[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Transporting rifles and shotguns (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/5/2012 2:32:33 PM EDT
|
I admit I didn't follow the excitement of the new law about transporting long arms. I already own cases for them so I never thought to transport them any differently. So would someone summarize for me? The DNR website lists this in a FAQ
Is it true that firearms no longer have to be unloaded or in a case if in or on a vehicle?
The new change made under the concealed carry legislation which took effect on Nov. 1, 2011, was the elimination of the requirement to unload or case a handgun before it is placed, possessed or transported in or on a vehicle, boat, snowmobile or ATV. Handguns can also be loaded while inside or on a vehicle. More recent legislation has relaxed the laws for transporting other types of firearms, but there is a difference between the laws for handguns and other types of firearms. Effective Nov. 19, 2011, long guns, such as rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders, will no longer have to be in a case in order to place them in or on a vehicle, or to transport them unloaded in or on a vehicle. A loaded firearm, other than a handgun, can only placed or possessed on the top or exterior of a vehicle which is stationary. Additionally, it is important to be aware that unlike handguns, it remains illegal to actually load any long guns (rifles, shotguns & muzzlelaoders) while the firearm or person loading it is still in the vehicle. All long guns must be outside a motorized vehicle before a person may load the firearm. Once loaded, a long gun can be set down on a stationary vehicle, but must be unloaded before the firearm is placed inside or transported in or on the vehicle. Long guns must also be unloaded before they may be placed, possessed or transported in a motor boat with the motor running. See additional Questions & Answers to laws related to possession of long guns, bows and crossbows in vehicles and motorboats at the following link: Act 51 - Firearm, bow & crossbows in vehicles - FAQs So, I am reading that uncased unloaded is cool. What about concealed? Does the window line rule still apply? Would a rifle laying in my passenger seat be concealed? I looked over the links and didn't find anything about this. |
|
Quoted:
AFAIK long gun rules did not change. Still need them unloaded and encased. Not 100% on it though. It is right there in the DNR FAQ. Beginning November 19th 2011 you may have an unloaded long gun in a vehicle or a loaded long gun on a stationary vehicle. If the bed has a topper, it is considered "IN" the vehicle except for a tailgate which is down. Quoted:
Never heard of this windowline thing. You didn't have to transport cased long guns in plain view before the rule change, so I think you can transport uncased not in plain view. A trunk is not plain view, Case law states that a concealed firearm is one which is hidden from ordinary view AND is within your reach AND you know it is there. Below the window line is generally considered hidden from ordinary view. Many DNR and other LEO do not strictly enforce this especially for long guns if you are in a rural area. Don't try it in downtown Milwaukee... 
GFSZ laws still apply. You may not have a long gun in your vehicle unless it is unloaded and in a case if you are within 1000' of school grounds. You may only have a handgun which is not unloaded and in a case if you are a concealed carry licensee or an out of state licensee. |
|
Edited to add: Interceptor_Knight beat me to it, I need to learn to type faster.
They no longer have to be in the case, however they cannot be concealed which means in-reach and hidden. So if you put an un-encased rifle in the trunk you are good to go as it's not in reach any more. If you put a rifle on the passenger seat so that it is above the window line and clearly visible from out side (on the dash is better) you are good to go as it's no longer concealed. If you put a rifle in the back seat or on the passenger seat so that it isn't above the window line, it is concealed as far as case law is concerned and you are in violation of the law. Interestingly if you have a bag of weed next to the now concealed long gun, the bag of weed is considered in plain view  .
All that is fine and good but if you plan on traveling through a school zone (1000 feet from the edge of school property), which you most likely will need to if going through any towns, it needs to be in a case or locked in a gun rack. |
|
Quoted:
Edited to add: Interceptor_Knight beat me to it, I need to learn to type faster. They no longer have to be in the case, however they cannot be concealed which means in-reach and hidden. So if you put an un-encased rifle in the trunk you are good to go as it's not in reach any more. If you put a rifle on the passenger seat so that it is above the window line and clearly visible from out side (on the dash is better) you are good to go as it's no longer concealed. If you put a rifle in the back seat or on the passenger seat so that it isn't above the window line, it is concealed as far as case law is concerned and you are in violation of the law. Interestingly if you have a bag of weed next to the now concealed long gun, the bag of weed is considered in plain view .
All that is fine and good but if you plan on traveling through a school zone (1000 feet from the edge of school property), which you most likely will need to if going through any towns, it needs to be in a case or locked in a gun rack. That case is State vs Walls... if anyone wants to look it up. It's a WI case from the 1990s. The court ruled that an uncased handgun on the front seat of a car was considered to be concealed by the body of the car itself. If it was above the windowline, the windows would not provide concealment, but below the windowline, the doors did. The absolutely dumbest case I've ever read.
|
|
Quoted:
Edited to add: Interceptor_Knight beat me to it, I need to learn to type faster. They no longer have to be in the case, however they cannot be concealed which means in-reach and hidden. So if you put an un-encased rifle in the trunk you are good to go as it's not in reach any more. If you put a rifle on the passenger seat so that it is above the window line and clearly visible from out side (on the dash is better) you are good to go as it's no longer concealed. If you put a rifle in the back seat or on the passenger seat so that it isn't above the window line, it is concealed as far as case law is concerned and you are in violation of the law. Interestingly if you have a bag of weed next to the now concealed long gun, the bag of weed is considered in plain view .
