Having a loaded handgun in a vehicle restriction was removed under 167.31. For whatever reason, some people think that 941.23 pertains to vehicles (especially since a vehicle is classified as your castle under 895.62).
IANAL
IANAL
-
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.
-
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.
entering/ exiting owned vehicle while OC'ing
- Thread starter dalivia
- Start date
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Some people like the WI Legislative Bureau, WI DOJ, WI Attorney General, and even our representatives who voted on Act 35... :dude:
.
.
.
The reality is that there is zero basis to believe that it would not apply to vehicles. You will find the word "CASTLE" nowhere in any applicable WI Statutes or Administrative code. You do however find an exception to 941.23 for
Your vehicle is not typically your "dwelling" and definitely not your Castle, whatever that may be..
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I see. That explains the strange situation. We don't have that here in Virginia. You can carry open or conceal in your vehicle, with or without a permit (if without a permit and concealed, the gun can be in the glove box or console, just not on your person).
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Since the OP is inquiring about WI law and this thread is now in the WI forum, I would suggest that any continued questions regarding Ohio or Virginia, etc law be made in which of those forums is appropriate.
eye95
Well-known member
If someone responds to me about Ohio, I'll respond to him.
Ohio was being discussed in this thread long before anyone decided to move it to Wisconsin.
If a member of the staff feels strongly that this should be about Wisconsin, they can split out the other posts and move them back into the non-State-specific area where it was.
This thread did not start out being about Wisconsin. Trying to force it to be is a bit ham-handed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
Ohio was being discussed in this thread long before anyone decided to move it to Wisconsin.
If a member of the staff feels strongly that this should be about Wisconsin, they can split out the other posts and move them back into the non-State-specific area where it was.
This thread did not start out being about Wisconsin. Trying to force it to be is a bit ham-handed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
That is a major flaw I see in both Alabama and Ohio. I am a proponent of UC (unlicensed carry). Rules restricting carry in a car to licensees infringes on UC and, therefore, the 2A.
I look forward to the day when we can carry everywhere (except where property owners are exercising their right) without a permission slip. I don't care if they restrict concealment, as long as I can carry.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
eye95
Well-known member
OP never mentioned his State, and there were several responses before anyone mentioned Wisconsin.
So, we should just scrap those discussions???
There are tools to split discussions. If a staff member really cared about handling this right, he'd split the discussion, and move the non-Wisconsin discussion back to the non-Wisconsin area where it started.
Or he could move the whole thing.
But, kill the rest of the appropriately started discussions? Ham-handed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
So, we should just scrap those discussions???
There are tools to split discussions. If a staff member really cared about handling this right, he'd split the discussion, and move the non-Wisconsin discussion back to the non-Wisconsin area where it started.
Or he could move the whole thing.
But, kill the rest of the appropriately started discussions? Ham-handed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
There would be no reason to split the thread off as the questions asked appear to have been answered. Note that I mentioned "continued" questions.
It most definitely started with the OP asking about WI. This being the case, the Admins properly moved the thread here to the WI forum and not to the Ohio forum. I politely suggested that continued Ohio, etc discussions be continued in their State forums. This makes absolute sense since WI residents will not be intimate with Ohio, etc law and Ohio, etc residents would be assured of seeing the inquiry and those knowledgeable would be afforded the opportunity to assist. Insisting on keeping Ohio, etc discussion in a WI forum thread is just plain silly.
eye95
Well-known member
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Do you consider all moderation to be "ham handed"? Nobody has cut off any discussions prematurely. The other side bars have run their course. The suggestion is to continue future questions in their appropriate forum. Are you being deliberately daft?
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Nobody called anyone names. May I suggest you consult Webster if you do not understand the meaning and use of words and phrases.
eye95
Well-known member
You accused me of being "daft," asking if I was being so deliberately. I suggest you become familiar with the language, including linking verbs and adjectives, and what they communicate.
So, again, nice name-calling. Such behavior speaks well of you and the site.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
So, again, nice name-calling. Such behavior speaks well of you and the site.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
I questioned your motivation. I was asking if you were being deliberately foolish. In other words if you were trolling. I didn't call you daft. I do believe that it is silly to claim over moderation simply because I suggested that Ohio discussions will be more productive in the Ohio forum. This is not equal to calling you a silly person. Drama much? I am not a moderator and I did not demand that you do anything. How is that heavy-handed over-moderation? It is a common sense suggestion. Lighten up, Francis.
eye95
Well-known member
You decidedly did call me daft, using that precise word.
You could apologize, but you decide to try to redefine what you said and defend it, making it seem that, by calling you on that behavior, somehow my behavior is the problem. Just recognize that you did something wrong, apologize for your actions, and move on. If you keep trying to defend what you said, I will keep rebutting your defense.
Name-calling by you does not speak well of you or the site.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
You could apologize, but you decide to try to redefine what you said and defend it, making it seem that, by calling you on that behavior, somehow my behavior is the problem. Just recognize that you did something wrong, apologize for your actions, and move on. If you keep trying to defend what you said, I will keep rebutting your defense.
Name-calling by you does not speak well of you or the site.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Are you being deliberately daft? Are you daft? See the difference?
Red Dawg
Regular Member
If eye95 isn't OT arguing something silly he isn't happy. He, by being so argumentive, doubles the post count of every thread he comments in.
eye95
Well-known member
Yes, one is asking if I am. The other is assuming the state and asking if it is by choice. Both are insulting, the former being more so.
I see that no apology is forthcoming. Your choice. But name-calling does not speak well of you or the site. If you continue to defend the insult, I will continue to rebut. If you stop (or, better yet, apologize), then this can end. Of course, you can follow in the footsteps of another and go nuclear for the "win." Again, your choice.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
eye95
Well-known member
I am merely responding to those who respond to me or, in your case, about me. It is entirely up to you whether this bit of OT ends. But, I would say this side discussion of yours about OT is, ironically, OT. Throwing stones might not be your best option. Unless your house is made of a different kind of glass than everyone else's, in which case, I will defer to your specialness.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
You win... I apologize for using the word daft when questioning your motivations. I am done participating in this thread hijack... I do not post for the sake of arguing, so I am not motivated by a need to "win" in a thread..