Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: So How close are we to being able to conceal in WI?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    I am just wondering how close we are to making this a reality for us Cheeseheads. Is this something we should be able to look forward to in the next few years?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Personal perspective:

    There will be NOTHING in 2010. Too big a chance it will be full of poison, lets work on getting as many people legally arrying as possible, and changing the face of Madison.

    I would expect a bill at the beginning of 2011 IF we get the right governor.

    I wouldn't expect to see the bill go to the governor until July or August 2011. IF the bill has permits and mandatory training, it would take the rest of 2011 to get the instructors certified by the DOJ as well as get all the "permitting" stuff in place. Permits coming forth Spring - Summer of 2012.

    I believe this to be a reasonable schedule based on all the people I have talked with across the state, and I have TRULY traveled the across the state talking to people about both open and concealed carry.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chetek, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    183

    Post imported post

    I'm looking forward to this, but I still like the deterent factor of open carry.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Any CC bill will not change OC one bit! Any attempt to mess with OC will kill the bill.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Gonna agree with BNH, I'd say 2012 is a good estimate, but still there is a chance we'll get some of the OC restrictions lifted before then, honestly I'd take being able to OCwithout doing the ole' trunkn jump beforegetting behind the wheel, or having to worry about GFSZ's.

    On a side note, you still runnin stock turbos on that 2nd gen?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  6. #6
    Regular Member Optimus Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    That highlighted IF is the biggest hurdle in my mind. If it wasn't for past, er present, governors, we would have it already.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
    Posts
    243

    Post imported post

    We will also oppose any CC bill that tries to touch open carry. We're looking to remove restrictions on open carry and we will not accept any new ones. OC is the best damn thing Wisconsin has going for it. True RIGHT to carry without a permit.

    In the voice of Christopher Walken, "he'd be damned if any ********* was gonna put their ********** hands" on open carry


    Sorry, been working on the Christopher Walken voice lately so I couldn't resist. :celebrate

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Concealed Carry or Open carry in Wisconsin?

    Article 1 chapter 25:
    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

    Article 1 chapter 26:
    The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.

    Statute 66.0409(2):
    No political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possesion, bearing, transportation, licensing. permitting, registration, or taxation of any firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same or similar to and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    State v Hamdan (2003):
    The supreme court held that not withstanding Article 1 chapter 25 the state has the authority to regulate the manner of carry of firearms therefore the concelaed carry prohibition statute 941.23 was constitutional. The Court also said there were two manners of carry, visible and hidden. The court also declared that if the state intends to prosecute against one manner of carry it must provide for a resonable alternative or yield to the ammendment. The court said that if a person is carrying a firearm for a lawful purpose the burden is on the state to prove it was carried for an unlawful (criminal) purpose. Note: This would tend to "shoot down" the disorderly conduct theory.

    State v Hamdan (2003)
    The State prosecuters argued that if Hamdan had been wearing his firearm in a holster (visible) he would not have been charged. Governor Doyle was Attorney General at that time and a member of the prosecution.

    Governor Doyle's comment as recorded by the Wisconsin Dells Events paper dated March11 2006:
    "If you want to carry a gun. Wear it on your hip".

    What is significant about the above information?

    First:They all support in various degrees the right to open carry firearms in the state of Wisconsin.

    Second: They destroy the local ordinance "disorderly conduct" theory. The State doesn't consider the peaceful carry of a firearm as disorderly conduct, therefore, statute 66.0409(2) prohibits local political subdivisions from doing so.

    Third: They are all relatively new. All happened after 1995.

    Fourth: In regards to open carry they may in combination endow the citizens of Wisconsin with the most liberal firearm carry and ownership rights in the nation.

    So, Open carry or concealed carry? What are the pros and cons?

    The pros and cons as I see them.

    Open carry pros:

    . No license requirements. No costly certification requirements. No renewal requirements, Few retricted locations.
    1. You can't carry in a school zone unless you live there or are conducting a training class where firearms are required.
    2. You can't open carry a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle. 167.31(2)(b).
    3. You can't open carry in a goverment building. 941.235.
    4. You can't carry a loaded firearm in a place that sells on sale alcohol.

