Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: An Alternative to total repeal of Statute 167.31.

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

    An Alternative to total repeal of Statute 167.31.

    One of the key infringing issues concerning carry of firearms for personal protection is the vehicle transport statute 167.31. I have been researching it and reading the actions that took place last year when Sen. Decker and company tried to modify it as SB222. Of course we have a new legislature now so itís impossible to second guess the attitude of the current membership. We do know the resistance by the DNR, the Natural Resources Board and the Conservation Congress hasnít diminished. It would be dangerous to underestimate the influence that tribunal has had on past legislatures and probably the current one as well. For that reason I do think that campaigning for total repeal of 167.31 will be futile. There is too much in that statute the DNR needs for managing state wildlife. The influence of the DNR, NRB and CC in union is tremendous. It is that union that recruited law enforcement to itís side in order to kill Sen. Deckerís Bill (SB222 did not have much in it for us and I mention it only to example the power that tribunal has). Any Bill asking for total repeal of ss167.31 will not make it past the first reading. I think trying to attach repeal of ss167.31 to a bill asking for repeal of ss941.23 would doom that bill to failure also.

    It isnít the total statute that is of impact to our interests. Only two paragraphs are impacting to our mission. Specifically 167.31(2)(a) and 167.31(2)(b). It should also be noted that this forum has been so focused on ss167.31 that it has totally overlooked two other concerns that need to be addressed. First: statute 23.33(3)(e) which requires that a firearm must be unloaded and encased when transported on a ATV. Second: A snowmobile is classified as a vehicle even though it isnít normally intended to be driven or drawn along a public roadway. Some inclusion of snowmobiles should be made in any plans involving relaxation of vehicle transport of firearms laws.

    I think it would be futile to ask for carte blanche repeal of both ss941.23 and 167.31 in the same Bill. I think it would be much more successful if we campaign for repeal in total of ss941.23 and separately campaign for repeal of the specific paragraphs 167.31(2)(a) & (b) and 23.33(3)(e).

    There may be a win-win approach to the vehicle transport dilemma and Iíd like to present it for discussion. First I have to set some foundation.

    --In evaluating the reach of a statute both the legislature and the Wisconsin supreme court put much credence of legislative intent during the draft of a statute. There is no question when one reads the Act and Bill that created ss167.31 and 23.33(3)(e) that the legislative intent was to enact them as tools for DNR game management and not as a public safety measure. In fact one only needs to read statute 167.31(2)(a) & (b) to come to that conclusion, especially the following: ďbow or crossbow in or on a vehicleĒ. Why would such words even appear in a public safety statute. Itís ridiculous to even think of it. I own a crossbow and a five foot longbow. How in the world would I ever maneuver either one in the cab of my pickup truck in order to stop a car jacking or effect some personal protection. Iíd be more danger to myself than any one else. Itís obvious the weapons listed in 167.31 (2)(a) & (b) and 23.33(3)(e) are intended to be those commonly used to hunt animals not for personal protection.

    -- Statutes 167.31(2)(b) and 23.33(3)(e) are unconstitutional in that under certain conditions they functionally disallows exercise of Article I section 25. The Wisconsin supreme court (WSC) ruled in Hamdan that it shall not do that: The WSC said the following in para.41 of Hamdan.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ďHowever, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustainedĒ.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Certainly a person needing an ATV or snowmobile to reach their hunting areas has a more compelling need than State has in enforcing the statutes.

    --The WSC ruled in a number of cases that three conditions must be present in order to convict for concealed carry; the firearm must be in reach, the person must know the firearm is present, the firearm must be hidden from ordinary view. In order to preserve ss167.31 some have argued that if the firearm is out of reach it negates the conditions. In the case of ATVís and snowmobiles as well as bicycles, motorcycles, horse buggies etc. it is impossible to carry a firearm out of reach, especially a long gun. So in effect the State infringes on Art I sect 25 because it prohibits carry of a concealed weapon on those vehicles and it also prohibits the carry of a visible weapon. The State functionally disallows the exercise of Art I sect 25 for at least the exercise of hunting.

