thought I read somewhere it was okay if the car was stationary and the keys were not in the ignition, but I'll fully admit to being wrong.
    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)

  6. #6
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Post imported post

    If my memory back to hunters safety serves me correctly, you can't even lean a gun up against a vehicle, unloaded or not.

    It's a stupid law - one more gotchya fine they can hit you with if your caught poaching. Of course as we all know - people that break the laws are going to do so regardless of what's on the books. Laws only work for law abiding citizens, otherwise they're just another way to tax criminals.

  7. #7
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    Hmm, I thought I read somewhere it was okay if the car was stationary and the keys were not in the ignition, but I'll fully admit to being wrong.
    Maybe if you added "and parked inside your garage" you might be onto something, but otherwise, no.

    This bill is far from ideal, but at least an improvement over the current situation. It passed two committees with just one "no" vote. But who knows how it will do in a full Senate vote, in the Assembly, or on Doyle's desk if it gets there?




    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  8. #8
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    protias wrote:
    Hmm, I thought I read somewhere it was okay if the car was stationary and the keys were not in the ignition, but I'll fully admit to being wrong.

    No big deal. Here is the actual statute for your reference. It prohibits placing on and in, not just transporting.

    167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows.
    (2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS.
    (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.

    (4)
    EXCEPTIONS.

    (d) Subsection (2) (b) does not prohibit a person from leaning an unloaded firearm against a vehicle.


  9. #9
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    anmut wrote:
    If my memory back to hunters safety serves me correctly, you can't even lean a gun up against a vehicle, unloaded or not.
    Unloaded and leaning is A-OK...... See the Statute referenced above.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Maybe if you added "and parked inside your garage" you might be onto something, but otherwise, no.
    The vehicle can be parked inside of your living room and there is no current exception for it ...

  11. #11
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Post imported post

    Looks like I need a refresher! Good thing I'm signing my son up for hunters safety this year. I'll have to sit in on it with him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    anmut wrote:
    Looks like I need a refresher! Good thing I'm signing my son up for hunters safety this year. I'll have to sit in on it with him.
    Hunters' Safety Instructors do not always know the actual Statutes. It would be a good idea to bring a copy with you for any applicable discussions.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    It would be a good idea to bring a copy with you for any applicable discussions.
    Now that might make a point that Doyle will hear, if we all purchase our own copies of the statutes.

    "Jimmah! We gots a problem down heah. All dem redneck gunnies bees buyin' da law. Whadif dey larns and knows it?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Before we all get too excited maybe best to read the bill

    if my reading cognition is correct this bill ONLY APPLIES to hunters not carriers?

    if i am wrong i am wrong but this looks quite specific to me

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    Before we all get too excited maybe best to read the bill

    if my reading cognition is correct this bill ONLY APPLIES to hunters not carriers?

    if i am wrong i am wrong but this looks quite specific to me


    I have one of them Terrorist Huntin' Cards from the last gunshow... Does that count?

    Since Statute 167 does not currently apply exclusively to hunters, the proposed changes do not apply exclusively to hunters. If you read the text, you will see this to be the case. Do not confuse the proposed group hunting changes (Statutes section 29)with the "Safe Transportation" changes (Statutes section 167)...


    [quote]SECTION 4. 29.324 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.

    S
    ECTION 5. 29.324 (2m) of the statutes is created to read:

    S
    ECTION 6. 29.324 (3) of the statutes is amended to read:

    [/
    quote]

    [quote]


    S
    ECTION 7. 167.31 (2) (b) of the statutes is renumbered 167.31 (2) (b) (intro.)

    and amended to read:

    [quote]


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    "Any of the following applies" is an exclusive or, thus unloaded or not moving.

  17. #17
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    It would be a good idea to bring a copy with you for any applicable discussions.
    Now that might make a point that Doyle will hear, if we all purchase our own copies of the statutes.

    "Jimmah! We gots a problem down heah. All dem redneck gunnies bees buyin' da law. Whadif dey larns and knows it?"
    LOL - "Ifn dem nortwoods fellars ever get to da book-learn'n we'll be out ov er jobs!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Thank You hence the reason i am not a lawyer LOL!



    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    [quote]BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    Before we all get too excited maybe best to read the bill

    if my reading cognition is correct this bill ONLY APPLIES to hunters not carriers?

    if i am wrong i am wrong but this looks quite specific to me

    I have one of them Terrorist Huntin' Cards from the last gunshow... Does that count?

    Since Statute 167 does not currently apply exclusively to hunters, the proposed changes do not apply exclusively to hunters. If you read the text, you will see this to be the case. Do not confuse the proposed group hunting changes (Statutes section 29) [quote]SECTION 4. 29.324 (2) (a) of the statutes is repealed.

    S
    ECTION 5. 29.324 (2m) of the statutes is created to read:

    S
    ECTION 6. 29.324 (3) of the statutes is amended to read:

    [/
    quote]

    with the "Safe Transportation" changes (Statutes section 167)...[quote]


    S
    ECTION 7. 167.31 (2) (b) of the statutes is renumbered 167.31 (2) (b) (intro.)

    and amended to read:


  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Does anyone else get the feeling they are trying to correct the "concealed carry" conflict between the "transport" and "concealed weapons" statutes by not requiring the weapon to be concealed while one transports it?

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

    Post imported post

    Parabellum wrote:
    not requiring the weapon to be concealed while one transports it?
    Not concealed but out of reach is thin salve.

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Parabellum wrote:
    not requiring the weapon to be concealed while one transports it?
    Not concealed but out of reach is thin salve.
    What is in this bill that leads you to believe that a firearm needs to be out of reach?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Nothing.

    It is from a case law annotation to 941.23
    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. State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    Before we all get too excited maybe best to read the bill

    if my reading cognition is correct this bill ONLY APPLIES to hunters not carriers?

    if i am wrong i am wrong but this looks quite specific to me
    Gonna have to agree with Beretta on this one, while this probably isn't soley for hunters, it seems a non-issue for us OC'rs as this only applies to "stationary" vehicles.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  24. #24
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Parabellum wrote:
    not requiring the weapon to be concealed while one transports it?
    Not concealed but out of reach is thin salve.
    What is in this bill that leads you to believe that a firearm needs to be out of reach?
    Nothing.

    It is from an annotation, case law, at 941.23
    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. State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).
    But will it be hidden? Perhaps more importantly I think Keith, post Hamdan, is much less persuasive since the court has ruled that under some circumstances it is legal for a weapon to be concealed.

    I guess we'll have to wait and see. Obviously these bills are not as well-thought out as an actual gun carrier would wish to see.


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    Gonna have to agree with Beretta on this one, while this probably isn't soley for hunters, it seems a non-issue for us OC'rs as this only applies to "stationary" vehicles.
    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that was just one exception? The other being that the gun had to be unloaded. In other words if a person is transporting an unloaded un-encased firearm thats OK. If a person has a loaded firearm in a vehicle thats OK if the vehicle is stationary.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •