Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: would this or a variation of this be legal here???

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    unloaded, secured in a case and in this case it would be locked, so i think with a possible variation this would be legal. just for the time being, PLEASE lets not get into a "in reach/out of reach" debate.



    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/arkan...e-holster.html


    what are your thoughts??? just curious, because i'm still trying to find a means of taking my gun with me when on the bike, but i don't like leaving it in my saddle bags because i can't lock them.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    scorpio_vette wrote:
    unloaded, secured in a case and in this case it would be locked, so i think with a possible variation this would be legal.
    scorpio_vette wrote:
    would this or a variation of this be legal here?
    So what is your question that you don't want to be a question of an element of the law?

    To be clear (for the newbies), here is the law;

    § 941.23 Carrying concealed weapon.

    Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
    weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding §939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission warden.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
    [ ... ][means I deleted a paragraph]
    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).
    [ ... ]
    § 941.235 Carrying firearm in public building.

    BUT, PLEASE, DO NOT DEBATE THE IN REACH/OUT OF REACH ISSUE, THIS IS S_V's THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    The Firearm needs to be completely enclosed to have in or on a motorcycle. Center of Mass and Cabelas sell a lock box with a metal tether to secure it to the motorcycle frame and slip the box in the saddlebags, otherwise I'm sure it could be constructed to be within the terms of encased, but that will cost you way more money considering you already have saddlebags.

    http://www.center-of-mass.com/Store_InCarGunSafe.htm

    On Sale at Cabelas $20.00
    [http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...0045006&navCo]

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    if you put that gun in a cheap 2$ gun sock and put it in the holster/bag then yes it would be legal. It seems all you are missing is completely encased. Go out and get apistol sock that completely encloses it and your good!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    What debate? Firearms dont have to be out of reach.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    To try and address the picture:

    It looks like this just comes down and over. So upon close inspection, it MIGHT be possible to see a small portion of the firearm when looking directly at the firearm from the front or rear of the machine. If any part of the firearm can be seen without "unlocking" it, then my personal opinion is it wouldn't meet the "completely encased.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    i wouldn't do it unless i had hard lockable saddlebags, but it does look most gnarly though. maybe someday, when we get more rights kinda carry.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Even if it were completely enclosed, it would be uncased and on or in the vehicle for a while every time you took it out of of placed it into the case. So; no go IMHO, unfortunately.

    I had thought about a variation of this for my truck bed, with lockable containers so that I could easily grab my rifles during the season but I ran into the same problem. Even if they were in lockable containers I'd have to have them inside of another case also so that they weren't in or on the vehicle when I took them out of or put them into the case.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    scorpio_vette wrote:
    unloaded, secured in a case and in this case it would be locked, so i think with a possible variation this would be legal.
    scorpio_vette wrote:
    would this or a variation of this be legal here?
    So what is your question that you don't want to be a question of an element of the law?

    To be clear (for the newbies), here is the law;

    § 941.23 Carrying concealed weapon.

    Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
    weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding §939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission warden.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
    [ ...][means I deleted a paragraph]
    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).

    [ ...]





    If you were pulled because of this 'rig', there is ZERO claim of concealed.


    IANAL blah blah blah....

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Even if it were completely enclosed, it would be uncased and on or in the vehicle for a while every time you took it out of of placed it into the case. So; no go IMHO, unfortunately.
    Very true. WI SS 167.31(2)(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.
    It does look very cool. If we could only getrid ofthe transportation clause in this state...
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    Appears to me to be a reasonable technical interpretation of statutes. bnhcomputibg mentioned the "completely encased" requirement. It seems to me that can be resolved by sewing two small leather flaps to the case so that when the large flap is folded down to secure the weapon any "gaps" will be covered. Close scrutiny of the url posted by S-V gives me the impression that when properly secured the weapon is just as secure as if in a console or saddle bag. There is no type of containment that will dissuade a determined criminal. The only question here should be one of legality. My opinion is that by literal interpretation of statutes this type of arrangement would be OK.

    My opinion, and do not take this as legal advice, is that If one is concerned with the inter-play between 167.31 and 941.23 it is better to err towards 167.31. The penalty for violation of 167.31 is a fine of not more than $100 and is not a criminal charge. Adding the 75% firearm surcharge and court costs brings the maximum penalty to about $200, less than many traffic citations. It is interesting that the fear of getting a speeding ticket injects not nearly the same amount of fear in us as being caught with anincorrectly encased firearm.

    On the other hand a violation of the concealed weapon statute brings with it a criminal charge, up to $10,000 fine and/or 90 days in jail.

    Just some thoughts.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Captain Nemo wrote:
    My opinion, and do not take this as legal advice, is that If one is concerned with the inter-play between 167.31 and 941.23 it is better to err towards 167.31. Just some thoughts.
    Well said.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I like this one better

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    scorpio_vette wrote:
    unloaded, secured in a case and in this case it would be locked, so i think with a possible variation this would be legal.
    scorpio_vette wrote:
    would this or a variation of this be legal here?
    So what is your question that you don't want to be a question of an element of the law?

    To be clear (for the newbies), here is the law;

    § 941.23 Carrying concealed weapon.

    Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
    weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding §939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission warden.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
    [ ...][means I deleted a paragraph]
    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).
    [ ...]
    § 941.235 Carrying firearm in public building.

    BUT, PLEASE, DO NOT DEBATE THE IN REACH/OUT OF REACH ISSUE, THIS IS S_V's THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Well the statute clearly reads,

    "Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
    weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

    This weapon would not be concealed.

    However I would suggest they will get you on 167.31(2)(b)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.


    I am not a bow hunter and have never thought or run into this before about having to encase or unstring bows. Is this common in other states that bows are treated as guns? How about toy bows, is there and exception? As far as I know in SC you can walk down main street with a bow but I have never checked into it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    yeah this thing, or a variation of it has me kinda puzzled.

    it could be easily modified to "encase" the firearm, which is a requirement for vehicle transport.

    in my opinion this wouldn't be any different than putting it in cases the way we do now. you would unload, insert, lock and close it, and it would be encase.


    plus for a motorcycle it would be great, because if you have to enter an establishment that does not allow firearms, then it would be securely locked. i have looked at various lock boxes with cables etc..etc.. but the end result is always that you are taking up storage in your saddle bags. this way i could transport it and not waste storage.


    i think it would be worth looking into. kinda curious how much it cost. still trying to find a source for this since the link to their website doesn't seem to work.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    scorpio_vette wrote:
    in my opinion this wouldn't be any different than putting it in cases the way we do now. you would unload, insert, lock and close it, and it would be encase.
    The only real difference is that once you insert the firearm it is a technical violation of 167.31 until it is completely encased, the same would be true during removal. There are ways to prevent that like using a gun sock before holstering but I have a feeling that isn't going to make you happy. Since a violation of 167.31 is not a criminal offense and will only cost you time and money do what you will. That said if we lived in Arizona we could ride year round.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •