having a gun in a Pick Up truck

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I taught my daughter now 'doctor' well that "the road to hell is lined with what-ifs." 'Hypotheticals' is merely jargon for what-ifs.

I do not advise risking another's freedom on "more than likely be satisfied." Risk your freedom as you will.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

I totally agree with you, Jurisprudence is very important. But if two people are arrested and 1 is charged with illegally transporting because of lets say the above mentioned circumstances and he is found guilty and the other goes into another court and is found not guilty, what does this say for jurisprudence?

I would say that it doesn't say anything for it. That’s quite the hypothetical and it would be nigh impossible to have two people in exactly the same situation who said exactly the same thing to the police, who had the exact same lawyers and the exact same judge. There’s too many holes in that to even get a “what if” out of it. They'd even have to be tried at the exact same time. Hamdan and Cole were companion cases dealing with the same statute but the differences were enough to make the decisions different.



J.Gleason wrote:

If you follow all other statutes, regulations and case laws and transport the fire arm unloaded, encased and in a location farthest away from you inside the cab with out being concealed (behind the seat or in the glove box for example) then is this not within the law?

No, because if you can reach it you aren't following all the statutes, regulations, and case law.


[size=+0]
No offense;and to put it bluntly, the bottom line is:Who cares?!

Why sugar coat it? You know the statutes and case law, and they’re easily accessible to anyone who uses the forum. If someone comes on the forum and asks just tell them like it is.



I live in a small town too butI realize that my previous“ah, you’ll be OK” kind of attitude isn’t helping anybody.

[/size]

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

No offense;and to put it bluntly, the bottom line is:Who cares?!

Why sugar coat it? You know the statutes and case law, and they’re easily accessible to anyone who uses the forum. If someone comes on the forum and asks just tell them like it is.

That says it all

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[Mike]

imported post

Pointman wrote:

The court erred. It's called "legislating from the bench."

And if the court is an appeals court, then its the law, and the legislature is presumed to know of the construction, and must change the statute if they want the law to be different.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

It is even clearer than I thought. The elements of a violation of 941.23 are copied below.

Doug Huffman wrote:

Arguably the requirement is to be out of reach rather than "in the trunk". This is from case law and not statutes.

941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission warden.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.

[ ... ]

... The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden. State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

It is even clearer than I thought. The elements of a violation of 941.23 are copied below.

Yes sir! Right in the history of the statute: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0941.pdf

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

According to what the public has access to when looking for printed information regarding transporting of firearms,
this is all that I had found VIA DNR publications regarding transportation of firearms.
Nowhere in the regulation book does it state any of the case-law requirements as shown in Keith, Alloy, or any of the other cites. So by using the information published by the DNR. I do not see how we could be found guilty in court for following the printed materials as guidelines. I see nothing about "Out of reach" or "In the trunk" noted anywhere.

The DNR "book" is not even the entire Administrative code regarding DNR type statutes. The book is just a guideline for hunting. The book also states no rifles with barrels under 16". This is a general guideline assuming you do not have a NFA tax stamp as we can hunt deer (except for shotgunonly areas) or whatever else you want the rest of the year (including shotgun only zones which only apply for deer hunting) with a SBR which has a suppressor ("silencer") on it...

The book also does not mention the exception allowed for leaning an unloaded firearm against a vehicle (found in the actual code). The book does not mention school zones, etc..

Safe transportation and CCW are 2 seperate statutes in different sections. You can comply with the CCW and be in violation of the safe transportation statute or you can comply with the safe stransportation statute and have a concealed weapon.