OC on public buses

Hey does anyone know if you are allowed to OC on public buses? Im not sure if it varies from county but if so then for the MIlwaukee area.

I see no exception for buses, public or private, in § 167.31(4)

freedomfighter said:

Hey does anyone know if you are allowed to OC on public buses? Im not sure if it varies from county but if so then for the MIlwaukee area.

Click to expand...

.

Wisc. Stats. Ann. said:

§ 167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows.
(1) DEFINITIONS
[ ... ]
(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 (15pm), except ...
[ ... ]
(2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS.
[ ... ]
(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.

Click to expand...

MCTS is clearly a public transit system. There may be other buses operated by non-public contractors to the city/county or buses operated by private companies. These certainly have the righteous power to permit/prohibit at will.

I recently toured national parks in a few of the states with more liberal gun laws than Wisconsin. It may be recalled that national parks have had to follow their state's gun laws. Also many national parks are removing private autos in favor of mass transportation buses - operated by private non-public contractors and franchisees. All that I noticed had no-guns "ghostbuster" signs.

Also the concealed cary ban bans the encased weapon from being possessed within reach - a real problem for gun owners and needs to be repealed or amended like many or most of Wisconsin's gun laws.

Mike said:

Also the concealed cary ban bans the encased weapon from being possessed within reach - a real problem for gun owners and needs to be repealed or amended like many or most of Wisconsin's gun laws.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that and it just isn't true. The case in question isn't 'published'.

If anyone thinks they can reach a weapon while it's encased, I would gladly take on the bet.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

You keep saying that and it just isn't true. The case in question isn't 'published'.

Click to expand...

A case not being "published" is not a big deal - it still announces the law and everyone knows it's there.

One reason a case might not be "published" is because it does not announce new law - the statute against concealed carry in Wisconsin has been construed by courts in published decisions that clearly confirm that possessing a concealed gun within reach is unlawful.

Mike said:

A case not being "published" is not a big deal - it still announces the law and everyone knows it's there.

One reason a case might not be "published" is because it does not announce new law - the statute against concealed carry in Wisconsin has been construed by courts in published decisions that clearly confirm that possessing a concealed gun within reach is unlawful.

Click to expand...

But I believe the true question is whether an unloaded and encased firearm meets the definition of "within reach." I do not believe the term literally means "at a distance within the length of one's arm." I believe it has been used by the courts to mean something like "immediately accessible in a moment of passion or anger." A firearm transported per the vehicle transport law must be 1) removed from the case, and 2) loaded, before it can be brought into play. Presumably having to go through these two steps prior to putting a firearm into play gives another person adequate warning and chance to withdraw. That is a more reasonable interpretation in my opinion and it also explains why people are not simply arrested as they walk out of a gun shop with their new cased or boxed purchase under their arm.

unless i misread the laws, the answer would clearly be no because you would be violating the encasing requirement for transport.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

You keep saying that and it just isn't true. The case in question isn't 'published'.

Click to expand...

It must be true because I got a citation for an uncased bow in the cargo area of my car about 15 years ago.

oak1971 said:

It must be true because I got a citation for an uncased bow in the cargo area of my car about 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

Because it was uncased, not because it was in the cargo area.

oak1971 said:

It must be true because I got a citation for an uncased bow in the cargo area of my car about 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

uncased is a whole different issue. What is being discussed is a weapon properly cased and unloaded but also within reach. I would also argue that we would see a whole ton more citations if it needed to be out of reach when cased. Many here have had interactions with LEO and discussions with LEO about this issue and the overwhelming consensus seems to indicate that a cased and unloaded firearm may be within reach. I also have not read anything within the statutes that would indicate otherwise. There are a lot of I-ANAL opinions about the potential effect of case law, use them at your own risk or satisfaction.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Because it was uncased, not because it was in the cargo area.

Click to expand...

Well, he called it uncased anyway. It was a cloth zipper case just a tad too small. Whatever.

Technically if you have a small vehicle, there's no way it cam be "out of reach". Try it in a regular cab pickup, sports car, or tiny econo box.