-
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.
-
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.
WI: Gun free school zone problem persists
- Thread starter Master Doug Huffman
- Start date
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Carry law must include training and a background check??? Hmm... Well its nice Mr. Minnesota Gene German and his Wisconsin Permitists er I mean Wisconsin Patriots have made their position clear.
Wisconsin Carry does not disparage the efforts of any other gun-rights groups in Wisconsin... Its clear the Wisconsin Permitists... er I mean Patriots are not a gun rights group, but a gun rights infringement group.
People should know that all of the Wisconsin Permitists (patriots) have become "certified firearms instructors" and they all now have a vested financial interest in making sure any Wisconsin Gun laws REQUIRE training.
I think the answer to this question is obvious... First, the precedent that that Wisconsin's GFSZ being overturned would set is HUGE. The re-written FEDERAL GFSZ law has never been challenged constitutionally. When Wisconsin's GFSZ falls to the constitutionality challenge, the Federal Law will be close behind.
The second answer to Mr. German's question is also obvious... The good that will come if Wisconsin's GFSZ law is overturned DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE. If you are a law-abiding citizen in Wisconsin, the good that will come of the WI-GFSZ law being found unconstitutional is obvious (see previous point) IF YOU ARE A CERTIFIED FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR as Gene German and his Wisconsin Permitists (Patriots) are, NO good will come of it because they want to make $ off of all the required training.
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
-Wisconsin Carry, Inc. believes in the right to carry concealed or open. That is your choice as a law-abiding citizen. WCI will fight for any form of concealed carry in Wisconsin because we currently have NO ability to conceal carry. We will also fight for the most TRUE rights affirming conceal carry law that the legislative reality at such time as the legislation exists will allow. We will support any new law that expands the current opportunities of Wisconsinites to exercise their right to security, self-defense, and any other lawful use of a firearm. We will not support any new law that merely exchanges rights that we already have for new privileges.
WCI understands that rights were not lost in one fell swoop, they may not be gained back in one fell swoop. WCI believes we should never sacrifice a right for a privilege, though there may be times where we will have to settle for a privilege where there is currently no right at all while we continue work to expand those privileges into rights.
Our mission is to preserve and expand gun-rights in Wisconsin. If we exchange rights for privileges we haven't expanded nor preserved any rights.
Will you be among the thousands to join us?
http://www.wisconsincarry.org
Carry law must include training and a background check??? Hmm... Well its nice Mr. Minnesota Gene German and his Wisconsin Permitists er I mean Wisconsin Patriots have made their position clear.
Wisconsin Carry does not disparage the efforts of any other gun-rights groups in Wisconsin... Its clear the Wisconsin Permitists... er I mean Patriots are not a gun rights group, but a gun rights infringement group.
People should know that all of the Wisconsin Permitists (patriots) have become "certified firearms instructors" and they all now have a vested financial interest in making sure any Wisconsin Gun laws REQUIRE training.
I think the answer to this question is obvious... First, the precedent that that Wisconsin's GFSZ being overturned would set is HUGE. The re-written FEDERAL GFSZ law has never been challenged constitutionally. When Wisconsin's GFSZ falls to the constitutionality challenge, the Federal Law will be close behind.
The second answer to Mr. German's question is also obvious... The good that will come if Wisconsin's GFSZ law is overturned DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE. If you are a law-abiding citizen in Wisconsin, the good that will come of the WI-GFSZ law being found unconstitutional is obvious (see previous point) IF YOU ARE A CERTIFIED FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR as Gene German and his Wisconsin Permitists (Patriots) are, NO good will come of it because they want to make $ off of all the required training.
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
-Wisconsin Carry, Inc. believes in the right to carry concealed or open. That is your choice as a law-abiding citizen. WCI will fight for any form of concealed carry in Wisconsin because we currently have NO ability to conceal carry. We will also fight for the most TRUE rights affirming conceal carry law that the legislative reality at such time as the legislation exists will allow. We will support any new law that expands the current opportunities of Wisconsinites to exercise their right to security, self-defense, and any other lawful use of a firearm. We will not support any new law that merely exchanges rights that we already have for new privileges.