    --ss167.31(2)(b) is superfluous. It isnít needed for game management There are other statutes that adequately cover illegal shooting of game from a vehicle.

    167.31(2)(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.

    167.31(2)(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.

    People that are out to illegally take game from a vehicle are unlikely to have concern of the fact that they are breaking the law because their firearm wasnít unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case.

    Here is my idea;
    Ss 167.31(2)(b) and 23.33(3)(e) are intended as DNR game management tools. They should be enforced only under that context. They were never intended to be a public safety issue. For the WSC to imply as much is judicial construction. Using the strength of the WSC erroneous conclusion law enforcement is enforcing 167.31(2)(b) as a public safety statute and therein lies our problem. Absolute repeal of 167.31 or 23.33 to achieve our goal is probably futile. There are sections of each statute that the DNR, the Natural Resources Board and the Conservation Congress need in order to manage state wildlife. They will vigorously fight any such repeal. They may be somewhat more receptive to repealing only paras. 167.31(2)(a) & (b) and ss23.33(3)(e) if their unconstitutionality can be successfully argued, but I think they will vigorously fight any carte blanche repeal. and I think their influence with the legislature will prevail. .

    It may be more successful to lobby to make ss167.31(2)(b) a penalty enhancer to violations of ss167.31(2)(c) and ss167.31(2)(d). If it can be determined that the firearm was transported unlawfully while violating one or both of the other statutes then it could be used as an enhancer, such as doubling the penalty. Likewise, the same can be done with 23.33(3)(e). I think this suggestion may defuse most of the DNR objection. It stills keeps the statutes alive for game management but takes them out of the public safety arena.

    Correspondence I have had with the DNR implies that the DNR is interested in 167.31(2)(b) as it applies to game management. Attaching it as a subset to two obvious game management statutes keeps it in that arena. The transport of uncased firearms in public areas not open to hunting is of minimum concern to the DNR. On the other hand Law enforcement will likely be in strong objection to any change to ss167.31(2)(b) but itís enforcement is a misapplication of the intent of the law.

    23.33 All-Terrain Vehicles.

    (3) RULES OF OPERATION. No person may operate an all-terrain vehicle:
    (e) With any firearm in his or her possession unless it is
    unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow unless it is
    unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case.

    167.31 Vehicle Transport of Firearms.

    (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.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    [ ... ]
    I think trying to attach repeal of ss167.31 to a bill asking for repeal of ss941.23 would doom that bill to failure also.
    [ ... ]
    I think it would be futile to ask for carte blanche repeal of both ss941.23 and 167.31 in the same Bill. I think it would be much more successful if we campaign for repeal in total of ss941.23 and separately campaign for repeal of the specific paragraphs 167.31(2)(a) & (b) and 23.33(3)(e).
    Your foundation is sturdy and I certainly agree with these conclusions copied above. Thanks my Captain. Prince Dakkar sends his respects.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    As I have never been to WI and don't have any immedaite plans to go there I am not familiar at all with the state gun laws. However the reading of the posts concerning the hopeful changes in the laws has been quite interesting and at times eye opening. Being from SC with the complaints about no OC in public places it is quite a shock to me of how you are able to put up with such laws. We may not have OC in public here but at least we have a lot of other rights that are not infringed upon as it seems that you in WI are.

    The one piece of advice I would give it you need to quit arguing among yourselves and realize that not everyone is going to get what they want and that only with a unified front can real changes be made. The OP gives a good example of some of the things that would drive the average SC resident crazy and that is the carry of hunting rifles. While one group is fighting for no permit required at all for concealed carry you have another that is fighting just for the right to carry in a logical manner in a vehicle and if it requires a permit then that is better than nothing. Then you have another group that doesn't care about handguns at all but want to carry their hunting guns or bows in some manner that doesn't require one to follow 169 different regulations.

