|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Wisconsin > Uncased firearms in vehicle Bill debated in Wisconsin
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Wisconsin > Uncased firearms in vehicle Bill debated in Wisconsin
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Elysium Regular Member
|
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 
|
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
|
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 
|
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
|
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 @#$% what the police think when it pertains to my rights. They do not uphold my rights they uphold the laws of society. Ben Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 01:39 pm by BJA |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
I thought to myself who gives a @#$% 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 
|
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
|
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
|
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)Nik, You have just described the Prison System. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
Everyone should go on the Stevenspointjournel.com blog and post a comment to this article giving support to Senator Decker. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
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
|
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
|
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 
|
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
|
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
|
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 - 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
|
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
|
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
|
BJA wrote:
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
|
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 |
|||||||||
|
smithman Regular Member
|
gbu28 wrote: I let my ACLU membership expire a few months ago after I read their position on the 2nd amendment- It's because the ACLU is a tool of the left. Don't get me wrong, they understand and want people to exercise their rights (except for the second amendment). But interpreting the second amendment as a collective right is just so stupid it's laughable. The founding fathers didn't write the BOR to protect so called "collective rights". Last edited on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 01:31 pm by smithman |
|||||||||
|
Flipper Campaign Veteran
|
smithman wrote: gbu28 wrote:I let my ACLU membership expire a few months ago after I read their position on the 2nd amendment- Let them know your feelings..... organizations, out of the need to survive, must reflect their members viewpoints. Thats why the election of blue dog democrats is so important in protecting 2nd Amendment rights. I bet if 18,000 members of a pro-gun organization joined the ACLU, they would decide to agree with the SCUS.  |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
BJA: The case Mike refers to where a person was convicted for carrying a concealed weapon because the gun was in a locked glove compartment is State v. Fry. I agree with Mike that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would likely find a firearm locked in a rack concealed, if the firearm is within reach. It could possibly avoid the SSC ruling being that it more than likely would be very visible but then it would be in violation of s167.31(2)(b). The "or locked in rack attached to the vehicle " phrase is probably an argument against the constitutionality or the enforceabilty of the school zone statute or of 167.31. That is unless the SSC would rule that to avoid a problem the rack had to be attached to the vehicle out of arms reach which of course would make the typical pickup truck real window mounts illegal and would still require the firearm to be encased even if locked in the rack in order to avoid the reach of 167.31. It is absolutely impossible to second guess how the Wisconsin Supreme Court will rule on any firearm issue. Judged by other SSC rulings it is my opinon that the WSSC is only too happy to let Wisconsin exist as a "police state". There is no question that there is an enforcement conflict between the school zone statute, the vehicle carry statute and the concealed carry prohibition statute. The SSC keeps "spinning" around the solution. |
|||||||||
|
smithman Regular Member
|
Doug Huffman wrote:
This is funny. If I read it right, the bill does not allow loaded guns, so how could one shoot one from their car, Mr. Sheriff? You know that people will use the poaching argument as a way to attack the bill. "large numbers of law-abiding hunters will become poachers if this bill is passed" they will probably say. Surely the current vehicle laws keep all poachers from hunting from their vehicles. Since they care so much about laws it seems. |
|||||||||
|
smooth Opt-Out Member
|
WOW......all I can say about Wisconsin and it's draconian laws. WOW |
|||||||||
|
Mr.Parker Regular Member
|
No way I would support the ACLU because of their continuing support for terrorist rights. Those zibs already think were weaklings because we don't kill them. Are law enforcement officers in states like Vermont and Arizona intimidated by citizens who carry openly or concealed? I don't think so. What is wrong with these Wisconsin sheriffs and chiefs (we used to call them suits) who can't bring themselves to support the constitution? Why can't we be "trusted" with open or concealed carry without a fight. What makes us so different from the citizens of Minnesota and Michigan? This is one of the biggest nanny states in the union! |
|||||||||
|
No1 Banned
|
Mr.Parker wrote: What makes us so different from the citizens of Minnesota and Michigan? This is one of the biggest nanny states in the union!concentraton of power in madistan's ivory towers |
|||||||||
|
Elysium Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: 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. Mike I hope your are not trying to say that I dont know the law here. Many Wisconsinites do not know the gun laws here. Encased and unloaded does not make it concealed. an uncased, unloaded gun in the glove box would be concealed even though it is unloaded. basicly you need to have it unloaded in a case designed for a gun. Putting it in a crown royal bag unloaded is concealed. Putting it in a zippered gun case unloaded is legal. It is a very "grey" law. When I drive my truck, I put my gun in a gun case unloaded under or behind the seat. If I cop pulls me over what is he going to tell me to do, put in in the open cargo box where it can fall out and land on the street for a kid to pickup? How else are you to transport a firearm? Last edited on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 03:36 am by Elysium |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Elysium wrote: Mike wrote: Um, no, you are breaking the law by following the urban myth or as the appeal court calls it, making a "false assertion": -- State v. Alloy, 616 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. App. 2000).
