WI senate to consider uncased gun bill tuesday

imported post

when i heard the rumor of this law change, i was excitied, but then when i saw it was merely a 'dnr bill', my hopes diminished. after reading, mulling it over, and sleeping on it, i a awoke to the conclusion, at least for me, that even if it vaguely allowed holster in the trunk, or a variant of that, it would still be washed out by the school zone thing- as was pointed out on here. and since these days many in the official capacity don't seem to get the memos, i would risk being dragged off, only to have the matter dropped later, so sticking with encased is still my most conservative, and realistic option. it's unfortunate that the legislature would consider the needs of hunters, and the dnr, but still continue to ignore the needs of the open carrier.

imported post

The Gun Free School Zone, Vehicle Carry and Concealed carry Statutes all have to be addressed at the same time, they are all intertwined, but that won't happen. Just asconstucting a building the problem will get fixed one brick at a time. We have to take every little crumb we can get. As long as we have a state supreme court that insists on making law instead of interpreting law this will be a long fight. Meanwhile during the past two years there has been a lot of positive movement in the right direction. We have to keep making noise to keep the momentum going. Write an email to Senator Decker. Thank him for re-introducing the Bill. Point out your concerns that the Bill only addresses the Natural Resources issues involved with vehicle carry and not the self protection issues. Point out to him that it is the state court system that has made vehicle carry of firearms a multi-faceted crcumstance by interjecting public safety concerns into a statute that is intended to be a game management resource for the DNR. Tell him that the problem can only be fixed if the legislature addresses both issues in the final Bill.

SB-222 is not in final form. It is entering the Senate floor for debate. There is still time to attempt to change the draft. Don't waste time babbling about it on the forum. Send your words and energies to where it will do most good, but do it know. By all means be curteous and don' piss anyone off.

imported post

Following is a letter I sent to Senator Decker and my legislative representative. All comments are my opinion.

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

Senator Decker:



I send this letter to applaud you and thank you for re-introducing Bill SB-222 to the Senate. Your concern for the interests of the Wisconsin hunters is uncontested.



I have read the Bill as drafted and would like to share with you an issue that concerns me. That is the restriction that a firearm transported in or on a vehicle would be allowed to be uncased and unloaded providing the vehicle is stationary. I suspect that restriction is in the Bill with the intent to minimize the pursuit and shooting of wildlife from certain “off-road” vehicles. I share that concern. However, I think the restriction can be voiced in different words, i.e. Firearms transported on vehicles off public roadways must be unloaded and encased unless the vehicle is stationary.



Statute 167.31 was drafted in 1985 as part of Senate Bill 88. On October 4, 1985 it was enacted into law as part of Act 36. It was attached as part of a Bill to change the collection of forfeitures of Natural Resources infractions as contained in Statutes 23.50 through 23.85. When reading Act 36 there is no question that the legislative intent of the Act was to facilitate the Department of Natural Resources game management practices. Unfortunately through our court system that has changed. Through cases like State v. Mularkey, State v. Asfoor, State v. Fry, State v, Walls, State v. Vegas and State v. Fisher the state court system has intertwined statute 167.31 with the concealed weapon prohibition statute 941.23. It has done so to the point that the court system now sees 167.31 as a public safety issue and not as a Natural Resources game management tool. In fact it implies that the original legislative intent of 167.31 was one of public safety. The State Supreme Court says as much in paragraph 34 of State v. Fisher. Therefore, whenever changes to 167.31 are considered the mind set of the court system must be of concern. Also adding to that concern is Article I section 25 as added to the state constitution in 1998. It grants the people the right to keep and bear arms for hunting as well as security, defense, recreation or for any lawful purpose. Those rights prevail in all venues except those specifically restricted by legacy law. Increasingly, those laws and our right to keep and bear arms are coming into conflict. Statute 167.31 is one of those laws that conflicts with our right to keep and bear arms to the point that there is no practical way for us to provide for our personal defense while in or on a vehicle. The removal of the encasement requirement from statute 167.31 goes part way to relieving the conflict with Article I section 25 but the requirement that the vehicle must be stationary nullifies any value to our personal defense while in or on a vehicle.