    Open carry cons:

    Public discomfort.
    No background checks.

    Open carry personal restrictions:

    A person with a handgun must be of legal age. Must not be a convicted felon. Must not be charged with domestic abuse or violence.

    Concealed carry pros:

    Public comfort.
    Background check.

    Concealed carry cons: (Information from recently failed Personal Protection Act)

    License requirement ($75). Certification classes ($150 - $300). Renewal requirement. Numerous restrictions on carry locations. Carry restrictions at proprietor discretion. Discriminates based on ability to pay.

    Concealed carry personal restrictions.

    Must be 21 years of age. Must not be a convicted felon. Must not be charged with domestic abuse or violence. Must have a CCW license. Must have evidence of certification training.

    Conclusion.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the information I cited at the beginning of this post establishes the free right of Wisconsin citizens to open carry firearms for their personal protection. Unfortunately under current social environment doing so would probably make the general public uneasy. I have to admit I would myself feel uneasy if I saw a large number of people walking around with firearms on their hips. That is the one thing concealed carry has going for it "Out of sight. Out of mind." I would not object to some reasonably priced and restricted concealed weapon privilege for those who wish to obtain a permit. I would only accept it on the conditions that it is written as a priviledge and not a right (For example: A drivers license gives one the privlege to drive. Not the right to drive). A privlege may have a price associated with it however, our constitutional rights are priceless. The other condition I have is that a concealed carry statute in no way pre-empts or restricts our current right to open carry. I will in no way sell out my rights just to get on the concealed carry band wagon. I have too many relatives that gave their lives fighting for our rights.

    There is one thing that any movement or comittee that intends to resurect the concealed carry initiative should keep in mind. The road to tyranny is built one brick at a time.

    The now deceased Personal Protection Act was championed by a number of well meaning, very dedicated individuals that spent many years shedding blood, sweat, tears and dollars.trying to get concealed carry passed. a movement that started before the ammendments and statutes I referenced above were made into law. Unfortunately they were too close to the issue and never stepped back to see what was happening to our firearm laws right under their noses. They were so obsessed and certain of winning that they gave up too many concessions in order to win political support and they were so sure of winning they refused to "upset the apple cart"and modify the bill. I know. I had numerous conversations with WCCA, Rep Gunderson's man Mike Bruhn and Senator Zien on the subject.

    By not recognizing the significance of the changes our firearm rights were going through it's my opinion they made the tactical error of not playing the Open vs Concealed card. I think that if many of the political opponents were faced with the choice between many people walking around with visible firearms, with few restrictions and people carrying concealed firearms with numerous restrictions they would have chosen the later and the governor's veto would have been easily overridden.

    The above is a post I submitted April 6, 2007 at 11:12AM. I no longer have a discomfort in seeing a bunch of people walking around open carrying and no longer see that as a justification forconcealed carry.Other than that, my opinions are unchanged. Our open carry rights shall not be bartered for conceal carry. We are fortunate the Personal Protection Act failed. Shotgun, Monkeyleg (Dick Baker of Concealed Carry Association) and I had quite a discussion on the subject.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Lammie wrote:
    Concealed Carry or Open carry in Wisconsin?

    Article 1 chapter 25:
    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

    Article 1 chapter 26:
    The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.

    Statute 66.0409(2):
    No political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possesion, bearing, transportation, licensing. permitting, registration, or taxation of any firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same or similar to and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    State v Hamdan (2003):
    The supreme court held that not withstanding Article 1 chapter 25 the state has the authority to regulate the manner of carry of firearms therefore the concelaed carry prohibition statute 941.23 was constitutional. The Court also said there were two manners of carry, visible and hidden. The court also declared that if the state intends to prosecute against one manner of carry it must provide for a resonable alternative or yield to the ammendment. The court said that if a person is carrying a firearm for a lawful purpose the burden is on the state to prove it was carried for an unlawful (criminal) purpose. Note: This would tend to "shoot down" the disorderly conduct theory.

    State v Hamdan (2003)
    The State prosecuters argued that if Hamdan had been wearing his firearm in a holster (visible) he would not have been charged. Governor Doyle was Attorney General at that time and a member of the prosecution.