|
|||||||||
|
AaronS Regular Member 
|
Its because of this kind of thing, that I put mine in a gun box, and lock it to the rear seat of my truck. I guess I could touch the box from my seat, but with the lock on it, there is no way at all that I could brandish it, load it, and use it, with out getting out to unlock it... Overkill? Hey, what can I say? Cops scare me... |
|||||||||
|
Elysium Regular Member
|
rather be caught with it then caught with out one. Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 06:34 am by Elysium |
|||||||||
|
GlockMeisterG21 Campaign Veteran 
|
I keep mine in the case it came with in my trunk. It has holes for 2 padlocks but I don't use them. |
|||||||||
|
Lammie Campaign Veteran
|
Senator Decker surely should be applauded for initiating a bill to allow open carry of firearms in a vehicle. His bill is short sighted as it is intended to apply under hunting conditions. The repeal of 167.31 has been tried a few times in the past. Each time it has been "shot' down by the DNR. The DNR has so much "clout" in the legislature that it more than likely will be defeated again. Not to say it shouldn't be attempted again. The real issue with the vehicle carry statute isn't it's goodness or badness it is that it is unconstitutional and should be repealed on those grounds. It is unconstitutional because in concert with the concealed weapon statute 941.23 it does not provide us a manner by which to carry a firearm on all vehicles on which firearm carry is allowed by the state. For example: Under the Rules of Operation section of statute 23.33 it is allowed that a firearm can be transported on an all-terrain-vehicle, providing the firearm is encased. An ATV is constructed so that it is impossible to carry the encased firearm "out-of-reach" as suggested by the SSC concerning automobile carry. That fact puts the ATV operator in violation of the concealed carry prohibition statute. By law a person can not carry a firearm concealed and can not carry it open on an ATV even though state laws says it is lawful to do so. In the case of hunting a number of circumstances, some of which may be physical, remotnes, accessability may require a person to use an ATV. That person has more of a compelling need to carry a firearm on a vehicle than the state has in enforcing the statutes. By opinions of the SSC in Hamdan, statute 167.31 is unconstitutional because the state does not allow the person a manner of carry and therefore infringes on Article I section 25. s167.31 is also unconstitutional on the grounds that it can not be equally applied to all vehicles. There are many "single passenger" vehicles on which a firearm can not be carried out-of-reach and therefore avoid a conflict between statutes 167.31 and 941.23. Statute 167.31 should be repealed not on it's goodness or badness, but on it unconstitutionality. That of course is my opinion but I think it is valid. Following is a letter I wrote to Allen Lee (assistant attorney general). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 2, 2007 Allan Lee Assistant Attorney General Deputy Administrative Services Department of Justice 17 W Maqin St. Madison WI 53707-7857 Dear Mr. Lee: Thank you for your prompt response to my letter to the Attorney General office concerning what I perceive to be a conflict between state statutes 941.23 and 167.31(2)(b). Needless to say I am dissapointed by your response that state statutes prevent your office from giving opinions to private citizens, leaving them only the option of paying significant legal fees and court costs to get state level legal opinions on isssues that concern them. I know that your response on giving AG opinion is correct. That does not diminish the problem that because it can not be universally applied to all motorized vehicles 167.31(2)(b) is unenforcable, and possibly unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court has declared the concealed carry statute 941.23 a strict liability statute, without exception, including the activities contained in Article I chapter 25. The SSC also stated that concealed carry was a manner of carry and that the state has the authority to regulate the manner of carry, describing them as visible and hidden. It also stated that Article I chapter 25 demands that if the state does enforce prohibition of a manner of carry it must provide an alternative manner or yield to the amendment. When a single passenger motor vehicle is used to transport a firearm it is impossible for the operator of the vehicle to avoid the three conditions defining concealment. Conditions that were handed down by the SSC. Under those conditions and if the vehicle is a single passenger vehicle such as snowmobiles, ATV's, utility vehicles, small boats etc. the State does not provide a manner of carry. The State prohibits both visible carry (167.31(2)(b)) and concealed carry (941.23), therefore, one of the two statutes must be unenforcible. My dissapointment that the AGO is not able to get involved is augmented by the concern that there are persons, especially during hunting seasons, that are wrongly cited and fined each year by the DNR. Persons that pay the fine because they lack the resources to contest the citation through legal channels. Respectfully, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On