WI: State Sen. Russ Decker (D-Weston) urges repeal of gun-case regulation.

[Trip20]

Yep, that's a 'D' after his name. Not only is he proposing (for a second time) that Wisconsin eliminate the requirement that guns/bows be transported in enclosed cases, he also voted for the PPA (WI's concealed carry bill). Then when it came time to put up or shut up, he voted to override Doyle's veto.

Remember to thank the D's who ignore enormous pressure from their party leaders, and instead support gun rights for law abiding citizens.

Weston lawmaker urges repeal of gun-case regulation

By Jocelyn Berkhahn
Wausau Daily Herald
[email protected]

State Sen. Russ Decker, D-Weston, says he will introduce a proposal to eliminate Wisconsin’s requirement that guns and bows be transported in enclosed cases.

Wisconsin law states, “In general, no one may place, possess or transport a firearm in a motor vehicle, motorboat or aircraft unless the firearm is unloaded and in a carrying case. Loading or discharging a firearm in or from a vehicle is also prohibited.”

This is the second time Decker has made such a proposal.

“I spoke to conservation wardens in states that don’t require hunters to case their guns and bows, and they feel as I do, that for years, hunters have proven to be safe and responsible,” Decker said in a press release.

[snip]Emphasis, mine. Check this guy out - he's doing research on his own to figure out if the doom/gloom rhetoric is true, or if states with out similar laws have managed to survive. Brilliant - and something I wish more lawmakers would do.[/snip]

Wisconsin wardens aren’t so sure.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has not yet taken a stance on the issue, but the last time it came up, they opposed the rule change.

“Having a gun cased is one of the elements of helping assure safety,” said Tom Van Haren, a conservation warden and natural resources policy officer. “Having them unloaded is most important, but having them in a case as extra protection so they don’t accidentally hit the trigger and hurt someone is also important.”

Although Decker’s proposal would eliminate the need for a carrying case, it still would require guns be unloaded while being transported.

“Hunters frequently make short trips to get to a different hunting spot or take a deer back to camp. They should be given the choice to case their gun or bow,” he said.

But there would remain the danger that a gun owner may be unaware of a round in the chamber of what he thought was an unloaded gun, Van Haren said. In addition, the DNR promotes casing guns and bows to prevent illegal hunting from vehicles.

“That case acts as a deterrent from road hunting violations, where someone may be trying to hunt from their car,” Van Haren said. “If it has to be unloaded and in a case, it’s harder to get the weapon out to shoot an animal they may see from the vehicle.”

Decker, who was re-elected Nov. 7 for his fifth two-year term, represents Taylor, Price, Rusk and portions of Marathon, Shawano, Sawyer and Portage counties.

 

[MechAg94]

Good for him. There are a few down here also.

IMHO, state level Democrats are much more likely to be independent minded than Democrats in D.C. To be honest, it is the national Dem leadership that I dislike the most.

 

[Erebus]

He's obviously one of the good guys. Good for him. Only thing I would dispute.

“I spoke to conservation wardens in states that don’t require hunters to case their guns and bows, and they feel as I do, that for years, hunters have proven to be safe and responsible,” Decker said in a press release.

It's there job to prove I am not safe prior to revoking a right, not my responsibility to prove I am safe before they grant it. The latter leads to a blanket revocation of a right such as they have now. Everyone is assumed guilty of not being safe with no process or opportunity of defense.

Other than that I think this is a good thing.

 

[Trip20]

Erebus,

I agree with you as far as your statement pertains to actual Individual Rights - but just to clarify - you have no 'Right to transport an uncased firearm in a vehicle,' per se, just as you have no 'Right to operate a vehicle.'

Typically a state is not violating your Rights by disallowing transportation of uncased firearms (depends on how your state's Constitution reads, of course - but I'm fairly sure it pertains to most/all states).

I believe Decker is trying to convey that people will not begin drive-by road hunting or shooting each other, that it's unnecessary to prohibit uncased firearms, and he can back that up with a few litmus tests (i.e., track record of others states).