    You have many diverse and different groups with similar agendas but all shouting mine, mine, mine like children wanting their poem read first. Now you may be able to get all restrictions lifted at once but from where you are to where everyone wants to be is not going to be easy especially if this infighting continues. I think the OP made some great points about the approach but how many will listen. Even if constitutional carry is passed in WI is it going to do the hunters any good with the DNR? I wish you good luck as one day I may want to visit WI.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    How about this addition: "The provisions of this section shall not apply to any firearm that is not authorized for hunting purposes, and shall only apply during DNR regulated activities".

    Easy and simple.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    As I have never been to WI and don't have any immedaite plans to go there I am not familiar at all with the state gun laws. However the reading of the posts concerning the hopeful changes in the laws has been quite interesting and at times eye opening. Being from SC with the complaints about no OC in public places it is quite a shock to me of how you are able to put up with such laws. We may not have OC in public here but at least we have a lot of other rights that are not infringed upon as it seems that you in WI are.

    The one piece of advice I would give it you need to quit arguing among yourselves and realize that not everyone is going to get what they want and that only with a unified front can real changes be made. The OP gives a good example of some of the things that would drive the average SC resident crazy and that is the carry of hunting rifles. While one group is fighting for no permit required at all for concealed carry you have another that is fighting just for the right to carry in a logical manner in a vehicle and if it requires a permit then that is better than nothing. Then you have another group that doesn't care about handguns at all but want to carry their hunting guns or bows in some manner that doesn't require one to follow 169 different regulations.

    You have many diverse and different groups with similar agendas but all shouting mine, mine, mine like children wanting their poem read first. Now you may be able to get all restrictions lifted at once but from where you are to where everyone wants to be is not going to be easy especially if this infighting continues. I think the OP made some great points about the approach but how many will listen. Even if constitutional carry is passed in WI is it going to do the hunters any good with the DNR? I wish you good luck as one day I may want to visit WI.
    Thanks for your words of support. WI actually has it pretty good compared to several other states, however, it can be better. As for the DNR, I believe the new Governor will move toward taking some of their power away. We shall see.

  6. #6
    Regular Member littlewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    349
    I agree,as far as the ATV rules of carry go,one should be allowed to carry a handgun in a holster on public trails. As far as hunters go I can live with a long-gun being unloaded for safety reasons, also most of not all ATV trails in WI are closed during any gun deer season so most people carrying on ATVs would be on private property. I often ride with my wife in remote areas and run into small groups of other riders and a few of them seem to be of the unsavory type,ie;drunk,breaking trail riding regs.driving off trail and illegal equipment. My worry is we stop to help someone and we end up robbed and the machines stolen and stranded 20miles from the nearest nowhere!
    Owner Little Wolf Firearms , US ARMY RETIRED 101st Airborne & 84th DIV TRNG Small arms instructor.
    Remember , Gun Control is " USING BOTH HANDS!"

  7. #7
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by littlewolf View Post
    I agree,as far as the ATV rules of carry go,one should be allowed to carry a handgun in a holster on public trails. As far as hunters go I can live with a long-gun being unloaded for safety reasons, also most of not all ATV trails in WI are closed during any gun deer season so most people carrying on ATVs would be on private property. I often ride with my wife in remote areas and run into small groups of other riders and a few of them seem to be of the unsavory type,ie;drunk,breaking trail riding regs.driving off trail and illegal equipment. My worry is we stop to help someone and we end up robbed and the machines stolen and stranded 20miles from the nearest nowhere!
    Wow, way to make an offensive generalization. So just because they are drunk means they want to rob you? I've gone riding after having a couple of beers when I was younger and dumber, and so what? We were having fun. Thats it. Way to lump everyone together.

