Bowsite.com

You Are The Violater Part II

You are out for an afternoon of sporting clays shooting at a well known Waukesha area course. You proudly show your buddies the new sporting clays gun you just purchased. After a so-so round of clays, you and your group head to your respective vehicles to put your guns and shooting bags away, before going to the clubhouse for a beer or two. As you stand at the back of your suburban, you remove the fore end and barrels of your new O/U shotgun. After snapping the fore end back to the barrels, you place them back into the cardboard box your shotgun came in, followed by the receiver, going into the same box. Moments before closing and locking your vehicle, you feel a tap on your shoulder. It is the well known warden from the area. He proceeds to tell you that the box your new gun came in is not a legal case for you to transport the gun in. You object, saying how can it not be? It is the box the gun was shipped in. After some civil and respectful chatter, the warden admonishes you and leaves you with a verbal warning to not transport your gun in that manner again.

Choose from one or more of the following answers, being aware there may be more than one correct answer.

1) Were you wrong? 2) Was the warden wrong? 3) Was the box illegal because it did close completely with a zipper? 4) Could a poor interpretation of the law by this warden be a motivating factor for the "Case Law" which no longer requires a weapon be transported in a case in or on a motor vehicle? 5) Had the warden beaten you to the bar that day?

before all there fighting starts again, I say 2 and 4.

Interesting scenario! I'm assuming this incident occurred before 2011 when the law changed. Shotguns are longer are required to be cased for purposes of transport.

Prior to 2011- I believe the warden handled the situation appropriately! Post 2011 - Both the Citizen and Warden are out to lunch - no case requirement.

Is the box, the firearm was "shipped in" by "the manufacture to the retailer" appropriate for "casing" your firearm prior to 2011?

Obviously it's a shipping package and not a gun case! How many people however, have purchased a firearm and then drove home with the gun in the box that the firearm was shipped in? Just about everyone.

Now is that illegal - technically I guess it was - was anybody cited - hardly.

What a LEO (Warden) needs to "consider" when dealing with any incident / potential violation - is the "spirit" of the law. The Officer also needs to consider the "intent" of the individual during the course of what appears to be a possible violation.

Now.... did our "gun in a box" make an "attempt" to secure or "case" his weapon before he drove away? I believe he did.

Did that person believe he was being "lawful". Again, I believe he did believe that. I do not believe there was any "ill intent" by the individual to "maliciously" forego the law and violate.

Technically - That box is not a "case" and obviously a "shipping container". Can one "legally" use it as a case - I would say no. However - I believe a jury would side with the defendant here and look at his intent and find him "not guilty".

So we use this time slot as a "learning experience" and to promote some "good will" with the citizen.

As far as I know - there is no "case law" for an "uncased" firearm anywhere in WI. NO, I don't believe that this situation is a "motivating factor". Some folks like to think any interaction LE has with someone "might be a motivating factor" for "case law" which is obviously ridiculous. Mo one was cited, no one arrested - a verbal warning. Hardly the stuff "case law" is made of...nobody went to court!!

I don't want to say "not enough information" like some...but prior to 2011 this is how I'm playing this one.

Nice job - nice scenario.

One suggestion...this being "Bowsite" it would have been more appropriate to use a "bow" as the weapon of choice. LOL.....

Xtroutx, if there was a prize, you would be the winner.

Capt - Please explain????

Sure, what part of it?

Mike, apparently XtroutX has answer this scenario correctly. Am I correct?

And if so, why is his answer correct - please explain.

Thank you!

Because both of his choices are correct. It was not illegal to transport a firearm broken down and completely enclosed in the box it came in, as evidenced by the wardens self-admission a few days later. And, the person it happened to used that incident as motivation to help push for our current law which does not require a firearm to be cased in a vehicle.

Mike -

Just a few questions here, the Ill get out of your hair!! :

You said:

"Could a poor interpretation of the law by this warden be a motivating factor for the "Case Law" which no longer requires a weapon be transported in a case in or on a motor vehicle? 5) Had the warden beaten you to the bar that day?"

I have never been aware of "any" "Case Law" that pertains to firearms and the transportation of them. However, you plainly refer to "Case Law" as seen above.

Would you mind citing the case law your referring to because I cannot find it in my search - Thanks - and also...

Prior to 2011 I worked as a "Deputy Warden" in SE Wisconsin and any firearm not "fully enclosed within a carrying case" was a violation of law. We were always rather lenient with the law - but it meant "fully encased" and a "shipping container" is not a gun case.

Thanks!

The "Case Law" terminology I use was a term that some of us who pushed for a change in the law as it pertained to transporting firearms in motor vehicles. It is my terminology, not any legal name for a law.

Certainly most all deliveries of firearms to sports and gun shops are done by ground transportation, usually UPS, FedEx or some other courrier service. They were not all breaking the law, were they?

Mike -

As you constantly refer to "schooling" me on many different issues - please allow me the opportunity to return the favor!

The terminology "Case Law" is in fact a legal definition used on a daily basis in everything from law firms to court rooms across the US. To use such terminology in a public forum, certainly is misleading at the very least to the reader when in fact, it never was applicable in the first place.

Shipping containers used to ship firearms from a manufacturer(s) to a retailer(s) is what I believe a court of law would see as, an "acceptable practice". That meaning, it's been done that way for ever and is common knowledge (common practice) to shipping such items.