 

[S.P.E.C.T.R.E.]

Actually, I see what he's doing here. Allowing people to transport a firearm uncased would be a de facto carry law...people could carry a defensive weapon in their cars. It's not a full carry permit law, but it's more that what they have now.

He's clever, I'll give him that.

 

[Gene_WI]

This owuld be wonderful if it passes. The case law in WI is brutal and unnecessary.

 

[TrapperReady]

To give you an idea of how strict this gun-case law has been...

Until earlier this year, if you were shooting a sporting clays event and had a golf cart (even if outiftted with racks designed specifically for shotguns), the guns still had to be fully cased. So, when shooting a round, you'd have to fully case your shotgun between stations.

Also, from a hunting standpoint... say you are bird hunting and return to your pickup truck to feed and water the dog. If you unload your shotgun and lay it in the bed of the truck without it being cased, you are in violation of the law. If you unload it and case it, but fail to fully zip the case shut, it's still a violation.

 

[Jrsmith]

True, and I know of people who have set the gun on the bed for a second to water their dogs and a warden was near by... BAM. Fine. And those fines aren't cheap.

On the other note, at least being able to have a defensive weapon in my truck would really keep my mind at ease sometime; maybe someday my state will allowe me to have the means to protect myself... I know I know, wishfull thinking.

 

[brufener]

Allowing people to transport a firearm uncased would be a de facto carry law...people could carry a defensive weapon in their cars.

It's close to a car carry law, but the weapon would still have to be unloaded. Of course, loading a semi-auto is a whole lot quicker than uncasing a semi-auto and loading it.

I like the "creeping incrementalism" to allow gun rights approach when the full-bore approach didn't work.

 

[H8Commies]

Yeah right, I'm sure Doyle would sign that.


We aren't going to get anything good as far as RKBA goes until that bozo is gone.


Lets just enjoy our four years of insane tax and fee hikes (truck registration going up 65% next year, woo hoo:banghead: ) and hope we don't backslide on gun rights.

 

[davec]

PLEASE LINK YOUR SOURCES

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/ap...1115/WDH0101/61115014&SearchID=73263115949433

 

[Trip20]

NO REASON TO YELL, Dave. Pet peeve? Hit a nerve?

The article clearly stated the publication and the author. You'll live.

 

[geronimotwo]

it is good to see that reason can prevail across different party lines. i find it hard to align myself with any one political view, and yet find (depending on the issue at hand) that i am thrown from left to right by outside spectators viewpoint. remember, your only on the left when viewed from the right. hat's off to a thinking Democrat.

 

[moewadle]

I think it is time to stop labeling people so readily

and realize that just because a person is a Democrat or that he/she might have some liberal political views does not necessarily mean they are anti-gun. A good example currently is the fact that Dem Senator Murtha is Nancy Pelosi's choice for Majority Leader and he is described in the news as against gun control.

I believe there is way too much hasty labeling of people and groups here on this forum and lots of other places also. Let's try to take each individual on his/her merits and not generalize by party, etc.

 

[Trip20]

moewadle,

I agree that just because someone has a "D" after their name, does not mean they must be anti-gun. This is one of the reasons I brought this article to the attention of THR members.

But, if you look at the vote I linked in my first post, and compare that to the other votes on the subject, the line between R and D is a gouge the size of the Grand Canyon with the exception of a few good D's who've built a foot bridge to the other side.

I say this to point out not complete ignorance that makes one assume most D's are anti-gun. Looking at the record shows where the line exists on this issue. The line is not absolute, it doesn't apply across the board - you're right in that regard.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Trip20, there were a lot of Republicans who were dragged kicking and screaming by leadership to vote for our bill.

As for Decker, he's from a strong hunting district, and he'd like to run for congress when Dave Obey retires. This is a good move on his part.

 

[Trip20]

I've spoken with Decker on a few occasions in one on one conversation in person. His pro-2a votes are more than slick political moves.