| Author | Post |
|---|
30-06
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:12 pm |
|
| I encountered a local friend that recently was stopped by the Wis DNR and the following is an interpretation of the local's side of the story. DNR stopped vehicle on state highways in the northwoods as a result of "I don't know why- but we'll make something up Statute". When asked why they were stopped it was because the vehicle was driving down state roads with the driver window down. It was said by the DNR that they were "road hunting"... meaning window down. Said immediately upon when the DNR realizes there is a firearm in the vehicle - cased. DNR asks to see the firearm - or in other words turn over the firearm to the DNR standing there. Local disagrees with the whole stopping of the vehicle and why the beef to see the firearm. DNR implies that the firearm might be loaded, etc and is being used in the activity of illegal road hunting. DNR also implies and demand that in order to have the firearm in the vehicle, local must produce a hunting license. Local refuses to that (obviously - a hunting license is not a legal issue for the right to carry a firearm) and in reaction, whicle sitting in the vehicle, the local shows the DNR a firearm case. Local continues to show the DNR the case , instead of handing over the case - which he feels it's unnecessary because of the "what are you stopping me for in the first place" feeling and rationale, begins to unzip the case to reveal that it is a firearm. DNR reacts to make assertion that it is loaded. Local therefore reacts and pulls firearm out of the case and in turn shows DNR that it is not loaded at all. (The firearm is pulled out of the case - showed from inside the vehice to the DNR standing in front of the driver door looking through the open window that there is no ammunition, clips, or other indications that a reasonable person would recognize and confirm that a firearm is in fact loaded or not loaded.) Incident expires and later in the mail, a ticket shows up for violating state law 167.31 (2)(b) for not having the firearm encased. A ticket produced in my opinion as a result of not succumbing to the "power" of the DNR during a "what are you stopping me for" stop and for insisting that the DNR's accusation of road hunting, loaded firearm in vehicle, and whatever else DNR creativity attempted is a frustration of the locals' rights. Think of the danged creativity of the DNR to send out a ticket under 167.31 for an average citizen defending the accusations in part by showing of the firearm to the DNR to attest that it is not loaded. What do ya'll think about the story? Is this a clear violation of the law? Is it reasonable for the DNR to interpret the encased part of the law as not being followed by the local for the brief moments of showing the DNR the firearm is all clear? Is there intent to not have the weapon encased in order to break that part of the law during the scenario described? The local has to go to county court for this.
|
AaronS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:29 pm |
|
30-06 wrote: I encountered a local friend that recently was stopped by the Wis DNR and the following is an interpretation of the local's side of the story. DNR stopped vehicle on state highways in the northwoods as a result of "I don't know why- but we'll make something up Statute". When asked why they were stopped it was because the vehicle was driving down state roads with the driver window down. It was said by the DNR that they were "road hunting"... meaning window down. Said immediately upon when the DNR realizes there is a firearm in the vehicle - cased. DNR asks to see the firearm - or in other words turn over the firearm to the DNR standing there. Local disagrees with the whole stopping of the vehicle and why the beef to see the firearm. DNR implies that the firearm might be loaded, etc and is being used in the activity of illegal road hunting. DNR also implies and demand that in order to have the firearm in the vehicle, local must produce a hunting license. Local refuses to that (obviously - a hunting license is not a legal issue for the right to carry a firearm) and in reaction, whicle sitting in the vehicle, the local shows the DNR a firearm case. Local continues to show the DNR the case , instead of handing over the case - which he feels it's unnecessary because of the "what are you stopping me for in the first place" feeling and rationale, begins to unzip the case to reveal that it is a firearm. DNR reacts to make assertion that it is loaded. Local therefore reacts and pulls firearm out of the case and in turn shows DNR that it is not loaded at all. (The firearm is pulled out of the case - showed from inside the vehice to the DNR standing in front of the driver door looking through the open window that there is no ammunition, clips, or other indications that a reasonable person would recognize and confirm that a firearm is in fact loaded or not loaded.) Incident expires and later in the mail, a ticket shows up for violating state law 167.31 (2)(b) for not having the firearm encased. A ticket produced in my opinion as a result of not succumbing to the "power" of the DNR during a "what are you stopping me for" stop and for insisting that the DNR's accusation of road hunting, loaded firearm in vehicle, and whatever else DNR creativity attempted is a frustration of the locals' rights. Think of the danged creativity of the DNR to send out a ticket under 167.31 for an average citizen defending the accusations in part by showing of the firearm to the DNR to attest that it is not loaded. What do ya'll think about the story? Is this a clear violation of the law? Is it reasonable for the DNR to interpret the encased part of the law as not being followed by the local for the brief moments of showing the DNR the firearm is all clear? Is there intent to not have the weapon encased in order to break that part of the law during the scenario described? The local has to go to county court for this.