    Governor Doyle's comment as recorded by the Wisconsin Dells Events paper dated March11 2006:
    "If you want to carry a gun. Wear it on your hip".

    What is significant about the above information?

    First:They all support in various degrees the right to open carry firearms in the state of Wisconsin.

    Second: They destroy the local ordinance "disorderly conduct" theory. The State doesn't consider the peaceful carry of a firearm as disorderly conduct, therefore, statute 66.0409(2) prohibits local political subdivisions from doing so.

    Third: They are all relatively new. All happened after 1995.

    Fourth: In regards to open carry they may in combination endow the citizens of Wisconsin with the most liberal firearm carry and ownership rights in the nation.

    So, Open carry or concealed carry? What are the pros and cons?

    The pros and cons as I see them.

    Open carry pros:

    . No license requirements. No costly certification requirements. No renewal requirements, Few retricted locations.
    1. You can't carry in a school zone unless you live there or are conducting a training class where firearms are required.
    2. You can't open carry a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle. 167.31(2)(b).
    3. You can't open carry in a goverment building. 941.235.
    4. You can't carry a loaded firearm in a place that sells on sale alcohol.

    Open carry cons:

    Public discomfort.
    No background checks.

    Open carry personal restrictions:

    A person with a handgun must be of legal age. Must not be a convicted felon. Must not be charged with domestic abuse or violence.

    Concealed carry pros:

    Public comfort.
    Background check.

    Concealed carry cons: (Information from recently failed Personal Protection Act)

    License requirement ($75). Certification classes ($150 - $300). Renewal requirement. Numerous restrictions on carry locations. Carry restrictions at proprietor discretion. Discriminates based on ability to pay.

    Concealed carry personal restrictions.

    Must be 21 years of age. Must not be a convicted felon. Must not be charged with domestic abuse or violence. Must have a CCW license. Must have evidence of certification training.

    Conclusion.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the information I cited at the beginning of this post establishes the free right of Wisconsin citizens to open carry firearms for their personal protection. Unfortunately under current social environment doing so would probably make the general public uneasy. I have to admit I would myself feel uneasy if I saw a large number of people walking around with firearms on their hips. That is the one thing concealed carry has going for it "Out of sight. Out of mind." I would not object to some reasonably priced and restricted concealed weapon privilege for those who wish to obtain a permit. I would only accept it on the conditions that it is written as a priviledge and not a right (For example: A drivers license gives one the privlege to drive. Not the right to drive). A privlege may have a price associated with it however, our constitutional rights are priceless. The other condition I have is that a concealed carry statute in no way pre-empts or restricts our current right to open carry. I will in no way sell out my rights just to get on the concealed carry band wagon. I have too many relatives that gave their lives fighting for our rights.

    There is one thing that any movement or comittee that intends to resurect the concealed carry initiative should keep in mind. The road to tyranny is built one brick at a time.

    The now deceased Personal Protection Act was championed by a number of well meaning, very dedicated individuals that spent many years shedding blood, sweat, tears and dollars.trying to get concealed carry passed. a movement that started before the ammendments and statutes I referenced above were made into law. Unfortunately they were too close to the issue and never stepped back to see what was happening to our firearm laws right under their noses. They were so obsessed and certain of winning that they gave up too many concessions in order to win political support and they were so sure of winning they refused to "upset the apple cart"and modify the bill. I know. I had numerous conversations with WCCA, Rep Gunderson's man Mike Bruhn and Senator Zien on the subject.

    By not recognizing the significance of the changes our firearm rights were going through it's my opinion they made the tactical error of not playing the Open vs Concealed card. I think that if many of the political opponents were faced with the choice between many people walking around with visible firearms, with few restrictions and people carrying concealed firearms with numerous restrictions they would have chosen the later and the governor's veto would have been easily overridden.
    The above is a post I submitted April 6, 2007 at 11:12AM. I no longer have a discomfort in seeing a bunch of people walking around open carrying and no longer see that as a justification forconcealed carry.Other than that, my opinions are unchanged. Our open carry rights shall not be bartered for conceal carry. We are fortunate the Personal Protection Act failed. Shotgun, Monkeyleg (Dick Baker of Concealed Carry Association) and I had quite a discussion on the subject.
    Well said. Every participant here on the Wisconsin sub-forum of OpenCarry.org should be required to subscribe and confess this as principal principle or go away.

