leaning firearms against vehicles

Interceptor_Knight said:

You are correct that Act 35 changed nothing for long guns.
The exception for unloaded and "leaning against" a vehicle has been in place for years. I am willing to bet that your friends had their long guns on the vehicle or they were loaded if they truly did get cited for a 167 violation. If this is not the case and they were cited for unloaded and leaning they likely paid the fine without objecting in court and they were unfortunate victims of their own ignorance regarding the law. I can believe that a warden could mistakenly cite for a violation but a judge would set them straight and throw it out of court.

Click to expand...

they did go to court and it didnt get thrown out.....thats why im confused and i guess after reading the statutes it does make sense......there is just so much to read and different ways to understand it. one person says this the next person says that the judges and lawyers say this...just to confusing...thanks for the info sir

The DNR booklet say "IN or ON", bolded no less. It doesn't say against. Just say'n

stevepk said:

The DNR booklet say "IN or ON", bolded no less. It doesn't say against. Just say'n

Click to expand...

The DNR pamphlet is a set of general guidelines. The pamphlet is not a set of laws. The pamphlet has zero authority.
The Statute is 167.31. The Statute generally prohibits in or on any vehicle. On includes leaning against and has held up in court scores of times.
The Statute had to be modified in order to allow an unloaded firearm to be set against a vehicle.

This is the same DNR that says turn over your firearms without question. The seat warming DNR headquarters guy that was in charge of hunters ed who said this is how it has to be is still there and got a promotion under Walker. Another example of those that worked under Doyle still calling the shots (no pun) regarding firearms. When they are in the DOJ and DNR, that IS something to be concerned about.

I understand that laying my loaded deer rifle in the dry bed of my pickup while I eat my lunch is illegal. But laying it in the snow next to the truck is all good. Safety or stupidity?

jrclen said:

I understand that laying my loaded deer rifle in the dry bed of my pickup while I eat my lunch is illegal. But laying it in the snow next to the truck is all good. Safety or stupidity?

Click to expand...

Stupidity since you can lay it in your case which you can first place on the ground.

There are a select few DNR wardens who will write citations on people for things they feel should be against the law, but no actual statute exists for what they write.

Case in Point, local warden writing cites for "Hunting After Hours" because a hunters does not immediately case his gun/bow the very second legal shooting hours end, or loading before the start of hunting hours. We saw it alot in this area when Kroeplin was still active, and we still see it from a select few buttheads that are followign in his shoes.
So I would fully expect a warden to write citations wrongfully, and willingly because it is cheaper for many people just to pay instead of trying to fight it, and they take advantage of it.

I can kinda understand why it's been upheld, that leaning a rifle against a vehicle is upheld. It's seems rather clear and not much of a stretch to say "leaning against" is "ON" the vehicle. I'm not saying it's right...but it's not much of a stretch...to me.