• 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.

Open Carry In A Vehicle

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
It's on page 4 in the enrolled SB93.

It's has nothing to do with the permit. 167.31 was ammended to exclude hanguns to eliminate 'The Dance'.

167.31 has zero to do with concealed though. It has everything to do with loaded and cased. In order to effectively carry concealed in a car or truck with the permit, you must also be allowed to have it loaded and in a holster or otherwise accessible. OC on a motorcycle or bicycle, etc is pretty straight forward. I see no clarification that OC does not = CC when you are in a car or truck and the handgun is "hidden from ordinary view"..
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
167.31(1)(b)
(b) "Encased" means enclosed in a case that is expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed.

Except for certain flapped type. Holsters do not comply with this paaragraph. They generally do not sheild a firearm from ordinary view so they don't meet one of the rules of concealment. I know, some of you are going to cite Walls, and Fischer and Vegas. The rules of concealment apply whether you are walking, in or on a vehicle, in or on a boat, in your own home etc.

The DNR has "Rule Making Authority". RMA means that a rule made by a derpartment with that authority is considered law until found otherwise in a court of law.

The DNR says this in the 2010 hunting rules.

"Arms transportation:
• All firearms must be unloaded and completely enclosed within carrying cases designed
to carry a firearm when in or on any vehicle whether moving or stationary.
A holster is not a legal carrying case for a handgun in a vehicle unless it completely
encloses the handgun."

The statement says that a holster is not a proper means of concealment. The whole purpose of a carrying case in this paragraph is to conceal the weapon.

SB93 made the following change to 167.31(2)(b). by adding "unless the firearm is a handgun as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm)".

167.31 (2) (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 a handgun,
as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), unless the firearm
is unloaded and encased, or unless the bow or crossbow
is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.

By the most simple logic handguns are exempted from being encased while in or on a vehicle. The encasement rule no longer applies to a handgun carried in a holster.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
167 is only 1 of the 2 Statutes which prevent us from holster carry in a car. No exception was made to the CCW statute clarifying that holster carry in a car (or any other carry) is not CC.

The DNR has "Rule Making Authority". RMA means that a rule made by a derpartment with that authority is considered law until found otherwise in a court of law.

The DNR says this in the 2010 hunting rules.

"Arms transportation:
• All firearms must be unloaded and completely enclosed within carrying cases designed
to carry a firearm when in or on any vehicle whether moving or stationary.
A holster is not a legal carrying case for a handgun in a vehicle unless it completely
encloses the handgun."

The statement says that a holster is not a proper means of concealment. The whole purpose of a carrying case in this paragraph is to conceal the weapon.
.

The "hunting rules" have no authority. They are simply a helpful guide to the actual rules. It is the NR10 Administrative code and WI Statutes which you are held to. Concealment has absolutely zero to do with "enclosed". The Statute uses the wording "exposed". This does not mean unable to be viewed or concealed as a transparent case meets the letter of the law. Exposed simply means not covered by the case. If your case is too small and the barrel sticks out, it is exposed. If the case is zipped up bt there is a rip in the side, the firearm may be exposed. The Statute is intended to prevent access, not hide the firearm. The portion of the "rule" book you quoted actually referrences Statute 167 which the DNR has zero control over.
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
The way I see it...

Statute 167.31 is the main reason we cannot open carry (loaded and holstered) in a vehicle. That staute is being repealed with SB-93.... gone... non-existant....

None of the above has anything do do with concealed carry with permit....

When SB-93 goes into effect, you will not need a permit to OC in a vehicle as the statute 167.31 will be eliminated... The "Dance" will be gone.... :banana: :banana: :banana:

This was my biggest gripe when it became known that the repeal of statute 167.31 was going to be included in the 4 month waiting period... NOTHING to do with the new permits, but yet those who want to maintain Open Carry, still have to wait before they can do it in a vehicle.....:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Outdoorsman1
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
167 is only 1 of the 2 Statutes which prevent us from holster carry in a car. No exception was made to the CCW statute clarifying that holster carry in a car (or any other carry) is not CC.

Excellant point, and I agree. I was wondering how that would work also. With a permit, there's no issue, because anybody with a permit is exempted from 941.23 in most places, including vehicles, with the exception of the designated "off limits" & "posted" locations. But the permit holders (residents or non-residents with recipricol permits) are the only ones exempted from 941.23's ban on cc. The only other significant change to 941.23 is it gives an exemption to those who are at home, in their business, or on their own property - by statute, not just SC's Hamdan ruling (important distinction). It does not extend that exemption from the cc statute to inside vehicles for non-permittees.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out... but I would not place a loaded pistol under my car seat on Nov.1st.
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
The way I see it...

Statute 167.31 is the main reason we cannot open carry (loaded and holstered) in a vehicle. That staute is being repealed with SB-93....

Outdoorsman1

Sorry, but that's not true. See State v. Cole or State v. Fisher. Carrying an uncased firearm in a vehicle has always been a violation of 941.23 (concealed carry ban) AND 167.31. Even an unloaded and cased firearm is a violation of 941.23 if it's within reach. 941.23 is the more serious, because it's a class A misdemeanor (criminal offense), while 167.31 is a civil forfeiture (basically a "ticket" like littering or jaywalking).
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
The way I see it...

Statute 167.31 is the main reason we cannot open carry (loaded and holstered) in a vehicle. That staute is being repealed with SB-93.... gone... non-existant....

None of the above has anything do do with concealed carry with permit....