All that is fine and good but if you plan on traveling through a school zone (1000 feet from the edge of school property), which you most likely will need to if going through any towns, it needs to be in a case or locked in a gun rack. This is exactly what I've been trying to argue about the "in plain view" ruling. It's a shitty double standard, and I would fight that tooth and nail in court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Edited to add: Interceptor_Knight beat me to it, I need to learn to type faster. They no longer have to be in the case, however they cannot be concealed which means in-reach and hidden. So if you put an un-encased rifle in the trunk you are good to go as it's not in reach any more. If you put a rifle on the passenger seat so that it is above the window line and clearly visible from out side (on the dash is better) you are good to go as it's no longer concealed. If you put a rifle in the back seat or on the passenger seat so that it isn't above the window line, it is concealed as far as case law is concerned and you are in violation of the law. Interestingly if you have a bag of weed next to the now concealed long gun, the bag of weed is considered in plain view .
All that is fine and good but if you plan on traveling through a school zone (1000 feet from the edge of school property), which you most likely will need to if going through any towns, it needs to be in a case or locked in a gun rack. This is exactly what I've been trying to argue about the "in plain view" ruling. It's a shitty double standard, and I would fight that tooth and nail in court. There is no law explicitly against concealing weed, only the possession of it... 
When an officer walks up to your vehicle and then looks in, he may act on anything he sees. The standard for concealed weapons requires that the weapon is visible as he walks up to the vehicle and not just after he sticks his face up to the window to see it. There is no double standard as we are talking about apples and orangutans. |
|
Quoted:
Can I transport my AR in a case laying on my back seat (within reach)? I know I could figure this out by reading the law, but I'm a little lazy today. According to the most strict interpretation of the Statute and case law, no. Reality is that in an urban area you would not be bothered. Out of the 600,000ish gun deer hunters last year, many transported their rifles in their back seat and I am willing to bet that none got issued a citation for concealed carry. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
AFAIK long gun rules did not change. Still need them unloaded and encased. Not 100% on it though. It is right there in the DNR FAQ. Beginning November 19th 2011 you may have an unloaded long gun in a vehicle or a loaded long gun on a stationary vehicle. If the bed has a topper, it is considered "IN" the vehicle except for a tailgate which is down. Quoted:
Never heard of this windowline thing. You didn't have to transport cased long guns in plain view before the rule change, so I think you can transport uncased not in plain view. A trunk is not plain view, Case law states that a concealed firearm is one which is hidden from ordinary view AND is within your reach AND you know it is there. Below the window line is generally considered hidden from ordinary view. Many DNR and other LEO do not strictly enforce this especially for long guns if you are in a rural area. Don't try it in downtown Milwaukee...
GFSZ laws still apply. You may not have a long gun in your vehicle unless it is unloaded and in a case if you are within 1000' of school grounds. You may only have a handgun which is not unloaded and in a case if you are a concealed carry licensee or an out of state licensee. Sorry, but out of state ccw doesn't do jack in WI in order to have the rights of ccw in WI you need a state of WI ccw permit currently no out of state permits/licenses are accepted in the state of WI |
|
Quoted:
Sorry, but out of state ccw doesn't do jack in WI in order to have the rights of ccw in WI you need a state of WI ccw permit currently no out of state permits/licenses are accepted in the state of WI Say what? Who told you that? Only WI residents must have a WI license. If that's what you are referring to, my apologies. But the way your post is worded indicates you think WI honors NO out-of-state licenses. That would be false. A resident of any State other than WI, who holds a current & valid CCW license from any State in the list below, can legally CCW in WI. They do NOT have to be a resident of the issuing State (ie. ILL resident with UT license is GTG in WI). Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia (Non-Resident Only) Washington Wyoming Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands List per WI DOJ's "Reciprocity" page. http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/reciprocity.asp |
|
Quoted:
Sorry, but out of state ccw doesn't do jack in WI in order to have the rights of ccw in WI you need a state of WI ccw permit currently no out of state permits/licenses are accepted in the state of WI You just made baby Jesus cry....... 
For the love of all that is good, please go to the WI DOJ site and educate yourself.... http://www.doj.wi.gov/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ConcealedCarry.asp |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can I transport my AR in a case laying on my back seat (within reach)? I know I could figure this out by reading the law, but I'm a little lazy today. According to the most strict interpretation of the Statute and case law, no. Reality is that in an urban area you would not be bothered. Out of the 600,000ish gun deer hunters last year, many transported their rifles in their back seat and I am willing to bet that none got issued a citation for concealed carry. The reality is that it would be thrown out of any court if you were charged with having a cased rifle on your backseat, and especially if it's a pickup truck without a trunk. It wouldn't be reasonable to require someone to transport their guns in an open bed of a truck. And the back seat of a crew cab is not even "within reach", IMO. I have an 82" armspan, and there is no way that I could pull a rifle out of a case on my back seat while I'm driving. And with the newly amended law, it would be thrown out if you were charged with having an uncased rifle on the back seat, too. But I'm still going to keep casing my rifles most of the time, just in case I drive through a school zone. It would be nice to see the Federal GFSZ act amended to only include school grounds, so that it doesn't affect people driving past on the road. But I won't hold my breath on that one... |
|
I think everyone who is saying an uncased rifle in the back seat is OK is being *very* free with other people's citations. A firearm below the window line is concealed, and the back seat is within reach in some vehicles. People are arguing the way they *want* the law to work, but not the way the legislature wrote it. An arrest for an uncased long-gun in the back seat is perfectly legal and may be prosecuted in some areas. (And we all know, from reading the Slinger castle doctrine thread, that if something is legal (like arresting for a concealed rifle), then it's good.