I think this DNR dude need a good hard kick in the A$$. Your friend should have never even touched his gun case. And he should have never opened it. He was asked to do so, so I do not see how any ticket can be issued. But still, he should have just said no. Is he going to get a lawyer for this?
|
30-06
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:38 pm |
|
| I certainly hope so, so many cases go in favorship of the DNR, that's my assumption. I believe you're absolutely right in the DNR's diary aire kicked and to not have touched anything or shown anything... it was his own doing to show the DNR...through his own frustration for having the whole issue of being stopped and for the accusations thrown at him by the DNR. I hope a reasonable DA or Judge looks at this and provides a simple end - throw it out, but there's possibly more to this than meets the eye, deeper issues regarding rights of the citizens versus the powers of the DNR.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
SC law
(a) secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle; however, this item is not violated if the glove compartment, console, or trunk is opened in the presence of a law enforcement officer for the sole purpose of retrieving a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance; or
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:56 pm |
|
30-06 wrote: What do ya'll think about the story? Is this a clear violation of the law? Is it reasonable for the DNR to interpret the encased part of the law as not being followed by the local for the brief moments of showing the DNR the firearm is all clear? Is there intent to not have the weapon encased in order to break that part of the law during the scenario described? The local has to go to county court for this.
Short answer, he broke the law through no fault of anyone but his own. He tried to resist tyrany but got frustrated and make a bonehead mistake. Taking the 3rd hand story at face value, the Warden was on a fishing trip and he hooked a sucker
The longer story is that he should get a hold of the DA and try to get this thrown out ahead of time. The Warden was clearly a dink. If the DA will not talk to him ahead of time, he can show up to plea not guilty and request a jury trial. A lawyer with a clear head is called for. I see the focus on the DNR hassling someone for acting in a lawful manor. There was not reasonable suspicion to stop him. It is 100% legal to drive around with your window down and the reasonable person standard would support doing so.
This would be a good case to lawyer up and fight to jury trial and appeal if necessary. This type of case will garner support $$$ for the fight. This is clear abuse of power.
This is also a good lesson. Do not allow the DNR to taunt you into doing something stupid. The Warden never ordered or even asked him to remove it from the case. Since he stopped the vehicle and was making unreasonable requests, a call to 911 and getting a Sheriff's deputy on the scene would be called for. Escalate the involvement in order to counteract the stupidity of the DNR. I see little danger of being convicted of concealed carry in a situation like this. This is also an excellent case to challenge the concealed carry statute as written if he would have been cited for it. The rifle was clearly not hidden from plain view as the DNR warden was easily able to discern its presence from outside of the vehicle in the immediate vicinity.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:08 pm by Interceptor_Knight
|
Glock34
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:03 pm |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: This would be a good case to lawyer up and fight to jury trial and appeal if necessary. This type of case will garner support $$$ for the fight. This is clear abuse of power.
This is also a good lesson. Do not allow the DNR to taunt you into doing something stupid. The Warden never ordered or even asked him to remove it from the case. Since he stopped the vehicle and was making unreasonable requests, a call to 911 and getting a Sheriff's deputy on the scene would be called for. Escalate the involvement in order to counteract the stupidity of the DNR. I see little danger of being convicted of concealed carry in a situation like this. This is also an excellent case to challenge the concealed carry statute as written if he would have been cited for it. The rifle was clearly not hidden from plain view as the DNR warden was easily able to discern its presence from outside of the vehicle in the immediate vicinity.
I , 100 % agree with interceptor. fight that bad boy, you will win.
|
logan
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:13 pm |
|
Sometimes the DNR doesn't know what they are talking about. He needs to fight this one and get that charge dropped.
When I was like 10 or younger even, I was shooting a .22 rifle at my dad's. My step mom got mad because the dogs were going crazy over the noise, along with the few horses. So my dad took me out to some state land. There we setup a target and shot for a bit. As we were leaving, gun packed up and we were even in the truck about to take off, a DNR lady pulled up behind us. She ended up giving my dad a ticket for discharging a firearm in a park. My dad went to court and got the charge dropped. It was not a park, there wasn't even a picnic table or anything that would make you think it was a park. It was just state owned land and we were doing nothing wrong.
|
JimE
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:19 pm |
|
He never got out of the vehicle?
This needs to go to court. That will force the courts to re-examine the law. I doubt the circumstances involved here really meet the original intent of this law and may force some clarifications. Also this incident could be construed as entrapment. The individual could probably convince a jury that he was coerced into 'behaving illegally' by a warden himself, whereas wouldn't have broken any laws. That may be the best way to turn this around on the warden...or at least get these unethical police tactics aired out.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: Since he stopped the vehicle and was making unreasonable requests, a call to 911 and getting a Sheriff's deputy on the scene would be called for. Escalate the involvement in order to counteract the stupidity of the DNR. And give the Warden a witness? Do you actually believe that a Sheriff's Deputy will not side with the Warden?
Plain and simple, this is a good reason to carry a tape recorder, always.
I suggest you contact Attorney John Monroe (john.monroe1@earthlink.net). He may be able to help with this.
Maybe this is just the case we need to get rid of the unconstitutional transportation laws.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:18 pm by J.Gleason
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote: Do you actually believe that a Sheriff's Deputy will not side with the Warden? Remember, his "we must all hang together" comment applies to statists and wannabes too.
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:05 am |
|
J.Gleason wrote: And give the Warden a witness? Do you actually believe that a Sheriff's Deputy will not side with the Warden?
Yup........ Likely you would not have to call the Deputy if you call the Warden's bluff. You do not have to surrender your weapon while it is in its case in your vehicle. If the warden believes he has the authority to order you out of the vehicle, then tell him you will call 911 and get someone there who has the authority.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:20 am |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: J.Gleason wrote: And give the Warden a witness? Do you actually believe that a Sheriff's Deputy will not side with the Warden?
Yup........ Likely you would not have to call the Deputy if you call the Warden's bluff. You do not have to surrender your weapon while it is in its case in your vehicle. If the warden believes he has the authority to order you out of the vehicle, then tell him you will call 911 and get someone there who has the authority. A DNR Warden does in fact have the authority to order you out of the vehicle. They have those powers here in Wisconsin thanks to the sheep that have given them the power. In fact some Wardens can issue citations in certain towns for speeding.
I_K, think about what you are saying here. I know the camaraderie between LEO's and I know that calling in a witness for the prosecution will not help you out in court.
Any time you act in, what an LEO considers a resistive manner, any other responding LEO will take the same position. They back each other up, that is what they do. That County Deputy knows that some day he may need that Warden for back up and he surely isn't going to risk his life for one of us.
Call his bluff and you just may get a Warden and a Deputy hauling your butt off to jail for whatever additional charges they can make up. Two LEO's against you. Gee, who will win with out evidence against their story?
ETA: the OP should inform their friend to contact Monroe and fight this in court. This may very well be the mile stone we are looking for.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:24 am by J.Gleason
|
Cobbersmom
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:24 am |
|
I've got a better idea than everyone second guessing what someone told someone who's a friend of my sisters second cousin twice removed, etc. etc. <sarcasm>
How about posting the friends name, the wardens name, county, date, road where supposed issue took place and maybe, just maybe, someone can come up with a better answer than just a guess to a post that might be legitimate or a troll.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:25 am |
|
Good Point
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:36 am |
|
I am not a lawyer so don't take any of what I am about to say as legal advice.
First off: there was no violation of any statute until the moment the person unzipped the case while it was in the vehicle. The moment the firearm was visible 167.31 was violated. I know that sucks but thats the way it comes down. I also am not going to suggest what legal action anyone should take. That is a personal decision. I will present the following information. It is presented only on the assumption that everything posted concerning the incident is factual.
After the vehicle was stopped it appears everything the cited person did at the request of the warden was voluntary. However, it doesn't sound like the initial stop for having a window down is sufficient probable cause of illegal hunting. Law enforcement (including conservation wardens) can not stop your vehicle without probable cause. i.e. speeding, erratic driving, faulty equipment, observed seat belt violation etc. This stop seems to lack probable cause. Also Article I section 25 gives us the right to carry firearms for hunting. The exercise of that right does not require a license. The warden's claim that a license is required to carry a firearm in a vehicle is false.
The person cited has a number of options. He can plead guilty and pay his maximum of $175 fine, He can plead not guilty and ask for a jury trial. He can plead not guilty and ask for a trial by judge. He could probably file a violation of civil rights charge against the warden.
The maximum penalty for first violation of 167.31 is $175 forieture. No misdemeanor charge. No felony charge. No time in jail. It amounts to a fine less than many traffic tickets. That is the very reason 167.31 hasn't been successfully challenged in court. Most people would prefer to pay the fine than pay for a lawyer or have to take time off work or face the inconvienience of fighting the citiation.
If everything posted concerning the ffacts of this incident are truthful then I think this would be an excellent challenge to the vehicle transport law. It would require a gun rights savvy lawyer but I think a good lawyer could prevail.
Nearly every day someone on this forum complains about the inconvieience of the firearm transport law. We all agree that along with the school zone law it is the most troublesome firearm carry restriction we must endure. This incident could be our best chance of bringing the problem to a head.
I think if the person involved decides to fight this citation we should be prepared to give him all our support and put our money were our mouths are.
167.31(2)(b) Vehicle Transport
(b) Except as provided in sub. (4 ), 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.
167.31(2)(e)
e) A person who violates pars. (a) to (d) is subject to a forfeiture of not more than $100
(5) WEAPONS SURCHARGE. (a) If a court imposes a fine or forfeiturefor a violation of this section, the court shall also impose a weapons surcharge under ch. 814 equal to 75% of the amount of the fine or forfeiture.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
FOIA works against the DNR too.
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
J.Gleason wrote:
Call his bluff and you just may get a Warden and a Deputy hauling your butt off to jail for whatever additional charges they can make up. Two LEO's against you. Gee, who will win with out evidence against their story?
I realistically would not tell him to go jerk off if it came to him actually ordering me to get out of the car. I definitely would not hand the weapon over to him and would make him order me out of the car and go after it himself.
This is all the more reason to always place the weapon in the trunk.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:39 am by Interceptor_Knight
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:41 am |
|
Lammie wrote:
First off: there was no violation of any statute until the moment the person unzipped the case while it was in the vehicle. The moment the firearm was visible 167.31 was violated.
The moment it was not completely zipped, it was violated. I have heard 2nd hand stories about DNR issuing tickets for the zipper being 2" open. Every buckle, snap, latch, etc needs to be secure.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:42 am |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: J.Gleason wrote:
Call his bluff and you just may get a Warden and a Deputy hauling your butt off to jail for whatever additional charges they can make up. Two LEO's against you. Gee, who will win with out evidence against their story?
I realistically would not tell him to go jerk off if it came to him actually ordering me to get out of the car. I definitely would not hand the weapon over to him and would make him order me out of the car and go after it himself.
This is all the more reason to always place the weapon in the trunk.
Exactly
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 05:54 am |
|
If the story the OP posted is correct, there seems to be a very clear case of entrapment.
The warden postulated that the gun was loaded, the warden also kept harping on the driver to prove his innocence, and when the driver did try to prove his innocence, he successfully entrapped him.
The DNR puts out robotic decoys of commonly poached animals in this area, they have RC deer with cameras hidden in them, and they also have a few radio-controlled grouse with camera's in them. How Do I know this? I helped build a few of the grouse!! and I have seen the deer fakes along roadsides around here.
The grouse just stand there and the warden has the ability to make it's head swivel, they tape from another angle while hidden in a blind, that way they have 2 separate angles to catch the action.
I am all for catching poachers, but the DNR tactics have been to harass innocent people at a rate of 10-1 for each illegal they catch. Another tactic that was common around here was for a warden to wait for a bow hunter to return to their vehicle, if the bow was not in a case for their walk out of the woods, he would ticket them for hunting after hours! The judge would always find for the prosecution in court. There are no laws saying a bow or firearm must be cased or unloaded after legal shooting hours. You just are not supposed to shoot after hours. But it did not matter.
I think the WIDNR should dress in surplus Nazi attire, since they act in the same manner.
|
Current time is 01:58 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