I share the concern that we must protect our game animal resources by assuring that they are not harassed and shot at from moving vehicles. As I said at the beginning of this message I think that can be accomplished with different words than those contained in the present draft of SB-222. Requiring that firearms transported on vehicles while used off public roadways must be unloaded and encased would protect our wildlife while at the same time not impede our right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. The state court system has changed the judicial intent of 167.31 so that it is no longer exclusively a game management statute but is now a public safety statute and that requires both issues be considered in the final draft of SB-222.

imported post

I don't know if it's been posted elsewhere on the forum, but reportedly this bill applies only to firearms with an overall length of 26 inches or more, i.e., the minimum length for a rifle or shotgun (without paying the special tax.)

So unless you plan to OC your long guns, don't get too excited.

It passed in the state Senate, and is moving to the Assembly now.

imported post

So if I'm understanding this correctly, if this bill passes, we would be able to have a shotgun or rifle in the car uncased, and a sidearm if we pay a special tax? Then to have the firearms in the vehicle while driving they have to be unloaded, however, if the vehicle is parked then you man load the firearm while in the vehicle? Am I understanding this correctly?

imported post

XDm-40_guy wrote:

So if I'm understanding this correctly, if this bill passes, we would be able to have a shotgun or rifle in the car uncased, and a sidearm if we pay a special tax? Then to have the firearms in the vehicle while driving they have to be unloaded, however, if the vehicle is parked then you man load the firearm while in the vehicle? Am I understanding this correctly?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't apply to sidearms in any way (unless you've got one hell of a Buntline in your holster.)

By "special tax" I was referring to a short-barreled rifle or shotgun.

My understanding is that loaded firearms are still not allowed in vehicles under this bill. It is designed to facilitate the transport of LONG GUNS with the needs of hunters in mind. One legislator used the example of a hunting party meeting up at one vehicle and transporting one of their party to or from another vehicle parked a distance away.

imported post

Ok got ya on the special tax. Haha I wouldn't put it past the state to do something like that though.

Well that sucks then. In a way doesn't quite make sense to me (if it passes that is) that they wouldn't include hand guns, because the reason i was told the state has the law that firearms and bows have to be in a case and unloaded out of reach is a DNR thing, that they don't want people poaching. Well if that was the reason for the law originally, and they change it to allow shotguns and rifles, then why not side arms too?

I deer hunt so if passed it'll be more convenient, but I and many other people carry a sidearm as well when hunting (bow and gun season) so now when we get to our vehicles and take our deer in to register, or whatever else, we can throw the shotgun in the back seat but we'll have to still encase the side arm? Doesn't make sense to me, but like i stated; at least it's some sort of a step forward which is always better than a step back.

imported post

XDm-40_guy wrote: at least it's some sort of a step forward which is always better than a step back.

:exclaim:

imported post

so yesterday was tuesday. what did they decide???

imported post

[font="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"]RHINELANDER - The Wisconsin State Senate passes a bill Tuesday that would allow hunters to carry uncased firearms.

The bill, which is backed by Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, would make it legal to carry an uncased, unloaded gun 26 inches long or longer in your car.

It would also make it legal to carry an unloaded bow or crossbow outside of a case.

From NRA ILA
[/font]

imported post

oak1971 wrote:

[font="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"]RHINELANDER - The Wisconsin State Senate passes a bill Tuesday that would allow hunters to carry uncased firearms.

The bill, which is backed by Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, would make it legal to carry an uncased, unloaded gun 26 inches long or longer in your car.

It would also make it legal to carry an unloaded bow or crossbow outside of a case.

