WI senate to consider uncased gun bill tuesday

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Parabellum wrote:

not requiring the weapon to be concealed while one transports it?

Click to expand...

Not concealed but out of reach is thin salve.

Click to expand...

What is in this bill that leads you to believe that a firearm needs to be out of reach?

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).

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Not concealed but out of reach is thin salve.

Click to expand...

What is in this bill that leads you to believe that a firearm needs to be out of reach?

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Read it again... "Any of the following" is the key phrase....

This means that you may drive with a firearm not encased, but the vehicle must be stationary if the bow or crossbow is not encased or unstrung.

[align=left]167.31

Click to expand...

(2) (b) (intro.) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place,[/align]

Click to expand...

[align=left]possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the any[/align]

Click to expand...

[align=left]of the following applies:[/align]

Click to expand...

1. If the person has a firearm, the firearm is unloaded

Click to expand...

[align=left]2. If the person has a bow or crossbow, the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is[/align]
enclosed in a carrying case.

Click to expand...

3. The vehicle is stationary.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Not concealed but out of reach is thin salve.

Click to expand...

What is in this bill that leads you to believe that a firearm needs to be out of reach?

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

an unloaded weopon is about as dangerous as a large rock. I always carry my unloaded pistol within reach in a vehicle. its not dangerous if its unloaded. I'll take my chances

imported post

it still seem rather vague; so are they moving toward the bit like illinois has; center console, and govebox? i didn't see anything about loaded or unloaded- while in transport. and from what i can gather they're talking uncased, and that's pretty much it. so what? they're going for the gun rack in the rear window thing? or uncased, but still out of reach; so it's sliding around in the trunk uncased, or bouncing around uncased behind the seat of a pickup truck? doesn't that bridge into the area of concealed then?

imported post

Here's the language of the bill (the part that is of interest to us):

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-222.pdf


Crossed out words are word currently in the law that are being struck out, and underlined things are what being added. Basically you no longer need to put your gun in a case. It still cannot be loaded.

imported post

The link is on page one of this thread to the four page SB-222.

Line 3 - 4 of the intent is "...and to create 29.324 (2m) and 167.31 (2) (b) 3. of the statutes..."

The Legislative Reference Bureau's analysis, in mundane part;

This bill also expands the exceptions to general restrictions on possessing or transporting a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle. Under current law, with certain exceptions, no person may place, possess, or transport (place) a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle unless: 1) for a firearm, the firearm is unloaded and completely enclosed in a case that is made for the purpose of containing a firearm; or 2) for a bow or crossbow, the bow or crossbow is either unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case. This bill eliminates the requirement that an unloaded firearm placed in a vehicle be in a case. The bill also provides that the prohibitions against the placement of a firearm, bow, or crossbow in a vehicle do not apply if the vehicle is stationary.

Click to expand...

Yellow font is struck out. Bold font is added. Normal light font is unchanged

Page 3, Lines 17 - 25

SECTION 7. 167.31 (2) (b) of the statutes is renumbered 167.31 (2) (b) (intro.) and amended to read:

167.31 (2) (b) (intro.) 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 any
of the following applies:
1. If the person has a firearm, the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless
the.
2. If the person has a bow or crossbow, the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is
enclosed in a carrying case.

Page 4, Lines 1 - 2

SECTION 8. 167.31 (2) (b) 3. of the statutes is created to read:
167.31 (2) (b)
3. The vehicle is stationary.

There is no change to and the bill has no effect on 941.23.

imported post

so there is no discussion in the law changes of within reach, and still no discussion of center console, or glove box? this seems kinda lame, i pay these guys to work on bills like this?! i just don't see any real value to it, aside from the bow hunting crowd, and if your stopped in a forest somewhere preparing to hunt. on this occassion i shall use the club into wall head guy:banghead:

imported post

maybe if i tie a deer carcass to the hood of my car? nah, that still won't work.

imported post

I never got the "out of reach" thing. From my research that has everything to do with crossing state lines AND it's a part of the concealed carry prohibition, but nothing to do with transport. If a cased handgun is on my front seat, unloaded next to me. Not out of sight, therefore legal. This change in law says to me, I can have it in plain sight, unloaded. In a holster is good to be open walking in wal mart, I wouldn't bet my freedome on it, but I'd bet it will also apply to sitting in my chevy.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

imported post

i've read this 16 times now. the only thing we get out of this that i can see, is i can mount a holster, behind the seat of my pickup, or in the trunk of my car, still out of reach in both circumstances, for my firearm to reside in, and carry the mag. where i choose. well, it will speed up the holster up sequence for open carry. everyone concurr?

imported post

You and we get bupkus.

Senators DECKER, HOLPERIN, HANSEN, HOPPER and TAYLOR, Representatives JORGENSEN, PETROWSKI, SPANBAUER and ZIGMUNT get free NRA knobbers.

imported post

doug, would mounting a holster behind the seat of my pickup truck still fall into a violation of element 3 in the definitions; weapon is hidden? in your non-binding opinion?

imported post

Statute 167.31 Was numbered SB88 and was enacted into state statutes on Oct. 4, 1985 as Act 36. The Act was not drafted specifically to incorporate 167.31 into state law but to address and modify statutes 23.50 through 23.85 as they related to recovery of forfietures for Natural Resources infractions. 167.31 was added as an infraction to be included.