    Given the opportunity, I will bring this to the attention of the town lawyers conference.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Lammie wrote:
    Concealed Carry or Open carry in Wisconsin?

    Article 1 chapter 25:
    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

    Article 1 chapter 26:
    The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law.

    Statute 66.0409(2):
    No political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possesion, bearing, transportation, licensing. permitting, registration, or taxation of any firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same or similar to and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    State v Hamdan (2003):
    The supreme court held that not withstanding Article 1 chapter 25 the state has the authority to regulate the manner of carry of firearms therefore the concelaed carry prohibition statute 941.23 was constitutional. The Court also said there were two manners of carry, visible and hidden. The court also declared that if the state intends to prosecute against one manner of carry it must provide for a resonable alternative or yield to the ammendment. The court said that if a person is carrying a firearm for a lawful purpose the burden is on the state to prove it was carried for an unlawful (criminal) purpose. Note: This would tend to "shoot down" the disorderly conduct theory.

    State v Hamdan (2003)
    The State prosecuters argued that if Hamdan had been wearing his firearm in a holster (visible) he would not have been charged. Governor Doyle was Attorney General at that time and a member of the prosecution.

    Governor Doyle's comment as recorded by the Wisconsin Dells Events paper dated March11 2006:
    "If you want to carry a gun. Wear it on your hip".

    What is significant about the above information?

    First:They all support in various degrees the right to open carry firearms in the state of Wisconsin.

    Second: They destroy the local ordinance "disorderly conduct" theory. The State doesn't consider the peaceful carry of a firearm as disorderly conduct, therefore, statute 66.0409(2) prohibits local political subdivisions from doing so.

    Third: They are all relatively new. All happened after 1995.

    Fourth: In regards to open carry they may in combination endow the citizens of Wisconsin with the most liberal firearm carry and ownership rights in the nation.

    So, Open carry or concealed carry? What are the pros and cons?

    The pros and cons as I see them.

    Open carry pros:

    . No license requirements. No costly certification requirements. No renewal requirements, Few retricted locations.
    1. You can't carry in a school zone unless you live there or are conducting a training class where firearms are required.
    2. You can't open carry a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle. 167.31(2)(b).
    3. You can't open carry in a goverment building. 941.235.
    4. You can't carry a loaded firearm in a place that sells on sale alcohol.

    Open carry cons:

    Public discomfort.
    No background checks.

    Open carry personal restrictions:

    A person with a handgun must be of legal age. Must not be a convicted felon. Must not be (Convicted of) charged with domestic abuse or violence.
    Other than that there has to be an order to turn over any firearms by the court. Without that order one can carry legally.
    Concealed carry pros:

    Public comfort.
    Background check.

    Concealed carry cons: (Information from recently failed Personal Protection Act)

    License requirement ($75). Certification classes ($150 - $300). Renewal requirement. Numerous restrictions on carry locations. Carry restrictions at proprietor discretion. Discriminates based on ability to pay.

    Concealed carry personal restrictions.

    Must be 21 years of age. Must not be a convicted felon. Must not be (Convicted)charged with domestic abuse or violence. Must have a CCW license. Must have evidence of certification training.

    Conclusion.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the information I cited at the beginning of this post establishes the free right of Wisconsin citizens to open carry firearms for their personal protection. Unfortunately under current social environment doing so would probably make the general public uneasy. I have to admit I would myself feel uneasy if I saw a large number of people walking around with firearms on their hips. That is the one thing concealed carry has going for it "Out of sight. Out of mind." I would not object to some reasonably priced and restricted concealed weapon privilege for those who wish to obtain a permit. I would only accept it on the conditions that it is written as a priviledge and not a right (For example: A drivers license gives one the privlege to drive. Not the right to drive). A privlege may have a price associated with it however, our constitutional rights are priceless. The other condition I have is that a concealed carry statute in no way pre-empts or restricts our current right to open carry. I will in no way sell out my rights just to get on the concealed carry band wagon. I have too many relatives that gave their lives fighting for our rights.