  8. #8
    Regular Member littlewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Wow, way to make an offensive generalization. So just because they are drunk means they want to rob you? I've gone riding after having a couple of beers when I was younger and dumber, and so what? We were having fun. Thats it. Way to lump everyone together.
    I meant obnoxious drunk and demanding,sorry for the confusion. You would have had to been there. Alot of riders will catch a beer or two at the local watering holes, I don't have a problem with that.I pulled these two morons out of a mud hole but should have left them there,I don't like being followed and begged to go drinking with /by strange drunk people. These guys were down right dangerous to others on the trail,
    Owner Little Wolf Firearms , US ARMY RETIRED 101st Airborne & 84th DIV TRNG Small arms instructor.
    Remember , Gun Control is " USING BOTH HANDS!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Gray Peterson:
    No good. For small game any handgun .17 caliber or larger with a minmum barrel length of 4 inches as measured from the end of the muzzle to the firing pin is lawful. For large game any centerfire cartridge 22 caliber or larger in a handgun with a minimum barrel length of 5 1/2 inches as measured from the end of the muzzzle to the firing pin is lawful. Your suggestion would eliminate many handguns used for personal protection. For exaample my 38S&W hamerless revolver measures 4 1/2 inches from muzzle to firing pin. On revolvers the cylinder is included in the measurement.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    How does Louisiana, New Mexico, and Missouri handle it then? They have extended domain laws which allow one to carry concealed or open inside of one's vehicle?

    I think that we can get 167.31 made inapplicable to general self defensive carry, or repealed.

    -Gray

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768

    Nice

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Here is my idea;
    Ss 167.31(2)(b) and 23.33(3)(e) are intended as DNR game management tools. They should be enforced only under that context. They were never intended to be a public safety issue. For the WSC to imply as much is judicial construction. Using the strength of the WSC erroneous conclusion law enforcement is enforcing 167.31(2)(b) as a public safety statute and therein lies our problem. Absolute repeal of 167.31 or 23.33 to achieve our goal is probably futile. There are sections of each statute that the DNR, the Natural Resources Board and the Conservation Congress need in order to manage state wildlife. They will vigorously fight any such repeal. They may be somewhat more receptive to repealing only paras. 167.31(2)(a) & (b) and ss23.33(3)(e) if their unconstitutionality can be successfully argued, but I think they will vigorously fight any carte blanche repeal. and I think their influence with the legislature will prevail. .

    It may be more successful to lobby to make ss167.31(2)(b) a penalty enhancer to violations of ss167.31(2)(c) and ss167.31(2)(d). If it can be determined that the firearm was transported unlawfully while violating one or both of the other statutes then it could be used as an enhancer, such as doubling the penalty. Likewise, the same can be done with 23.33(3)(e). I think this suggestion may defuse most of the DNR objection. It stills keeps the statutes alive for game management but takes them out of the public safety arena.

    Correspondence I have had with the DNR implies that the DNR is interested in 167.31(2)(b) as it applies to game management. Attaching it as a subset to two obvious game management statutes keeps it in that arena. The transport of uncased firearms in public areas not open to hunting is of minimum concern to the DNR. On the other hand Law enforcement will likely be in strong objection to any change to ss167.31(2)(b) but itís enforcement is a misapplication of the intent of the law.

    Well thought out, thank you for your insight. Maybe this is the best of both worlds.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Well thought out, thank you for your insight. Maybe this is the best of both worlds.
    Wow, you're right, Nemo. I didn't quite get it the first time around but now I do. Penalty enhancer rather than a general prohibition. Excellent.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    How about this addition: "The provisions of this section shall not apply to any firearm that is not authorized for hunting purposes, and shall only apply during DNR regulated activities".
    Easy and simple.
    Except that the only firearms not authorized for hunting purposes in WI are full auto. The "DNR regulated activities" clause is not helpful. The fact that I am actively deer hunting does not negate my right to self defense against a drunk or otherwise disorderly hunter or anyone else I may encounter. Chai Soua Vang shot some of his victims while they were on ATVs.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 11-14-2010 at 09:08 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Wow, way to make an offensive generalization. So just because they are drunk means they want to rob you? I've gone riding after having a couple of beers when I was younger and dumber, and so what? We were having fun. Thats it. Way to lump everyone together.
    If you are visibly drunk on an ATV in a "public" area, you should not be offended if someone wants to avoid you... There is nothing "fun" about drunk driving where you can hurt someone else.... Keep it to one of your buddy's fields... You infer that since you are older and wiser you no longer do this, but there are plenty of others out there not so wise.