You're doing a disservice to readers by posting your opinions and/or hopes and/or optimism instead of the actual situation, IMHO. It would be better, I believe, to advise people to keep the rifle above the windowline, or case it. Personally I wouldn't want to be the person that said, "Oh, it's fine, go ahead", and then have someone convicted of a class A misdemeanor. |
|
Quoted:
The reality is that it would be thrown out of any court if you were charged with having a cased rifle on your backseat, ... The reality is that it would likely be upheld in court if the prosecutor charged you. In a car you have the trunk available so you can not use the WI Constitutional defense and say that it was your only method of transportation available to you. "While driving" is not a requirement. Once the vehicle is stationary, you could easily turn around and grab it. WI firearms Statutes do not make things legal and do not give you the authority to do things. Things are legal simply because they are not prohibited. You may place an unloaded firearm inside your vehicle because it is not prohibited. There is no Statute which gives you the authority to do so. There is a Statute prohibiting you from concealing a long gun. This means that you may place an unloaded long gun "in" a vehicle so long as it is not concealed. The reality is that in accordance to the letter of the law and case law, you may not drive around with a long gun laying on your seat as it is concealed by the body of your vehicle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can I transport my AR in a case laying on my back seat (within reach)? I know I could figure this out by reading the law, but I'm a little lazy today. According to the most strict interpretation of the Statute and case law, no. Reality is that in an urban area you would not be bothered. Out of the 600,000ish gun deer hunters last year, many transported their rifles in their back seat and I am willing to bet that none got issued a citation for concealed carry. The reality is that it would be thrown out of any court if you were charged with having a cased rifle on your backseat, and especially if it's a pickup truck without a trunk. It wouldn't be reasonable to require someone to transport their guns in an open bed of a truck. And the back seat of a crew cab is not even "within reach", IMO. I have an 82" armspan, and there is no way that I could pull a rifle out of a case on my back seat while I'm driving. And with the newly amended law, it would be thrown out if you were charged with having an uncased rifle on the back seat, too. But I'm still going to keep casing my rifles most of the time, just in case I drive through a school zone. It would be nice to see the Federal GFSZ act amended to only include school grounds, so that it doesn't affect people driving past on the road. But I won't hold my breath on that one... The reality is you can no longer be cited for violating statute 167.31 if that long gun is uncased. That's the only change. But cased or not cased, it's still a violation of the CC statute. (941.23) Throwing the letter of the law to the side for a moment... whether or not you'd be charged and /or prosecuted for an unloaded long-gun on the back seat (cased or uncased makes no differance) will likely depend on the totality of the circumstances. I know what you're thinking (and Glenn & IK probably do too). If you're wearing blaze orange, it's deer season, you're in a pick-up with open bed, and it's raining, I highly doubt anyone in their right mind would charge you with violating 941.23.... even though you technically are in violation. But if it's 2am, you're driving around in an urban area with an unloaded/uncased AK47 on your back seat, you likely will be arrested and prosecuted. That's the reality. It's true there's hundreds of thousands of hunters who are likely in violation of 941.23 every fall, but that's where disgression comes into play. That's the reality I believe you're referring to. It's not that you can't be charged, it's that you likely wouldn't be if circumstances provide a good "excuse" for your actions, because it's not reasonable to do so. But if you are charged, don't count on it being thrown out of court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry, but out of state ccw doesn't do jack in WI in order to have the rights of ccw in WI you need a state of WI ccw permit currently no out of state permits/licenses are accepted in the state of WI Say what? Who told you that? Only WI residents must have a WI license. If that's what you are referring to, my apologies. But the way your post is worded indicates you think WI honors NO out-of-state licenses. That would be false. A resident of any State other than WI, who holds a current & valid CCW license from any State in the list below, can legally CCW in WI. They do NOT have to be a resident of the issuing State (ie. ILL resident with UT license is GTG in WI). Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia (Non-Resident Only) Washington Wyoming Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands List per WI DOJ's "Reciprocity" page. http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/reciprocity.asp My bad, had my info mixed up. You are correct wisconsin residents must have a wisconsin permit. Sorry for my moment of mental failure 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The reality is that it would be thrown out of any court if you were charged with having a cased rifle on your backseat, ... The reality is that it would likely be upheld in court if the prosecutor charged you. In a car you have the trunk available so you can not use the WI Constitutional defense and say that it was your only method of transportation available to you. "While driving" is not a requirement. Once the vehicle is stationary, you could easily turn around and grab it. WI firearms Statutes do not make things legal and do not give you the authority to do things. Things are legal simply because they are not prohibited. You may place an unloaded firearm inside your vehicle because it is not prohibited. There is no Statute which gives you the authority to do so. There is a Statute prohibiting you from concealing a long gun. This means that you may place an unloaded long gun "in" a vehicle so long as it is not concealed. The reality is that in accordance to the letter of the law and case law, you may not drive around with a long gun laying on your seat as it is concealed by the body of your vehicle. This is Wisconsin. Most gun owners that I know drive pickup trucks, not cars with trunks. |
|
Quoted:
I think everyone who is saying an uncased rifle in the back seat is OK is being *very* free with other people's citations. A firearm below the window line is concealed, and the back seat is within reach in some vehicles. People are arguing the way they *want* the law to work, but not the way the legislature wrote it. An arrest for an uncased long-gun in the back seat is perfectly legal and may be prosecuted in some areas. (And we all know, from reading the Slinger castle doctrine thread, that if something is legal (like arresting for a concealed rifle), then it's good.
