• 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.

An Alternative to total repeal of Statute 167.31.

littlewolf

littlewolf

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
349
Location
A, A
.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.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

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

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
littlewolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Springfielddx40 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

Captain Nemo

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

littlewolf

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
349
Location
A, A
Interceptor_Knight said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks I_K you seem to get my point.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Captain Nemo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, here's to hoping that the holy DNR gets their just deserts at the hand of the new administration. I think there is a good chance of that from what I've been hearing, but we'll see.

In any case, I still see no trouble with asking for it. The representatives go around and see if they can get enough votes before a bill is ran through. That would be the time; IMHO, to make the concessions if enough votes couldn't be garnered because of it.
 
LOERetired

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
littlewolf said:
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.
Click to expand...


I understand the average person might not understand the statutes fully, however, being I’m not average, and have a sound legal mind, I know that the statutes are “word specific” and my legal interpretation of this statute, without including the word “shotgun” in it allows anyone to open carry a firearm unloaded in a boat. Had the DNR meant for the statute to only apply to shotguns, than they would have included the word “shotgun” in the statute. By the way, I didn’t take it as an insult or that I was average, I understood what you meant.

Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top