Casing Law Change

One of my favorite parts of the original SB93 besides constitutional carry was the change in gun case laws- From the forward in the bill:

"In addition, current law prohibits, with certain exceptions, carrying a firearm,
bow, or crossbow in most vehicles unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or the
bow or crossbow is unstrung and encased. This bill generally eliminates the
requirements that the firearm be unloaded and encased and that the bow or crossbow
be unstrung and encased in order to be carried in a vehicle. The bill retains the
requirement that a firearm be unloaded and encased in order to be carried on a
commercial aircraft."

From what I understand this was eliminated in the final bill to only allow hand guns be uncased. Is this true that every other casing law is staying the same now? I was so disappointed when I heard this as I think our gun casing laws are ridiculous.

samsam said:

Is this true that every other casing law is staying the same now? I was so disappointed when I heard this as I think our gun casing laws are ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Everything is the same except for handguns. A few months back, they tried to do it for hunting and they could not even get that passed.

True - only handguns can be out of the case, or loaded, in a vehicle.
And now, if you don't have a permit & drive through a school zone, the case has to be locked.
That's a change that I bet will be a surprise for a lot of hunters.
(SB93 references the federal "GF"SZ law, which requires the locked case.)

MKEgal said:

That's a change that I bet will be a surprise for a lot of hunters.
(SB93 references the federal "GF"SZ law, which requires the locked case.)

Click to expand...

The DNR regs will have to explain this now otherwise only hunters who carry will be aware. For the one month we have to wait after the law goes into effect until you get your permit, we will also have to comply with this additional hassle. I would not put it past the government to charge someone...its a felony and the government relishes in taking away your rights.

MKEgal said:

True - only handguns can be out of the case, or loaded, in a vehicle.
And now, if you don't have a permit & drive through a school zone, the case has to be locked.
That's a change that I bet will be a surprise for a lot of hunters.
(SB93 references the federal "GF"SZ law, which requires the locked case.)

Click to expand...

Actually, no. The last iteration of SB93 took out that part.

948.605 (2) (b) 1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv),
(v), (vi), or (vii).

Click to expand...

Notice, no reference to (iii) which says: "(iii) that is -
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is
on a motor vehicle;"

So, it has to be:

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.

Click to expand...

and, here is what the AP forgot and the LRB FAQ memo forgot:

948.605 (2) (b) 1r. Except if the person is in or on the grounds of a
school, a licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an
out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

Click to expand...

. A non-permit holder can't even be unloaded, encased in the school zone.

that is a serious error in the law, but is there any time to do anything about it?

McX said:

. A non-permit holder can't even be unloaded, encased in the school zone.

that is a serious error in the law, but is there any time to do anything about it?

Click to expand...

No. We will have to see what can happen after they come back in session, which will be in September.

you ever notice how the entire bill crams a permit up your butt whether you want it or not?!

smithman said:

The DNR regs will have to explain this now otherwise only hunters who carry will be aware. For the one month we have to wait after the law goes into effect until you get your permit, we will also have to comply with this additional hassle. I would not put it past the government to charge someone...its a felony and the government relishes in taking away your rights.

Click to expand...

No, it has been dropped to a Class B forfeiture, which means no crime, a fine up to $1000.

Never mind. I just put together the new state GFSZ law and we are OK unloaded, encased without a permit in the 1000' zone.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-(state-GFSZ)-post-SB93&p=1566109#post1566109

I will edit my posts.

What would make you happy?

Those who post find fault with everything but Constitutional Carry. The posts condemn the permit system in WI. If WI had Constitutional Carry you would have to buy out of state permits anyway. You would need an OH, MN.and good luck in MD! boar out

wild boar said:

Those who post find fault with everything but Constitutional Carry. the posts condemn the permit system in WI. If WI had Constitutional Carry you would have to buy out of state permits anyway. you would need an OH, MN.and good luck in MD! boar out

Click to expand...

Why? I spend 99% of my life in WI.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Why? I spend 99% of my life in WI.

Click to expand...