You're doing a disservice to readers by posting your opinions and/or hopes and/or optimism instead of the actual situation, IMHO. It would be better, I believe, to advise people to keep the rifle above the windowline, or case it. Personally I wouldn't want to be the person that said, "Oh, it's fine, go ahead", and then have someone convicted of a class A misdemeanor. Lots of legislation is open to interpretation to a judge, and our concealed weapons law is worse than most because it's not specific enough. But this "below the window line" garbage did not come from the way that the legislature wrote it. That nonsense was invented by a retarded liberal judge, and it will be struck down eventually. Until then, I will continue to put my guns on the back seat of my truck, because there is no way in hell that I'm putting my nice cases and guns in my open truck bed in our crappy Wisconsin winter, and it's not reasonable to expect someone to do that. And whether they are cased or not is essentially irrelevant, since the law no longer requires it. The law does not prohibit carrying rifles inside the cab of your truck, and it does not specify that they need to be above the window line (that is simply precedent from another case, and a judge is not legally bound to follow that precedent, since he/she can simply find a small difference in circumstances to explain why he/she did not follow precedent. It happens all the time at every level). There is no way that any judge would convict someone for concealed weapons over having your rifle on the back seat of a truck, unless you were a gang member stalking a rival gang with a bunch of AKs in the back seat. But last time I checked, gang members don't normally drive pickup trucks. 
|
|
Quoted:
I hope that works out for you. But if you spread that advice, you put other people's criminal history at risk, and that's irresponsible.  So do you actually think that our hundreds of thousands of gun-owning pickup truck drivers (in WI) should be hauling their guns in the bed of their truck, or else they must be in the back window, despite the fact that the written law does not require either of those, and despite the fact that the case law (on which you base your opinion) came from a handgun? And despite the fact that most judges would not even follow that precedent for a handgun, much less for a rifle? No offense intended, but that seems a bit paranoid to me. And I am not "handing out advice", I am simply stating my opinion. Do you disagree with my assertion that a judge would not be legally bound to follow that precedent, due to it being a long gun and not a handgun? |
|
BTW, if you ever found a cop and a DA who were retarded enough to charge you with having a rifle on the back seat of your truck, I think there would be another component to your defense: if you have a concealed carry license, it would be completely illogical that you are allowed to completely conceal a loaded handgun on your person, but you can't have an unloaded rifle on the back seat of your truck (which has no trunk option).
So given these circumstances: -Case law of "below window line" was for handgun, not long gun -a law specifically allows for uncased long guns IN your vehicle -driver of vehicle has license to concealed carry Do you still think that anyone would charge that person for a concealed weapon for having a rifle on the back seat? |
|
"The law has been changed regarding hand guns but the requirements for
transporting long guns still remains. A long gun being transported in a vehicle, boat, or non-commercial aircraft must be unloaded and enclosed in a case that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part of the firearm exposed. Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2)(a), (b)" Above is from CCW faq on WI DOJ website (Page 44) Below is the newest change with uncased unloaded long guns. (DNR act 51 FAQ) "When a vehicle is in motion, long guns can be uncased in or on the vehicle, but must still be unloaded. When a vehicle which is stationary, long guns can be uncased when placed in or on the vehicle, and can remain loaded when placed on top or against the exterior of the vehicle. A stationary vehicle can have the motor running. “Stationary” means not moving, regardless of whether the motor is running. it is generally not legal to be armed with a concealed rifle or shotgun, and only with a handgun if authorized to possess a concealed weapon. So unless you are authorized by law to possess a concealed weapon and the firearm is a handgun, you need to place a firearm which is hidden from view in a location where it will not be within reach of a person while it is concealed in this manner." So the way it is stated it does not matter about window line or if a long gun is within reach as long as it is unloaded. In all of my CJ classes that I have taken not a single word has been spoken about being illegal to transport a long gun except for when it is loaded. After "CCW for law enforcement" meetings there has never been talk of window line and the only within reach discussion was on handguns where the subject does not have a ccw permit. People in Wisconsin, at least my area, have been transporting long guns in the back seats for as long as I can remember and have never had a problem with it. If law enforcement officers are placing long guns in the front and back seats of their truck, cased or uncased, I think your safe to do the same. |
|
What constitutes a violation of law, and what chance that violation might normally prosecuted for are two distinctly different things. Advocating that the first doesn't matter due to the latter is not just incorrect, it is rather dumb to do so.
Glenn has correctly informed you of what a violation of law consists of. Period, end of sentence, no debating the point, and there are not only plenty of links verifying, but there are plenty folks here in a position to confirm that. The case law surrounding the definition of concealed was established long ago (well before the legislature wrote Act 35), and that definition has been referenced by the WI Supreme Court several times through opinions decided on and published by "conservative" majorities over the ensuing decades. It's not going anywhere any time soon, and the changes in the law by the passage of Act 35 have zero effect on that definition. Again, if only there was an FAQ *cough* check at the top of this forum *cough* that references these topics. |
|
Quoted:
Below is the newest change with uncased unloaded long guns. (DNR act 51 FAQ) "When a vehicle is in motion, long guns can be uncased in or on the vehicle, but must still be unloaded. When a vehicle which is stationary, long guns can be uncased when placed in or on the vehicle, and can remain loaded when placed on top or against the exterior of the vehicle. A stationary vehicle can have the motor running. “Stationary” means not moving, regardless of whether the motor is running. it is generally not legal to be armed with a concealed rifle or shotgun, and only with a handgun if authorized to possess a concealed weapon. So unless you are authorized by law to possess a concealed weapon and the firearm is a handgun, you need to place a firearm which is hidden from view in a location where it will not be within reach of a person while it is concealed in this manner." So the way it is stated it does not matter about window line or if a long gun is within reach as long as it is unloaded. In all of my CJ classes that I have taken not a single word has been spoken about being illegal to transport a long gun except for when it is loaded. After "CCW for law enforcement" meetings there has never been talk of window line and the only within reach discussion was on handguns where the subject does not have a ccw permit. People in Wisconsin, at least my area, have been transporting long guns in the back seats for as long as I can remember and have never had a problem with it. If law enforcement officers are placing long guns in the front and back seats of their truck, cased or uncased, I think your safe to do the same. 1.) You do realize that "in" a vehicle includes your trunk, right? 2.)You must comply with both 167.31 AND 941.23. 3.) you quoted the disclaimer stating that you may not have a long gun within your reach if it is "hidden". The FAQ does not lie. What you are failing epically at is reading the actual Statutes and case law. You have a raging case of wishful thinking. Your rationalization will fail to get you out of a citation should you wander into an area where the letter of the law is enforced and you are found with a concealed long gun. The FAQ states that you may place an unloaded long gun "IN" a vehicle. It then goes on to say that it must be out of reach if it is hidden from view. If an officer can not see the firearm (or any other applicable weapon) when they are walking up to the vehicle, it is concealed according to well established and tested case law which pertains to the violation of WI Statute 941.23. |
|
Quoted:
If law enforcement officers are placing long guns in the front and back seats of their truck, cased or uncased, I think your safe to do the same. You misread the stuff you refer to. Furthermore, law enforcement officers are exempt from 941.23, so saying, "Because LE can do it, so can you" is factually inaccurate. I'd bet your CJ classes covered that.
