| Author | Post |
|---|
Elysium
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 17th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:41 am |
|
Russ Decker is proposing a law to allow unloaded and uncased firearms in vehicles.
http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/article/20090607/SPJ02/906070337
http://www.myfoxwausau.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8447353&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 What about the "gang bangers"?
This is a win for our cause. This not only applys to rifles, but bows and handguns. Imagine not having to case and uncase your weapon. You could just leave it in the holster and pull the clip.
I doubt this is going anyware. Probably just a ploy to win votes. A northwoods Democrat needs support of hunters.
Now if we could just get the 1000 ft school zone law removed.
Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:45 am by Elysium
|
BJA
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 01:28 pm |
|
Awesome at least some politician has some balls in this state! I'll e-mail my representatives and ask that they support the bill!
Ben
|
smithman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 01:31 pm |
|
The vehicle carry law cannot be fixed without fixing the school zone in parallel. Being able to have a loaded or cased handgun in a car doesn't matter if your car is in a school zone in the city, since in a school zone it must be unloaded/encased.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 01:36 pm |
|
A Sheriff's response
http://www.myfoxwausau.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8447353&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1
Gun bill sparks controversy Senator proposes changing weapon casing law Last Edited: Monday, 08 Jun 2009, 6:15 PM CDT Created: Monday, 08 Jun 2009, 6:15 PM CDT Meg Bonacorsi
Senator Russ Decker of Weston has introduced a bill that would change the way hunters can haul their weapons. He wants them to be able to carry uncased guns, bows and crossbows in their vehicles.
But not everyone supports the bill.
Portage County sheriff John Charewicz, who is also a hunting safety instructor says, "The part that's concerning to me is that people like the little gang bangers, the gangsters that want to have guns in their cars are now going to be within the law to a certain extent."
But Senator Decker says his bill is geared towards hunters, "The gang bangers are law breakers, I'm more concerned about the law abiding citizens."
But Charewicz thinks the bill is bad news, "It's just another example of a poorly written piece of legislation and I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, I mean I have no idea."
Decker says not having to deal with a gun case is a matter of convenience, "It's just unnecessary for us to do it as long as it's unloaded. A lot of times you're hunting and go to your vehicle or someone else's vehicle and there's not a case in the vehicle that may have been left with somebody else."
But Charewicz thinks going caseless could compromise the safety of his officers and the public,
"Who are we kidding? These cars are going to be loaded while the car is moving and it has some real red flags for law enforcement. The bill is made for lazy hunters more than anything."
Decker argues that 16 other states have laws that are similar to his bill, and theirs have been successful, "They have not had any increase in accidents or poaching so it just makes sense to give the sportsmen, the law abiding citizens a break."
The sheriff is also concerned that if the bill passes.. people will be more tempted to shoot guns off from cars or roads.. which is illegal.
And the bill applies to all guns, not just hunting rifles.
Decker says he plans to talk with law enforcement agencies to work out a compromise because many don't support the bill.
|
BJA
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 01:36 pm |
|
Smithman your vehicle does not count as private property? As long as your are not on school grounds I believe it may be considered private property and exempt from the wide reach of the school zone law. Then again thats just my presumption.
Also not anti-law enforcement but as reading the article I thought to myself who gives a @#$% what the police think when it pertains to my rights. They do not uphold my rights they uphold the laws of society.
Ben
Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 01:39 pm by BJA
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 03:15 pm |
|
I thought to myself who gives a @#$% what the police think when it pertains to my rights.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Why does it matter what police want. This is not a police state. If police had their way we'd have no freedom. We'd all be wearing ID badges on the outside of our clothing, there would be police surveillance cameras on every street, everyone would submit a DNA sample for records so that crime scene evidence could be instantly matched. (hey, if you have nothing to hide, who would have a problem with that)
Thats the endpoint of what it would take to make their job easiest and the reason we shouldn't seek police support for laws.
|
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
I would be much more happy with this if the guns were allowed to be loaded. The last time I was in Wyoming, admittedly many years ago, the DNR regulations stated something like: "You may have an uncased firearm in your vehicle but safety mandates that it should be unloaded". In other words, you could have a loaded firearm but they didn't recommend it. I would much rather see this in our law.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 03:51 pm |
|
Exactly BJA,
Your vehicle is private property in that the police have to have consent to search with out a warrant. Unless there is evidence in plain view.
Everyone should definitely ask their State Rep to support this Bill.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
hugh jarmis wrote: If police had their way we'd have no freedom. We'd all be wearing ID badges on the outside of our clothing, there would be police surveillance cameras on every street, everyone would submit a DNA sample for records so that crime scene evidence could be instantly matched. (hey, if you have nothing to hide, who would have a problem with that)
Thats the endpoint of what it would take to make their job easiest and the reason we shouldn't seek police support for laws. Nik, You have just described the Prison System.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:18 pm |
|
Everyone should go on the Stevenspointjournel.com blog and post a comment to this article giving support to Senator Decker.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
BJA wrote: Smithman your vehicle does not count as private property? As long as your are not on school grounds I believe it may be considered private property and exempt from the wide reach of the school zone law. Then again thats just my presumption.
What does the statute say?? Does it not mention vehicles? Do vehicles not drive upon public real property?
Com on folks - read the statutes, cite to authority.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 06:17 pm |
|
Elysium wrote: This is a win for our cause. This not only applys to rifles, but bows and handguns. Imagine not having to case and uncase your weapon. You could just leave it in the holster and pull the clip.
Huh?? Not till you repeal the concealed carry jurisprudance by statute or appeallate review - any gun (even long gun) inside a vehicle compartmewnt within reach of any human, including encased and unloaded or locked in a glove box or laying in plain sight on the seat IS CONCEALED UNLAWFULLY in Wisconsin - have you all reead the annotations in the concealed carry statute published with the code section?
