Fortunately by July that particular problem should be somewhat resolved.

There's got to be an exception in there somewhere; my uncle is registered under the USCG and he has a 34' cabin crusier on the St. Croix.

Does this hep?

http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/fedre ... ration.htm

I talked to an attorney about this. There are agreements, compacts and treaties, some predating statehood, between states regarding jurisdiction of border waters.

Here's an example:

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... tat.1.15.0

Generally speaking, it seems that either side can usually claim jurisdiction all the way across the water.

I am not a lawyer, and this was a general conversation, not legal advice.

Be careful with the Mississippi, as it likely doesn't ultimately fall under either state's guidelines. Chunkstyle had it right, it falls under federal jurisdiction since the Mississippi is a navigable waterway.

As an example, in Minnesota the minimum age for being on the water without a lifejacket is 10, but federal legislation is 13. If you're on the Mississippi (anywhere even north of the lock/dam system which would be considered navigable) you must have a lifejacket on if you're 13 or under.

Who told you this? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.

USCG documentation is an alternative to state registration (when your boat qualifies, by displacement), and is primarily used to keep track of a vessel's ownership. Banks will also use USCG documentation to determine suitability of a loan. It is also required to bring your boat to certain foreign countries, although CA and MX are not among them. In some states, it relieves you of the requirement to register your boat with the state (and/or display registration numbers). Think of it as national registration.

It has nothing to do with declaring yourself a sovereign nation, or exempt from the laws of one.

Regarding the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers, I personally do not carry on either river for reasons already touched on in this thread. The St. Croix is usually patrolled by deputies from counties on both sides of the river. I've seen them stop people in all sections of the river, including places I know were "outside" their jurisdiction, e.g. where the river is particularly narrow like the Kinnikinnick narrows and the Hudson swing bridge. To be honest, I rarely see LE on the Mississippi (usually Fire/Rescue), but they are out there.

As stated previously, much of the land around the Mississippi is under federal control, or at least federally administered. How the ability to carry in National Parks will affect these lands is anyone's guess. Does any of this qualify as a federal facility? I don't know.

Locks and/or dams are considered "federal facilities", and according to 18 USC 930, are prohibited (at best you'd be a test case).

The short answer? I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't be comfortable undertaking a trip like you describe unarmed. I don't feel too threatened on the rivers in my boat when out for the day or weekend, so that doesn't bother me too much.

curiously though if you are sleeping in/on this boat does'nt it then become your dwelling. and therefore all rules apply accordingly?

That's another good question.

I sleep on my boat all the time. It does not qualify as a second dwelling for IRS purposes (no fixed galley), so I can't use it as a tax deduction.

However, When I'm sleeping on it, it is most definitely my abode.

This is most certainly "test case" territory.

I suspect I'd have a hard time invoking a castle doctrine defense while on my boat, anywhere.

I would suppose that "stand your ground" laws that cover your car could reasonable be extended to also cover your boat.

And a reading of Cases of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction makes it sound as if the navigable waters of the Mississippi basin most definitely are within the "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States".

Well, what the hell do I know?

I don't/won't carry on the St. Croix or Mississippi Rivers.

Of course, you're more than welcome to be a test case...

It's going to be a tough sell to the Wisconsin DNR that your 14ft Alumacraft canoe is a merchant vessel.

Probably true, but I bet the original fur trader's canoes were not much bigger (but not aluminum)

It's not the WI DNR that you have to sell, it's the US District Court.

The law is clear that the federal courts have sole jurisdiction over maritime law. So if you are charged, under Wisconsin law, for a violation that occurred on the river, you simply file a motion with the federal court to take over the case.

I'd not be at all surprised, though, if the federal court followed the path set by that towering figure of American jurisprudence, Foghorn Leghorn, and ruled "go away, son, you're bothering me."

"I've got nothing sarge" Quote from my platoon buddy when he had 0 to say in response to a question--



Had to jump in what a great read but again who wants to be the 1st case--You can learn so much here