Posted: 12/29/2004 1:25:46 PM EDT
|
This is a little unclear to me. I've been told that if a firearm is in your vehicle, it must be out of the driver's reach. If it is, does this mean you still have to keep it cased? |
| in a fully enclosed case and unloaded. location is not dictated by the law. you can have it on your lap if you want, just have it in a fully enclosed case and unloaded. that does not mean a loaded mag in the weapon with an empty chamber either. but the mag could be in the case with the gun, just not IN the gun. that is how I have always understood the law in WI. |
Depends on where you live. Look up your state laws. Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3102 3. F. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a belt holster which holster is wholly or partially visible, or carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons which scabbard or case is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.  |
This is my understanding of the law also.-Todd |
|
Disassembly negates the case requirement. This has passed actual LEO contact many times. IE: remove the bolt from a bolt rifle or seperate a break action or remove the slide from a pistol and it can be transported without a case. For edification, in the instances that I'm aware of where this passed LEO scrutiny the arms were in the trunk or equivalent. I don't think it's ever been pressed, but in theory it should also negate the unloaded requirement. IE: a bolt rifle should be able to have a full box mag if the bolt is removed. A makarov with the slide removed and a full mag inserted in the frame can be brought into action in about as long as it takes to rack a slide, and should be legal to have in your lap while driving, but I think it'd cause problems in practice. It could be argued that an unloaded pistol with the slide locked back and carried in a fanny-pack is being legally transported. There's nothing wrong with having a mag in your pocket. There's nothing wrong with cases that have velcro enclosures. Its another combo that can be brought into action very quickly. ** The above discussion is purely academic. My official recommendation is to leave a wide breadth between yourself and the margins of the law. Engaging in the aforementioned activities is likely to cause unpleasant interactions with the executive and judicial branches of government. |
Throttle, Although I'm happy it's passed LEO contact in the past, I want everyone to know that disassembly does not negate either of the cased and unloaded requirements. Some of your suggestions above would not prevent a successful prosecution under the letter of the law. I suggest complying with the cased & unloaded requirement instead of relying on officer discretion, because if an arrest were made, even if charges were dropped, it'd be a huge headache. Todd and Harv have accurately summarized the law in this regards. Glenn R. |
|
Sorry for mis-speaking on the matter. "167.31(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transporta firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearmis unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case." I'm used to phrases like 'fully enclosed in a case OR disassembled' switching states can screw a person up. I haven't corroborated the case law, but packing.org says that it is okay to have an unloaded and uncased firearm on the dash of your car. It goes on to say that a man with an unloaded arm on the pasenger seat was successfully prosecuted because the arm was concealed from view. This seems to directly contradict the section I've quoted above, which is very specific about TRANSPORTING arms in vehicles. It could be argued that transporting and open carrying are entirely different, and so that section does not apply to a person acting in interest of defense. Sorry again for bad info in the earlier post. |
|
TJ; Section 167.31 Deals specifically with hunting regs IIRC... Add the DNR stuff to the pot, and we have a REAL mess. A pistol on the dash (open carry) should thoretically okay under the statutes (visible to someone outside the vehicle), but if it were loaded, then you hit that DNR reg quoted above. Dammit, the WISC should have ruled the '98 Amendment is to be taken at face value in Hamdan. 
|
|
I've always thought the DNR regs and inspection policies were out of line. They presume guilt and mandate proof of innocence upon demand. I'd better call Zien to make sure that the PPA has corrections to the DNR regs. That would be a nightmare. They're real assholes about it too. Father and son, ready to go out hunting, wearing orange and dislpaying back tags ..... They park the car, get out, open trunk, unzip cases and take their guns out .......... DNR runs up and writes them tickets for having uncased arms in the car. They were out of the cases long enough to clear the trunk. One must remove the cased arm, take it out of the case, and then put the case back. HA HA ........ have a $270 ticket and be happy I don't take your gun away. They've even tried the same BS when the rifle is leaning up against the vehicle while the case is being put away or retrieved. I'm pretty sure that uncased arms is their number one, best selling citation from last year. I tend to assume this means that the above scam is perpetrated frequently. I've also heard third party stories (from warden) that cops will sometimes call DNR to write the ticket and seize an arm when they catch someone, because its more of an expensive headache to fight DNR. |
| The law is screwed up because there are many ways to interpret it and yes there are discrepencies from agency to agency. Plus you throw case law into the mix and it also changes things. This is my understanding. You're safest if you have it unloaded, fully cased, and in your trunk. Where it is most useless for self defense. Wonderful, isn't it? |
I would leave the mag somewhere accessable outside the case, be it console, or map pocket ( arresting officer recommended). And yes, a loaded mag in an empty chamber pistol will get you arrested, weapon seized, $800 fine/court fees, and the title of not sqeaky clean. Don't ask how I know  .
|
|
I would love to be able to have my truck gun hanging on the ceiling of the truck, locked into a roof rack. WI sucks in regards to transport laws. And the DNR are literally JBT of the worst kind. I too have heard numerous stories of people getting fined for illegally transporting a weapon because they took the gun out of the case laying in the trunk, or leaned the weapon against the vehicle or put it on the tailgate. You would think these people would get active with the elected representatives about it.
