• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

station wagon/firearm

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

It would be interesting to speculate on how Kieth would have been decided today. As a refesher, Kieth was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon because she had a handgun inside herhandbag and had thehandbag sitting beside her chair as she sat on her sister's porch. At the time the case was heard a purse was purse. They were designed to carry money and a cornucopia of paraphenalia, not firearms. Today the sutuation is different. There are a number of companies that sell handbags and fanny packs that according to theiradvertisments are expressly designed to carry concealed weapons. Are they considered the silk purse or the sow's ear? Would they be considered an acceptable encasement under 167.31? Time changes everything.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

[align=left][/align]
[align=left]The following was extracted from the Du-Ha web site. Du-Ha manufactures specialized underseat storage units for pickups. The response from the Wisconsin DNR is interesting. It represents the DNR enforcement policy, however that doesn't necessarilyrepresent court policy. It also questions the "or in a locked rack on a pickup truck" exception in the GFSZ statute 948.605.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin
(Not a legal gun case, unless guns are first placed in gun sleeves)
[/align]
[align=left]We received the following e-mail on June 15, 2006 from a Conservation Warden & Natural Resources Policy Officer at the Bureau of Law Enforcement for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

"In Wisconsin, it is illegal to place a firearm into a vehicle before it is completely cased and unloaded, and it is also illegal to remove a firearm from its case while the firearm/case is still inside of or on the vehicle.[/align]
[align=left]In Wisconsin, there are several issues that must be considered regarding the use of a built in storage box to carry or transport firearms. The most serious potential penalty could be that of "Carrying a concealed weapon". Generally, if a firearm is legally unloaded and cased in a recognizable gun case, it would not be considered concealed. It is however illegal to place any firearm inside of or on a vehicle before it is first unloaded and completely enclosed within a case expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed. If a firearm is to be placed into a built in case or storage area located inside or on a vehicle, the firearm would first need to be unloaded and placed into a firearm case outside the vehicle, before it is placed into a special storage area inside of or on the vehicle.[/align]
[align=left]Firearms placed in the storage units pictured on your web site would be in violation of Wisconsin law unless they were first unloaded and placed inside of a separate firearm case outside the vehicle and then the cased firearm placed into these types of storage units.[/align]
[align=left]Section 941.23, Wis. Stats. 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.[/align]
[align=left]To "go armed" does not require going anywhere. 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). A defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with a gun locked in a glove compartment. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986).[/align]
[align=left]Section 167.31, Wis. Stats. Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows.
Prohibitions; vehicles

No person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.[/align]
[align=left]"Encased" means enclosed in a case that is expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed.[/align]
[align=left]"Unloaded" means any of the following:
1. Having no shell or cartridge in the chamber of a firearm or in the magazine attached to a firearm.
2. In the case of a cap lock muzzle-loading firearm, having the cap removed.
3. In the case of a flint lock muzzle-loading firearm, having the flashpan cleaned of powder."

[/align]
[align=left]The following description was found online...

Transporting Firearms in Motor Vehicles, Boats, or Aircraft.

In general, no one may place, possess, or transport a firearm in a motor vehicle, motorboat, or aircraft unless the firearm is unloaded and in a carrying case. Loading or discharging a firearm in or from a vehicle is also prohibited [ss. 167.31 (2) (a) and (b), and (3) (a)].[/align]
[align=left]
[/align]
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Anything that you say will be used against you in a court of law.
The Miranda warning says "may be used" not "will be." There's a great deal of difference. "Will be" presupposes that anything you say is incriminating. Whereas it is possible that something you say may actually exonerate you.
I think that in this thread we are discussing a traffic stop, whereas Miranda applies only to criminal custodial interrogation Dickerson v. U.S. I-ANAL
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post


[align=left]941.2965 Restrictions on use of facsimile firearms.[/align]
[align=left](1)
In this section, “facsimile firearm” means any replica, toy,[/align]
[align=left]starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance[/align]
[align=left]to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm.[/align]
[align=left]“Facsimile firearm” does not include any actual firearm.[/align]

[align=left](2)
No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a[/align]
[align=left]manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate,[/align]
[align=left]threaten or terrify another person. Whoever violates this section[/align]
[align=left]is subject to a Class C forfeiture.[/align]

[align=left](3)
Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:[/align]
[align=left](a) Any peace officer acting in the discharge of his or her official[/align]
[align=left]duties. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), this paragraph does[/align]
[align=left]not apply to a commission warden.[/align]
[align=left](b) Any person engaged in military activities, sponsored by the[/align]
[align=left]state or federal government, acting in the discharge of his or her[/align]
[align=left]official duties.[/align]
[align=left](c) Any person who is on his or her own real property, in his[/align]
[align=left]or her own home or at his or her own fixed place of business.[/align]
[align=left](d) Any person who is on real property and acting with the consent[/align]
[align=left]of the owner of that property.[/align]

[align=left]History:
1993 a. 191; 1993 a. 491 s. 262; Stats. 1993 s. 941.2965; 2007 a. 27.[/align]
[align=left]941.297 Sale or distribution of imitation firearms.[/align]
[align=left](1)
In this section, “look−alike firearm” means any imitation of[/align]
[align=left]any original firearm that was manufactured, designed and produced[/align]
[align=left]after December 31, 1897, including and limited to toy guns,[/align]
[align=left]water guns, replica nonguns, and air−soft guns firing nonmetallic[/align]
[align=left]projectiles. “Look−alike firearm” does not include any imitation,[/align]
[align=left]nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior[/align]
[align=left]to 1898, or any traditional beebee, paint−ball or pellet−firing air[/align]
[align=left]gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure.[/align]

[align=left](2)
Beginning November 1, 1992, no person may sell or distribute[/align]
[align=left]any look−alike firearm. Whoever violates this subsection[/align]
[align=left]is subject to a Class A forfeiture.[/align]

[align=left](3)
This section does not apply to the sale or distribution of a[/align]
[align=left]look−alike firearm that complies with the marking or waiver[/align]
[align=left]requirements under 15 USC 5001 (b).[/align]

[align=left]History:
1991 a. 155.[/align]
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Anything that you say will be used against you in a court of law.
The Miranda warning says "may be used" not "will be." There's a great deal of difference. "Will be" presupposes that anything you say is incriminating. Whereas it is possible that something you say may actually exonerate you.
Mind you, I am not quoting the Miranda warning.

