Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Carry on 'border waters'?
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12285		 Page 4 of 5
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Fri May 01, 2009 7:55 am ]
Post subject: 
bkrafft wrote:
...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.


In regards to the MPD... I really liked this quote! :)



mrokern wrote:
I grew up in the Milwaukee metro, and that entire city government can kiss my butt. MPD has always been unable to find its ass with two hands, a flashlight, and talking GPS directions. Looks like the current chief fits the normal profile.

Remember, this is the same department that released a 14 year old back to Jeffery Dahmer because they thought it was two homosexuals having a lovers' spat.

-Mark
Author:  Nitro [ Fri May 22, 2009 12:45 am ]
Post subject: 
I know from frequenting the USA / Canada border area for fishing, In that area, if the Border is a river, then the entire river is considered either country....meaning basically, if you can travel anywhere on the river without going through customs. The rivers in that area are fairly narrow......I do beleive the entire river may be considered the "channel".

If the river was very wide, I suppose that you are not supposeed to go way off the channel into Canadian waters for leisure, without reporting to customs first.

If I were to carry on the St. Croix, or Missisippi, I personally would not worry too much about having an issue.....It would be a gray area of the law, and I doubt the Wisconson officials would push the point too much. I would be willing to take the risk.

I guess the EZiest way to determine this, would be to contact the WI DNR, and ask them, where you can fish on the river with a MN license, and where they consider that you need a WI liscense.

Un-fortunately, there are a LOT of laws that are gray, and the only way to get an answer is to either have the states attorney general issue an opinion on it, or better yet, you would have to get arested and end up in court to ultimately deceide the exact meaning of the law....I know of no other way to find the true meanging of ANY law.
Author:  joelr [ Fri May 22, 2009 1:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Nitro wrote:
I know from frequenting the USA / Canada border area for fishing, In that area, if the Border is a river, then the entire river is considered either country...
Avoid the passive voice; by whom is it considered such, and what is the legal implications of that considering?
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Mon May 25, 2009 10:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Nitro wrote:
If I were to carry on the St. Croix, or Missisippi, I personally would not worry too much about having an issue.....It would be a gray area of the law, and I doubt the Wisconson officials would push the point too much. I would be willing to take the risk.


You might be willing to "take the risk" but from the research I've done you would be breaking the law.

Border waters have concurrent jurisdictions when bordering other states. Laws from both states apply with the most restrictive law taking precedence.

People have been arrested and convicted on border waters for breaking the more restrictive law of the adjoining state.
Author:  kecker [ Wed May 27, 2009 4:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Could someone summon Poseidon to give us a definitive ruling on this?
Author:  Brian [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well...last I heard, the St Croix and Mississippi are Federally controlled water ways.

Now I spose you guys want to see the legal signs at every access saying "The US Government Bans.... ( I smiled when I said that)


I don't get on this site to take a friendly poke at you guys and get away with it....so be genital.

I come here to find answers for what I feel are hard to find questions...and you guys live and breath CC..target shooting and all the rest that comes with it. After 4 pages i would think someone would have the law to answer the question.

But then...I guess it didn't say anything in the rules about expecting answers!

Out of 1000's of good posts, I guess I shouldn't complain about one that lead me in circles. LOL!
Author:  princewally [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Brian wrote:
....so be genital.


I'd rather not. I don't know you that well.
Author:  Jeremiah [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:38 am ]
Post subject: 
princewally wrote:
Brian wrote:
....so be genital.


I'd rather not. I don't know you that well.


Indeed. :)
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Brian wrote:
I come here to find answers for what I feel are hard to find questions...After 4 pages i would think someone would have the law to answer the question.


You've seen the answer. We can't help if you don't like it.
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Brian wrote:
Well...last I heard, the St Croix and Mississippi are Federally controlled water ways...I come here to find answers for what I feel are hard to find questions...and you guys live and breath CC..target shooting and all the rest that comes with it. After 4 pages i would think someone would have the law to answer the question.


Just because a water way falls under federal regulations does not mean state laws do not apply. If you're trying to suggest that Federal regulations such as Title 33 prohibit or allow permit to carry please free to share.

If you do any research on concurrent jurisdiction you'll find out that both states laws apply on the border water, with the most restrictive taking precedence.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... &year=2008
Author:  Brian [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 
Hey Anderew,

If every questions answer is "you need a lawyer", you are right, I don't like the answer! :wink:
But that's another thread.

gyrfalcon, if your answer was in another place in the last four pages, I'm sorry, I missed it.

I guess when a person pays for a discounted CC instructor a person needs to follow up on what ones told.

Thanks for being kind to my "genitals". <doah>
Author:  Brian [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Found it from May 25th.

I know for fishing, MN enforces the MN rules (more restrictive) and WI enforces theirs....from my experience.

The WI State Park Patrol told me that I would have better luck fishing using three rods. MN rules spell out in black and white that because I'm a MN resident I have to follow the MN rules.

But I 'spose fishing and CC laws aren't comparable.

Thanks again and sorry I didn't see your first post.
Author:  Brian [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I know from frequenting the USA / Canada border area for fishing, In that area, if the Border is a river, then the entire river is considered either country..


I hope folks don't take this as gospel!

I need the remote boarder crossing paper work and a Canadian fishing license to fish the Canadian side of Lake of the Woods and Rainy River.
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brian wrote:
Quote:
I know from frequenting the USA / Canada border area for fishing, In that area, if the Border is a river, then the entire river is considered either country..


I hope folks don't take this as gospel!

I need the remote boarder crossing paper work and a Canadian fishing license to fish the Canadian side of Lake of the Woods and Rainy River.


Yeah, international borders are a completely different matter than concurrent jurisdiction on state borders.

Brian wrote:
gyrfalcon, if your answer was in another place in the last four pages, I'm sorry, I missed it.


My answer is: It is a concurrent jurisdiction, where the most restrictive law applies. In regards to the Minnesota/Wisconsin borders you can currently carry a non-concealed firearm if you're not in a vehicle and have a Minnesota permit.
Author:  johngagemn [ Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
gyrfalcon wrote:
My answer is: It is a concurrent jurisdiction, where the most restrictive law applies. In regards to the Minnesota/Wisconsin borders you can currently carry a non-concealed firearm if you're not in a vehicle and have a Minnesota permit.


Actually, that WI statute specifies "motorboat", so theoretically if you were in a canoe, kayak, rowboat, etc you should be OK.

Then again, I don't own a boat, tough I have been called a "motorboatin' S.O.B.". :lol:
Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/