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

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.

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.

imported post

safcrkr wrote:

anti-ccw side wanted the 1,000' law to still be in effect.

Click to expand...

Anti-CCW or anti-gun?

Spinning Wheel, BS&T

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.

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.

Click to expand...

This +1 . Everyone I speak to says the same thing. early 2012. But, heck we have waited this long , whats 2 more years :?

imported post

My feelings are that the only reason any current politicians are considering a CCWbill is so they can put an end to unlicensed open-carry and make money off the licensing they want for CCW.

No way are they going to just repeal the current statutes without taking a large bite out of our currentfreedoms. They see money to be made on the permitting for CCW, and they see no money from O-C, so what do you think is going to be more profitable for them?
I refuse to trade my right for a privilege, and we should all fight for this tooth & nail to keep it a right.

Be aware, they will try to disarm everyone that does not pay the tax,or want to be listedin a database.

imported post

if they simply must revenue us, it would be nice to see a simple license to carry-handgun. that way we can choose which method suits our situation. ofcourse, removing many of the barriers to carry (ie; school zones) would be nice too. i agree though, it will be years before we see anything even discussed.

imported post

McX wrote:

if they simply must revenue us, it would be nice to see a simple license to carry-handgun. that way we can choose which method suits our situation. ofcourse, removing many of the barriers to carry (ie; school zones) would be nice too. i agree though, it will be years before we see anything even discussed.

Click to expand...

A simple license turns your right into a privilege.

imported post

i agreemr. gleason, but you know how they are. look what the did with taxes on cigarettes, so in the end it will all about them separating you from your money. it always is. rights are secondary to cash. i'm ashamed to say.

imported post

you know, sneaking about on the topic; they could give a crack, like they did on open carry, and let our state honor out of state permits. maybe wisconsincarry can mention that one in court. no regulation directly out of them, spineless way to go about it. perfect, for them. they give ground, make some of the populace happy, an inch gained at realy no one's expense, not in our state anyway. the rest i guess we argue out.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

McX wrote:

if they simply must revenue us, it would be nice to see a simple license to carry-handgun. that way we can choose which method suits our situation. ofcourse, removing many of the barriers to carry (ie; school zones) would be nice too. i agree though, it will be years before we see anything even discussed.

Click to expand...

A simple license turns your right into a privilege.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Wisconsin courts uphold the right to carry a loaded handgun? I believe the ruling was that the legislature can regulate the way a handgun is carried just as long as a method exists free from restriction, they chose unrestricted open carry. If that is so then the license would only allow you to conceal the handgun, the right to open carry would be left unchanged.

The right to arms would remain, the privilege to conceal that weapon would be licensed. (Not that I agree that concealed carry SHOULD be a privilege but that is how the courts and legislature are treating it right now.)

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Wisconsin courts uphold the right to carry a loaded handgun? I believe the ruling was that the legislature can regulate the way a handgun is carried just as long as a method exists free from restriction, they chose unrestricted open carry. If that is so then the license would only allow you to conceal the handgun, the right to open carry would be left unchanged.

The right to arms would remain, the privilege to conceal that weapon would be licensed. (Not that I agree that concealed carry SHOULD be a privilege but that is how the courts and legislature are treating it right now.)

Click to expand...

That is at a minimum what one would expect. However, I once asked for someone to explain what is SOOOOOOO different between CC and OC that CC should required training, and OC would not require training. When it comes right down to it, there is no difference. If we agree, there is no difference between CC and OC other than with CC you cannot see it, they why required training? Why not required training for all? The legislature WILL ask these questions, and once they do, they may decide to require training for all.

I think we should leave this thread to "how close are we," and not speculate on what a bill MIGHT look like until we see one, as there have been several threads about that in the past We just need to watch it very carefully so they DON'T turn our right into a privilege.