• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
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.

holster_10.jpg


http://www.usacarry.com/forums/arkansas-discussion-firearm-news/2381-bike-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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Uziel Gal

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
93
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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/templates/pod/standard-pod-wrapped.jsp?id=0045006&navCo]
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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! :D
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
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.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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).

[ ...]
holster_10.jpg



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


IANAL blah blah blah....
 

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
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)
[align=left]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...
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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)
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

scorpio_vette

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
635
Location
nowhere
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.
 

Uziel Gal

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
93
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
Top