• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Constitutional carry

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I'm glad some see value in the current level of reciprocity. There are plenty of people who rarely leave their county of residence. For those of us who do not tip-toe around the Midwest, it is not so glorious.

So.... get a UT permit. If WI was to be recognized by more states than it is, it would have to have more onerous training or other requirements than it already has. Why should the people of WI be punished because the legislature of MN is freedom infringing?
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
So.... get a UT permit.

Oh, the irony.... :banghead:

No thanks, I want Constitutional Carry. I don't want to obtain multiple licenses/permits, pay multiple fees, take multiple "training" courses...etc. Constitutional Carry with optional license system designed specifically for reciprocity is the answer. Along with a successful FGFSZ challenge.

The residents of WI will no longer need a license to CC/OC in their home state. Those that wish to venture out of the state can subject themselves to the state approval process designed to meet optimal reciprocity. This will alleviate the need to patronize other states licensing programs and eliminate the burden of paying twice or thrice for your Right.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
This post is aimed at those that think constitutional carry will be as long and arduous as getting concealed carry passed and to those that believe constitutional carry must be approached a piece at a time so as to not be conspicuous. It is aimed at those that think that constitutional carry will be as elusive as the proverbial carrot and that we should settle for our shall carry privilege.

The year 2011 was a tremendous year for us. The passage of Act 35, Act 51 and the recent Castle Doctrine law dramatically heralded our right to personal protection by use of weapons.

Many review Act 35 and Act 51 only in terms of licensing for concealed carry under the new statute 175.60. Or for the carry of uncased firearm in a vehicle during the activity of hunting. The Acts are much more than that. They make changes to a number of other state statues. Changes that have a direct impact to and endorsement of constitutional carry. I list some of them below. Those that I do list are those I feel are pertinent to handgun carry for the act of personal protection.

Act 35 (2011)

SECTION 3. 23.33 (3) (e) of the statutes is amended
to read:
23.33 (3) (e) With any firearm in his or her possession
unless it is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case or
unless the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(bm), or any bow unless it is unstrung or enclosed in a carrying
case.

Comment: Carry of a loaded and visible handgun on an ATV not prohibited.


SECTION 21. 66.0409 (6) of the statutes is created to
read:
66.0409 (6) Unless other facts and circumstances that
indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the
person apply, no person may be in violation of, or be
charged with a violation of, an ordinance of a political
subdivision relating to disorderly conduct or other inappropriate
behavior for loading, carrying, or going armed
with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is
loaded or is concealed or openly carried. Any ordinance
in violation of this subsection does not apply and may not
be enforced.

Comment: Localities may not charge disorderly conduct, barring mitigating circumstances , for the singular act of carrying a loaded firearm, concealed or visible.

(2) ISSUANCE AND SCOPE OF LICENSE. ss175.60
(c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section
does not limit an individual’s right to carry a firearm
that is not concealed.

Comment: Recognition that visible carry is constitutionally protected.

SECTION 55. 941.23 (2) (e) of the statutes is created
to read:
941.23 (2) (e) An individual who carries a concealed
and dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in
his or her own dwelling or place of business or on land
that he or she owns, leases, or legally occupies.

Comment: The concealed weapon prohibition statute does not apply to these conditions.

Act 51 (2011)

Section 1. 23.33 (3) (e) of the statutes, as affected by 2011 Wisconsin Act 35, is renumbered 23.33 (3c) (a) and amended to read:
23.33 (3c) (a) With No person may operate an all-terrain vehicle with any firearm in his or her possession unless it the firearm is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case or unless the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), or any bow unless it is unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case.

167.31 (2) (a) (intro.) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a motorboat with the motor running, unless the one of the following applies:
1. The firearm is unloaded or is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm),

Section 11. 167.31 (2) (b) of the statutes, as affected by 2011 Wisconsin Act 35, is renumbered 167.31 (2) (b) (intro.) and amended to read:
167.31 (2) (b) (intro.) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the one of the following applies:
1. The firearm is unloaded or is a handgun

Section 13. 167.31 (2) (c) of the statutes, as affected by 2011 Wisconsin Act 35, is amended to read:
167.31 (2) (c) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may load a firearm, other than a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm), in a vehicle or discharge a firearm or shoot a bolt or an arrow from a bow or crossbow in or from a vehicle.

Bottom Line: We are not that far from constitutional carry. The above statutes support that we have the constitutional right to carry a loaded, visible or hidden, handgun in our homes, in our business, on our land, on our property. In addition to carry a loaded and visible handgun in or on our vehicles. The Castle Doctrine supplants this right by declaring we have the privilege of using weapons in those locations to protect person and property under the presumption of innocence.

The only locations we are prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun, besides those specific law enforcement and judicial locations detailed in ss175.60, are: Public and private locations that are duly posted IAW Act 35 (unfortunately our constitutional right to open carry got sucked into that vortex).

This and my original post is a call to arms that when the legislature reconvenes we must get vocal and convince one or more legislators that we aren’t that far from constitutional carry and that the costs to manage a licensing system is not reasonable. Convince one or more to take up the fight.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
To get Constitutional Carry, this is what we need:

Repeal 941.23 (concealed carry without a license), 941.235 (government building carry), 941.237 (Class-B carry), 167.31 (car carry) maybe?

Assuming we don't get the Federal GFSZ repealed, we can change 948.605 as follows:

Repeal 948.605 (2)(b)1r, amend 1m to read "A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii)." (this would allow CCL holders to carry INSIDE of schools).

If we get the Federal GFSZ repealed, then repeal 948.605 in its entirety.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
... a newly elected employee in the governor's office for starters.


We could have ended up with a guy like our last Governor. I would guess you would not have wanted that?

This one has the balls, but as far as carry goes, it is brand new to Wisconsin. He was happy to make the first step.
He was (and I would guess still is) concerned about carry, no doubt. A lot of people in our state are. I think time will fix that.
After his first term, I think a push for full restoration of our gun rights (first time in about 150 years) would be in line.
After his first term, he will have a lot to look back on. The money he has saved our state, and the fact that we have not seen any growth in crime from lawful carry should give him something to think about. Working on him should be a lot easier.
Now if we could just start bringing in the jobs we all need... We might be set in a few years...

Walker has helped us make the first step. I have faith that we will be able to work with him to see the job done in full.
It is going to take time.
Two years is not enough time to convince the full state that lawful people should have rights returned to them that have been gone for so long.
 

TaurusToter

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
308
Location
West Bend, WI
In my home, we are still rooting for Constitutional Carry. It's the way it should be, and the way it was written by the founders.

Doesn't matter who your rep's in government are, call them. Tell them you oppose anything but state and national Constitutional Carry. Call them, email them, harass the hell out of them. Tell your friends, and vote. There have been a select few people who were not associated with either Dem or Rep parties that served this country well. It's time for one of these parties to hand up a leader and get the word out. The federal government has been turned into a cash cow for it's employees/masters, and it simply needs to stop.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
We could have ended up with a guy like our last Governor. I would guess you would not have wanted that?

This one has the balls, but as far as carry goes, it is brand new to Wisconsin. He was happy to make the first step.

-shrugs-
Our current employee in office is a liar. Boasted he would sign any carry law that came across his desk and then demanded permits and training at the last second. Never gonna get Constitutional Carry with a Governor like him. He cares not what the wishes of his employers are.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
To get Constitutional Carry, this is what we need:

Repeal 941.23 (concealed carry without a license), 941.235 (government building carry), 941.237 (Class-B carry), 167.31 (car carry) maybe?

Assuming we don't get the Federal GFSZ repealed, we can change 948.605 as follows:

Repeal 948.605 (2)(b)1r, amend 1m to read "A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii)." (this would allow CCL holders to carry INSIDE of schools).

If we get the Federal GFSZ repealed, then repeal 948.605 in its entirety.

Not to toot my own horn but guess what is offered as an amendment to AB9?

Here is the text of Assembly amendment 1:

3. Page 2, line 8: after that line insert:“SECTION 2h. 948.605 (2) (b) 1m. of the statutes is amended to read:
948.605 (2) (b) 1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18
USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
SECTION 2j. 948.605 (2) (b) 1r. of the statutes is repealed.”.

Let's get it done!!!!

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/proposal/2013/a0872
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/REG/AB9
 

Franky

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
271
Location
popple butte
Wishful thinking. Reality is not gonna happen. Gun owners who believe in accountability and responsibility far outnumber the fringe element in Wisconsin.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Wishful thinking. Reality is not gonna happen. Gun owners who believe in accountability and responsibility far outnumber the fringe element in Wisconsin.

Are you posting in the correct thread? Are you really addressing the OP? If so, what exactly are you trying to say? Have you just called nearly every poster here part of a "fringe" element? Our laws have gone far post accountability and responsibility and have crossed over to people control. Anyone who may legally possess a firearm and is a WI resident is issued a WI Concealed Carry License with no further questions. The premise of Constitutional Carry is that anyone who may legally possess a firearm may carry it Openly or Concealed with no further taxes or hoops in order to do so.
To address the OP, this will never happen with the current people in Madison. They did not trust us 2 years ago, and they do not trust us any more now.
 

S&W500

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
16
Location
usa
For how many decades will the people "fight" with a vote to get what the constitution grants them? You act like small wins are a good step forward. Government takes your rights from you and the answer is to vote? That is funny, you ARE sheep you just do not see it. The government takes an oath to protect the constitution and when they make laws that clearly violate that oath and our constitution we vote? Their unconstitutional laws have no weight unless we the people allow it. How many decades must you spend voting before it dawns on you that from the time the constitution was written to this very day it has been under attack and you are clearly losing....go vote some more sheep.

Freedom is not something you can vote on. The constitution is suppose to grant you freedom, you are not granted freedom. I just dont understand people.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
For how many decades will the people "fight" with a vote to get what the constitution grants them? You act like small wins are a good step forward. Government takes your rights from you and the answer is to vote? That is funny, you ARE sheep you just do not see it. The government takes an oath to protect the constitution and when they make laws that clearly violate that oath and our constitution we vote? Their unconstitutional laws have no weight unless we the people allow it. How many decades must you spend voting before it dawns on you that from the time the constitution was written to this very day it has been under attack and you are clearly losing....go vote some more sheep.

Freedom is not something you can vote on. The constitution is suppose to grant you freedom, you are not granted freedom. I just dont understand people.

Ever hear of the Whiskey Insurrection? How about Shay's Rebellion? What about the American Civil War? The truth is that the Constitution does not grant us a single freedom. The Constitution is intended to put limits on our Republican Government. Your wet dreams of pressing a reset button will never come to fruition. The Spirit of the American Revolution is what you need to reignite in the hearts and minds of the voting public. There is no going backwards. Your Libertarian Utopia never had a chance in the USA. Here in the real world, we have to deal with the ignorant "entitled" masses. Convince them that they should not vote for the candidate who will steal the most from us and redistribute it to them and you will have something there.
In the mean time, we will continue to make incremental gains in securing our Right to Bear Arms here in little old Wisconsin.
 
Top