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.