    There is one thing that any movement or comittee that intends to resurect the concealed carry initiative should keep in mind. The road to tyranny is built one brick at a time.

    The now deceased Personal Protection Act was championed by a number of well meaning, very dedicated individuals that spent many years shedding blood, sweat, tears and dollars.trying to get concealed carry passed. a movement that started before the ammendments and statutes I referenced above were made into law. Unfortunately they were too close to the issue and never stepped back to see what was happening to our firearm laws right under their noses. They were so obsessed and certain of winning that they gave up too many concessions in order to win political support and they were so sure of winning they refused to "upset the apple cart"and modify the bill. I know. I had numerous conversations with WCCA, Rep Gunderson's man Mike Bruhn and Senator Zien on the subject.

    By not recognizing the significance of the changes our firearm rights were going through it's my opinion they made the tactical error of not playing the Open vs Concealed card. I think that if many of the political opponents were faced with the choice between many people walking around with visible firearms, with few restrictions and people carrying concealed firearms with numerous restrictions they would have chosen the later and the governor's veto would have been easily overridden.

    The above is a post I submitted April 6, 2007 at 11:12AM. I no longer have a discomfort in seeing a bunch of people walking around open carrying and no longer see that as a justification forconcealed carry.Other than that, my opinions are unchanged. Our open carry rights shall not be bartered for conceal carry. We are fortunate the Personal Protection Act failed. Shotgun, Monkeyleg (Dick Baker of Concealed Carry Association) and I had quite a discussion on the subject.
    To be honest, the only thing we will gain with CCW is that you can tuck the firearm under your clothing. Nothing more.

    There will still be the same restrictions as we have with open carry. So with that in mind is it even worth fighting for?

    Not to mention that your right will then be a privilege and can be taken away at any time for any reason local LEO decide on.

    As far as Governors go, well I know one candidate that stated publicly that he would look to us for help in wording an appropriate no compromise OCW/CCW non-permitted carry bill that he would sign into law within his first 90 days in office. But he is not a career politician so many here will not support him.

    Not so sure it is worth the fight otherwise, but that's just my .02

  11. #11
    Regular Member Archangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OTP, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    231

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately until you guys ditch Jim Doyle the chances are slim.

    It would be nice to come back to my home state and carry legally though.

    I won't OC in Wisconsin now since if I end up with a problem with the police I'll have even more issues as a non-WI resident... Sucks.



  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    ColdBlueSteel wrote:
    Unfortunately until you guys ditch Jim Doyle the chances are slim.

    It would be nice to come back to my home state and carry legally though.

    I won't OC in Wisconsin now since if I end up with a problem with the police I'll have even more issues as a non-WI resident... Sucks.

    Doyle is ditching himself. He's not running for reelection. There is no guarantee his successor will be any more inclined to support a change in the CC law.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fireball357's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    Personal perspective:

    There will be NOTHING in 2010. Too big a chance it will be full of poison, lets work on getting as many people legally arrying as possible, and changing the face of Madison.

    I would expect a bill at the beginning of 2011 IF we get the right governor.

    I wouldn't expect to see the bill go to the governor until July or August 2011. IF the bill has permits and mandatory training, it would take the rest of 2011 to get the instructors certified by the DOJ as well as get all the "permitting" stuff in place. Permits coming forth Spring - Summer of 2012.

    I believe this to be a reasonable schedule based on all the people I have talked with across the state, and I have TRULY traveled the across the state talking to people about both open and concealed carry.
    Agreed;

    I think a strategy of systematically repealing/reversing the statutes that restrict carry of any method with the final repeal of State Statute 941.23 would be the ultimate goal.

    I feel the creating of any [/b]new legislation opens the door to compromising and bastardization of the intent.

    The intent being: the ability to carry a firearm anywhere; anytime; any method; without restriction!
    If you fail to:
    Know your rights;
    Exercise your Liberty;
    and Teach Freedom;
    You are sure to lose it all.