The text of Act 36 can be read at


[align=left][url]http://www.legis.state.wi.us/acts89-93/85Act36.pdf[/url][/align]
What is important to note is that there is no question that the intent of the legislature was to draft 167.31 as a Natural Resources law. In reading the first issue of the statute it is without question that it's intent was to restrict the taking of game animals from in or on a vehicle, from on a roadway and from within 50 feet from the center of a roadway. There is no hint in the statute that the legislative intent was to protect the public welfare. Numerous communications I have had with the DNR legal department since 2006 strongly suggest that the DNR still considers 167.31 to be a game management statute. It is the historic anti-gun sentiment of the state court system that has decided to play legislature and make law by expanding the reach of the statute beyond the legislative intent. Case in point: State v Fisher.


[align=left]¶31 The carrying of loaded weapons in a motor vehicle also[/align]

[align=left]presents an additional risk of accident. Cole, 264 Wis. 2d 520,[/align]

[align=left]¶49. The court in Cole recognized this risk as a consideration[/align]

[align=left]when analyzing Cole's as-applied challenge to the[/align]

[align=left]constitutionality of the concealed carry statute in the vehicle[/align]

[align=left]context. Id. The legislature has recognized a similar safety[/align]

[align=left]concern by generally prohibiting the transport of any firearm in[/align]

[align=left]a vehicle unless it is unloaded and encased. Wis. Stat.[/align]

[align=left]§ 167.31(2)(b).4 emphasis mine[/align]

[align=left]4 Wisconsin Stat. § 167.31(2)(b) provides that, subject to[/align]

[align=left]various exceptions, "no person may place, possess, or transport[/align]

[align=left]a firearm . . . in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is[/align]

[align=left]unloaded and encased . . . ." Under § 167.31(1)(b), "encased"[/align]

[align=left]means "enclosed in a case that is expressly made for the purpose[/align]

[align=left]of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped,[/align]

[align=left]buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm[/align]

[align=left]exposed." A person who violates § 167.31(2)(b) is subject to a[/align]
forfeiture of up to $100 under § 167.31(2)(e).

Public safety was not the legislative intent of 167.31 as initially enacted.

Similarily the courts have convoluted the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23. In 1872 when 941.23 was enacted the legislative intent was torestrict the carry of concealed weapons on a person's body. The carry of a concealed weapon in 1872 was considered a cowardly and unethical act. It is the court sytem that again played lawmaker and extended the law to not mean only on a person's body but to anywhere within reach.Eventially it extended it to include vehicles.

In Fisher and in State v Cole the State Supreme Court spends a lot of words addressing legislative intent. Apparently legislative intent applies to all others except the SSC. In 1972 the only vehicles that existed were horse drawn. How could the legislative intent have been to prevent concealment of weapons in automobiles?

The problems we have concerning carry of weapons are no so much caused by the statutes themselves as they are caused by faulty interpretations by a historical anti-gun judicial system.A systemthat spends too much time playing lawmaker than interpreting law, as is the extent of its authority. It is the courts that have said that the carry of firearms in vehicles is not unlawful as long as they are out of reach and not hidden from view. Ignoring that there are a number of vehicles in or on which it is impossible to carry a firearm out of reach.Then saying that if they are hidden from view in accord with 167.31 then it is OK that they are concealed. It is the courts that have screwed things up not the statutes themselves.

If the original legislative intent of statutes 941.23 and 167.31 were applied things would be much clearer. That is:

Only a peace officer can go armed with a weapon concealed on his/her body and whenever afirearm is transported in/or on a vehicle, for the express purpose of hunting, the firearm must be unloaded and encased. Of course Article I section 25has recently entered the fray.

There is no evidence that 941.23 was intended to apply to vehicles. There is no requirement in 167.31 that a firearm be carried out of reach. It is the courts that have decided to throw them in the same basket and confuse the issue.

Thethings I describe in this post are what will give the legislature fits on how to write SB-222.

All comments are my opinons and have no legal signifiance.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

The Act was not drafted specifically to incorporate 167.31 into state law but to address and modify statutes 23.50 through 23.85 as they related to recovery of forfietures for Natural Resources infractions. 167.31 was added as an infraction to be included.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't recall whence I have the understanding that Chapter 900 and higher numbers encompass the criminal statutes or, indeed, the significance. It seems that the state willingly conflates the criminal and non-criminal statutes.

McX, there are three opinions at play, mine, the cop's and the court's. I think yes and my anus stinks too.

imported post

I will point out that if you are driving in the city, and IN A SCHOOL zone, this law doesn't help you at all. It still has to be encased in a school zone if you are not on private property. Unless this law makes an exception (I have not read the full text of the bill but I haven't seen anything about it in a quick scan of this thread), it doesn't help city dwellers.

So you can't fix the vehicle transport law separately from the school zone law. They must be fixed together, or else people IN THE CITY won't gain anything by it.