Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I started a new thread on this topic so that it doesn't get tangled up with the GFSZ and vehicle carry petition drive. SB-442 was introduced November 16, 2005 by Senator Decker and others as an Act to change the vehicle carry statute 167.31. Specifically 167.31 (2)(b). The Act would remove the requirement that a firearm, bow, and crossbow be encased while being transported in or on a vehicle. The requirement that the weapon be unloaded remained. Of course we would prefer that the whole encasement and loaded/unloaded restriction be removed entirely, but it is the encasement requirement that is the biggest impediment to open carry. The bill was introduced and then sent to the committee on Natural Resources and Transportation where for obvious reasons it died. There was very little public attention given to the Bill so it died a quiet death by trickery.
The Democrats are nowthe majority in the legislature and the senator who introducedBill SB-442 in 2005 is now the state senate majority leader, Senator Decker.
Open carry of firearms has become recognized as a fundamental right of all lawful Wisconsin citizens. In 2005 open carry rights were words you only spoke in a dark room behind locked doors. Today it is common language. Significant court judgements in Vegas and Krause. Public announcement by the Attorney General. Increasing tolerance by law enforcement. Recognition by local political governments. Open carry demonstrations. Very little public objection. Acceptance by the majority of businesses.Those areall things that we only wished for in 2005. Now they are real.
We have lost some minor battles but we will win the war. We won't win the war unless we make a lot of noise. I feel that the change of political control of the state legislature and that the original sponsor of the Bill is now the Senate majority leader present a good opportunity to insist that SB-442 (2005) be re-introduced. It won't happen without letting those that can make it happen know our opinions. Following is a December 2009 letter I wrote to Senator Decker concerning vehicle carry and the conflict between vehicle carry restrictions and the prohibition of concealed carry. Copied on the letterwere my legislative representatives and the state Attorney General. 2010 is an election year and I intend to re-submit the letter to those individuals again soon. I will do it again nearer to election time. I will do it until they get the message and tell me to stop.
It will take more than justone personto get some action. All of you need to get involved. I think we have a good chance to at least get half a loaf concerning vehicle carry of firearms. Feel free to use my letter or any portion thereof, or draft your own, but now is the time to speak up.
A copy of the Bill, and its sponsors,as submitted in 2005 can be found at the following link.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/SB-442.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Decker:
I am not one of your constituents but I hope you will give me the honor of reading this document. It is a long document but is so out of necessity. As state senate majority leader I hope you will afford me the patience to read it. I send it to you because I am aware that you are an avid sportsman and hunter and that you take our hunting and firearm rights to heart.
This document concerns the conflict between two state statutes, 941.23 and 167.31. S941.23 is the statute that prohibits the carry of concealed weapons by anyone except a peace officer. Statute 167.31 is the statute that requires a firearm be empty and completely concealed when carried in or on any motor vehicle.
In State v Hamdan the State Supreme Court (SSC) saidthe legislature has drafted statute 941.23 so that it is a strict liability statute that has no exception, including the activities contained in amendment Article I section 25 of the state constitution (p48). The SSC also laid down the conditions that define weapon concealment. Initially it did so in State v Kieth and repeated the conditions in at least State v Hamdan. The conditions the Court laid down are:
The person knows the weapon is present.
The weapon is concealed from normal view.
The weapon is within reach.
In voicing those conditions the SSC did not exclude the carry in or on a motor vehicle. In fact the cases of State v Fry, Cole, Fisher and Vegas support the notion that the Court intends those conditions to apply under allmethods of carry, including vehicles.
Statute 167.31 on the other hand requires that when a firearm is carried in or on a motor vehicle it must be unloaded and concealed from view. There is no requirement that it be carried “out of reach”.
The District III Court of Appeals has visited this apparent conflict of statutes in State v. Nick Alloy (No.99-2258-CR) and stated the Court does not seethere is a conflict. If a person wishes to avoid a conflict the weapon need only be carried “out of reach”, thereby removing one of the conditions that define concealment. The Court does not define “out of reach”. It is significant to note that in footnote 3 of it’s opinion the Court acknowledged that there is condition where there is a conflict of the statutes. It said “ While complying with WIS. STAT. s167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it, those facts are not present here. We do not address hypothetical arguments”. The opinion made by the appeals court is unpublished and may not be used as binding precedent therefore it’s legal reach is uncertain.
My opinion is that the Court erred in its opinion. It made its opinion based on the assumption that a firearm would always be carried in or on a motor vehicle that is constructed so that it is possible to carry the weapon “out of reach”. That of course is not true. There are a number of single passenger type vehicles on which firearms may be carried but are constructed so that it is not possible to carry the weapon out of reach, one such vehicle being an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) another being a snowmobile.
State statute 23.33 is specific to All Terrain Vehicles. Subparagraph 23.33(3)(e) under the Rules of Operation requires that if a firearm is carried on an ATV it must be unloaded and concealed in a carrying case. Presumably in accordance with statute 167.31. Statute 23.33 also strongly implies that the State does consider the carry of firearms on ATV's as lawful. The complexity it presents is that an ATV is constructed so that it is not possible to carry the concealed firearm out of reach in order to avoid the conditions that the SSC says defines concealment. Therefore, a person carrying a firearm on an ATV is caught between a conflict of statutes 941.23 and 167.31 and has no means by which to exercise their Article I section 25 rights accorded by the State constitution.
In State v Hamdan the SSC visited the constitutional impact of constitutional amendment Article I section 25 as applied to the concealed weapon statute 941.23. It decided that even under the breadth of the amendment, 941.23 was constitutional, because it addressed the manner of carry and not specifically the right to carry. The Court recognized two manners of carry, visible and hidden. More importantly the Court ruled that if the State prohibits a manner of carry it must provide an alternate or yield to the amendment,the State can not eviscerate the rights given by Article I section 25. Although statute 23.33 allows the carry of a firearm on an ATV the State has not provided a means to do so. A person cannot carry the weapon hidden, as prohibited by statute 941.23 and the person cannot carry the firearm visible as prohibited by statute 167.31. The person has no reasonable way to avoid either condition. Each and every hunting season hunters are issued citations for violation of the vehicle carry statute while transporting a firearm on an ATV, yet if they do comply they subject themselves to the more serious crime of carrying a concealed weapon.
With the 1998 addition of Article I section 25 to Wisconsin’s constitution there is no question that either statute 941.23 or 167.31, or perhaps both, are unconstitutional. If a decision has to be made as to which statute is unconstitutional my opinion is that 167.31 should be declared so and rescinded.
It is my understanding the intent of s167.31(2)(b) is to restrict the illegal shooting of game animals from in or on a vehicle. It is not needed for that purpose.
Companion statute 167.31(2)(c) reads: "No person may load or discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or from a vehicle".
In addition statute167.31(2)(d) reads: "No person may discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or a crossbow from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway".
Both of those statutes provide the necessary restrictions needed to discourage illegal taking of game animals from in or on a vehicle. Statute167.31(2)(b) serves no purpose other than being an infringement of Article I section 25 which reads: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
I started a new thread on this topic so that it doesn't get tangled up with the GFSZ and vehicle carry petition drive. SB-442 was introduced November 16, 2005 by Senator Decker and others as an Act to change the vehicle carry statute 167.31. Specifically 167.31 (2)(b). The Act would remove the requirement that a firearm, bow, and crossbow be encased while being transported in or on a vehicle. The requirement that the weapon be unloaded remained. Of course we would prefer that the whole encasement and loaded/unloaded restriction be removed entirely, but it is the encasement requirement that is the biggest impediment to open carry. The bill was introduced and then sent to the committee on Natural Resources and Transportation where for obvious reasons it died. There was very little public attention given to the Bill so it died a quiet death by trickery.
The Democrats are nowthe majority in the legislature and the senator who introducedBill SB-442 in 2005 is now the state senate majority leader, Senator Decker.
Open carry of firearms has become recognized as a fundamental right of all lawful Wisconsin citizens. In 2005 open carry rights were words you only spoke in a dark room behind locked doors. Today it is common language. Significant court judgements in Vegas and Krause. Public announcement by the Attorney General. Increasing tolerance by law enforcement. Recognition by local political governments. Open carry demonstrations. Very little public objection. Acceptance by the majority of businesses.Those areall things that we only wished for in 2005. Now they are real.
We have lost some minor battles but we will win the war. We won't win the war unless we make a lot of noise. I feel that the change of political control of the state legislature and that the original sponsor of the Bill is now the Senate majority leader present a good opportunity to insist that SB-442 (2005) be re-introduced. It won't happen without letting those that can make it happen know our opinions. Following is a December 2009 letter I wrote to Senator Decker concerning vehicle carry and the conflict between vehicle carry restrictions and the prohibition of concealed carry. Copied on the letterwere my legislative representatives and the state Attorney General. 2010 is an election year and I intend to re-submit the letter to those individuals again soon. I will do it again nearer to election time. I will do it until they get the message and tell me to stop.
It will take more than justone personto get some action. All of you need to get involved. I think we have a good chance to at least get half a loaf concerning vehicle carry of firearms. Feel free to use my letter or any portion thereof, or draft your own, but now is the time to speak up.
