imported post
I sent this letter to my Assembly representative. Your emotions and opinions may be different than mine but I urge you to contact your representative and express your views. SB-222 as it is now written is usless to the majority of hunters, especially those of us that hunt with handguns and ATV's.
Representative Murtha:
This past week the Wisconsin senate passed bill SB-222. As you are aware the Bill makes a number of changes to Wisconsin's hunting regulations Of specific interest and concern to this memo is the section that proposes to change the restrictions of transport of firearms in or on a vehicle, ss 167.31. I ask that you oppose SB-222 for the following reasons.
1. Concessions and amendments to the original draft has drifted the Bill from it's original intent. It now applies only to a small percentage of hunters and then only under specific and highly regulated conditions.
2. The Bill purposely excludes handguns. Many of us hunt small and large game with handguns. The inconvenience ss167.31 applies to handgun as well as to firearms with an overall length of 26 inches or longer. It is unknown why handguns were excluded. Suspicion is that their inclusion would result in a governor veto. The exclusion of handguns flirts with the constitutionality of SB-222. Article I section 25 of the state constitution which gives the people of Wisconsin the right to carry arms for hunting and other purposes doesn't distinguish the kind of arm. The amendment implies that all legal arms be treated equally.
3. The proposed bill heightens the confusion and conflict with the concealed carry prohibition statute ss941.23. In a number of cases the Wisconsin court system has set down the conditions that define weapon concealment. 1) The person knows the weapon is present. 2) The weapon is within reach. 3) The weapon is hidden from ordinary view.
It is the "hidden from ordinary view" that I question. In the case of State v Walls the District II Court of Appeals ruled that, loaded or unloaded, an uncased firearm on the front seat of a vehicle is hidden from ordinary view. Walls was convicted of going armed with a concealed weapon. Allowing persons to place uncased weapons inside a vehicle could result in a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. Modification of the concealed weapon statute 943.21 would be required in order that the new version of 167.31 does not argue with the District II court ruling.
4. The proposed statute 167.31 excludes all terrain vehicles (ATV's). It excludes ATV's because statute 23.33(3)(e) under the rules of operation of ATV's restricts the carry of firearms and bows on ATV's unless they are unloaded and encased. The two statutes will be in conflict.
5. The final concern is the requirement that the vehicle must be stationary before an unloaded and uncased weapon can be placed inside it. That requirement makes the proposed changes to ss167.31 meaningless. The statute already allows an unloaded and uncased weapon to be leaned against a vehicle, which itself requires the vehicle to be stationary. Leaning a firearm against a vehicle also has no restrictions such as required hunting license, time restraints and hunting season requirements. All SB-222 does is, under very controlled and specific circumstances, allow a person the option to place an unloaded, uncased weapon inside a vehicle instead of leaning it against the exterior. Most hunters will say that the option is not worth the price of all the restrictions.
The version of SB-222 passed by the Senate is for all practical purposes symbolic. It contains nothing that will be of benefit to the majority of hunters. For that reason and those I stated above I ask that you oppose the Senate version of SB-222.
Respectfully,
Dale