this issue I have received email from Mike Lutz the head legal counsel of the DNR. He acknowledges that under the conditions I described there is a conflict between statutes 167.31(2)(b) and 941.23. His position was that if the firearm is properly encased as required by 167.31(2)(b) the DNR would turn it's head to the fact that it may violate 941.23. In the aftermath of the cop shootings in Milwaukee and the AG memo on open carry the timing may not be right to ask for an AG opinion on this issue. I do think that when the timing is better the proper approach would be to find some way to force an AG opinion. That is find someone to ask the question where the AG is required by law to respond. Similar to what was done on the open carry issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 167.31(2)(b) (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. 941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden. 23.33(3) (3) Rules of operation. No person may operate an all-terrain vehicle: 23.33(3)(e) (e) With any firearm in his or her possession unless it is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow unless it is unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case. Supreme Court rulings in State v. Hamdan ¶39. The State's broad police power to regulate the ownership and use of firearms and other weapons continues, notwithstanding Article I, Section 25. Nonetheless, the amendment's broad declaration of the right to keep and bear arms inevitably impacts the exercise of that power. In this state, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power. ¶40. The nature of this limitation is well established. Faced with similar challenges, other states applying a reasonableness standard in the context of regulating firearms have recognized that "[t]he police power cannot [] be invoked in such a manner that it amounts to the destruction of the right to bear arms." State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1237 (Wyo. 1986) (emphasis added).18 Some states have employed language less demanding than "destruction," assuring that "regulations or restrictions [on a constitutional right to bear arms for defensive purposes] do not frustrate the guarantees of the constitutional provision." City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139, 145 (W. Va. 1988) (emphasis added);19 see also State v. Kessler, 614 P.2d 94, 99 (Or. 1980) (stating that regulations restricting the possession or manner of carrying personal weapons are valid "if the aim of public safety does not frustrate the guarantees of the state constitution"); State v. Boyce, 658 P.2d 577, 579 (Or. Ct. App. 1983) (holding that a limitation on the right to bear arms is permissible when the means chosen to protect the public "do[es] not unreasonably interfere with the right"). Case law reveals that while the right to bear arms for lawful purposes is not an absolute, neither is the State's police power when it eviscerates this constitutionally protected right. ¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained. ¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. See State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, 244 Wis.2d582, 628 N.W.2d820. It is constitutional. We hold that only if the public benefit in this exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional as applied. ¶48. Wisconsin's current CCW statute is very broad. It is essentially a strict liability offense.20 The legislature has not authorized any statutory defenses or exceptions (other than peace officers) to the broad prohibition found in the statute. As presently construed, the statute prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I, Section 25. In addition, the statute reaches unloaded firearms as well as loaded ones, see Wis.Stat.§939.22(10) (defining a "dangerous weapon" under the CCW statute), and applies to any weapon within a individual's reach, see Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433-34, if the person knows the weapon is present. ¶71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right. Emphasis = mine |
|||||||||
|
Flipper Campaign Veteran
|
Lammie wrote: The DNR has so much "clout" in the legislature that it more than likely will be defeated again. Not to say it shouldn't be attempted again. That is what the DNR thinks..... they wrap themselves in the "we are hunters" thing while trying to limit constitutional rights on land bought with our firearm and ammo money. Remember this is the agency where a desk jockey "law enforcement officer" said that the DNR has the authority to require the immediate surrender of firearms. Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 04:34 pm by Flipper |
|||||||||
|
opusd2 Regular Member
|
And yet dealing with the DNR is like performing a root canal on yourself with a drill and no Novocaine. You can sometimes get the matter figured out but you usually end up with one hell of a headache. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