You and 308 are proving my point. You're reading the law the way you want it to read, not what it actually says. The legislature specifically exempted long-guns, SBRs, etc. from what a CCW license covers. We can draw a reasonable inference from that––the legislature did not want people CCW'ing anything except handguns, ECDs, legal knives, and billy clubs (which they never bothered to define). When the legislature wrote the "uncased longgun" statute, they did not make any changes to 941.23, the "CCW is illegal" statute. An unloaded rifle is still a "dangerous weapon" under 941.23. These are facts, verify them at your leisure. *Maybe* your local LE won't care that you have an unloaded AR-15 on your passenger seat. But I'm certain there are many agencies that *do* care, and to suggest that people just "don't worry about it" is irresponsible, unless you're going to pay their court costs and magically transfer their CCW conviction off their record and onto your own. 308's hope that judges might not follow precedent, and that a dangerous weapon like a rifle isn't the same as a dangerous weapon like a handgun, etc., all depends on getting arrested first, fighting the criminal case in court, and then winning not getting convicted (which I suspect is very optimistic in many courts). Even if you win, how much did that non-precedential "win" cost? I don't begrudge 308 if he decides that's a risk he's willing to take, or a fight he's willing to wage. That's absolutely OK, best of luck. But realize that other people may just want to do what's legal, don't want to get arrested, and aren't trying to reset precedent. Giving them bad advice is irresponsible. 
|
| Glenn, I would say that the chances of me being arrested for having rifle(s) on the back seat of my truck are about as good as the chance of me visiting Mars. But if that ever did happen, I would welcome the chance to fight it, because I am completely confident that I would win. And as far as the cost, I think the odds of the NRA providing legal support would be very high. And it would be worth all the effort to see that freedom-hating cop and prosecutor get put in their place, and to have precedent established for the rest of our state's gun owners. |
|
Quoted:
. And as far as the cost, I think the odds of the NRA providing legal support would be very high. And it would be worth all the effort to see that freedom-hating cop and prosecutor get put in their place, and to have precedent established for the rest of our state's gun owners. You can ask Brad, Krysta, Frank, etc. The NRA will not fund your defense. 
|
|
Quoted:
Glenn, I would say that the chances of me being arrested for having rifle(s) on the back seat of my truck are about as good as the chance of me visiting Mars. Try it in Dane, Milwaukee, or even Washington or Waukesha counties, and I'd bet good money that the chances are a bit better than going to Mars. But if that ever did happen, I would welcome the chance to fight it, because I am completely confident that I would win. And as far as the cost, I think the odds of the NRA providing legal support would be very high.
IK beat me to it. I've seen the NRA submit a single Amicus brief (in Fisher), and it was half-assed (a first-year legal student could have done a better job). The guy who wrote the brief was more interested in setting up for the Friends of the NRA banquet than attending orals at the WISC. I know this because I was present at both on the same day. Ask some of the recent folks who've been prosecuted for everything from alleged technical violations to pre-Act 35 941.23 violations how much the NRA has helped them out. Hint: The only thing you will hear is crickets. And it would be worth all the effort to see that freedom-hating cop and prosecutor get put in their place, and to have precedent established for the rest of our state's gun owners.
So any law enforcement that enforces the law as written on someone knowingly violating both the spirit and letter of legislative intent is "freedom hating", and you believe that it is that case that will be the one to set precedent because you're in the right? Good luck with that, brother.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Glenn, I would say that the chances of me being arrested for having rifle(s) on the back seat of my truck are about as good as the chance of me visiting Mars. Try it in Dane, Milwaukee, or even Washington or Waukesha counties, and I'd bet good money that the chances are a bit better than going to Mars. But if that ever did happen, I would welcome the chance to fight it, because I am completely confident that I would win. And as far as the cost, I think the odds of the NRA providing legal support would be very high.
IK beat me to it. I've seen the NRA submit a single Amicus brief (in Fisher), and it was half-assed (a first-year legal student could have done a better job). The guy who wrote the brief was more interested in setting up for the Friends of the NRA banquet than attending orals at the WISC. I know this because I was present at both on the same day. Ask some of the recent folks who've been prosecuted for everything from alleged technical violations to pre-Act 35 941.23 violations how much the NRA has helped them out. Hint: The only thing you will hear is crickets. And it would be worth all the effort to see that freedom-hating cop and prosecutor get put in their place, and to have precedent established for the rest of our state's gun owners.
So any law enforcement that enforces the law as written on someone knowingly violating both the spirit and letter of legislative intent is "freedom hating", and you believe that it is that case that will be the one to set precedent because you're in the right? Good luck with that, brother.