    Carry on; Carry Always

    WCI Founders Club Member
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    OK, here's a toughie.

    What and when was the last criminal statute relating to guns, that's like Chapter 9?? with the word gun/firearm in it, when was one repealed? Dum dee da da, dum de da da, dump de dump dump dump. OK, time's up.

    You don't get a thousand chapters and ten thousand pages by repealing laws, or the page that humped the lawyer broke.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Doug:

    That's not a toughie. The answer is never.

    The only way we will get out from under the concealed weapon statute is if it is modified to allow some form of highly restrictive concealed carry or if by some miracle it is finally found unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.






  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    My opinion.

    J. Gleason is correct. The only thing concealed carry will buy us is the permission to carry the firearm on our body out of sight. It will do nothing in regards to GFSZ which requires the firearm to be unloaded and encased. It will do nothing in regards to vehicle carry. It will probably eliminate the vehicle out of reach dilemma and out of normal view problem but remember, 167.31 requires that a firearm in or on a vehicle must be unloaded and contained in a lawful carrying case. A holster is not considered a lawful container for transporting a firearm in or on a vehicle. Besides needing to have the firearm unloaded makes personal protection while in a vehicle a moot point.

    Certainly a concealed carry provision would not allow carry in a government building or carry of a handgun in a tavern without owner permission. In fact, I suspect other places of prohibition would be added in order to win enough votes for passage of a concealed carry privilege.

    Our best chances for a meaningful personal protection plan is through the courts and convincing the legislature to modify existing statutes. So far we have been very successful in court and at the AG level. I see signs that the legislature is less paranoid over guns than it has been. A gun-rights governor and some victories at the polling booths could be just what is needed to turn the tide. I think that is where we should direct our attention during this election year.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    My opinion.

    J. Gleason is correct. The only thing concealed carry will buy us is the permission to carry the firearm on our body out of sight. It will do nothing in regards to GFSZ which requires the firearm to be unloaded and encased. [I disagree. The statute clearly mentions license. In most states, the CCW permit is said license, GFSZ no longer a problem]It will do nothing in regards to vehicle carry. [Again here, I disagree. UT, MN laws for example, allow fully armed in the vehicle while in motion.]It will probably eliminate the vehicle out of reach dilemma and out of normal view problem but remember, 167.31 requires that a firearm in or on a vehicle must be unloaded and contained in a lawful carrying case. A holster is not considered a lawful container for transporting a firearm in or on a vehicle. Besides needing to have the firearm unloaded makes personal protection while in a vehicle a moot point.

    Certainly a concealed carry provision would not allow carry in a government building or carry of a handgun in a tavern without owner permission. [Why not? There you go giving in before the bill is even drafted.] In fact, I suspect other places of prohibition would be added in order to win enough votes for passage of a concealed carry privilege. [Then we KILL it]

    Our best chances for a meaningful personal protection plan is through the courts and convincing the legislature to modify existing statutes. So far we have been very successful in court and at the AG level. I see signs that the legislature is less paranoid over guns than it has been. A gun-rights governor and some victories at the polling booths could be just what is needed to turn the tide. I think that is where we should direct our attention during this election year.
    Agreed, kick all the anti constitutional rights prostitutes out.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    You don't get a thousand chapters and ten thousand pages by repealing laws, or the page that humped the lawyer broke.
    Hah! I believe I agree with you Doug.

    We have confirmed our individual rights to openly carry yes. And we have all done a hell of a job so far repealing or stopping ordinances and fighting LEO harrassment.

    Now we move on to a whole different story book, actual state legislation.

    1.)Wisconsin Carryis whoopin butt by challenging the GSFZ

    2.) Where does the legislature seem to be? Look at the uncased bill and how it was trimmed down so it wouldn't help law abiding citizens protect themselves AT ALL. They looked at the original bill and said "No we can't allow this for wisconsin residents!" The sentiment in Madison sucks.

    3.) The first step before any CCW is considered is to repeal legislation, thats were I agree with Doug in the sense that it's gunna b hard as hell.....

    Lets just hope we can get some candidates with some balls!!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Yo BJA:

    ICarry isn't challenging the GFSZA, http://www.WisconsinCarry.org is.