That is why I stated in an earlier post, in another thread that we need to get Wisconsin land owners on our side. This fight is more than just rally's and letters written to state reps and senators and legislators. If we really want to fight this fight, then it must be fought in all corners and that means use every means available to us. By involving the Wisconsin land owners things will happen. Look what happened in the Earn-A-Buck battle. The land owners said, "Stop Earn-A-Buck or we will close our land for all public and state use." Earn-A-Buck was suspended for a year. With out the private lands the DNR will loose so much money it will fold. Maybe that is what this state needs in the first place. We all need to start looking at the whole picture in order to win this war. Last edited on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 03:59 pm by J.Gleason |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
I thought that we are all land owners. Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
and leverage! |
|||||||||
|
Brass Magnet Founder's Club Member
|
J.Gleason wrote: That is why I stated in an earlier post, in another thread that we need to get Wisconsin land owners on our side.The 50 Acre + landowners; Farmers that I know, are all in favor of allowing uncased and LOADED firearms in vehicles. In some CWD zones the DNR suspended the normal requirement of unloaded and encased for these guys. Allowing my friend to shoot severel deer and a coyote from his tractor. I think J's got a point here. Get a bunch of them to show up at the public hearing and you'll have more of a force to be reckoned with. Sure, they are more about hunting, but they want the same thing in the end. |
|||||||||
|
protias Regular Member 
|
smithman wrote: 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. One way we could get around this issue of vehicle carry is if vehicles are personal property, and you can carry on your property, then having a loaded gun in your vehicle should be legal as well. I would assume a vehicle is personal property because it is registered to you, the owner. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
protias wrote: One way we could get around this issue of vehicle carry is if vehicles are personal property, and you can carry on your property, then having a loaded gun in your vehicle should be legal as well. I would assume a vehicle is personal property because it is registered to you, the owner. Vehicles are already "personal property." There is no general exception to the statutory concealed carry ban on "private property" or any type, nor the statutory encasement requirement in vehicles, boats, and aircraft. |
|||||||||
|
smithman Regular Member
|
protias wrote: One way we could get around this issue of vehicle carry is if vehicles are personal property, and you can carry on your property, then having a loaded gun in your vehicle should be legal as well. I would assume a vehicle is personal property because it is registered to you, the owner. Mike is correct. Your car is personal property, but not private property. Driving your personal property (car) on a PUBLIC road does not make the bubble inside your car magically private property and therefore exempt from a whole number of restrictive laws. If CC is legal on your private property, but it is not legal in a car, then either the statute is unconstitutional (yes, it should be, but it has held up in court tests) or your car is not private property. This is one clue. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
gbu28 wrote: I let my ACLU membership expire a few months ago after I read their position on the 2nd amendment- That's the national postiion - try to get your state chapter to adopt diff bveiw - nevada aclu did so |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
ACLU....Against Civil Liberties Unit Here is my inquiry: Dear Fellow Americans and Wisconsinites, As a Veteran of the U.S. Army, I was wondering what position the Wisconsin ACLU takes on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. I would like to become a member of the ACLU however, I would not be able to support any organization which would not support my individual 2nd Amendment right. I eagerly await your reply. Sincerely, James A. Gleason 15 Lehner St. Chilton, WI. 53014 Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:27 pm by J.Gleason |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
smithman wrote: protias wrote:One way we could get around this issue of vehicle carry is if vehicles are personal property, and you can carry on your property, then having a loaded gun in your vehicle should be legal as well. I would assume a vehicle is personal property because it is registered to you, the owner. The term "private property" is used in the statute in a manner that construes it to mjean "real property," i.e., land. The other forms of property are "personal property" and "intellectual property." "Private property" means usually real property which is not public, i.e., possessed by the government. Fun, eh? |
|||||||||
|
protias Regular Member
|
Mike wrote:
Seems pretty @$$ backwards to me, then again, the liberal mind has never made sense to me. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
protias wrote: Mike wrote: Has nothing to do with liberalism, which i am one, classically that is, but is just about plain jane legal terms - public vs. private, real v. personal property, etc. property like cars, dogs, etc., are "personal property." Land and improvements on land are "real property." |
|||||||||