Sorry to rant here folks but come on, why do Wisconsin folks continue to have no idea about Wisconsin's gun laws?
Until gun owners understand how draconian the statutes and jurisprudance is re concealed carry, things are not going to change!
|
BJA
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
LOL Mike some laws in Wisconsin are contradictory! Thats why we have such problems interpreting them. Also I am not that familiar with private property laws. So I'll tackle this issue differently.
948.605
948.605 Gun -
(1) Definitions. In this section:
(a) "Encased" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) "Firearm" does not include any beebee or pellet-firing gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter pistol.
(am) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(b) "School" has the meaning given in [url=http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=xhitlist$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$xhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$xhitlist_d={stats}$xhitlist_q=[field folio-destination-name:'948.61(1)(b)']$xhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-350395]s. 948.61 (1) (b)[/url].
(c) "School
1. In or on the grounds of a school .
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school .
(2) Possession of firearm in school
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school 
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the
6. By a law enforcement officer or state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on
8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the
(3) Discharge of firearm in a school
(a) Any individual who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the individual knows is a school
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. As part of a program approved by a school in the
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
948.605(3)(b)4.
4. By a law enforcement officer or state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity.
Okay so until we find out if driving your car with an uncased weapon on public roads counts as firearm not being possessed ON private property look at this. On private property not part of school grounds, could that actually mean your car? I am not as familiar with private property laws as I am firearm laws. The statute also reads " In a locked firearms rack On your vehicle" maybe that means we could carry them uncased, but they have to be locked in a firearms rack.
Ben
Last edited on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 12:07 am by BJA
|
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Tue Apr 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 12:47 am |
|
BJA wrote: LOL Mike some laws in Wisconsin are contradictory! Thats why we have such problems interpreting them. Also I am not that familiar with private property laws. So I'll tackle this issue differently.
Wisconsin gun laws are drafted either by tree hugging attorneys living in Madison working for the legislature or by the DNR. Guess that explains the reason for mish-mash of gun laws we have. 
|
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 01:04 am |
|
This is like the 4th time we've run into this discussion since I've been here and it hasn't been that long! I just posted something on the subject in another thread.
Can a law/caselaw post be stickied in the Wisconsin section "for reference only"? Something to at least have people read so the questions don't come up as much and so that more fruitful discussions can be had on how to get rid of these laws?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 01:29 am |
|
BJA wrote: Okay so until we find out if driving your car with an uncased weapon on public roads counts as firearm not being possessed ON private property look at this. On private property not part of school grounds, could that actually mean your car? I am not as familiar with private property laws as I am firearm laws. The statute also reads " In a locked firearms rack On your vehicle" maybe that means we could carry them uncased, but they have to be locked in a firearms rack.
Ben
ben - the word "on" and ref to vehicle exceptions gives it away - the school zone statute exception for private property is private real proerty - real estate. vehicles are personal property.
Meanwhile the concealed carry statute makes it unlawful to pssess any gun **arguably** within in arms reach inside a vehicle even while unloaded, encased, and/or in a locked glove box.
Is this clear enough? Cite to case was in another thread.
What the legislators need to do is fix the concealed carry statute - changing the encasement statute does not help anyone at all.
|
smithman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 03:28 am |
|
Mike wrote: What the legislators need to do is fix the concealed carry statute - changing the encasement statute does not help anyone at all.
Agreed. Let me summarize the issues here:
One can CC on their own property. One cannot CC in a vehicle since the statues require that your handgun be unloaded/encased in a car, period. This is the first clue that your car is not considered private property in the eyes of the state. The vehicle carry statute has been tested in court and no defense invoking the right of private property of a car has succeeded it appears.
Basically any city or county road is public property. Having your own car on a public road does NOT induce some private property exemption. Cars traveling on public roads are NOT exempt from the school zone statute. Hence, BOTH laws have to be changed...to allow an non-cased handgun in a car and to not allow the same non-cased handgun in a school zone cannot exist. Don't misunderstand the italicized statement. For instance, you have the right to refuse a search of your car. You also have the right to refuse a search of your person. Does this mean that your person is now private property, and a gun concealed on your person is exempt? No, that has been tried in court and people have lost many times.
I don't know about you guys but I'd rather be allowed to carry a loaded gun in my car, even if encased, rather than the other way around. Better yet have the state shove it and stop telling me how I can't protect myself in my own friggin car.
|
BJA
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 03:42 am |
|
True that SmithMan! Isn't it crazy how times change! We are totally reliant on "" Public"" roads that WE pay for but when it comes to protecting oursleves on OUR roads there is nothing that helps us......... Either way this uncased firearms bill is a step in the right direction. And if somehow it passed and I was out of a school zone HELL YEAH I WILL FOLLOW IT. But until then we shall conform to modern society where others are relied upon to protect us and personal rights are a thing the past.
We have come far, and we are marching further. The only thing that keeps the pace from going faster is lack of Wisconsin Lawyers actually caring about their rights and joining us in this fight.
FACT: we need more help, especially Wisconsin Certified Lawyers
Ben
|
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Tue Apr 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 05:17 am |
|
BJA wrote:
FACT: we need more help, especially Wisconsin Certified Lawyers
Ben
A reason to be a member of both the ACLU and the NRA.
"The 1st Amendment defines America, the 2nd Amendment defends it" 
|
gbu28
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 56 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 05:38 am |
|
I let my ACLU membership expire a few months ago after I read their position on the 2nd amendment-
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html
|
Current time is 09:20 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
