Finally some realization and recognition that a violation of the vehicle carry statute is not a criminal offense subject to arrest and processing. I don't advise not conforming to statute 167.31. Non-comformance is a violation to state statute but it is a violation in the form of forfieture. It is not a violation that requires (in fact state law has no provision) arrest for the infraction barring other circumstances. In this forum it is often discussed as if it is a criminal offense. It is often used in concert with the carry of concealed weapons, which is a criminal offense subject to arrest and incarceration and as such takes on a similar image. It more than likely is done so because the common subject is firearms. I feel it shoud be discussed in accord to the Rules of The Road laws under Chapter 346. In fact it is my opinion that if vehicle carry of firearms is to be considered by the courts and law enforcement as a public safety issue it's restrictions should be contained in chapter 346. It is not. The restrictions are contained in the sections of statutes that pertain to the protection of the State's wildlife. As such statute 167.31 should only be enforceable if it is observed during the illegal taking of wildlife and not when a firearm is carried in a vehicle as personal protection under cover of Article I section 25 of the state constitution.
The Brookfield Chief of police and city attorney apparently see the distinction between the significance of a criminal offense and a forfieture and as they apply to 167.31. The CoP's memorandum indicates such. What is not understandable is that the memorandum was issued 15 months ago, yet just a few weeks ago MKEgal was arrested for violation of 167.31 in disregard to the chief's memorandum. Apparently the Chief's words fall on deaf ears at the Brookfield police department. There is no question in my mind that recently MKEgal's civil rights, guaranteed under the Fourth amendment et. al were violated by the Brookfield police. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that her situation will be elevated to that level. The Brookfield Chief's memo and the DA public admission to wrong doing would be powerful damning evidence and this case could go a long way to invalidating the vehicle transport restictions. I don't fault MKEgal if she does not proceed with her case. I am all too familiar with the trials, tribulations, and cost of the litigation process, only the lawyers win, but her situation strikes me as an opportunity lost.