• 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.

Sheboygan County District Attorney Admits Wisconsin Carry "might have a point" with our GF

J.Gleason

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

Nutczak wrote:
The GFSZ should only be an enhancer to an accompanying crime, I hope that was the legislators original intent, but I doubt it.

I am guessing that our legislators are trying to aim these laws at the criminal element, but instead they keep disarming the law abiding.

I really hope the guy from Sheboygan falls gets properly compensated for the police departments dick-headedness in this situation.

Now this brings up another question, is a bicycle actually considered a vehicle for the case of "unloaded and encased" the way the S-F cops were acting you would think they would have cited him on that too.

Maybe becuase a bicycle is self powered they are ignoring it? or they are trying to save face on this.
The City of Racine did not site the gentleman who was attacked on his bicycle, while he was armed either. I am beginning to think the bicycle is a moot point as it is not a motor vehicle.
 

J.Gleason

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

Doug Huffman wrote:
I am a bicyclist of vast experience, more than 50,000 miles since 1994 (or our current stable cost ~$20K). A bicycle is a vehicle for the purposes of all but few states' vehicle codes. In Wisconsin a bicycle is a vehicle in all cases.
A vehicle yes, but not a "motor" vehicle.
 

Doug Huffman

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

A bicycle is a vehicle in all cases, in Wisconsin statute, that is not drawn by another device and, thus, is self-propelled.

167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(h) “Vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (74), and
includes a snowmobile, as defined in s. 340.01 (58a), and an electric
personal assistive mobility device, as defined in s. 340.01

340.01 Words and phrases defined. In s. 23.33 and chs.
340 to 349 and 351, the following words and phrases have the designated
meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided
or the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

(5) “Bicycle” means every vehicle propelled by the feet acting
upon pedals and having wheels any 2 of which are not less than
14 inches in diameter.

(35) “Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a combination
of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self−
propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. “Motor
vehicle” includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle
or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from
overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails. A snowmobile
and an all−terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles
for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.

(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any
person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway,
except railroad trains. A snowmobile or electric personal
assistive mobility device shall not be considered a vehicle except
for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.
(15pm), except that for purposes of subs. (4) (c) and (cg) and (4m)
“vehicle” has the meaning given for “motor vehicle” in s. 29.001
(57). (( § 29.001(57) “Motor vehicle” means a self−propelled vehicle, including
a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle.
“Motor vehicle” includes a snowmobile or an all−terrain vehicle.
“Motor vehicle” does not include an aircraft, a vehicle operated
exclusively on rails, or an electric personal assistive mobility
device.))

(2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
ROADWAYS. (a) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may
place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a
motorboat with the motor running, unless the firearm is unloaded
or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying
case.
(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.
(c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may load or discharge
a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow
in or from a vehicle.
(d) Except as provided in sub. (4) (a), (bg), (cg), (e), and (g),
no person may discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from
a bow or crossbow from or across a highway or within 50 feet of
the center of a roadway.
(e) A person who violates pars. (a) to (d) is subject to a forfeiture
of not more than $100.
 

J.Gleason

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

To be honest, I hope they do try and charge him with this, that way he can win again and it will make the LEO in Sheboygan Falls look even more idiotic then they do already.

I do not think it would hold up in court if they do charge him. Thats just my .02 IANAL or an REMF (Whatever the hell that means).
 

Captain Nemo

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

The most stupid part of the GFSZ law is the phrase that the person knows or has reason to believe that they have entered the forbidden 1000 foot perimeter. How in the world can you prove without a reasonable doubt in a court of law that a person knows or has reason to believe anything? especiallyin the case of GFSZ if the boundaries aren't identified. If I tell you the sun is green how can you prove that I know it is usually yellow? Obviously if I lived within the 1000 foot perimeter you could argue that I should have that knowledge but what if I lived at the fringes, say 954feet? Or what if I lived somewhere else and was visiting?In a court of law how would you prove I had absolute knowledge as to where the 1000 foot boundary was? This statute has so many flaws. No wonder the Sheboygan D.A. doesn't intend to appeal.

Stupid is as stupid does- Forrest Gump
 

Doug Huffman

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

If a person knows of the 1000 foot boundary and intends to violate the law committing this crime, that is exactly mens rea - criminal intent, the determination of which is exclusively in the purview of the trier of fact, the judge or jury.

Mens rea is the defining element of a criminal.

Whose declared criminal intent to violate the law have we tolerated and documented?

I-ANAL, a coward (G LOC K34) and an aśśhole (DustiniaC).
 

J.Gleason

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

Doug Huffman wrote:
Rear Echelon Mother Forker. My best friend(!) did three tours as REMF Medical Supply Corps in Viet Nam.

Remember how we're not supposed to question another's service? BS
I know I was being sarcastic. Tho I was never one, without those REMF's the men on the front lines would be in deep doodoo.
 
Top