Contact your reps to support AB9

Greetings in freedom!

First, a huge thank-you to all of you who picked up a phone or sent an email to your legislators last week.

Government exists by the consent of the governed (you and I) it is to be of the people, by the people, for the people. Its a shame we can't just do our moral, civic duty.. pay attention to candidates, believe their promises, vote on election day, and count on our elected officials to represent the views THEY said they held and that we sent them to Madison to act upon. First we have to send them to Madison, then we have to, on a regular basis, make sure they do what they said they would do. We have to take time from our daily work, time from our job, time from our families, to hold them to account for what they've already promised they believe in.

So I want to thank each and every person who took a few minutes for freedom last week. Your willingness to do what you shouldn't have to do MADE A DIFFERENCE.

The GOOD NEWS is your voices were heard and Representative Joel Kleefisch introduced 2 Amendments to Assembly Bill 9. Wisconsin Carry supports BOTH amendments, and, if adopted, we can throw our support behind Assembly Bill 9.

The first amendment proposed would give priority to private property owners rights. Off-duty and former police officers would have to abide private property owner wishes just like the rest of us.

The second amendment proposed would **allow all concealed carry license holders to carry on school grounds88!!!

Under current law, IF YOU HAVE YOUR SIDEARM ON YOU, OR IN YOUR VEHICLE when you drop your kids off at school and drive or walk "on" school grounds, YOU ARE COMMITTING A FELONY.

This means over 200,000 moms, dads, grandmothers, grandfathers, Aunts, Uncles, and other legal guardians in Wisconsin, who's taxes PAY for public schools, who have passed a government background check, who have obtained the government mandated "proof of training", who have paid their "permit tax" to the state of Wisconsin... All these law-abiding citizens who jumped through EVERY government hoop to exercise their human right to protect themselves and their families must either unload their handgun and place it in a case before entering school grounds, or risk felony arrest.

The Criminal Justice Committee will be voting on these amendments on October 24th. PLEASE take a few minutes to reach out to the following legislators and politely ask that they SUPPORT YOU, the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, and support the Amendment to AB9 that would permit concealed carry license holders to carry on school grounds. MANY other states allow CCL holders to carry on school grounds. Wisconsin should also.

EVEN the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act provides SPECIFIC exceptions for people who have obtained their state-issued concealed carry permit/license to carry on school grounds.

You can link to the representatives who sit on the Criminal Justice Committee from the following link:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/pages/comm-info.aspx?c=1092

Joel Kleefisch (Oconomowoc)- Rep.Kleefisch@legis.wisconsin.gov
John Spiros (Marshfield)- Rep.Spiros@legis.wisconsin.gov
Andre Jacque (DePere)- Rep.Jacque@legis.wisconsin.gov
Jim Ott (Mequon)- Rep.OttJ@legis.wisconsin.gov
Erik Severson (Star Prairie) - Rep.Severson@legis.wisconsin.gov
Garey Bies (Sister Bay) - Rep.Bies@legis.wisconsin.gov

We all know lunatics seek out these "gun free zones" to inflict mass casualties. History proves that we DO have reason to want to carry to protect our kids when we are at school events.

The committee members listed above will vote on OCTOBER 24th on these amendments. Please contact them today!

Please feel free to email me with any questions and/or to pass along feedback you receive from these legislators.

Carry On,

Nik Clark
Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
www.wisconsincarry.org
nik@wisconsincarry.org

Click to expand...

Please ask that amendment 1 and 2 be approved in Executive session. If BOTH those get added to the bill, I urge you to support the bill. If they do not, please do not!

Please do not vote for this in it's present form.


This bill without the amendments has several problems with it:


1. It allows off duty police officers to carry firearms on private property ignoring the 'no firearms' signs. So.... while I would be precluded from carrying in there, the off duty cop could. That tramples on private property rights. While I personally despise the postings and do not go to businesses that do not allow me to be armed, I would be a hypocrite if I were to want to take away their right to bar guns.
2. It allows off duty officers to carry on school grounds. There are two issues with this:
a. It makes 2 classes of citizens. The cops, and the rest of the world.
b. It sets up the cops to violate the Federal Gun Free School Zone law, which would open them up to a Federal Felony.