WCI understands that rights were not lost in one fell swoop, they may not be gained back in one fell swoop. WCI believes we should never sacrifice a right for a privilege, though there may be times where we will have to settle for a privilege where there is currently no right at all while we continue work to expand those privileges into rights.
Our mission is to preserve and expand gun-rights in Wisconsin. If we exchange rights for privileges we haven't expanded nor preserved any rights.
Will you be among the thousands to join us?
http://www.wisconsincarry.org
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
My response to Mr. German... We'll see how long this lasts on the comments before he deletes it:
My response to Mr. German... We'll see how long this lasts on the comments before he deletes it:
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
The federal school zone act was enacted in 1990. In 1995 it was found unconstitutional in the 1995 SCOTUS opinion in Lopez. In 1996 Congress, in my opinion so much as contempted the SCOTUS decision by wordsmithing the GFSZ law but doing nothing to change its intent and message. Following are the opening paragraphs of the SCOTUS opinion.
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, JR.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 93-1260.
Argued November 8, 1994
Decided April 26, 1995
After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Held:
The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3.
I believe the federal GFSZ act of 1996 will live only until another brave soul comes along to challenge it.
The federal school zone act was enacted in 1990. In 1995 it was found unconstitutional in the 1995 SCOTUS opinion in Lopez. In 1996 Congress, in my opinion so much as contempted the SCOTUS decision by wordsmithing the GFSZ law but doing nothing to change its intent and message. Following are the opening paragraphs of the SCOTUS opinion.
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, JR.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 93-1260.
Argued November 8, 1994
Decided April 26, 1995
After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Held:
The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3.
I believe the federal GFSZ act of 1996 will live only until another brave soul comes along to challenge it.
Landose_theghost
Regular Member
imported post
Isn't it awsome how GFSZ's keep all guns at all times out of school zones? I mean, no criminal could ever get one in rite?. :banghead:. When will they understand that they just need to let us law abiding citizenscarry our weapons where we will, so we can protect ourselves from the criminals that already do.
Isn't it awsome how GFSZ's keep all guns at all times out of school zones? I mean, no criminal could ever get one in rite?. :banghead:. When will they understand that they just need to let us law abiding citizenscarry our weapons where we will, so we can protect ourselves from the criminals that already do.
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
"Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians".
"Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians".
Support The 2nd
Regular Member
imported post
And the battle lines are drawn.
When Gene was pushing HIS resolution idea (only one county passed it) many here supported him. Now the members here file a lawsuit and Gene stands against them.
Well Gene?
And the battle lines are drawn.
When Gene was pushing HIS resolution idea (only one county passed it) many here supported him. Now the members here file a lawsuit and Gene stands against them.
Well Gene?
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
As I stated before in another thread, These fire arms instructors are simply trying to weasel their way to the legislative table in an effort to line their pockets at our expense.
DO NOT COMPROMISE! Do not support mandated training!
The only ones to benefit by mandated training are these weasels who have made a constant effort to have mandated training written in to any new legislation.
Gene German isn't even from Wisconsin. Why don't he worry about what is going on in Minnesota and let us worry about our own problems over here.
It is obvious he is not making any money on training over in Minnesota so now he has to try and monopolize the market here in Wisconsin by trying to get mandated training here so he can have himself set up as some sort of training czar and rake in the profits.
No compromise, Non permitted system. That is the way to go. Come March 2nd it may not be so impossible to achieve.
Stand Strong
Carry On!
As I stated before in another thread, These fire arms instructors are simply trying to weasel their way to the legislative table in an effort to line their pockets at our expense.
DO NOT COMPROMISE! Do not support mandated training!
The only ones to benefit by mandated training are these weasels who have made a constant effort to have mandated training written in to any new legislation.
Gene German isn't even from Wisconsin. Why don't he worry about what is going on in Minnesota and let us worry about our own problems over here.
It is obvious he is not making any money on training over in Minnesota so now he has to try and monopolize the market here in Wisconsin by trying to get mandated training here so he can have himself set up as some sort of training czar and rake in the profits.
No compromise, Non permitted system. That is the way to go. Come March 2nd it may not be so impossible to achieve.
Stand Strong
Carry On!