If anyone would be violating the spirit and intent of the law, it would be the cop who arrested a law-abiding citizen for transporting his cased and unloaded rifles on the back seat of his truck, which is the only place where a person can carry them (other than in the open bed, which would be completely unreasonable to expect). The only person who would make such an arrest would have to be a gun-hating (freedom hating) libtard. And your hypothetical cop is absolutely NOT "enforcing the law as written", because the law does NOT state it's illegal to carry cased rifles on the back seat of your truck. That is your opinion, which is taken from the precedent of a handgun court case. It was the opinion of one judge on that handgun case, and another judge is not legally bound to follow that precedent, since a long gun makes it completely different circumstance. The fact that we now have legal concealed carry also makes it completely different circumstances, which is another reason for the judge to not follow precedent. Whether you think he/she would is irrelevant. The judge would NOT be legally bound to follow that precedent, and it is NOT written in any statute than you cannot carry rifles on the back seat of your truck, thus your hypothetical cop is NOT enforcing the law as written. And speaking of the spirit and intent of the law, what would you call it when you are suggesting that a person could/should be arrested for having an unloaded, clearly visible, cased rifle on the back seat of their truck? Even if they have a CCW license and a hidden, loaded pistol on their person at the same time, the cased and unloaded rifle in the back seat is a danger to society? That is the "spirit and intent" of the concealed weapons law (to protect society from dangerous people). The "spirit and intent" of the concealed weapons statute was certainly not meant for harassing law-abiding gun owners on their way to the woods or range! I can't believe that you even used that wording. Whose side are you on? If you think that it's illegal to transport rifles on the back seat of a pickup, where would you suggest that people transport them? I often take 4 or 5 rifles when I go to the range, so they aren't going to all fit in a window rack (if I even had one, which I don't). In the bed of my truck, out on our salty Wisconsin roads? 
|
|
Quoted:
If anyone would be violating the spirit and intent of the law, it would be the cop who arrested a law-abiding citizen for transporting his cased and unloaded rifles on the back seat of his truck, which is the only place where a person can carry them (other than in the open bed, which would be completely unreasonable to expect). The WI Supreme Court disagrees. The only person who would make such an arrest would have to be a gun-hating (freedom hating) libtard. And your hypothetical cop is absolutely NOT "enforcing the law as written", because the law does NOT state it's illegal to carry cased rifles on the back seat of your truck.
Actually, if you research 941.23, you'll see that CCW is a "strict liability" offense. Three elements need to present for a violation to take place: 1) The weapon needs to be within reach. Case law in other areas has determined this phrase to mean virtually anywhere in the passenger compartment, including areas inaccessible to a driver or passenger (like the back end of an SUV). 2) The weapon needs to be "hidden from ordinary observation". If it's in a case, it is "hidden from ordinary observation". If it's not in a case, but below the window line, it is "hidden from ordinary observation". 3) The defendant must know of the weapon's presence. If those three elements are present, a violation has occurred... even if you are complying with the "safe transport" rules from 167.31. A cased and unloaded long gun on the back seat of a truck could indeed be prosecuted as a 941.23 violation. Probable? No. Possible? Absolutely. That probability goes higher exponentially if the weapon is uncased (which was your previous recommendation, IIRC). That is your opinion, which is taken from the precedent of a handgun court case. It was the opinion of one judge on that handgun case, and another judge is not legally bound to follow that precedent, since a long gun makes it completely different circumstance.
No,it's not my opinion. It's the law. What I posted above is a compilation of several bits of case law decided by the WI Supreme Cort, and the term "dangerous weapon" is defined by 939(10). Lower courts are bound by those decisions and definitions (though you can feel free to petition the WISC to take another look if you're arrested for it). Argue the point all you want, but you're 100% incorrect on the case law, and I suspect you haven't even read the statutes. Here's WI stat. 939(10): "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Edit: You seem to be confusing the this with the term "weapon" as it applies to what license holders are permitted to carry. A CWL issued by the state of WI is not some magic piece of paper that allows you to carry whatever you want, rather, in that context, "Weapon" means a handgun, an electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a), a knife other than a switchblade knife under s. 941.24, or a billy club. WI stat 175.60(1)(j). The fact that we now have legal concealed carry also makes it completely different circumstances, which is another reason for the judge to not follow precedent. Whether you think he/she would is irrelevant. The judge would NOT be legally bound to follow that precedent, and it is NOT written in any statute than you cannot carry rifles on the back seat of your truck, thus your hypothetical cop is NOT enforcing the law as written.
Again, you are mistaken on each point. And speaking of the spirit and intent of the law, what would you call it when you are suggesting that a person could/should be arrested for having an unloaded, clearly visible, cased rifle on the back seat of their truck? Even if they have a CCW license and a hidden, loaded pistol on their person at the same time, the cased and unloaded rifle in the back seat is a danger to society? That is the "spirit and intent" of the concealed weapons law (to protect society from dangerous people). The "spirit and intent" of the concealed weapons statute was certainly not meant for harassing law-abiding gun owners on their way to the woods or range! I can't believe that you even used that wording. Whose side are you on?
Legislative intent. It's a fairly precise term. I used it correctly. Educate yourself. As for whose side I'm on: I poked my head in here and corrected some points in an effort to keep otherwise law-abiding gun owners from getting hooked up for doing something illegal. You seem to be insisting that they do things that are violations of the law and will get them arrested in certain jurisdictions. I'm on the side of not sending folks to jail because of known stupid inconsistencies in the law. Which side are you on? If you think that it's illegal to transport rifles on the back seat of a pickup, where would you suggest that people transport them? I often take 4 or 5 rifles when I go to the range, so they aren't going to all fit in a window rack (if I even had one, which I don't). In the bed of my truck, out on our salty Wisconsin roads?