|
|
Howdy to the WI Crew. My first visit here. Been on the rest of AR15.com but haven't gotten here yet. Boy I got to get out more. Just to clear up a few things since I am LEO and have the statute book in front of me. unloaded by statute is defined as "Having no shell or cartrige in the chamber of a firearm or in the magazine attached to a firearm." There for no go on rounds in magazines regardless if it is disassmebled. Magazines are still in the reciever and that is the part considered a firearm. Magazines that are loaded and in the case are fine as long as they are not in the firearm. Another thing about open carry in WI. Thoeretically it is legal by state law, however most counties and municipal agencies have local laws stating that it is illegal and can get busted on it. In my village we have a law prohibiting it. All firearms must be encased at all times in public view Hope this clears a few things up and if I made it clear as mud I can try and straighten it out. I would prefer WI Concealed Carry and not have to worry about it. Take care all, RnR |
what happened to that whole preemption thing? |
| NAM I did a little more digging and you are correct with Firearms possession Statute 66.0409 Local Regulation of Firearms. It does state that you can not make the law more stringent that state statute. It does say that they can pass an ordinance which is the same or similar to, and not more restrictive than, a statue statute. I don't know what they used as their basis for the ordinace since it was way before my time here. It could be an ordinace similar to the statute prohibiting firearms in public buildings or to the DNR statute regulating guns must be unloaded in a case. Luckly we haven't had to make an issue about it since common sence prevails on my dept and with the citizens. If they need to hunt in the village, since we are in a rural area and border hunting land in farm land and woods, they can get a permit to do so. But to just stand in your front yard with the AR will get some phone calls and could get someone in trouble. If it happens its just a municipal citation , if we decide to issue which is unlikely at least when I am on,and we will run the SN# and give it back in most cases. The only time it was a problem was when a guy got in an argument with a neighbor and then went into a house and grabbed an HK 93 and waived it around but stayed on his property. We got called the guy was intoxicated, another no no, but that wasn't the worst part. Ran the numbers and it was stolen. We still got it and that was like 6 years ago. We are in a very gun friendly are and so is are PD so we don't have problems anyway. Sorry it got long winded and I am not an expert just what I have tried to find so it is interprited the right way. RnR |
This is not correct. Look up statutes 66.0409 and 66.0409(4)(b) on the Wisconsin Legislation Site. This takes you directly to the statute in question |
Than as an LEO you know that those laws would be uncostitutional under the firearms pre-emption law that the state has. No municiplaity, town, city or county can make law concerning the carrying ownership or possesion of a weapon. They can only outlaw the discharge of a firearm within thier limits. That law was passed in IIRC 1995 and signed by Tommy Thompson. So your village law is illegal.
|
exactly what i was thinking. |
...along with the DNR statutes, the DC charges for open carry, and the CCW statute (despite the Hamdan ruling) since the 1998 WI Constitutional change. That all doesn't mean squat when you're sitting in the back of a squad in cuffs, though, does it?
|
| Flat lander chiming in here. IL has much the same laws, firearms must be unloaded in a case. Before we got the current crook as Gov, the Illinois State Police website spelled out that magazines could be loaded as long they were not in the gun. However, I would caution against leaving loaded mags in a case with the gun. If the cop wanted to be a dick, he could easily toss you loaded mag in your gun, rack the slide, and get his bonus for getting a felony. |
First of all, welcome to the site. Second, I have to disagree with your interpretation of this ""Having no shell or cartrige in the chamber of a firearm or in the magazine attached to a firearm." If the magazine is not "attached" to the firearm, then even if the magazine has rounds in it, it does not meet the criteria of this section. Having no round in the chamber satisfies the first section of this part. The magazine being "attached" to me means that it is inserted or physically connected to the firearm in some way. In that case, no rounds can be in the mag. If the intent of the law is to prevent a firearm AND it's magazine from containing rounds while being transported, the langauge should have been "or in the magazine or magazines belonging to that model of firearm". And as much as I dislike the lawyers and crooks in Madison, I don't think they are stupid enough to screw up something so simple as clarity of language. Third, the other posters are correct. State statue specifically prohibits any firearms law that is more restrictive than State law governing the issue. How sad is the state of affairs, that we can pass a Constitutional Amendment that gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms for defense, and then we have to pass an additional law (the preemption law) in order to prohibit people from passing a law (village open carry ban) in violation of the existing law (State Consitution)? |
Oh they would be. They knew back when the constitution was amended to include the RKBA clause that there would be a constitutinal conflict between 941.23(prohibition on CCW) and the amendment. instead of addressing the issue they took the stance that it would be handled in the courts. So when it does get handeled in the courts, when the right case comes along we will end up with what we should have had back in 1998, vermont style carry. |
Unfortunately, those state statutes appear to apply to the possession/use of firearms while hunting (those stats are contained in the DNR-enforced hunting section of the regs). Granted, you'd have to make the argument in court after the arrest.
Agreed. Expensive propasition, dammit. *waiting to win the lottery before open carrying on State Street*
I think it hasn't been an issue because no one wants to be arrested (see caviat about going to the SC above).
That issue was touched on in the Hamdan case. Funny enough, it was this specific argument that swayed the libs in our favor MHO. It was truly interesting listening to the SC's incredulous comments when the State AG talked about how they could possibly prosecute "criminals" who had guns "concealed" in a locked gun safe during the oral arguments! 
Unfortunately, that's what the entire issue boils down to.
Wether it helps or hurts, I appreciate your willingness to try to get something done. Thank you!
Believe it or not, there are a LOT of us that would open carry in a heartbeat, get arrested, and fight it. I think the biggest hurdle is one of finances. The "pro CCW" organizations here in the state would rather line the pockets of politicians than lawyers, unfortunately. 
Welcome to Arfcom!  The wealth of info and discussion that passes back and forth between members here can be staggering (and may cause migraines). Add to that the inanity of Wisconsin's gun laws, and it's a wonder any of us aren't suffering from aynerisms daily.
|
