| Author | Post |
|---|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 07:14 am |
|
| A Segway meets the Wisconsin definition of a vehicle. It is a "conveyance that can be driven on a public roadway". The question is, can you lawfully transport a firearm on a Segway? I can think of nothing more enjoyable than touring Doug's God's country of Washington Island on a warm summer afternoon, on a Segway. Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 07:18 am by Lammie
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:35 am |
|
Lammie wrote: A Segway meets the Wisconsin definition of a vehicle. It is a "conveyance that can be driven on a public roadway". The question is, can you lawfully transport a firearm on a Segway? I can think of nothing more enjoyable than touring Doug's God's country of Washington Island on a warm summer afternoon, on a Segway.
In accordance with 167.31 You can not even have a firearm on a farm trailer with its wheels still on unless it is unloaded and encased. 167.31 Definitions for vehicle references 340.01 for the definition.
340.01 Definitions (74)Vehicle - Every device in upon or by which any person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains....
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:49 am by Interceptor_Knight
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:46 am |
|
Well I_K what about 941.23?
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:47 am |
|
Lammie wrote: Well I_K what about 941.23?
The WI State Constitution takes care of that so long as the encased firearm is not placed into another container or is otherwise hidden...
You are acting in strict accordance to 167.31 and the encased firearm is in plain view and easily discernable by someone in the immediate vicinity.
I am so confident about this that I often transport both encased rifles and encased handguns in the passenger compartment with me either next to me on the seat or in the back seat when I am on my way to hunt or to the range. If the officer walks up to the car to give me a speeding ticket (the most likely reason I would get pulled over) and sees the gun case which he recognizes as such, that is evidence if the firearm not being hidden.
If I am going to be making alot of stops in town, I transport it/them in the trunk so that I am not tempting a thief to break in.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:59 am by Interceptor_Knight
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 11:32 am |
|
Someone down in the County rents them, Segways, by the fleet. The sight of them speeding past my house at twelve miles per hour is quite amusing. A forward lean sets the speed and at full 'hummm', with intense fitness frowns and $2 of styrofoam protecting their lack of brains, a clown Chinese firedrill comes to mind.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:20 pm |
|
Well, lets hope this story is real and if it is the victim takes it all the way.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:21 pm by J.Gleason
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 04:20 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. IS THIS RAS in Wisconsin? Is it against the law to drive with your window down? Seems to me the whole stop was unlawful and anything gained is fruit from the poisonous tree. 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.
RAS????
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 04:31 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote: Well, lets hope this story is real and if it is the victim takes it all the way.
There is only problem with that thinking, if this took place in Vilas or Oneida county, the accused will need to get a venue change to have anything that would resemble a fair trial.
If you are a drunk with an excess of 5 OWI's or selling drugs, chances are good you'll never have any problems in the courts up here. But if you dare question the WIDNR, you can expect to be threatened with contempt of court for wanting to cross examine the witness or question their knowledge of laws. The dishonorable Neil (chip on his shoulder) Nielsen is a real piece of work and should not be seated at the bench.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 04:32 pm |
|
Venator wrote: Seems to me the whole stop was unlawful and anything gained is fruit from the poisonous tree.
Exactly Right
|
JimE
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 05:54 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote: Venator wrote: Seems to me the whole stop was unlawful and anything gained is fruit from the poisonous tree.
Exactly Right
This all really depends on the circumstances. We don't know if the warden got a report of a road hunter with a vehicle description. Lo and behold our 'local' drives by in a vehicle matching the description and to top it off, the window down. If the current weather conditions don't seem conducive to driving around with a window down could that be suspicious?
A friend of mine was on a business trip in Georgia during winter. He just came from -10F and Atlanta was 50's and sunny. He rented the convertible. Cop pulls him over and proceeds to crawl up his azz with flashlights because the driver must be drunk/high or something to have the top down in the middle of winter. The cop eventually got the hint and let him go when he saw the WI driver's license.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 06:00 pm |
|
About (small town) Georgia cops, we did not tow race cars away from the Interstate without being in convoy, going to Flowery Branch/Chestnut Mountain. They either wanted to run against the coupes or look at the race cars.
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 07:22 pm |
|
Where would I find the trunk on a Segway? How would I carry a firearm out of reach? Also if I had a hard case how would I suspect there was a firearm inside and not a piccolo or a set of pool cues? Further more what about fanny packs made expressely for carry of a firearm or for that matter women's purses? They both meet the qualifications of a legal encasement. Would the courts consider them lawful or would the courts find them a conveyance of concealment? The WSSC ruled that Kieth was carryinng a concealed weapon because she had a handgun in a purse which was sitting on the floor next to her chair. Granted, her purse was not manufactured to carry a firearm. Would the WSSC ruling be any different if it was? The bottom line is 167.31 no longer serves any useful purpose and is surrounded in controversy. It's time it was recinded. Before some of you come unglued and say that 167.31(2)(b) is needed so the DNR can crack down on poaching may I refer you to statutes 167.31(2)(c) and 167.31(2)(d). The first prohibits loading and firing a weapon from inside or on a vehicle. The second prohibits firing a weapon from within 50 feet of the center line of a roadway. Those two statutes contain all the authority the DNR needs to prosecute a citation for poaching and shooting at game from within and on a vehicle Statute 167.31(2)(b) is superfluous. Beside a person bent on poaching or shooting at deer from a vehicle could give a damn about the fact he violated 167.31(2)(b). What's he going to say "Oh my god I didn't have my firearm properly encased before I poached that deer".
Laws are like locks on a door. They only inconvience the honest person - Lammie
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 07:25 pm by Lammie
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:11 am |
|
Nutczak wrote: 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.
Looks like the DNR is getting a little better with the advent of the internet, at least for those who know where to find stuff...
This is right out of the DNR FAQ....
6. Possession of Firearms While Walking on a Roadway : Is it illegal to possess a loaded firearm when walking on a roadway?
Simple possession of a firearm while walking along a roadway is not illegal. However, it is one of the pieces of what law enforcement calls “the totality of circumstances” which can lead to probable cause for an arrest. The arrest would be for hunting from a roadway. Hunting is defined broadly and pursuing game (such as being part of a deer drive) is hunting. Should a law enforcement officer find enough pieces within the totality of circumstances they may have enough probable cause to issue a citation for hunting from a roadway. The burden of proof of a violation is the responsibility of law enforcement. Possession of a firearm while walking on a roadway is not by itself enough (prima facia) evidence to issue a citation for hunting from a roadway.
* It is important to remember that certain species may be hunted from a roadway if the roadway is dirt, sand or gravel and the firearm is a muzzleloader or a shotgun shooting fine shot. The above question most frequently comes from our public relative to gun deer hunting.
- 7. Loaded firearms after Hunting Hours End: Is it illegal to posses a loaded firearm after the shooting hours are over?
There is no law for hunting that requires a person to unload their firearm when hunting hours have ended. It is legal to possess a loaded firearm when hunting hours are over……so long as the person is not hunting. See answer above in number 6.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:40 pm |
|
There is a great book out there titled, "How the DNR Stole Wisconsin and How the Citizens Can Take It Back."
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=8519
|
Current time is 12:02 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
