few questions about transportation

hey guys, been a lurker for awhile, just signed up tonight i just had a few questions about the laws regarding transporting a firearm (semi-auto pistol). just some extra info, i drive a blazer SUV so as far as im aware the guns must be in the backmost area of the blazer since i dont have a trunk.

i know that it must be in a case & unloaded.

can the pistol have an empty mag in the gun? i have 2 pistols (sig sp2022 & ruger sr9c), both of my pistols have 2 mags but the cases only have one spot for a mag so i would like to have one empty mag in the gun & one empty mag in the spot in the case for a mag.

does the case have to have a lock under any circumstance? i thought i have heard it must be locked if in a school zone.

can a mag in the gun case be loaded if it is not in the gun?

would an unloaded pistol with unloaded mags that is in its case be put into a bag? i would like to be able to put my pistols in my range bag just to keep everything together but am afraid it would be considered concealed if it was in a zipped up range bag.

if i can put the gun case in my range bag is it ok to have boxes of ammo in the same range bag as long as the guns are unloaded?

thanks for any help, this is all i have for now but im sure i will have more questions. i just want to make sure im always 100% legal when driving to/from the range.

also my parents live in IL and i always take my stuff down there with me to shoot at my grandpas who has some land out in the country. would these same laws apply to me while i am in IL?

thanks again for any help!

Firearm needs to be unloaded and encased in WI. It does not need to be "out of reach." The strictest lettering of the law means that even an encased firearm is conceal carry since you know it is there and no one can see it (concealed). You can have ammunition in the magazines, but not in the firearm, but it can reside in the same box/bag. If the magazine has no rounds in it, then it can be placed in the firearm.

As for IL laws, you must keep it unloaded, encased, and locked (trunk or behind the back seat). If you get pulled over, do not consent to any searches or seizures. I was once pulled over in IL and they threatened to put me in jail for not having a FOID card. Well, that is impossible for me to get since they do not give them to WI residents. And that is a form of registration BTW. Since you are transporting the firearm, you are covered under federal law.

Welcome rj2, glad to have you with us.

unloaded and encased, with the gun box modified for rapid open, on the front seat, right next to me.

Are you 100% sure?

protias said:

Firearm needs to be unloaded and encased in WI. It does not need to be "out of reach." The strictest lettering of the law means that even an encased firearm is conceal carry since you know it is there and no one can see it (concealed). You can have ammunition in the magazines, but not in the firearm, but it can reside in the same box/bag. If the magazine has no rounds in it, then it can be placed in the firearm.

As for IL laws, you must keep it unloaded, encased, and locked (trunk or behind the back seat). If you get pulled over, do not consent to any searches or seizures. I was once pulled over in IL and they threatened to put me in jail for not having a FOID card. Well, that is impossible for me to get since they do not give them to WI residents. And that is a form of registration BTW. Since you are transporting the firearm, you are covered under federal law.

Click to expand...

¶48. Wisconsin's current CCW statute is very broad. It is essentially a strict liability offense.20 The legislature has not authorized any statutory defenses or exceptions (other than peace officers) to the broad prohibition found in the statute. As presently construed, the statute prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I, Section 25. In addition, the statute reaches unloaded firearms as well as loaded ones, see Wis.Stat.§939.22(10) (defining a "dangerous weapon" under the CCW statute), and applies to any weapon within a individual's reach, see Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433-34, if the person knows the weapon is present.

- Supreme Court of Wisconsin case #01-0056-CR

We have been through this so many times before and it all boils down to what you yourself are going to believe.

I believe in this: An unloaded, properly encased gun is out of reach.

There can be no other interpretation, otherwise it would be in violation of other existing laws and practices and Article 1, sec 25.

IF the gun was loaded OR not cased, AND within reach, THEN the gun would be considered concealed and that is what is meant by paragraph 48.

Phred is correct, we have been through this countless times. Here is a link to the State Police site. Scroll down to the question about transporting weapons.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/statepatrol/enforcement/faqs-enforcement.htm

And yes, the concealed weapons law is too broad and pretty much anything can be considered a concealed weapon if it cannot be seen and is within reach. Eg. rock in your hand, gun in your case, gun locked in trunk when you get "within reach" of your trunk. The insanity continues.....technically we can be arrested every time we put our gun in the gun case and close the lid or go to retrieve said weapon. The law is unconstitutional and must be removed from the books.

I carry my Glock on the front seat next to me unloaded and encased with two magazines (loaded) in the case. This only applies in Wisconsin. Be careful traveling in the "Land of No Freedom" Illinois.

Phred,

I agree that we have discussed this many times, and there are obviously people who believe that a encased firearm does not have to be out of reach. I will, however, take issue when those individuals present their beliefs as legal fact to a first time poster. To make assumptions as to the intent of the Wisconsin Courts assumes that they follow logic and the law, N. Patrick Crooks agrees with me that they do not. I would love to see a cite that will make me believe otherwise, until then I will continue to inform people that it is not clear that a encased firearm is "out of reach".