When SB-93 goes into effect, you will not need a permit to OC in a vehicle as the statute 167.31 will be eliminated... The "Dance" will be gone.... :banana: :banana: :banana:

This was my biggest gripe when it became known that the repeal of statute 167.31 was going to be included in the 4 month waiting period... NOTHING to do with the new permits, but yet those who want to maintain Open Carry, still have to wait before they can do it in a vehicle.....:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Outdoorsman1

167.31 IS NOT BEING REPEALED It will be the same as it was for long guns, bows and crossbows. It is simply being ammended to make an exception for handguns. Nothing more.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Sorry, but that's not true. See State v. Cole or State v. Fisher. Carrying an uncased firearm in a vehicle has always been a violation of 941.23 (concealed carry ban) AND 167.31. Even an unloaded and cased firearm is a violation of 941.23 if it's within reach. 941.23 is the more serious, because it's a class A misdemeanor (criminal offense), while 167.31 is a civil forfeiture (basically a "ticket" like littering or jaywalking).

Thank you for the information. I have been stopped by LEO (He recived a report from a concerned citizen that I was carrying a loaded gun in my car)...

I had the unloaded and cased firearm on the passenger seat well within reach. He confirmed (by checking with my permission) that it was unloded. I went on my merry way.... I guess I was lucky he was not a game warden or DNR guy..(???)....

Outdoorsman1
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
This very subject has been discussed at length, hundreds of times, on other forums. Carrying an uncased firearm (loaded or not) in a vehicle in WI has always been a violation of TWO state statutes... 167.31 & 941.23.

You know the definition of 167.31.. no need to rehash that.

To violate 941.23, three things must be present.

1.) A firearm (or other weapon) hidden from ordinary observation.

2.) The actor knows it's there.

3.) It's within reach.

The WI Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that inside a vehicle constitutes #1, and the passenger compartment = #3. Not hard to prove you knew it was there if it's your gun and your vehicle.

We used to joke on another forum, that the only perfectly and technically legal way to transport any firearm in a vehicle in WI is in a clear gun case duct-taped to the hood or roof. The sad part is it wasn't really a joke, but a fact.
 
Last edited:

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
Thank you for the information. I have been stopped by LEO (He recived a report from a concerned citizen that I was carrying a loaded gun in my car)...

I had the unloaded and cased firearm on the passenger seat well within reach. He confirmed (by checking with my permission) that it was unloded. I went on my merry way.... I guess I was lucky he was not a game warden or DNR guy..(???)....

Outdoorsman1

You, sir, are lucky. That was a clear violation of 941.23 as it's written. Fortunately for us (and you in particular) it's not always enforced as such... which is why you aren't in jail and still own that gun. But what will happen after SB93 goes into effect? A big part of the reason 941.23 is not enforced as strict as it can be, is DAs have shyed away from prosecutions of cc ever since Hamdan, for fear a case might go to the S. C. and what they might do to 941.23. I have no idea if that will change. But as Interceptor Knight said, there is no exemption from 941.23's ban on cc in vehicles (for non-permittees) in SB 93 that either he or I can find. Just an exception to 167.31. And trust me... he's very good at dechiphering the laws.

Read up on the recent Andres Vegas case in Milwaukee, or read the other two decisions in my previous post (Cole & Fisher).

Better keep it on the dashboard if you don't get a permit, or until we see how this will be enforced.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
This very subject has been discussed at length, hundreds of times, on other forums. Carrying an uncased firearm (loaded or not) in a vehicle in WI has always been a violation of TWO state statutes... 167.31 & 941.23.

You know the definition of 167.31.. no need to rehash that.

To violate 941.23, three things must be present.

1.) A firearm (or other weapon) hidden from ordinary observation.

2.) The actor knows it's there.

3.) It's within reach.

The WI Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that inside a vehicle constitutes #1, and the passenger compartment = #3. Not hard to prove you knew it was there if it's your gun and your vehicle.

We used to joke on another forum, that the only perfectly and technically legal way to transport any firearm in a vehicle in WI is in a clear gun case duct-taped to the hood or roof. The sad part is it wasn't really a joke, but a fact.
Not true. That was a court opinion, not a law or court decision.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Not true. That was a court opinion, not a law or court decision.
Dude... It's irrefutable truth. it is published case law.... Here is the actual quote from the WI Statute...
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0941.pdf
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).
What is not case law is the definition of "hidden". This is the only thing left to debate.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Dude... It's irrefutable truth. it is published case law.... Here is the actual quote from the WI Statute...
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0941.pdf

What is not case law is the definition of "hidden". This is the only thing left to debate.

Not true. Any future court could change the debate on anything that you have argued. The mindset of the court has been shifting towards the Constitution. I would argue that it will continue to do so.
 
M

McX

Guest
since those in authority usually dont know the law, and random chances act in our favor, none of this has ever had to be challenged directly. but it will change soon anyway. i'm fancying an Open Carry motorcycle experience(s) personally.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Yup, this is the same argument as before SB93 and it applies in pretty much the same way. Before; and I'm paraphrasing, the courts said that there is no reason we couldn't comply with both. Wrong...but anyway....

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).

I think that's pretty clear cut; unfortunately. If a gun on a car seat was concealed, then one on your belt that's touching the car seat probably is too.


I'm sure, just as before, people will say that they won't enforce it. Maybe they won't. But just as before, they COULD enforce it, which is the problem.

ETA: One other thing. If it's the courts duty to interpret legislative intent; in light of SB93, they must rightfully decide that the court in State v. Walls was wrong in it's definition of concealed or that a handgun is somehow immune.
 
Last edited:
Top