    Similar goals, but Two distinctly different organizations, different bylaws, funding used for different things.



  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Roger Bravo Charlie Delta on that! Whoops thats what happens when ya take a lil break from a 15 page essay. Corrected

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Support the 2nd;

    Go back and read statute 948.605 more closely. It says a licenses issued by a political subdivision of the state. As it is presently written it says nothing about a license issued by the state. Your comment that "most states" accept a CCW permit as a license is invalid. As far as my research can determine only California and Wisconsin have a GFSZ statute drafted as a mirror image of the federal law. Wheter or not the courts in Wisconsin would view a CCW permit as a statewide license to carry a loaded concealed firearm in a school zone is questionable. As the statute is now written it would appear it gives the authority to recognize a CCW permit as a license to political subdivisions of the state. I would wish your comment was correct I'm afraid the answer is much more complicated.

    As far as the vehicle carry statute is concerned; we are not in MN or UT. Before vehicle carry of a loaded firearm in a holster can be realized in Wisconsin statute 167.31(2)(b) will have to be recinded. The recentbutchering of Bill SB-222 by the legislature indicates that the present legislature audience is not about to relax the statute to accomodate vehicle carry for personal protection.

    I am not crying defeat in regards to the existing statutes that bar handguns in taverns and firearms in goverment buildings. I speak from what I have read concerning the various court decisions on the impact of new legislation on legacy statutes. The State Supreme Court has said (Cole) that although Article I section 25 is a fundamental right, existing legacy statutes are considered constitutional. Other courts have shown a reluctance to accept that one statute trumps another. A prime example is the conflict between 948.23 and 167.31(2)(b). All the state courts have danced around that issue. Finally the legislature has never recinded a gun control statute. It is unlikely the legislature would say " You now have a concealed carry permit so now you can carry a handgun in a tavern and a firearm into any goverment building. Hell even on duty cops can't carry a firearm into a courtroom. Only the baliff is allowed to be armed.

    I hope you are right and I am wrong, but I think not.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318

    Post imported post

    The last version of the PPA specifically allowed holders of a ccw permit to carry loaded & concealed handguns in vehicles, and holders of ccw permits were exempt from the 1,000' GFSZ, with the exception of school buildings themselves. There was a lenghty discussion on this when amendments by the anti-ccw side wanted the 1,000' law to still be in effect. That was shot down, but we did end up with the rediculous "Hubler" amendment, which prohibited ccw within 100' of a loaded school bus. Parents dropping off or picking up students at schools were allowed to ccw in their vehicle on school grounds (ie, parking lots) as long as they did not exit the vehicle. If they exited the vehicle on school grounds, they had to leave their carry weapon in the vehicle.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    safcrkr wrote:
    anti-ccw side wanted the 1,000' law to still be in effect.
    Anti-CCW or anti-gun?

    Spinning Wheel, BS&T

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Well, if the legislature was willing to change the GFSZ restrictions and the vehicle transport restrictions in interest of passing CCW lets put pressure on it to allow those same relaxations for open carry. Seems that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Open carry has been described by both the Supreme Court and the Attorney General as the only manner of carry by which we can exercise the activities contained in Article I section 25. That, and the fact that the legislature has already passed thosestatute changes in the effort to pass CCW legislation should create some pressure during this election year. Pressure to have those same changes for open carry.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    Personal perspective:

    There will be NOTHING in 2010. Too big a chance it will be full of poison, lets work on getting as many people legally arrying as possible, and changing the face of Madison.

    I would expect a bill at the beginning of 2011 IF we get the right governor.

    I wouldn't expect to see the bill go to the governor until July or August 2011. IF the bill has permits and mandatory training, it would take the rest of 2011 to get the instructors certified by the DOJ as well as get all the "permitting" stuff in place. Permits coming forth Spring - Summer of 2012.

    I believe this to be a reasonable schedule based on all the people I have talked with across the state, and I have TRULY traveled the across the state talking to people about both open and concealed carry.
    This +1 . Everyone I speak to says the same thing. early 2012. But, heck we have waited this long , whats 2 more years :?
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •