|
|
It is currently Mon May 13, 2024 1:38 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Carry on 'border waters'?
Author |
Message |
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:31 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
Inebrius wrote: I guess I should be more specific so you don't play semantics. I'm not playing anything, but I am getting annoyed. Here's the short version: 1) Cops tend not to know the uncommon areas of law. 2) This usually won't stop them from giving an answer, which will probably be wrong. 3) A wrong answer from a cop will not protect you in court, even if you DO have his badge number. Quote: Does the MPPA statutes allow for carry in a boat on MN waterways? No. Our laws don't give privileges, they only restrict behaviors. That said, there is no prohibition against carry with a permit, in a boat, on the waters of this state, beyond the limitations that apply to other motor vehicles -- see MN Stat. 97B.045. But the original question was about border waters -- where Wisconsin and Minnesota meet, on the Mississippi. Quote: ...[W]e have a family cabin on the Mississippi near Wabasha. IF I (or my brother once he gets his P2C and starts carrying), decide to go out in a boat or go ice fishing, can I (we), legally carry while out on the Mississippi?
The answer to that one is still "Beats me!" Maybe we can ask DeanC to ask Mr. Toder next time he sees him?
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:09 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Maybe we can ask DeanC to ask Mr. Toder next time he sees him?
I'll see what I can do about "coincidentally" getting on the same elevator as him. No promises.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:29 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: Inebrius wrote: Does the MPPA statutes allow for carry in a boat on MN waterways? No. Our laws don't give privileges, they only restrict behaviors. That said, there is no prohibition against carry with a permit, in a boat, on the waters of this state, beyond the limitations that apply to other motor vehicles -- see MN Stat. 97B.045. But the original question was about border waters -- where Wisconsin and Minnesota meet, on the Mississippi.
Andrew is correct, even if you don't like the answer. You're searching for a rock solid outcome, and unfortunately you're not going to get it.
If you have a run-in with MN cops on the water, you may be ok. Hopefully.
If you have a run-in with WI cops on the water...well, I hope you've got a lawyer's business card sitting with your carry permit in your wallet, because you may end up needing it.
If in doubt, the cops (regardless of state) will arrest you and let the judicial system sort it out.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but law is not a field of cut-and-dried answers. Once you realize that the correct answer is whatever the judge and jury determines it to be based on the arguments presented (you would hire a GOOD lawyer, right?), you'll be ahead of the game.
The original two little words I mentioned were "It depends." I'll close with two more little words: "Test case."
I'm not saying it's right, or Constitutional, or anything else. I'm just saying that it is what it is.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
PocketProtector642
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:17 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am Posts: 702 Location: St. Paulish
|
Wouldn't open carrying be ok? Its legal in MN and in WI. The only hang up would be if the boat fall under the same rules as a car (not allowed).
_________________ Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters. "If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14) "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:20 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
PocketProtector642 wrote: Wouldn't open carrying be ok? Its legal in MN and in WI. The only hang up would be if the boat fall under the same rules as a car (not allowed).
OC is legal at the state level in WI, but local statutes can override it. Be very, very cautious.
-Mark "former WI resident"
|
|
|
|
|
PocketProtector642
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:37 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:36 am Posts: 702 Location: St. Paulish
|
mrokern wrote: OC is legal at the state level in WI, but local statutes can override it. Be very, very cautious.
I understand the "be very, very cautious" part but not the local statutes override state. This has been tested in WI.
_________________ Proud owner of 2 wonderful SGH holsters. "If man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:14) "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" -Jesus (Luke 22:36)
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:53 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
PocketProtector642 wrote: mrokern wrote: OC is legal at the state level in WI, but local statutes can override it. Be very, very cautious.
I understand the "be very, very cautious" part but not the local statutes override state. This has been tested in WI.
No, not really.
A Milwaukee Circuit Court ruling isn't going to prevent your arrest, or stop charges from being filed. Binding precedent isn't set at that level.
If you OC in a jurisdiction that bans carry, you're going to get cuffed and stuffed.
Will the firearms charge stick? Probably not, state laws do TECHNICALLY trump local. The problem is again, this hasn't been tested at a high enough level yet...hence why most municipalities will continue to arrest and charge under the assumption their statutes will win.
They will likely find a way to make disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace stick.
They need a full-on test case that will get appealed to a high enough level to drive the preemption down the throats of the local governments.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:26 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
The answer, is going to be that each state has jurisdiction to the middle of the "main navigational channel" of the Mississppi River. Minnesota v Wisconsin 252 US 273 (1920) Within a state's jurisdiction, that state's law will apply.
Of course, that's not a very satisfactory situation, because it's hard to determine exactly where the middle "is", or which channel is the main channel.
That's the general rule of law, some states may have other arrangements. Usually this come up when there is a taxation issue on an island.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:44 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
There's your official answer of "I don't know, it depends" from a licensed attorney.
Dick Unger wrote: The answer, is going to be that each state has jurisdiction to the middle of the "main navigational channel" of the Mississppi River. Minnesota v Wisconsin 252 US 273 (1920) Within a state's jurisdiction, that state's law will apply.
Of course, that's not a very satisfactory situation, because it's hard to determine exactly where the middle "is", or which channel is the main channel.
That's the general rule of law, some states may have other arrangements. Usually this come up when there is a taxation issue on an island.
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:10 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
"Out on a limb, a Jedi rarely goes."
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Inebrius
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:22 pm |
|
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 9:30 pm Posts: 197 Location: Minneapolis
|
Dick Unger wrote: The answer, is going to be that each state has jurisdiction to the middle of the "main navigational channel" of the Mississppi River. Minnesota v Wisconsin 252 US 273 (1920) Within a state's jurisdiction, that state's law will apply.
Of course, that's not a very satisfactory situation, because it's hard to determine exactly where the middle "is", or which channel is the main channel.
That's the general rule of law, some states may have other arrangements. Usually this come up when there is a taxation issue on an island.
Which is precisely where I was going with my last post to Mr. Annoyed. If there’s no statute against carry with a permit in a boat then really all you have to do is figure out where the boundary of the state is. The DNR or local sheriff know precisely where their jurisdiction ends and won’t lie to you about it. Or you can retain an attorney for a grand if you don't have a family friend that's an attorney and get their opinion on it.
Duck hunting on the St. Croix is a dicey proposition with the cities and parks lining the river. We called the DNR and they let us know exactly what and where it was legal to hunt.
The never ending questions of can I do this, can't I do this, and am I justified if this happens... Is why I've been training Hapkido for the past year and a half and carry rarely anymore. The only sure thing is if you have a permit to carry, no one sees you carrying, you never use it, or come in contact with police you can go home that night a0nd not worry about going bankrupt defending yourself from a system that clearly doesn't want anyone to have a permit to carry.
|
|
|
|
|
Ronin069
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:45 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:16 pm Posts: 340 Location: Brooklyn Park
|
Argh! I have a lawyer in the family and she told me this...it kinda sorta depends on which way the wind is blowing...granted she's an anti, so who knows.
Comforting since I do much fishing in Duluth May/June when the walleyes are in the river (St Louis) and it is easy to drift into WI territory....
HEY - on a side note, and maybe this has already been brought up, but if you are drifting into WI waters you better also have a WI fishing license - truth be told, I'd rather take my chances carrying on some imaginary boarder than be caught by the DNR without the right license!
_________________ "The gun chooses you, you don't choose the gun"
- my wife
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
DeanC wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: Maybe we can ask DeanC to ask Mr. Toder next time he sees him? I'll see what I can do about "coincidentally" getting on the same elevator as him. No promises.
OK, I finally ran into him today. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to speak to him at length.
First thing he said was to just open carry since it's legal in Wisconsin. (I wasn't quick enough on my feet to mention the vehicle problem).
Then he said really though, it's not possible to write laws that cover all possible situations and in the last resort, the doctrine of leniency should apply.
Then he said, "Well, if I'm wrong, I'm sure I can get you a good work release program."
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
gyrfalcon
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:22 am |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 pm Posts: 373
|
DeanC wrote: DeanC wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: Maybe we can ask DeanC to ask Mr. Toder next time he sees him? I'll see what I can do about "coincidentally" getting on the same elevator as him. No promises. OK, I finally ran into him today. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to speak to him at length. First thing he said was to just open carry since it's legal in Wisconsin. (I wasn't quick enough on my feet to mention the vehicle problem). Then he said really though, it's not possible to write laws that cover all possible situations and in the last resort, the doctrine of leniency should apply. Then he said, "Well, if I'm wrong, I'm sure I can get you a good work release program."
With concurrent jurisdiction the state (or federal government) with the more restrictive law wins. So basically if Wisconsin only allows you to catch 5 fish and Minnesota allows 8... on border waters the 5 fish catch limit wins and applies to everyone on the border water.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... &year=2008
_________________
In a big country dreams stay with you, like a lover's voice fires the mountainside. Stay alive.
|
|
|
|
|
bkrafft
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:44 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:02 pm Posts: 571
|
According to <a href=http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/wb/08wb16.pdf target=new>Wisonsin Briefs</a> from the Legislative Reference Bureau (page 5):
Quote: Transportation of firearms. In general, possessing or transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle, motorboat, all-terrain vehicle, or air-craft is prohibited unless the gun is unloaded and in a carrying case. [ss. 167.31 (2) and (3), 23.33 (3) (e)] An unlawfully transported fire-arm is a public nuisance. [s. 29.927 (6g)] According to <a href=http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf target=new>a memo</a> from WI AG Van Hollen: Quote: Under Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, a person has the right to openly carry a firearm for any of the purposes enumerated in that Section, subject to reasonable regulation as discussed herein. The Wisconsin Department of Justice (the Department) believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge from a prosecutor. According to <a href=http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/43998042.html target=new>Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn</a>: Quote: My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.
As one of the <a href=http://gunrightsexaminers.com/ target=new>Gun Rights Examiners</a> (who, by the way, are paid in proportion to their traffic) pointed out, the Chief's word choice is interesting. "My message to my troops" seems to imply that A) the MPD is his personal fief and he is their sole leige and 2) the MPD is a military force occupying hostile territory.
_________________ If the Government does not obey the Constitution, then what is Treason? -- Unknown
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|