  15. #15
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    One of the key infringing issues concerning carry of firearms for personal protection is the vehicle transport statute 167.31. I have been researching it and reading the actions that took place last year when Sen. Decker and company tried to modify it as SB222. Of course we have a new legislature now so itís impossible to second guess the attitude of the current membership. We do know the resistance by the DNR, the Natural Resources Board and the Conservation Congress hasnít diminished. It would be dangerous to underestimate the influence that tribunal has had on past legislatures and probably the current one as well. For that reason I do think that campaigning for total repeal of 167.31 will be futile. There is too much in that statute the DNR needs for managing state wildlife. The influence of the DNR, NRB and CC in union is tremendous. It is that union that recruited law enforcement to itís side in order to kill Sen. Deckerís Bill (SB222 did not have much in it for us and I mention it only to example the power that tribunal has). Any Bill asking for total repeal of ss167.31 will not make it past the first reading. I think trying to attach repeal of ss167.31 to a bill asking for repeal of ss941.23 would doom that bill to failure also.

    It isnít the total statute that is of impact to our interests. Only two paragraphs are impacting to our mission. Specifically 167.31(2)(a) and 167.31(2)(b). It should also be noted that this forum has been so focused on ss167.31 that it has totally overlooked two other concerns that need to be addressed. First: statute 23.33(3)(e) which requires that a firearm must be unloaded and encased when transported on a ATV. Second: A snowmobile is classified as a vehicle even though it isnít normally intended to be driven or drawn along a public roadway. Some inclusion of snowmobiles should be made in any plans involving relaxation of vehicle transport of firearms laws.

    I think it would be futile to ask for carte blanche repeal of both ss941.23 and 167.31 in the same Bill. I think it would be much more successful if we campaign for repeal in total of ss941.23 and separately campaign for repeal of the specific paragraphs 167.31(2)(a) & (b) and 23.33(3)(e).

    There may be a win-win approach to the vehicle transport dilemma and Iíd like to present it for discussion. First I have to set some foundation.

    --In evaluating the reach of a statute both the legislature and the Wisconsin supreme court put much credence of legislative intent during the draft of a statute. There is no question when one reads the Act and Bill that created ss167.31 and 23.33(3)(e) that the legislative intent was to enact them as tools for DNR game management and not as a public safety measure. In fact one only needs to read statute 167.31(2)(a) & (b) to come to that conclusion, especially the following: ďbow or crossbow in or on a vehicleĒ. Why would such words even appear in a public safety statute. Itís ridiculous to even think of it. I own a crossbow and a five foot longbow. How in the world would I ever maneuver either one in the cab of my pickup truck in order to stop a car jacking or effect some personal protection. Iíd be more danger to myself than any one else. Itís obvious the weapons listed in 167.31 (2)(a) & (b) and 23.33(3)(e) are intended to be those commonly used to hunt animals not for personal protection.

    -- Statutes 167.31(2)(b) and 23.33(3)(e) are unconstitutional in that under certain conditions they functionally disallows exercise of Article I section 25. The Wisconsin supreme court (WSC) ruled in Hamdan that it shall not do that: The WSC said the following in para.41 of Hamdan.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ďHowever, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustainedĒ.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Certainly a person needing an ATV or snowmobile to reach their hunting areas has a more compelling need than State has in enforcing the statutes.