I agree wholly that it is a problem, and it has been a problem for a long time. The way to fix the problem is either 1) petition your state rep/senator to fix the problem legislatively, or 2) violate the law, get prosecuted, and go through the appeals process until the you get to the WISC, and hope that they have a change of heart. If you're just going to bitch about it, or, (like you have in this thread) insist that black is white instead of trying to change things, you're not part of any solution. In either event, please stop advocating that folks break the law just because you think they can and believe you are on the side of all that is good and right. Your erroneous thoughts and mistaken belief will not bail them out or pay for their lawyer. |
|
Quoted:
No,it's not my opinion. It's the law. What I posted above is a compilation of several bits of case law decided by the WI Supreme Cort, and the term "dangerous weapon" is defined by 939(10). Lower courts are bound by those decisions and definitions Incorrect. A judge is not legally bound to follow that precedent from Wells if the circumstances of the case are different. He/she might, but is not required to. And as far as I'm aware, nobody in this state has ever been arrested for transporting a rifle unloaded and encased on the back seat of their truck, so there is no precedent in that situation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No,it's not my opinion. It's the law. What I posted above is a compilation of several bits of case law decided by the WI Supreme Cort, and the term "dangerous weapon" is defined by 939(10). Lower courts are bound by those decisions and definitions Incorrect. A judge is not legally bound to follow that precedent from Wells if the circumstances of the case are different. 941.23 is a strict liability offense as I described it with State v. Kieth as the cite. You won't get prosecuted without the three elements I listed, but if they are there, Kieth applies and the lower courts are, in fact, bound to follow precedent. Again, wishing something was true doesn't make it so. IF you are just trying to single out State v. Walls where "hidden from ordinary observation" is a distinguishing criteria, you should understand that the decision in Walls was itself an appeal for the facts to be distinguished from the "hidden from ordinary observation" precedent in Mularkey v. State. Walls failed to do so, and so has anyone who has tried afterward. Quick: Define "insanity". He/she might, but is not required to. And as far as I'm aware, nobody in this state has ever been arrested for transporting a rifle unloaded and encased on the back seat of their truck, so there is no precedent in that situation. Folks have been arrested for transporting a handgun, unloaded, in a case, and within reach (thus meeting the three Kieth criteria for a 941.23 violation)... within the last 18 months in MKE county, IIRC. Go back and read your statutory definitions if you think there is a difference between a rifle and handgun as described under the term "dangerous weapon". Hint: the type of weapon doesn't matter at all if it falls under the definition.
Now you're somewhat right, as a "rogue" local judge can do what they want, but any acquittal in the counties I listed will be back in front of an appeals court faster than you can say "Yay, we won!" if the DA had a big enough hard-on to prosecute in the first place. It is incredibly unlikely that the appeals court would ignore the doctrine of stare dasis and established precedent cited in both Kieth and ALL subsequent published WISC cases as well as the clear definitions in the statute, but just for the sake of argument, let's say they do: Do you really think the WISC is going to negate almost the entire history of their own rulings on a statute that has not changed substantially since the 1870's? If you can say yes to that, your screen name should be permanently changed to "Polyanna" (and I'd like the source of whoever is giving you your meds, as it must be some top-shelf stuff). The facts of a hypothetical case the way you have posited would demand each lower court to follow Kieth. The facts of a hypothetical case the way you have posited would demand a conviction of a 941.23 violation. The facts of a hypothetical case the way you have posited would probably not even be arrested for, let alone prosecuted, outside the jurisdictions I listed. None of that matters, as the facts of a hypothetical case the way you have posited are, in fact, a violation the law. I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain it so I'll just give you the bottom line: You're wrong, so please stop telling people to do illegal stuff. PS: We hash this out about every six months when the subject comes up. The search feature is imperfect, but it does work. Funny enough each thread concludes the same way: You can be in accordance with 167.31 and still be in violation of 941.23. It was true six months ago, it was true six years ago, and it is true today. |
|
Quoted:
Okay, so back to simplicity. Non-handguns must be unloaded but don't have to be in a case. Correct? As long as they are not hidden, or within reach. Getting used to transporting long guns to and from places in the back seat,
Don't, at least until DamageInc308 wins his hypothetical case. 
ETA: It was a thread about this very subject sometime in 04 or 05 that spawned the now-HTF famous "Nut Case Cop" moniker, and later the friendly but adversarial, "No Glenn, you still don't have permission to look in my trunk". It's been done so often it has two of its own WIHTF memes. |
| So who is the person to ask for a legal definition on this? The State Attorny General? If so why doesn't someone just send him an Email asking his opinion on it? That is what I did when I wanted a legal answer on wether a SBR was legal for hunting, I Emailed the legal department of the DNR and had them send me an Email stating what his official opinion was. |
|
Quoted:
So who is the person to ask for a legal definition on this? The WISC. See the annotations at the end of each statute section for the case law cites, and (just as important) follow those links and actually read the case law cited for insight into the reasoning (or lack thereof) when it comes to why the annotations read the way they do. The State Attorny General? If so why doesn't someone just send him an Email asking his opinion on it? That is what I did when I wanted a legal answer on wether a SBR was legal for hunting, I Emailed the legal department of the DNR and had them send me an Email stating what his official opinion was.