For a good read

http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2003/01-0056.htm

I agree in a sense. But Paragraph 48 needs to be put in context with the rest of the decision. One of the main points of the decision is that 941.23 is too broad and contradictory as well as unconstitutional and it needs to be "fixed". However the court was not about to do the fixing and left it up to the legislature. Of course we all know how that ended up.

The commentary part Section VIII points out the trouble with 941.23.

Everybody agrees that it is a mess.

How many people have been prosecuted for having an unloaded and properly encased gun on their front seat since 1999?

I'm with rcawdor57. Like a good citizen I checked the DOT/State Patrol website to make sure I was properly transporting my firearm. Directly quoted from the FAQ:

Link with less scrolling

What is the legal method of carrying a weapon in my vehicle in Wisconsin?

With the weapon cased and unloaded. Applies to firearms and bow hunting equipment.

Click to expand...

You would think if it's supposed to be in the trunk the Department of Transportation or the State Patrol would have said so, do you think it's entrapment? They even said I don't have to register my handgun!

Jason in WI said:

You would think if it's supposed to be in the trunk the Department of Transportation or the State Patrol would have said so, do you think it's entrapment? They even said I don't have to register my handgun!

Click to expand...

Exactly! That "out of reach" phrase was originally used to show the confusion of "concealed" and how contradictory the situation was. Then the phrase got worked into a "legal requirement" and the myth was perpetuated. IMHO

Not this past deer season but the one before, I was pulled over by a State Trooper just West of Mad City (Madison) while I was headin to my folks place North of Lacrosse.

I was runnin a little over the speed limit and my license plate light was inop.

My vehicle was a 1990 Plymouth Acclaim LE and I had my cased rifle tucked behind the front seat.The hard case is so long it wont fit in the trunk....unless I folded the back seats down and had half of it in the trunk and half out and in the passenger area.
It just fit between the back doors tucked behind the front seat in the leg well.

State Trooper asked where I was goin...(Huntin) and then asked what my firearm was.Once he learned what it was it didnt bother him much where it was in the vehicle....just the fact I was transporting a firearm.

He then asked if I wouldnt mind sitting in the back of his squad while he ran my plates....Like I really had any choices about it.
Of course it was for "His" safety.

He wrote me a warning ticket for the lic light....and let me go on the speeding and expired tags.

The rifle and the boot knife I carry in my jump boots never bothered him.

LR Yote

Same old

Considering the lack of legal knowledge of law enforcement, it seems strange to talk their word for it. I notice the same DOT/State Patrol website also tells me its legal to drive around with people in the back of my pickup. I'm sure the judge will dismiss the $10 no seatbelt citations of my passengers when I show him the link to the FAQ. We are dealing with an issue of jurisprudence, not the letter of the law but how it has been interpreted by judges in the past. The "out of reach term" has nothing to do with proper transportation and everything to do with avoiding a charge based on the concealed weapons statute. You will never be charged with improper transport with a encased and unloaded firearm in a motor vehicle even in your lap, but you may be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. If that is a concern for anyone than if the weapon is "out of reach" they will have a very good legal defense. I look forward to Walker cleaning all this up by repealing 941.23.

MKE Gal wasn't charged with a concealed weapons violation and her firearm was on the seat next to her encased when she was "accosted" by LEO's en masse. There have been quite a few of us who have had the opportunity of having LEO's see the encased gun on the seat next to us at gas stations, traffic stops and even church parking lots and not one has been charged with a concealed weapons violation. I personally have had at least three officers watch me remove my firearm from my front seat (unloaded and encased) and "do the dance" while attending open carry events. The last time this happened to me was at Hubert's last get together up north. There were at least 4 officers walking around us and not one of us was arrested and charged with a concealed weapons or transport violation.

If the LEO's wanted to go nuts with 941.23 then police chiefs and sheriffs all across the state should station officers at the entrance to every store that sells or works on firearms and arrest everyone going in or out of the store with a legally encased firearm.

I for one am not going to worry about 941.23 since it is IMPOSSIBLE to adhere to both 941.23 AND 167.31 simultaneously. You can only do one or the other at a time. While transporting I am in compliance with 167.31.

We have to band together and fix the DNR rule for transport AND get rid of most if not all of 941.23.

rcawdor57 said:

....There have been quite a few of us who have had the opportunity of having LEO's see the encased gun on the seat next to us at gas stations, traffic stops and even church parking lots and not one has been charged with a concealed weapons violation. I personally have had at least three officers watch me remove my firearm from my front seat (unloaded and encased) and "do the dance" while attending open carry events. ...

If the LEO's wanted to go nuts with 941.23 then police chiefs and sheriffs all across the state should station officers at the entrance to every store that sells or works on firearms and arrest everyone going in or out of the store with a legally encased firearm.