I leave WI for maybe a week every year as well, so permits mean nothing for me.

wild boar said:

Those who post find fault with everything but Constitutional Carry. The posts condemn the permit system in WI. If WI had Constitutional Carry you would have to buy out of state permits anyway. You would need an OH, MN and good luck in MD!

Click to expand...

I'd be OK with an optional permit system and CC, esp. if the CC law said something like "all US citizens who are legally able to possess a firearm under federal law are considered licensed by the State for the purpose of the federal "GF"SZ act".
(Yeah, I know, the federal law requires that people have background checks.)

Or if WI had CC and honored all other permits, from any state, held by any citizen. Again,
"all US citizens who are licensed by any other state to carry a firearm in any manner are considered licensed by the State for the purpose of the federal "GF"SZ act".

The only advantage to a home-state permit is that some other states only allow cc with a home-state permit. (And the federal "GF"SZ" act could land you a federal felony without it.)

But why would I have to buy a permit from anywhere else? If I don't travel outside WI, it wouldn't matter. (As it is, I rarely travel outside WI, & got a permit from another state to cover the state I travel to most often.)

We have a very good issue permit system. I believe we made great progress in the first few months with the new administration. We received the best deal, and had more than our share of attention from Madison. These are times of much greater needs than a CC bill. I may be new to OCDO, but am not to the right to carry. I value this right as much as the next persons Rights, no more, no less. I have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but don't drive around laughing like a fool to find it. All things will come in time. boar out

wild boar said:

We have a very good issue permit system. I believe we made great progress in the first few months with the new administration. We received the best deal, and had more than our share of attention from Madison. These are times of much greater needs than a CC bill. I may be new to OCDO, but am not to the right to carry. I value this right as much as the next persons Rights, no more, no less. I have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but don't drive around laughing like a fool to find it. All things will come in time. boar out

Click to expand...

I agree it is pretty good, I am just saying we were promised better.

It's not a perfect system Paul,

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I agree it is pretty good, I am just saying we were promised better.

Click to expand...

But by any standard, it's the best one going. We didn't get the right we wanted, but we won a right. boar out.

Some of us DO travel to other States, and DO need a WI permit. I have both a MN & FL permit now, because... my daughter & grandkids live in MN, my sister lives in FL, my wife's family is in CO. I go to MN several times each year, and FL & CO about every other year.

\Even with two permits now, I cannot carry in the state I go to most... MI. I'm only a 15 min ride from the U.P., I go there 2-3 times each & every week (was there Fri, Sun, and today, just this weekend), and the only way I can cc in MI (or CO) is with a WI permit.

Yes I know I can open carry in MI, but that's kinda useless because I drive there, not walk, and walk around very little when I'm there. 95% of my time in MI is spent in my service truck (where my G19 or 1911 must be unloaded, encased, and as far away from the driver as possible). I also know that it's MI's law that sucks, but there's not much I can do to change the laws in another State. It's up to the people in MI, and they have little motive to re-write their law when only 3 States issue no permits.

All I can do is work with my own State's laws, write and speak to my own legislators... and I personally let both my Assembly Rep and Senator know that I was oppopsed to any law that did not have at least an "optional" permit. I supported the AZ/AK type law that SB93 started out as, and told them so. I opposed a VT type law, and told them that too.

safcrkr said:

All I can do is work with my own State's laws, write and speak to my own legislators... and I personally let both my Assembly Rep and Senator know that I was oppopsed to any law that did not have at least an "optional" permit. I supported the AZ/AK type law that SB93 started out as, and told them so. I opposed a VT type law, and told them that too.

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. Original SB93 had no permit. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb93.pdf it wasn't until SSA1 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/amendments/sb93/ssa1_sb93.pdf that there was an optional permit. SSA2 is when they made it mandatory. So.... you never supported the original, you supported SSA1.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

You are contradicting yourself. Original SB93 had no permit. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb93.pdf it wasn't until SSA1 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/amendments/sb93/ssa1_sb93.pdf that there was an optional permit. SSA2 is when they made it mandatory. So.... you never supported the original, you supported SSA1.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I wasn't clear enough. What I was referring to was SB93 prior to the current mandatory permits & training that was in SSA2, and are now part of SB93.