All that being said - means if I arrest the UPS guy delivering guns to our local Hardware store, I'd be most likely looking for a job!

Could ya reconsider...I told my wife I really wanted to win this one!

Thank you!!

So there is no case law and prior to 2011 you were required to use a gun case. Thanks for listening!

Yes, a bow would have been more relevant but then I would not be relaying the incident as it happened. And, while this whole scenario is now a moot point, I only cited it as I believe that few if any laws are are perfect. It is sometimes through trial and error that laws can be better written to serve all. I feel this situation was one small example of that.

Well Captain I have to say...this is the most cordial conversation I have had with you!

Thank you very much!

Have a good time in Minnesota - safe travels to you!

Thanks and same to you!

Good job men!

You've got to get up pretty early and post here if you want to be right...lol

The early bird gets the worm!!

BT, Wanted to post these thoughts here so maybe we can keep a good discussion going without what happened on the other thread.

I do not have it in front of me, but have you read the memoirs of NYC's retired Chief, published I believe within the last 6 months?

As he proves IMHO, most cops, the vast majority are stand-up guys and gals. But he also chronicles many of the more recent 'errors in judgment'. Great source IMHO to add knowledge to both sides of the argument.

What I find most interesting is his detailing of the extreme dislike by officers for IAB. I wonder why. Based on the argument if you have nothing to hide, what should you fear? Why is it most officers do not like IAB looking over their shoulder, but when a private citizen such as me echoes the same sentiments I am subjected to attacks on my character, called names, invited to a fight, criticized for my education etc. LOL! And, yet not a word of disapproval from you on behavior like that??? Can you understand maybe why some have concluded that for too many officers there seems to be a desire for a separate standard?

I even was more quizzical as to why we even need IAB if cops are always good?

Make sure everyone got my point. Vast majority of cops are good. Zero tolerance for the bad ones and that includes any officer who looks the other way when a cop behaves in a manner they would hold a private citizen accountable for, or at least attempt to. Seems consistent with the ideology of what this great country was founded on.

Please be specific as to where my logic is wrong, and why. No personal stories, I cited a very publically available source. Thanks!

And yes I acknowledge there are many bad persons in every profession, including mine. Same standard applies, zero tolerance.

But, you started these threads which invited discussion on your profession. If I start one about education, feel free to jump in with all of the negatives no doubt many of you will be able to share. Thanks again!

Wisc Bowsite turns Doughnut detail into cuffs n links forms sad is the day when positive archery related can't be talked, didn't know a few owned the site. But Wisc outdoor news there's a site just like yours !

Habitat - I have read your post and will comment as follows -

I have not read the information provided in the NYC Police Chief bit.

I would suspect that most folk who have dealt with or believe that one day they might...have little love for IAB (Internal Affairs Department).

However, in WI I don't believe such an animal exists and if so, perhaps only with the MWPD, MCSO and perhaps Madison PD.....

Officers in the State are actually protected (regulations wise) under two WSS - Those being Chapter 164 (Wisconsin Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights) as well as Chapter 62.13 and more specifically sub-section (5). These laws are not designed to excuse certain behavior, but more to regulate the procedural aspects when dealing with LEO.

These State Statutes basically outline what can and may happen to officer(s) if accessed of wrong doing. It provides for a procedural type regulations needs to be followed in these maters. It is not meant as a "get out of Jail" card - basically procedural in nature. Pertains most if not solely to procedural issues.

No disrespect - but Im struggling here to follow your connection between LEO/IAB and what took place between you and Rub line?

You definitely struck a nerve with the Rub". After reading that, I was just more than a little shocked.

When I first read it, I ran upstairs, weighed myself and thought "I could take em"... But my wife reminded me I was to old and too out of shape! She's right!

What do ya say to a guy after a post like that? Holy crap!

I think the "Rub" did make a pretty good analogy of your initial post he was referring too. Sorry, but I did agree with "just" about everything he said - HOWEVER, not with the response you received. I think "Rub" took some things out of context - I don't think he understood what you were saying in essence and it pissed him off. Took it pretty personal and I don't think you meant that!

When I respond to someone two things I like to do. #1 - Keep the word "asshole" out of the post, and #2: NEVER invite anyone to a fight! (I will lose)

All kidding aside - "Rub" in my opinion should not have used the language. Secondly, never should have offered to fight you or anyone else.

"Rub" - I don't care how tough you are - there is ALWAYS going to be someone tougher (guaranteed.... its not me - that's a gimme) - but always someone. Heck, go ask Ronda Rousey!!

The problem is and I relate it to "emails" - they lack the emotional intent in my opinion. That has gotten me into trouble here!

If, I said half of this stuff to you or anyone else here, in a one on one conversation, there would never be a problem. Voice inflection(s)..... tells us as listeners - "Hey no ill intent - I can see his point"

With the printed word, we lose that and sometimes, we jump to make decisions on someone's post. Simply how it's worded and with the absents of the voice, sometimes can cause strain, discontent and "fist a cuffs" - Sorry it happened.

Good post BT! Totally agree written word much more difficult to communicate full meaning of one's thoughts.

The connection was not directly to him, but at least one comment about someone not just being fully open and cordial must have something to hide. Most of us don't like being "looked" into, officer or citizen.

Thanks

Register here to reply to this topic