Anything you say CAN and WILL (if it suits the prosecutions agenda)be used against you. If CANNOT be used for youy. Anything that you may say exonerates you, cannot be used on your behalf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I know this has been posted before.

Wow. I don't believe that I just sided with Dougs.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

I don't believe that "The Miranda Warning" can be quoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Typical_usage

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:

“ ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. ”

As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "to read the Miranda rights" to a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).

Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).[2]

Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

I don't recall 941.20 being cited before here, certainly not in this discussion. For my benefit and the benefit of those apparently without access to Wisc. Stats. (I have reformatted my PDF for better readability, I hope);

SUBCHAPTER III
WEAPONS
941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.

(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) Endangers another’s safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant; or
(bm) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood. A defendant has a defense to any action under this paragraph that is based on the defendant allegedly having a detectable amount of methamphetamine, gamma−hydroxybutyric acid, or
delta−9−tetrahydrocannabinol in his or her blood, if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the incident or occurrence he or she had a valid prescription for methamphetamine or one of its metabolic precursors, gamma−hydroxybutyric acid, or delta−9−tetrahydrocannabinol.
(c) Except as provided in sub. (1m), intentionally points a firearm at or toward another.
(d) While on the lands of another discharges a firearm within 100 yards of any building devoted to human occupancy situated on and attached to the lands of another without the express permission of the owner or occupant of the building. “Building” as used in this paragraph does not include any tent, bus, truck, vehicle or
similar portable unit.
(1m) (a) In this subsection:
1. “Ambulance” has the meaning given in s. 146.50 (1) (am).
2. “Emergency medical technician” has the meaning given in
s. 146.50 (1) (e).
3. “First responder” has the meaning given in s. 146.53 (1)(d).
(b) Whoever intentionally points a firearm at or towards a law enforcement officer, a fire fighter, an emergency medical technician, a first responder, an ambulance driver, or a commission warden who is acting in an official capacity and who the person knows or has reason to know is a law enforcement officer, a fire fighter, an emergency medical technician, a first responder, an ambulance driver, or a commission warden is guilty of a Class H felony.
(2) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class G felony:
(a) Intentionally discharges a firearm into a vehicle or building under circumstances in which he or she should realize there might be a human being present therein; or
(b) Sets a spring gun.
(3) (a) Whoever intentionally discharges a firearm from a vehicle while on a highway, as defined in s. 340.01 (22), or on a vehicle parking lot that is open to the public under any of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class F felony:
1. The person discharges the firearm at or toward another.
2. The person discharges the firearm at or toward any building or other vehicle.
(b) 1. Paragraph (a) does not apply to any of the following who, in the line of duty, discharges a firearm from a vehicle:
a. A peace officer, except for a commission warden who is not
a state−certified commission warden.
b. A member of the U.S. armed forces.
c. A member of the national guard.
2. Paragraph (a) does not apply to the holder of a permit under s. 29.193 (2) who is hunting from a standing motor vehicle, as defined in s. 29.001 (57), in accordance with s. 29.193 (2) (cr) 2.
(c) The state does not have to negate any exception under par. (b). Any party that claims that an exception under par. (b) is applicable has the burden of proving the exception by a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) The driver of the vehicle may be charged and convicted for a violation of par. (a) according to the criteria under s. 939.05.
(e) A person under par. (a) has a defense of privilege of self−defense or defense of others in accordance with s. 939.48.

History: 1977 c. 173; 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 131; 1993 a. 94, 486; 1997 a. 248, 249;
1999 a. 32; 2001 a. 109; 2003 a. 97, 190; 2007 a. 11, 27.

Judicial Council Note, 1988: The mental element of the offense under sub. (1) (a)
is changed from reckless conduct to criminal negligence. See s. 939.25. If the
defendant acts recklessly, the conduct is prohibited by s. 941.30. [Bill 191−S]
Pointing a firearm is not a lesser included offense of armed robbery and a defendant
can be convicted of both. State v. Smith, 55 Wis. 2d 304, 198 N.W.2d 630 (1972).

A jury instruction that shooting “into” a building under sub. (2) (a) occurs when
a bullet penetrates the building however slightly, conformed with common usage of
the word and was not improper. State v. Grady, 175 Wis. 2d 553, 499 N.W.2d 285
(Ct. App. 1993).

Police officers do not have an absolute right to point their weapons, but privilege
may be asserted as an affirmative defense. State v. Trentadue, 180 Wis. 2d 670, 510
N.W.2d 727 (Ct. App. 1993).

Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of this
section, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in
self−defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference.
State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00−0064.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
imported post

noimserius wrote:
My first post, hope my contribution is welcome....
Welcome to the forum! Your contribution is both well thought out and UNDERSTANDABLE. A sometimes difficult feat when it comes to discussing Wisconsin gun law. I'm looking forward to more of your thoughts.

You're also invited to participate (as are any Open Carry advocates) in our public awareness raising highway cleanups during the year. It's a good way to meet face-to-face and contribute something tangible to our state.

Dave
 
Top