loaded mag and cars

can someone refresh my memory on the legal ways t have a loaded magazine in a vehicle on public roadways

not in concealed gun

thats all all done

law does not address

carry of a magazine

loaded mags, and cars..................go together naturally.

always have one in my back pocket ;-)

I always keep one in the car door side compartment. My fully enclosed unloaded firearm (M&P 45C, no safety) in a "fast draw" pistol bag. The drill is open, grab, slap, pull, in battery.

It takes seconds, but better than having the police minutes too late.

McX said:

loaded mags, and cars..................go together naturally.

Click to expand...

Yup.... I even keep a couple for the long range hammer in the counsel too.

Short guns are for fightin your way to long guns.

LR Yote

Flipper said:

I always keep one in the car door side compartment. My fully enclosed unloaded firearm (M&P 45C, no safety) in a "fast draw" pistol bag. The drill is open, grab, slap, pull, in battery.

It takes seconds, but better than having the police minutes too late.

Click to expand...

Yep, it only takes seconds if ya know the drill.

Full circle in two and a half hours

from newbie question to ccw violation

but not advocacy by elite leaders

oliver we may not have nonvisible

gun within arms reach

the elite can

Big Guy said:

Full circle in two and a half hours

from newbie question to ccw violation

but not advocacy by elite leaders

oliver we may not have nonvisible

gun within arms reach

the elite can

Click to expand...

Cite please. What's with the weird formatting you always do?

format due to kindle two

strokes upper case

thru amaxon web

cites made a million

times before

nine forty one twenty three

Big Guy said:

format due to kindle two

strokes upper case

thru amaxon web

cites made a million

times before

nine forty one twenty three

Click to expand...

Gotcha on the formatting part. Kinda weird though. I'll have to figure out how to use my kindle and post here one of these days.

941.23 has nothing to do with having a firearm in the car since it is unloaded and encased. Neither 167.31, nor 941.23, require keeping a firearm "out of reach."

vehicle carry is not ommitted in

state v keith elements of ccw

crime

you cut off your nose to spite

the doug

Big Guy said:

vehicle carry is not ommitted in

state v keith elements of ccw

crime

you cut off your nose to spite

the doug

Click to expand...

Come on Mr. Huffman. There's no need to be more cryptic than usual.

Big Guy said:

Full circle in two and a half hours
from newbie question to ccw violation
but not advocacy by elite leaders
oliver we may not have nonvisible
gun within arms reach
the elite can

Click to expand...

This is Doug Huffman; same tag line, same nonsensical posts.
Noticed it in other threads, too.
Report him when you see him (little triangle in the lower left of a post), let John & Mike root out another of his personae.

protias said:

Neither 167.31, nor 941.23, require keeping a firearm "out of reach."

Click to expand...

The argument (as best I understand it) is that if it's in reach it's concealed. In the notes after the statute is included this (3rd note):

The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden. State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

Click to expand...

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0941.pdf
That ruling was well before the constitutional amendment protecting our right to carry, so is probably void, but I'm sure there's some DA that would at least try to use it.

Of course, that leads to arguments about what's "in reach" and what's not.
I say that something in the tank bag of my motorcycle, or the pockets of my suit, isn't in reach unless I stop driving, esp. a gun in a closed case. (Then try loading it one-handed while riding!)
Also, the back seat of a car behind the driver is out of reach while driving. Or at the very least, it's likely to lead to a crash if I try to reach something that's back there.

MKEgal said:

Of course, that leads to arguments about what's "in reach" and what's not.
I say that something in the tank bag of my motorcycle, or the pockets of my suit, isn't in reach unless I stop driving, esp. a gun in a closed case. (Then try loading it one-handed while riding!)
Also, the back seat of a car behind the driver is out of reach while driving. Or at the very least, it's likely to lead to a crash if I try to reach something that's back there.

Click to expand...

Practice your weak hand drills and that problem (loading on a bike) is fixed....

Show me where in a Jeep Wrangler is out of reach.

LR Yote

Once again the "within reach" issue is brought up when transporting a firearm. Yes, we know there are no exceptions to 941.23. So why don't the police arrest everyone who buys a gun? Heck, as soon as you close the lid on the case or box or bag or whatever the gun is in you violate 941.23. As soon as you put the gun in your gun safe and close the door you violated 941.23. The examples of a concealed weapons violation under statute 941.23 are endless and yet we still have no arrests when transporting a firearm IAW 167.31.

As Shotgun said at:


http://www.usacarry.com/forums/wisc...arding-transporting-firarms-pickup-truck.html pretty much sums it up.

"The statute covering transport of firearms is Chapter 167.31 which can be found here:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0167.pdf

The "weird" stuff you may have heard about is that some people are under the impression that you must transport the firearm "out of reach." Which, as you can see, is not a requirement under the statutes.

Basically, if you have the firearm unloaded and it is in a gun case that is snapped, buckled, tied or zipped or otherwise fastened shut you are good to go. It does not need a lock. Nothing in the statute requires that it can be out of reach. There was an old non-precedent setting case in which a judge ruled that a guy's gun was a "concealed weapon" even though it was properly transported because it was still within his reach. A few people have gone a little crazy over that old case and believe you're violating the concealed weapons law if the gun case is within your reach. That old decision cannot even be used in court to try to convince a judge, so it is meaningless to everyone except the individual who was convicted. I do not transport my firearms out of reach and I have not found an instance where any law enforcement agency is under the impression that it needs to be out of reach in Wisconsin. To me it is a non-issue. Within the past week a district attorney declined to prosecute a woman who was found to have an encased, but loaded, gun on her passenger seat. The DA mentioned that they are unsure whether the transport statute is even constitutional. The violation for improper transport has a maximum fine of $100."

Flipper said:

Within the past week a district attorney declined to prosecute a woman who was found to have an encased, but loaded, gun on her passenger seat.

Click to expand...

Another one? Woohoo!! Good - even those who are supposed to prosecute the laws are beginning to be uncertain as to their legality. Where did that one happen? Link to news article?

MKEgal said:

This is Doug Huffman; same tag line, same nonsensical posts.
Noticed it in other threads, too.
Report him when you see him (little triangle in the lower left of a post), let John & Mike root out another of his personae.

Click to expand...

Thanks for noticing. Some here are so very naive.

I really don't get it. They can't say what they used to or it would be extremely obvious who they are, yet they hang around like ghosts speaking through windows.

People are strange sometimes...