A copy of the Bill, and its sponsors,as submitted in 2005 can be found at the following link.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/SB-442.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Decker:
I am not one of your constituents but I hope you will give me the honor of reading this document. It is a long document but is so out of necessity. As state senate majority leader I hope you will afford me the patience to read it. I send it to you because I am aware that you are an avid sportsman and hunter and that you take our hunting and firearm rights to heart.
This document concerns the conflict between two state statutes, 941.23 and 167.31. S941.23 is the statute that prohibits the carry of concealed weapons by anyone except a peace officer. Statute 167.31 is the statute that requires a firearm be empty and completely concealed when carried in or on any motor vehicle.
In State v Hamdan the State Supreme Court (SSC) saidthe legislature has drafted statute 941.23 so that it is a strict liability statute that has no exception, including the activities contained in amendment Article I section 25 of the state constitution (p48). The SSC also laid down the conditions that define weapon concealment. Initially it did so in State v Kieth and repeated the conditions in at least State v Hamdan. The conditions the Court laid down are:
The person knows the weapon is present.
The weapon is concealed from normal view.
The weapon is within reach.
In voicing those conditions the SSC did not exclude the carry in or on a motor vehicle. In fact the cases of State v Fry, Cole, Fisher and Vegas support the notion that the Court intends those conditions to apply under allmethods of carry, including vehicles.
Statute 167.31 on the other hand requires that when a firearm is carried in or on a motor vehicle it must be unloaded and concealed from view. There is no requirement that it be carried “out of reach”.
The District III Court of Appeals has visited this apparent conflict of statutes in State v. Nick Alloy (No.99-2258-CR) and stated the Court does not seethere is a conflict. If a person wishes to avoid a conflict the weapon need only be carried “out of reach”, thereby removing one of the conditions that define concealment. The Court does not define “out of reach”. It is significant to note that in footnote 3 of it’s opinion the Court acknowledged that there is condition where there is a conflict of the statutes. It said “ While complying with WIS. STAT. s167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it, those facts are not present here. We do not address hypothetical arguments”. The opinion made by the appeals court is unpublished and may not be used as binding precedent therefore it’s legal reach is uncertain.
My opinion is that the Court erred in its opinion. It made its opinion based on the assumption that a firearm would always be carried in or on a motor vehicle that is constructed so that it is possible to carry the weapon “out of reach”. That of course is not true. There are a number of single passenger type vehicles on which firearms may be carried but are constructed so that it is not possible to carry the weapon out of reach, one such vehicle being an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) another being a snowmobile.
State statute 23.33 is specific to All Terrain Vehicles. Subparagraph 23.33(3)(e) under the Rules of Operation requires that if a firearm is carried on an ATV it must be unloaded and concealed in a carrying case. Presumably in accordance with statute 167.31. Statute 23.33 also strongly implies that the State does consider the carry of firearms on ATV's as lawful. The complexity it presents is that an ATV is constructed so that it is not possible to carry the concealed firearm out of reach in order to avoid the conditions that the SSC says defines concealment. Therefore, a person carrying a firearm on an ATV is caught between a conflict of statutes 941.23 and 167.31 and has no means by which to exercise their Article I section 25 rights accorded by the State constitution.
In State v Hamdan the SSC visited the constitutional impact of constitutional amendment Article I section 25 as applied to the concealed weapon statute 941.23. It decided that even under the breadth of the amendment, 941.23 was constitutional, because it addressed the manner of carry and not specifically the right to carry. The Court recognized two manners of carry, visible and hidden. More importantly the Court ruled that if the State prohibits a manner of carry it must provide an alternate or yield to the amendment,the State can not eviscerate the rights given by Article I section 25. Although statute 23.33 allows the carry of a firearm on an ATV the State has not provided a means to do so. A person cannot carry the weapon hidden, as prohibited by statute 941.23 and the person cannot carry the firearm visible as prohibited by statute 167.31. The person has no reasonable way to avoid either condition. Each and every hunting season hunters are issued citations for violation of the vehicle carry statute while transporting a firearm on an ATV, yet if they do comply they subject themselves to the more serious crime of carrying a concealed weapon.
With the 1998 addition of Article I section 25 to Wisconsin’s constitution there is no question that either statute 941.23 or 167.31, or perhaps both, are unconstitutional. If a decision has to be made as to which statute is unconstitutional my opinion is that 167.31 should be declared so and rescinded.
It is my understanding the intent of s167.31(2)(b) is to restrict the illegal shooting of game animals from in or on a vehicle. It is not needed for that purpose.
Companion statute 167.31(2)(c) reads: "No person may load or discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or from a vehicle".
In addition statute167.31(2)(d) reads: "No person may discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or a crossbow from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway".
Both of those statutes provide the necessary restrictions needed to discourage illegal taking of game animals from in or on a vehicle. Statute167.31(2)(b) serves no purpose other than being an infringement of Article I section 25 which reads: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.