I for one am not going to worry about 941.23 since it is IMPOSSIBLE to adhere to both 941.23 AND 167.31 simultaneously. You can only do one or the other at a time. While transporting I am in compliance with 167.31.

We have to band together and fix the DNR rule for transport AND get rid of most if not all of 941.23.

Click to expand...

Right on! I agree - word for word.

Uziel Gal said:

I notice the same DOT/State Patrol website also tells me its legal to drive around with people in the back of my pickup. I'm sure the judge will dismiss the $10 no seatbelt citations of my passengers when I show him the link to the FAQ.

Click to expand...

As long as your passenger is over 8 years old and you have a topper or older then 16 in an open bed your are good to go .

You will never be charged with improper transport with a encased and unloaded firearm in a motor vehicle even in your lap, but you may be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. If that is a concern for anyone than if the weapon is "out of reach" they will have a very good legal defense. I look forward to Walker cleaning all this up by repealing 941.23.

Click to expand...

If someone is that concerned, how did you get the firearm in the vehicle to start with? When it was encased you had a concealed weapon in your hand!

These laws are truly screwed up and hopefully they get cleared up soon.Until then I will continue to transport my firearm legally encased and unloaded sitting right next to my person. I keep it under my supervision for the children, I'd hate to see my firearm jump out of the truck and start shooting on it's own when I drive pass a school .

Edited to add:
I guess I should say that if you are really worried about an officer reaching to charge you with something then the best place would be in your trunk. It could also be said that you'd have less hassle just keeping it in your safe. Until the laws are crystal clear there will always be a risk involved, weather from transporting your firearm or having diner with friends at a Culver's.

It's for situations we are discussing now that I am proud to be a member of WCI where they have proven time and again they will support their members who were wrongfully charged for violations while acting within the law .

rcawdor57 said:

MKE Gal wasn't charged with a concealed weapons violation and her firearm was on the seat next to her encased when she was "accosted" by LEO's en masse. There have been quite a few of us who have had the opportunity of having LEO's see the encased gun on the seat next to us at gas stations, traffic stops and even church parking lots and not one has been charged with a concealed weapons violation. I personally have had at least three officers watch me remove my firearm from my front seat (unloaded and encased) and "do the dance" while attending open carry events. The last time this happened to me was at Hubert's last get together up north. There were at least 4 officers walking around us and not one of us was arrested and charged with a concealed weapons or transport violation.

If the LEO's wanted to go nuts with 941.23 then police chiefs and sheriffs all across the state should station officers at the entrance to every store that sells or works on firearms and arrest everyone going in or out of the store with a legally encased firearm.

I for one am not going to worry about 941.23 since it is IMPOSSIBLE to adhere to both 941.23 AND 167.31 simultaneously. You can only do one or the other at a time. While transporting I am in compliance with 167.31.

We have to band together and fix the DNR rule for transport AND get rid of most if not all of 941.23.

Click to expand...

Not to mention none of us are charged with "brandishing." And so far, I know of only one person who was harassed because he was "doing the dance." Well, that and his "police car." :banghead:

I'm an OC virgin and joined a few days ago. I attempted to interpret the transportation law as I read it over and over. Each time I found the voices in my head arguing as to what can be interpreted as "legal." It's nice to know I'm not alone. :banghead: Saying that, I did get pulled over by a trooper a few years back and had a rifle in my truck resting behind my head and pistol on my passenger seat next to me. Both were unloaded, encased, and each had a loaded mag in the case with it. Besides sitting in the back of his car listening to him run the serial numbers over the radio the only remotely bad thing that happened was a warning for illegal exhaust. All in all a painless and semi-educational experience.

XD40V10 said:

I'm an OC virgin and joined a few days ago. I attempted to interpret the transportation law as I read it over and over. Each time I found the voices in my head arguing as to what can be interpreted as "legal." It's nice to know I'm not alone. :banghead: Saying that, I did get pulled over by a trooper a few years back and had a rifle in my truck resting behind my head and pistol on my passenger seat next to me. Both were unloaded, encased, and each had a loaded mag in the case with it. Besides sitting in the back of his car listening to him run the serial numbers over the radio the only remotely bad thing that happened was a warning for illegal exhaust. All in all a painless and semi-educational experience.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. I hope you join Wisconsin Carry and attend our get togethers. We have quite a few planned all over the state. We had dinner last night at Lizzy's Green Cafe and do so usually every other Friday night. Starbucks in Delavan once a month and there is an upcoming dinner/lunch at Culvers and I think Panera Bread as well. Hope to see you at one of these events!

Has Keith Been Overturned?

To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. 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).

Or Walls?

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation
by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from
view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this
section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).

If you believe that you cannot comply with both laws simultaneously then ask which carries the greater penalty - violation of 941.23 or 167.31? Of course you can comply with both by transporting "out of reach."