    --The WSC ruled in a number of cases that three conditions must be present in order to convict for concealed carry; the firearm must be in reach, the person must know the firearm is present, the firearm must be hidden from ordinary view. In order to preserve ss167.31 some have argued that if the firearm is out of reach it negates the conditions. In the case of ATVís and snowmobiles as well as bicycles, motorcycles, horse buggies etc. it is impossible to carry a firearm out of reach, especially a long gun. So in effect the State infringes on Art I sect 25 because it prohibits carry of a concealed weapon on those vehicles and it also prohibits the carry of a visible weapon. The State functionally disallows the exercise of Art I sect 25 for at least the exercise of hunting.

    --ss167.31(2)(b) is superfluous. It isnít needed for game management There are other statutes that adequately cover illegal shooting of game from a vehicle.

    167.31(2)(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.

    167.31(2)(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.

    People that are out to illegally take game from a vehicle are unlikely to have concern of the fact that they are breaking the law because their firearm wasnít unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case.

    Here is my idea;
    Ss 167.31(2)(b) and 23.33(3)(e) are intended as DNR game management tools. They should be enforced only under that context. They were never intended to be a public safety issue. For the WSC to imply as much is judicial construction. Using the strength of the WSC erroneous conclusion law enforcement is enforcing 167.31(2)(b) as a public safety statute and therein lies our problem. Absolute repeal of 167.31 or 23.33 to achieve our goal is probably futile. There are sections of each statute that the DNR, the Natural Resources Board and the Conservation Congress need in order to manage state wildlife. They will vigorously fight any such repeal. They may be somewhat more receptive to repealing only paras. 167.31(2)(a) & (b) and ss23.33(3)(e) if their unconstitutionality can be successfully argued, but I think they will vigorously fight any carte blanche repeal. and I think their influence with the legislature will prevail. .

    It may be more successful to lobby to make ss167.31(2)(b) a penalty enhancer to violations of ss167.31(2)(c) and ss167.31(2)(d). If it can be determined that the firearm was transported unlawfully while violating one or both of the other statutes then it could be used as an enhancer, such as doubling the penalty. Likewise, the same can be done with 23.33(3)(e). I think this suggestion may defuse most of the DNR objection. It stills keeps the statutes alive for game management but takes them out of the public safety arena.

    Correspondence I have had with the DNR implies that the DNR is interested in 167.31(2)(b) as it applies to game management. Attaching it as a subset to two obvious game management statutes keeps it in that arena. The transport of uncased firearms in public areas not open to hunting is of minimum concern to the DNR. On the other hand Law enforcement will likely be in strong objection to any change to ss167.31(2)(b) but itís enforcement is a misapplication of the intent of the law.

    23.33 All-Terrain Vehicles.

    (3) RULES OF OPERATION. No person may operate an all-terrain vehicle:
    (e) With any firearm in his or her possession unless it is
    unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow unless it is
    unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case.

    167.31 Vehicle Transport of Firearms.

    (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.

    Did you notice the difference in wording between these two statutes:

    (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.


    PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
    ROADWAYS


    The Motorboat Statute allows a citizen to transport a firearm in a boat uncased as long as it is unloaded: quote "unless the firearm is unloaded", it don't state "unless the firearm is unloaded and encased" like the vehicle statute states. Cool right, I open carrying in a boat all summer, with it unloaded on my hip, passed right by the sheriff and he didn't even blink.

    Some southern states allow citizens to have guns in their vehicles uncased and loaded, so why not Wisconsin.

    Some southern states allow citizens to have guns in their vehicles uncased and loaded, so why not Wisconsin. The statute is no doubt unconstitutional, so, challenge it in court. A constitutional challenge in court isnít complicated, it don't involve a jury, witnesses, depositions, just you arguing your case before the court. It may involve a lot of studying, and writing, like your initial complaint youíll have to write, or an answer to a request for summary judgment. Once you get past summary judgment, itís all good. Youíre intelligent, and understand the statutes, write a complaint up, with a good argument that itís unconstitutional and why. Post it and letís discuss the possibilities. The Clark county judge found 941.23 unconstitutional, and if the complaint I put together and sent to the Mountain States Legal Foundation gets accepted and they agrees to file it in State court, and we prevail, than the vehicle statutes donít have a chance, because itís in essence, another place where concealed carry is prohibited which illuminates your right to self defense, when you have to uncase your firearm, and load it before you can defend yourself, which is unconstitutional, and subjected to a challenge.