Their official opinion, unfortunately, doesn't actually carry the weight of law. It certainly helps to establish that there was no mens rea on your part if arrested for some arcane or technical violation, but they can (and do) sometimes get it wrong despite their titles and employer. |
|
Quoted:
So who is the person to ask for a legal definition on this? The State Attorny General? If so why doesn't someone just send him an Email asking his opinion on it? That is what I did when I wanted a legal answer on wether a SBR was legal for hunting, I Emailed the legal department of the DNR and had them send me an Email stating what his official opinion was. The DNR FAQ clearly states that you may not conceal a long gun. The DOJ upholds the current case law. The legislature could have easily declared a firearm laying on a seat as not concealed when the Bills were being debated. They deliberately did not even though they were asked to by scores of people. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So who is the person to ask for a legal definition on this? The State Attorny General? If so why doesn't someone just send him an Email asking his opinion on it? That is what I did when I wanted a legal answer on wether a SBR was legal for hunting, I Emailed the legal department of the DNR and had them send me an Email stating what his official opinion was. The DNR FAQ clearly states that you may not conceal a long gun. The DOJ upholds the current case law. The legislature could have easily declared a firearm laying on a seat as not concealed when the Bills were being debated. They deliberately did not even though they were asked to by scores of people. Not arguing the point, as you know I agree with you on what's legal & illegal, but..... to the average person, who's totally unfamiliar with State v. Walls and the "below the windowline" precedent it set, a long gun lying in plain view on a rear seat - not covered with a coat, jacket, or anything else intentionally put on top of it to hide it - is NOT considered to be concealed (by the average person using common sense and "plain use of the english language"). Both the DNR & DOJ's FAQ should have some mention of what the case law in Walls has defined as legally "concealed". This borders on entrapment, IMO, to keep State V. Walls as an obsure part of the law that only legal scholars are aware of. Look up the definition of concealed in the dictionary. Only in the realm of the WI courts is that uncovered long-gun considered to be concealed. Does this cause confusion? This thread, and the many others like it, are the proof it does. "Official" clarification is needed.
|
|
Quoted:
...... Look up the definition of concealed in the dictionary. Only in the realm of the WI courts is that uncovered long-gun considered to be concealed. . The dictionary definition is to keep from being seen. The WI Court definition is hidden from ordinary view while in the immediate vicinity and outside of the vehicle. Ordinary view is clarified as walking past the vehicle. If it is below the window line, it is kept from being seen unless you put your face right up to the window. This is not contradictory to the dictionary definition although it is an extreme position. Once an officer pulls you over, he has a reason to interact and to question you. If he approaches the vehicle and deliberately looks deep into it then sees a firearm, drugs, etc he may act on it. Quoted:
.... "Official" clarification is needed. What is truly needed is action by the legislature. They failed miserably when the last Bills were drafted. It should be obvious to the State AG, the Legislature and to the DNR and other State LEO organizations that the current Statutes suck regarding Concealed Carry. We really should have Constitutional Carry and then this would not be an issue. Short of that, Plain view should be redefined to not include a weapon which is not further hidden by clothing, etc even if you must deliberately look into the inside of a vehicle in order to see it. We never got a binding ruling from the State's Attorney General regarding Open Carry which is legal, why would we get one regarding Concealed Carry which is illegal? The reason we will not is that Officer discretion is valued more than your and my Civil Liberty to Bear Arms. This is a right which is affirmed by our State's Constitution yet our own Governor has no issues with infringing upon it. |
|
Quoted:
Their [WI AG's office] official opinion, unfortunately, doesn't actually carry the weight of law. It certainly helps to establish that there was no mens rea on your part if arrested for some arcane or technical violation, but they can (and do) sometimes get it wrong despite their titles and employer. Not arguing, but a question...what formal AG Opinions have been reversed and/or overturned later by courts? Quoted:
We never got a binding ruling from the State's Attorney General regarding Open Carry which is legal, why would we get one regarding Concealed Carry which is illegal? The reason we will not is that Officer discretion is valued more than your and my Civil Liberty to Bear Arms. This is a right which is affirmed by our State's Constitution yet our own Governor has no issues with infringing upon it. What is a "binding ruling"? The AG can issue formal opinions, which are given some degree of deference by the courts, though I'm almost certain they are not legally binding. Courts make "rulings." The AG did issue an informal opinion on concealed carry, which, according to the footnotes in that opinion, was the most the AG's office could do, for a variety of legal reasons. And this informal opinion kicked off/encouraged/sparked a lot of open carry movement around the state, which probably helped get CCW eventually passed. Seems pretty helpful to me!
|
|
Quoted:
.....And this informal opinion kicked off/encouraged/sparked a lot of open carry movement around the state, which probably helped get CCW eventually passed. Seems pretty helpful to me! I do not believe that it had anything to do with getting our current Shall Issue License system. I don't see how any correlation can be made because of all the work which had been done and the successes made years before OC was even on the radar. . After 2 vetoed Bills under a Democrat Governor, the Republican legislature had to pass something in order to placate the conservative population of WI. If we still had Doyle or Doyle Lite (Barrett) and a Democrat majority in the legislature, we may have seen anti-Open Carry bills come forward. Too bad Walker was not interested in being a champion of our RTBA. He had no problem committing political suicide trying to crush the Unions but he was not willing to take a chance pushing for Constitutional Carry... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their [WI AG's office] official opinion, unfortunately, doesn't actually carry the weight of law. It certainly helps to establish that there was no mens rea on your part if arrested for some arcane or technical violation, but they can (and do) sometimes get it wrong despite their titles and employer. Not arguing, but a question...what formal AG Opinions have been reversed and/or overturned later by courts? Nothing reversed or overturned by the courts, but I can think of at least two previous AG opinions on firearms being "clarified" by later AGs. While one was good for "us", the other not so much. The point I was trying to make is that AG opinions are not law. They are just that: Opinions (and are thus subject to change). Now let's talk about "Administrative Rules". 
Just kidding on that last one. No need to get anyone banned.
|
|
Quoted:
Unloaded, out of reach. In the trunk or separate from the passenger compartment. I no longer own any vehicles with trunks as you would find in a sedan. SUV, van, hatchback... They are in a case, but could be reached if I or my passenger tried hard enough. 
Also, most trunks are now accessible from the passenger compartment. |