Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: AB323 introduced - allowing non handguns ON vehicles

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    AB323 introduced - allowing non handguns ON vehicles

    I am not a hunter and don't own a long gun or bow so I am not positive what this fixes but I believe we can get it tweaked to fix 941.23 for car carry without a permit.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-323.pdf

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB323hst.html


    I
    t also looks like SB 228 is the companion bill:

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB228hst.html

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB-228.pdf
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 10-13-2011 at 08:26 AM.

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest
    so Paul, are we talking a scabbard and rifle for my motorcycle?................this is going to be sooo cool!

    http://motorcycle-rifle-scabbard.rifles-cheap.us/
    Last edited by McX; 10-13-2011 at 08:36 AM.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    It certainly would be nice to be able to mount a rifle in the vehicle.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I am not a hunter and don't own a long gun or bow so I am not positive what this fixes but I believe we can get it tweaked to fix 941.23 for car carry without a permit.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-323.pdf

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB323hst.html


    I
    t also looks like SB 228 is the companion bill:

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB228hst.html

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB-228.pdf
    Huh, SB-228 doesn't seem to show up?

    I like your idea of having it tweaked for sure! Something like; a weapon under this section is not considered concealed as per 941.23.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Here is what I wrote to my legislators:

    While I am not a hunter, I appreciate the cleanup of the laws to allow non-handguns the same rights as handguns in/on vehicles.

    If I could make one small request, as a further cleanup of Act 35, I would suggest some wording that exempts weapons carried in compliance of 167.31 from 941.23 without a permit. The confusing rules that 167.31 has become with Act 35 and the difference between possessing and carrying is just asking for trouble.


    The DOJ FAQ implies that I can legally have a loaded firearm in my vehicle as long as it isn't concealed. It then says I can have it in my glove box, which I believe is concealed, at least in my mind, is 'out of ordinary view'. Either amending 941.23 to say "this section does not apply to weapons in compliance with 167.31" or 167.31 referencing back 941.23 would be awesome!


    Thanks for considering this.


    --

    Paul L Fisher

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,193
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I am not a hunter and don't own a long gun or bow so I am not positive what this fixes but I believe we can get it tweaked to fix 941.23 for car carry without a permit.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-323.pdf

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB323hst.html


    I
    t also looks like SB 228 is the companion bill:

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB228hst.html

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB-228.pdf
    What it stops is getting a citation for setting your unloaded gun against or on a non moving vehicle. Like laying it in the box of a pick up setting in on the tail gate or hood ect. It was commn for wardens t cit people for having guns leaning against their vehicle.

    What is really needed is to do away with the gun has to be cased law all togather.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    ...What is really needed is to do away with the gun has to be cased law all togather.
    A big +1 on that!
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Ditto to FI.

    The prohibition of carrying a loaded uncased long gun in or on a vehicle no longer serves any significant law enforcement purpose other than a revenue maker for the DNR. Those that defend the statute on the grounds that it is needed for public safety no longer have a worthy argument. Those areas where public safety is of most concern now will allow the carry of loaded uncased handguns in vehicles so the argument becomes moot. Some Western states allow carry of loaded firearms in vehicles and have not experienced any major law enforcement or public safety issues. They typically are states with large cattle ranches. Ranchers patrolling their ranches demand ready access to firearms for predator control in order to protect their cattle. Many of us that have farms in the Western part of the state have a similar need. My area of the state has seen an explosion of the coyote population and not to far North there is a rapidly increasing wolf and black bear population. Depredation from all those animals is on an ever increasing trend. If you see a coyote, wolf, or bear butchering one of your newborn calves how sucessful do you think you can be to get within handgun range? How patient do you think the beast will be to wait for you to get out of your vehicle, uncase your firearm, load your firearm and shoot it. You can't just shoot a wolf or bear because you see one. It must be killed while in the process of killing or you will have a hard time convincing the DNR that the shooting was justified. You can't just go hunting for it if it vacates the scene. Coyotes are not protected so can be shot for any reason but have you ever tried to get within handgun range of a coyote? That's one reason the prohibition must go. Another is that it is discriminatory. Why is a person allowed to protect themself in a vehicle with a handgun and not a long gun. Isn't their safety just as important in either case? Isn't their right to self protection the same? Some people don't own a handgun. Is it fair to demand that they go out and spend $400+ of money they may not have, in order to buy a handgun so they can provide for their self protection while in a vehicle? There are a number of long guns that can be effectively be used in a vehicle for security. Some examples: My SKS paratrooper with 16 inch barrel. Mossberg 500 with 20 inch barrel, M1 carbine, Ruger ranch rifle, Ruger 44 magnum etc. Some aren't much bigger than a Taurus Raging Bull which would be exempt from casing. 167.31 isn't just an inner-city problem. It's a state wide problem. It's time to stop trying to mold 167.31 into something useable in both environments and just plain get rid of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Public hearing: Date/time: October 26, 2011 at 9:00 AM. Location: The location was changed to 417 North (GAR Hall).


    It still would be nice to 'fix' car carry for the rest of us. Pester the representatives.


    See post 5
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 10-25-2011 at 08:25 AM.

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest
    !

  11. #11
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    What it stops is getting a citation for setting your unloaded gun against or on a non moving vehicle. Like laying it in the box of a pick up setting in on the tail gate or hood ect. It was commn for wardens t cit people for having guns leaning against their vehicle..
    The days of being cited for an unloaded firearm leaning against a vehicle were over years ago....

    167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
    bow
    (2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
    ROADWAYS.
    (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
    (4) EXCEPTIONS.
    (d) Subsection (2) (b) does not prohibit a person from leaning
    an unloaded firearm against a vehicle

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •