|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Wisconsin > Please sign petition to remove School-Zone restriction and Vehicle Carry restriction laws in WI
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Wisconsin > Please sign petition to remove School-Zone restriction and Vehicle Carry restriction laws in WI
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Please read and sign the petition below - Wisconsin residents only. This petition to the wisconsin legislature and governor seeks to have the onerous school zone restriction and vehicle carry restrictions repealled. As we know, the "1000 ft from the edge of a school propety" law has the potential to ensnare law-abiding gun owners in a legal battle facing felony charges. It land-locks people who live near schools, unable to walk off of their property while they open-carry. Vehicle carry restrictions are equally cumbersome. Having to load/unload, holster/ unholster your firearm dozens of times if you are out running errands is very bad policy and should be abolished as well. Please sign the petition and check the option to make your email address available to the petition author so that we may update you if something important occurs with the issue. http://www.petitiononline.com/wi1848oc/petition.html To: Wisconsin Legislature & Governor As the Wisconsin Attorney General noted at http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf in April of 2009, the orderly open carry of holstered handguns is not only legal in Wisconsin, it is protected by the state constitution. In fact, Wisconsin is just like most states where open carry is allowed without any permit. Unfortunately Wisconsin state law bars the open carry of holstered handguns in vehicles and within 1,000 feet of any school. Accordingly, we submit to you this petition for redress of these onerous and odious restrictions on our open carry rights: 1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury. 2. The Constitutions of the United States and Wisconsin guarantee the right of individuals to keep and bear arms; and as the United States Supreme Court held in the DC gun ban case, DC v. Heller, "bear" means "carry." 3. Criminals are not deterred by rules, regulations, and laws forbidding the possession of weapons - and frankly, according to a recent FBI study criminals don't open carry or even wear holsters. See Anthony Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, FBI (2006) (finding that violent criminals carefully "conceal" their guns and "eschew holsters"), summary available at http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62. 4. Due to the risk of assault on motorists by criminals and car-jackers, most states allow handgun carry in vehicles without any license. 5. The Supreme Court struck down the federal school zone gun ban as unconstitutional in US v. Lopez, and school zone gun bans like Wisconsin's are almost unknown in other states. 6. The Wisconsin school zone and vehicle open carry bans mandate widespread and unnecessary gun handling and loading/unloading in public areas as citizens move about our state, as well as making vehicles and school zones into victim disarmament zones. 7. The Wisconsin school zone and vehicle open carry bans are a threat to public safety and unconstitutionally infringe on the right to open carry. For the foregoing reasons, we residents of the State of Wisconsin demand repeal of the onerous and odious vehicle and school zone open carry bans. We also call for maintaining the current complete state preemption of local gun control power, and for the legislature to consider creating a license system to authorize citizens the privilege to conceal their handguns as they move about the state. Last edited on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 07:52 pm by |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Great work! Let's get this petition link on every blog and news column comments section in Wisconisn ASAP!! |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Can someone post to other forums as well, glocktalk, ar-15, etc. |
|||||||||
|
WIG19 Regular Member
|
Frankly, witnessing para 6 is one of those things that is more likely to cause a "public disturbance" than having the firearm already holstered. And the excess gun-handling is a valid safety issue. In those interests, one could argue that "practical" execution of the right is, again, dissuaded by the restrictions placed on its exercise. |
|||||||||
|
FeralOne Regular Member
|
Signed and passed along. |
|||||||||
|
Cobbersmom Regular Member 
|
Anyone got an idea how I can link the petition to my Facebook page? I'm new at it and don't know if that's possible. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Cobbersmom wrote: Anyone got an idea how I can link the petition to my Facebook page? I'm new at it and don't know if that's possible. You should be able to just post the link in the "what are you doing" field |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
And folks, "Operation CarryLand" to raise funds for radio ads to promote this petition is now underway - go to http://www.opencarry.org/carryland.html and in just a few seconds you can send some money via pay pall using your credit card to thsi effort -YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A PAY PAL ACCOUNT. Please give what you can - a $10 or more contribution makes you an activist member on OCDO (will be under your screen name) - but give more if you can - frankly we need to raise over $1,000 just to run a small campaign in Milwaukee which we want to do ASAP. |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
One thing to keep in mind as this petition moves along is that statute 167.31 (use and transportation of firearms) was initiated by the DNR in order to reduce poaching of game animals. In that regard paragraph 167.31(2)(b) is overkill. The carry of a firearm in or on a vehicle is an inert action and does not in itself represent a danger to people or animals. The real danger is the discharge of the weapon. Paragraph 167.31(2)(c) prohibits the discharge of a weapon from in or on a vehicle. Paragraph 167.31(2)(d) prohibits the discharge of a weapon across a highway or 50 feet from the center line of a roadway. Those two paragraphs, alone or together, provide all the restriction needed and evidence for conviction of a violation to 167.31. If a person is prohibited from shooting a firearm from within or on a vehicle, especially across or within 50 feet of a roadway centerline, and those actions provide enough evidence for conviction, then the requirement that the weapon be encased is moot. |
|||||||||
|
skamp Campaign Veteran 
|
Donated! i also printed out the petition.. and make a link to put on our club newsletter.. should be going out next week |
|||||||||
|
Flipper Campaign Veteran 
|
Donated. |
|||||||||
|
lockman State Researcher 
|
Why can't a non resident sign the petition? I have OC'ed in WI on many vacations over the years and have property, but am not a resident. |
|||||||||
|
Airforce1 Regular Member 
|
Oops, signed it without reading the residents only. Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 09:57 am by Airforce1 |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
115 Total Signatures! Not bad for the first 24 hours - now let's get all your frinedsl and family in Wisconsin signed up and post around state to every blog and web site you can find and on other national gunboards - we need to drive this puppy toward and over 1,000 signatures ASAP before the next press cycle. |
|||||||||
|
lockman State Researcher
|
Since this petition would not have legally binding results, why the restriction to WI residents? All property owners in WI and vistitors are affected by the current restrictions. |
|||||||||
|
skamp Campaign Veteran
|
the reason for residents only is that the representatives are supposed to "listen" to the people they represent... having a million signatures on something but only 3 from constituents will not mean anything to them.. they will see 3 signatures that matter. |
|||||||||
|
lockman State Researcher
|
In other words as a property owner in WI, TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! |
|||||||||
|
ayce2 Regular Member 
|
signed a forwarded to friends |
|||||||||
|
skamp Campaign Veteran
|
as a property owner you would be considered a resident of WI. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member 
|
skamp wrote: as a property owner you would be considered a resident of WI.No. That is not true. The minimum requirement is ten days residence regardless of any ownership. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0006.pdf Would that property ownership be required for enfranchisement. |
|||||||||
|
32HR MAG Regular Member
|
M1911 Pistols Organization Forums and 1911Forums.com have been notified . |
|||||||||
|
smithman Regular Member
|
Anybody who is a member of Glock talk, please post this there as well. |
|||||||||
|
Teej Regular Member
|
Agree on the DNR vehicle restriction...but removing the school zone restriction is pretty much moot. It's still a federal felony ( 5yrs / $5,000 ) rap. Only way around that is with a carry permit system. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Teej wrote: Agree on the DNR vehicle restriction...but removing the school zone restriction is pretty much moot. The federal ban was overturned by the S. Ct in Lopez. Though Congress reenacted the ban with other language, the new statute remains dubious constitutionality and is not being used by the federal government against people with a lawful purpose; besides, the state ban needs to be repealed! |
|||||||||
|
Teej Regular Member
|
True enough. |
|||||||||
|
LittleOtter Regular Member 
|
Signed and passed on. |
|||||||||
|
Geoff Regular Member 
|
So how do I sign this? I haven't noticed an actual form anywhere. Thanks, Geoff |
|||||||||
|
Lurchiron Regular Member 
|
Last edited on Sun May 24th, 2009 04:06 pm by Lurchiron |
|||||||||
|
Geoff Regular Member
|
got it. thank you |
|||||||||
|
NPH_1985 Regular Member
|
Done (couple of days ago). |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Keeps rising: 700 Total Signatures! |
|||||||||
|
protias Regular Member 
|
789! |
|||||||||
|
Sajuuk Regular Member 
|
Looks like it's up to 942 now. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
1000 Total Signatures |
|||||||||
|
GlockMeisterG21 Campaign Veteran 
|
Wow, it's really getting up there. Great to see! |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
How many signatures are we looking for before we bring this forward? |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
J.Gleason wrote: How many signatures are we looking for before we bring this forward? As many as possible - as it grows it will get publicity on its own weight. |
|||||||||
|
USAFdude02 Regular Member
|
Signed. Great work guys, I will pass this on to the people at my work. Thanks. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Great work - but more is needed to spread the word to sign this petition. Especially if you live, work, or go to school in Wisconsin, please give at least a nominal (e.g., $10, $25, etc) contribution to Operation CarryLand today at http://www.opencarry.org/carryland.html - it will only take a minute by credit or debit card, NO PAY PAL ACCOUNT IS NECESSARY. And we still have some matching funds available from a generous donor - so your contribution will be doubled! Operation CarryLand fundraising funds out radio advertizing campaign to drive people to the online petition - later the email addresses will be harvested for direct alert attack vectors at the Wisconsin legislature to repeal Wisconsin's onerous statutory gin control scheme. Please give today at http://www.opencarry.org/carryland.html and help turn Wisconsin into America's carry land. |
|||||||||
|
bigdaddy1 Regular Member 
|
Do on-line petitions count officially? I am involved in a recall campaign against Doyle, and they said that on-line petitions dont count. I dont know if it was just for something like a recall campaign or they dont count period. By the way, only 1094 signatures as of today, seems to has stalled a bit Last edited on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:53 pm by bigdaddy1 |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
bigdaddy1 wrote: Do on-line petitions count officially? Officially for what? A petition is simply a bill of desires. |
|||||||||
|
bigdaddy1 Regular Member
|
Taken from Snopes; Claim: Signing and circulating on line petitions is an effective way of remedying important issues. Status: False http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp Even written petitions have little value unless the vast majority of the intended person/persons constituents have signed. I have found out recently due to my efforts for a recall campaign against Gov. Doyle that there are some pretty stringent rules governing petitions. From what I can determine an on line petition is little more than a "feel good" measure. If you want it to really count it would have to be a written petition with REAL signatures. Even then it wont carry much weight with the politicians unless there is a majority pull of voters. I guess thats what I mean if it counts. Last edited on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 12:09 am by bigdaddy1 |
|||||||||
|
Sajuuk Regular Member
|
I sure hope they remove the restrictions soon. I'm getting scared to even walk from my car to my house. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/47145492.html This happened ON MY BLOCK! But I have can't even be armed because there are schools EVERYWHERE around here and my means of defense is in the trunk, unloaded!  |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
bigdaddy1 wrote: From what I can determine an on line petition is little more than a "feel good" measure. If you want it to really count it would have to be a written petition with REAL signatures. Even then it wont carry much weight with the politicians unless there is a majority pull of voters. Online petitions gather publicty and email addresses to be deployed later - and majorities of voters on any one uissue never exist nor are they material. Written petitions are unwieldy and less visible and not suited for our purposes. |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
Found this on Snopes FAQ. Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate? A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. In regards to Snopes long opinion on petitions, the statement below is probably the most important. "At best, they're seen as an indication of the public's will, no more. " That in itself may be enough, especially if the petition is directed toward politicians. Regardless our opinions of politicians the one thing they do pay attention to is the concerns of their constituents. They are well aware that the only way they can keep thier job is to have constituents that are satisfied with thier performance. Sometimes they may not act like it but they are concerned. Petitions may have little legal significance, unless they are freeman petitions, but they do have influence. |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
Duplicate post deleted. Last edited on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 03:15 am by Lammie |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
bigdaddy1 wrote: Taken from Snopes; I guess you never heard of the online "anti-abuser fees" petition in virginia a couple of years ago - raised such a ruckus that the legislature repealed the darn things unanimously as their first act the next time they met. Google it up. The key is to keep pushing the petition - once the press puts in online, it will get more signatures. Has everybody entered it on their blogs, Twitter and facebook yet? if not, get to work. |
|||||||||
|
bigdaddy1 Regular Member
|
Oh I fully intend on continuing the push. If it just lets our gubment officials know that there are MANY that feel a certain way about something it will have merit. I am just wondering of a more official written petition would have more of an effect. |
|||||||||
|
protias Regular Member
|
Just checked again and there are 1,123 signatures. |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Even written petitions have little value About half of the people who have signed the on-line petition have made their email address visible to me (as the petition creator) as such, I have well over 500 email addresses that I can contact if there was ever a time when we need to take decisive action. The more people who sign the petition, the more that I can contact if there came a time when we needed to quickly and massively get the word out. Not withstanding public officials would be interested in knowing that X number of people support a cause. |
|||||||||
|
bigdaddy1 Regular Member
|
I'm all for it, keep us informed as to any additional action we may need. |
|||||||||
|
polekat Regular Member
|
The petition web page is not available. I checked just now and late yesterday. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
polekat wrote: The petition web page is not available. I checked just now and late yesterday. Yeah, I hope they have not shut down the domain. |
|||||||||
|
protias Regular Member
|
polekat wrote: The petition web page is not available. I checked just now and late yesterday. Don't worry: http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/petitiononline.com |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
Mike wrote: polekat wrote:What if they did? Are all of the signatures lost?The petition web page is not available. I checked just now and late yesterday. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
J.Gleason wrote: Mike wrote:polekat wrote:What if they did? Are all of the signatures lost?The petition web page is not available. I checked just now and late yesterday. Nik has the emails from those who allowed him to see their emails. Hopefully this is just a ghlitch - if not, i'm sure some other service will pop up and we will start again. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
I think this is something we should start right away. Just in case. |
|||||||||
|
protias Regular Member
|
I just checked the site and it is back up with 1,151 signatures. |
|||||||||
|
Glock34 Campaign Veteran 
|
Great petition !!!!! , It's up to 1360's now Last edited on Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 05:21 pm by Glock34 |
|||||||||
|
timmer84 Regular Member
|
Hello all! I am new to the board and just signed this petition. I am new to the OC topic, and have not done so in public except when hunting. I am an active member of the armed forces, and am curious about the local laws. Gonna be doing plenty of research about OC, but I think I will not be able to do it even in my own neighborhood due to the proximity of a school... timmer  |
|||||||||
|
Glock34 Campaign Veteran
|
timmer84 wrote: Hello all! AS long as you don't leave your property, it wouldn't matter if the school was accross the street, stay on your lawn or driveway. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Here are all the Wisconsin State Statutes. You must be familiar with 941.23 and 167.31 to begin. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/Statutes.html http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0167.pdf http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0941.pdf Then use the search function for "firearm" and then "gun". |
|||||||||
|
timmer84 Regular Member
|
Thanks for the info! According to Google Maps and their scale, the school I am refering to is more than 1000' away. However, there is a YMCA within the 1000', and they have Pre-K programs, do they count as a school? |
|||||||||
|
Glock34 Campaign Veteran
|
timmer84 wrote: Thanks for the info! According to Google Maps and their scale, the school I am refering to is more than 1000' away. However, there is a YMCA within the 1000', and they have Pre-K programs, do they count as a school? K-12 |
|||||||||
|
Interceptor_Knight Regular Member
|
Glock34 wrote: AS long as you don't leave your property, it wouldn't matter if the school was accross the street, stay on your lawn or driveway. How about a fanny pack IN a school zone.....  Walk down the street Open Carrying a holstered handgun and a fanny pack on...(one like the Bianchi which is expressly made to hold a handgun) just before the school zone, "Encase" your handgun. Once outside again, holster your handgun. Last edited on Fri Aug 28th, 2009 09:48 pm by Interceptor_Knight |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
948.605 Gun−free school zones. (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 s. 948.61 (1) (b). (c) “School zone” means any of the following: 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 ZONE. (a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is guilty of a Class I felony. (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 zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; 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 school zone; 5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; 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 school grounds is authorized by school authorities. 8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the school forest under s. 120.13 (38). (3) DISCHARGE OF FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE. (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 zone is guilty of a Class G felony. (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 school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program; 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 4. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity. History: 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 336; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 290; 2007 a. 27. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: How about a fanny pack IN a school zone.....In mandatory concealed only South Carolina, I was instructed and I taught that LEO are trained to see a fanny-pack, especially on a male, as most likely concealing a pistol. As an aside; I have a very nice leather Bible cover, 'Bible' in gold-leaf, with room for my CCW too. The two partitions have individual zippers but the CCW side's pull tab is gone so you just tear it open and use the zipper to reseal. It's been to many classes. |
|||||||||
|
Interceptor_Knight Regular Member
|
Doug Huffman wrote: skamp wrote:as a property owner you would be considered a resident of WI.No. That is not true. The minimum requirement is ten days residence regardless of any ownership. Unless you are an "alien", you can move to a state, go to the DMV to get your "Government issued photo ID" and proceed directly to a FFL to purchase a firearm. According to 27 CFR 178.11 State of Residence is as follows: The State in which an individual regularly resides, or maintains a home.... |
|||||||||
|
Interceptor_Knight Regular Member
|
Doug Huffman wrote: Interceptor_Knight wrote:How about a fanny pack IN a school zone.....In mandatory concealed only South Carolina, I was instructed and I taught that LEO are trained to see a fanny-pack, especially on a male, as most likely concealing a pistol. Doug Huffman wrote: 948.605 Gun−free school zones. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this Since State law requires you to have a firearm "Encased", and the fanny pack referenced is a "legal" case, this should be a successful defense against a Concealed Weapon citation. Since the letter of the State law requires the firearm to be carried in this fashion while traveling through the school zone, the State has no interests to be protected by prohibiting you from carrying in this manor. Your interests of bearing arms for a lawful purpose over ride the non existing interests of the State prohibiting you from doing so. Last edited on Fri Aug 28th, 2009 10:08 pm by Interceptor_Knight |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
In order to avoid a concealed weapons citation the weapon must also be carried out of reach. How do you do that with a fanny pack. Read State v. Kieth. If buying a handgun remeber that in Wisconsin there is a mandatory 48 hour waiting period from the time of purchase until you can take possession of the weapon. |
|||||||||
|
Interceptor_Knight Regular Member
|
Lammie wrote: In order to avoid a concealed weapons citation the weapon must also be carried out of reach. How do you do that with a fanny pack. Read State v. Kieth. Citation maybe, conviction, not. The firearm is not "hidden". The firearm is openly "encased" as required by law. The "encased firearm" is easily discernable by someone in close proximity to it.
As I previously mentioned, since the letter of the State law requires the firearm to be carried in this fashion while traveling through the school zone, the State has no interests to be protected by prohibiting you from carrying in this manor. Your interests of bearing arms for a lawful purpose over ride the non existing interests of the State prohibiting you from doing so. |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
I didn't mention "hidden" I said "out of reach". If you are so convinced of your theory why don't you test it? |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Lammie wrote: I didn't mention "hidden" I said "out of reach". If you are so convinced of your theory why don't you test it?If you are so convinced of your legal theory why don't you test it? |
|||||||||
|
Interceptor_Knight Regular Member
|
Lammie wrote: I didn't mention "hidden" I said "out of reach". If you are so convinced of your theory why don't you test it? It may be in your reach if it is not hidden. It must meet all 3 criteria....  |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
From State v. Nick Alloy ¶1 PER CURIAM. Nick Alloy appeals a judgment convicting him of carrying a concealed weapon, a handgun contained in a zipper case inside a metal box between the bucket seats of his Jeep Wagoneer. He argues that the trial court erred and denied him his constitutional right to testify in his own defense when it disallowed questions designed to show that the handgun was encased because Wis. Stat. § 167.31(2) (1997-98) requires that a firearm be encased when it is transported in a vehicle. Because complying with § 167.31 does not provide a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, the trial court properly disallowed this irrelevant testimony. (Emphasis mine) |
|||||||||
|
Interceptor_Knight Regular Member
|
Lammie wrote: The encased handgun was :
This is the 3rd requirement. Nick Alloy concealed the encased handgun when he placed it in the metal box. Even if he would have placed it on the seat next to him, it is arguably concealed as it would be indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle. It is nearly impossible to conform to this 3rd item if you are within the passenger compartment of your vehicle so you must place it out of reach in the trunk. Practical enforcement has allowed the common practice of placing an encased long gun behind the seat of a truck. It was a flawed defense by Alloy to claim that 167.31 forced him to place his encased firearm within the passenger compartment and within another container. It is a flawed defense because in a car, you can comply with both statutes by placing the encased firearm in the trunk. While traveling through a Gun Free School Zone, the firearm must be encased. If you are traveling on foot, you may then carry this encased firearm on you so long as you do not conceal it by placing it in another container such as a bag or backpack, etc or conceal it underneath an article of clothing. The State explicitly prohibits you from carrying it in any other manor. Since they give you no other choice, your interests in Bearing Arms are stronger than the State's interests of preventing you from carrying the firearm concealed. |
|||||||||
|
bnhcomputing Founder's Club Member
|
Let's keep this going folks, the time to strike is when the iron is hot! |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: Lammie wrote:The encased handgun was :
Inside of a vehicle I could have a locking case made of clear lexan, which would clearly allow an officer to see the fire arm within the case, but the fire arm would still have to be out of my reach correct? |
|||||||||
|
bnhcomputing Founder's Club Member
|
J.Gleason wrote: So, if I carry a case with me and before I reach the school zone(on foot) I unholster, unload, place the fire arm in the case and close the case, I can continue through the school zone legally? As long as the case is recognizable as a gun case? [This is correct] And this isn't legal advice by any means... |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
Still not sure if I would test that theory either. Not the way the cops and some of these judges twist the law to their advantage. |
|||||||||
|
thelongone13 Regular Member 
|
Hello all, I am new to the board, but "signed" the petition a long time ago. I open carry on my street and will be for work (rent-a-cop going to school to be a REAL cop). It's unfortunate to me that I can't carry much further as I know there are schools all over the place here. I never really know if I'm within 1000 feet of a school unless I'm on MY street. So please, sign away and let's get the word out! |
|||||||||
|
range rat Regular Member
|
hugh jarmis wrote: Please read and sign the petition below - Wisconsin residents only.
garymalachowski@att.net |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
You need to click on the petition link and submit your info there. |
|||||||||
|
Running Wolf Activist Member
|
Mine was signature #1895.  |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Looking good - let's get this over 2,000 signatures ASAP! 1900 Total Signatures |
|||||||||