    Don

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Well thought out and nicely written Nemo.

  17. #17
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    If you are visibly drunk on an ATV in a "public" area, you should not be offended if someone wants to avoid you... There is nothing "fun" about drunk driving where you can hurt someone else.... Keep it to one of your buddy's fields... You infer that since you are older and wiser you no longer do this, but there are plenty of others out there not so wise.
    Shush. I meant how he was suggesting they (drunks) wanted to rob him. BTW, everyone has this sort of fun when young and dumb. This is WI, please, I don't need your Holier than thou attitude.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Good Ole Wisconsin, land of Cow 5hit and beer farts!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I've never seen one of them there Beers. The other day I bought a package of Beer nuts. Judging by them those Beers ain't very big.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Gotta start shooting them stumpig runts and let Darwin help the healthy ones.

  21. #21
    Regular Member littlewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    349

    .Firearms in Motor boats

    The law on loaded guns was meant for "SHOTGUNS" when duck hunting to keep people from "jump shooting" while using the motor to propell the boat.
    Another case where the DNR should say what they mean,just another way for them to make money by making vague laws that the average person reads over and doesn't understand and when given a ticket says OK my fault.
    Owner Little Wolf Firearms , US ARMY RETIRED 101st Airborne & 84th DIV TRNG Small arms instructor.
    Remember , Gun Control is " USING BOTH HANDS!"

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Still push for repeal

    I think we should still push for repeal and possibly use your example as a fall-back position.

    Although you say that parts of the statute are needed for "game management", I disagree; at least in part. I agree that you shouldn't be able to shoot across a road but 50 ft from the center line is pretty silly. Kind of like 1,000ft from school property.

    Last time I went out to Wyoming, as long as I was on a dirt road I could shoot from the vehicle. They don't seem to have a problem with it. It's not a "game managment" tool, it's just another silly restriction.

    Like you said, poaching is already illegal.

    Let's push repeal and see how many votes will be promised.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by littlewolf View Post
    The law on loaded guns was meant for "SHOTGUNS" when duck hunting to keep people from "jump shooting" while using the motor to propell the boat.
    Another case where the DNR should say what they mean,just another way for them to make money by making vague laws that the average person reads over and doesn't understand and when given a ticket says OK my fault.
    The DNR probably also thought we would shoot deer while cruising the shoreline. Hmm, a deck mounted AR-10. Kind of like my own little PT-boat. My mind wanders...

  24. #24
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Shush. I meant how he was suggesting they (drunks) wanted to rob him. BTW, everyone has this sort of fun when young and dumb. This is WI, please, I don't need your Holier than thou attitude.
    I don't shush... Not "everyone" finds the delinquent behavior he described as acceptable... Justifying this as being part of WI culture is insulting.... You might be a redneck if....
    No need to be hypersensitive here and defend illegal behavior. He expressed a desire to OC in defense of the lawbreakers he has witnessed on and around trails and the possibility that they would assault him. This is the relevent subject matter at hand and what we are here to discuss, not juvenile delinquency.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Brass: That was Wyoming. This is Wisconsin where the DNR reigns holy in the eyes of the legislature. I have been doing battle with the DNR, the Attorney General office and my legislators since 2006 with emails and letters to support my claim. I appreciate your suggestion but any talk of total repeal of 167.31 or attaching total appeal to any other objective will doom both to failure. I'm not talking as a defeatist I'm speaking from experience. Total repeal of 167.31 has asmuch a chance as a fart in a hurricane. The best we can expect is to modify it so that it doesn't interfere with our use of firearms for personal protection.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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