To expand on point 2b.


The Federal GFSZ law gives exceptions to the law. They are as follows:


18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B)

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Notice, the only exception for cops is for while they are ON DUTY! So, no, there would be a Federal GFSZ violation unless the cop also met the requirements of (ii), which means they would have to get a WI CCL.
[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions.

[FONT=lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
Paul L Fisher

Click to expand...

Section 1r. 943.13 (4m) of the statutes is renumbered 943.13 (4m) (am).
" Section 1f. 175.60 (2g) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:
175.60 (2g) (a) A licensee or an out-of-state licensee may carry a concealed
weapon anywhere in this state except as provided under subs. (15m) and (16) and ss.
s. 943.13 (1m) (c) and 948.605 (2) (b) 1r.
Section 1h. 175.60 (5) (a) 6. of the statutes is amended to read:
175.60 (5) (a) 6. A statement of the places under sub. (16) where a licensee is
prohibited from carrying a weapon, as well as an explanation of the provisions under
sub. (15m) and ss. s. 943.13 (1m) (c) and 948.605 (2) (b) 1r. that could limit the places
where the licensee may carry a weapon, with a place for the applicant to sign his or
her name to indicate that he or she has read and understands the statement.".
" Section 2h. 948.605 (2) (b) 1m. of the statutes is amended to read:
3948.605 (2) (b) 1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18
4USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
Section 2j. 948.605 (2) (b) 1r. of the statutes is repealed.".

Section 2. 943.13 (4m) (bm) of the statutes is created to read:
943.13 (4m) (bm) Subsection (1m) (c) 2., and 4. do not apply to a
law enforcement officer employed in this state by a public agency to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies, to a qualified
out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23
(2) (b) 1. to 3. applies, or to a former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom
s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. Applies if the law enforcement officer, the
qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, or the former officer is in or on the
grounds of a school, as defined in s. 948.61 (1) (b)"..
Section 3. 948.605 (2) (b) 2d. of the statutes is created to read:
948.605 (2) (b) 2d. A person who is employed in this state by a public agency
as a law enforcement officer and to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3.
applies.
Section 4. 948.605 (2) (b) 2f. and 2h. of the statutes are created to read:
948.605 (2) (b) 2f. A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined
in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
2h. A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1.
to 7. applies.
Section 5. 948.605 (3) (b) 1. of the statutes is amended to read:
948.605 (3) (b) 1. On private property not part of school grounds;.

---

​

Section 6. 948.605 (3) (b) 2. of the statutes is amended to read:
948.605 (3) (b) 2. As part of a program approved by a school in the school zone,
by an individual who is participating in the program; .
Section 7. 948.605 (3) (b) 3. of the statutes is amended to read:
948.605 (3) (b) 3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
or.
Section 8. 948.605 (3) (b) 5., 6. and 7. of the statutes are created to read:
948.605 (3) (b) 5. By a person who is employed in this state by a public agency
as a law enforcement officer and to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3.
applies.
6. By a qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23
(1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
7. By a former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c)
1. to 7. applies.

Click to expand...

MKEgal said:

In reading amendment 2, it looks like they're still exempting off-duty, out-of-state, and former LEO from posted nonresidential buildings and gov't buildings.

Here's the bill's page https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab9
The text of the bill https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/ab9
Amendment 1 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/proposal/2013/a0872
Amendment 2 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/proposal/2013/a0987

It's better than it was. If all of amendment 2 (exempting them from private property rights) only applied to on-duty officers I'd support it.

Click to expand...

protias said:

No gun signs should apply to on duty police too. Why do they get to be more special than everyone else?

Click to expand...

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I generally agree, however, what if the idiot that posted calls for service? Would you want the cops to stand outside until someone removed the sign?

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

Either we are equal or we are not. Never forget that, citizen or civilian.

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

That is correct. I do not believe in egalitarianism/equalitarianism, particularly with lower, planktonic and benthic forms of life.

Click to expand...