From NRA ILA
[/font]

Click to expand...

it keeps saying "would" like it's still being talked about.

did they make a decision or not???

and why is it only hunters???

imported post

WTF???
http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/02/21/bill_would_allow_unc.php

Bonavia added her group changed its position from being against the bill to neutral after several amendments were added that focus the bill more specifically on hunting.

The new amendments now stipulate that someone needs to have a legal permit to own the firearm, the transportation of the weapon must occur during open hunting season and the transporter must have the appropriate hunting license.

The amendments also define what times of day transportation is allowed and where in the vehicle the weapon must be placed.

“…After the amendments to the bill, it seems as if there is a good balance between public safety and convenience,” Bonavia said. “We recognize that this bill is mostly for the added convenience of hunters, but we do also note the recognition for public safety also.”

Nass added Wisconsin is overall very far behind in its relaxing of gun control laws.

Click to expand...

"specifically for hunting???"
"someone needs to have a legal permit to own the firearm???"
"what time of day transportation is allowed???"



should i go in for a drug test and maybe check myself in for rehab??? cuz there is no way this can be real.

imported post

We have two legislative bodies, Senate and Assembly. Has to pass both and then be signed by the Governor.

imported post

ok SB 222 is on way to the Assembly. Write your represenatives and ask if there is anything related to registration of a firearm. if the SB222 passed as was wrote then that anti gun hosebagger woman has no idea. as i have always said, this fight will never be over evenafter OCOD and or CCW are permitted so we have to keep our eye on the target.

Write your represenatives you

Write your represenatives wife

Write your represenatives friends



etc etc

imported post

oak1971 wrote:

[font="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"]RHINELANDER - The Wisconsin State Senate passes a bill Tuesday that would allow hunters to carry uncased firearms.

The bill, which is backed by Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, would make it legal to carry an uncased, unloaded gun 26 inches long or longer in your car.

It would also make it legal to carry an unloaded bow or crossbow outside of a case.

From NRA ILA
[/font]

Click to expand...

Might not be a bad time to contact the NRA and ask them these questions as well.

imported post

No doubt in my mind Choo Choo Doyle would sign this in a heartbeat. I hope the dang thing gets shelved.:X

imported post

Old Jeri and the hundreds of 1,000$ she has gotten in out of state money from the elitist JoyceFoundation once again have more influence in the legislature thanWisconsin's gun owning citizens.

Guess we will have to push aself-defense in vehicle bill next year after Governor Walker is sworn in and the Repubshave taken over the legislature, being as the Dems (with a few exceptions)are unwilling to help us.

imported post

while it doesn't seem to do much for open carry as it pertains to self defence , it sure would be nice to not have to unload and case every time i got in the truck hunting, but it leaves out pistol hunters while carefully covering bow hunters hunting with a pistol is a legal method of hunting in this state that is not being addressed.

you may use a pistol having a lenth from firing pin to muzzle of 5 1/2 inches or greater

but i still am not sure that it properly clarifies that i would be able to unload then sit on the tailgate of the truckholding my shotgun or rifle while we move from drive to drive

please explain that pistol hunting is a legal legitimate form of hunting deer in this state to your rep when you write them

imported post

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB222-SSA2.pdf

Absolutely nothing in there about firearm registration.... this is the version just passed by the Senate. It looks like more poor journalism...

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB222-SSA2.pdf

Absolutely nothing in there about firearm registration.... this is the version just passed by the Senate. It looks like more poor journalism...

Click to expand...

I think what they were "trying to say" is that the person must be able to legally possess a firearm.

This bill suffers a fate similar to the last concealed weapons bill: So many stipulations and limitations added into the original proposal that it becomes an absolute mess. As it stands now, this bill would have application to a very small percentage of people, even among just hunters.

The odds that a gun bill is going to be very good when it receives the support or has been given a neutral stance by WAVE are approximately zero.

The next time a CCW bill comes up in Wisconsin we absolutely cannot allow similar bastardization to happen again. We must anticipate the same Shenanigans as the last time and be prepared to destroy every argument presented in their support.