paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Does anyone else see a LEO exemption? I don't. So, LEO can't have a loaded weapon that day. I guess we all need to leave the state.
-
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 DNR says you cant carry on 11/19/10
- Thread starter littlewolf
- Start date
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Yes, and look where it got them.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Some exerpts from State v. Hamdan.
VI. CONSTITUTIONALITY "AS APPLIED"
¶38. The adoption of Article I, Section 25 did not affect prior judicial interpretations of the CCW statute or the availability of privilege defenses for CCW crimes, but it did create an obligation to protect rights guaranteed by the amendment.
¶39. The State's broad police power to regulate the ownership and use of firearms and other weapons continues, notwithstanding Article I, Section 25. Nonetheless, the amendment's broad declaration of the right to keep and bear arms inevitably impacts the exercise of that power. In this state, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power.
¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.
¶71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.
VI. CONSTITUTIONALITY "AS APPLIED"
¶38. The adoption of Article I, Section 25 did not affect prior judicial interpretations of the CCW statute or the availability of privilege defenses for CCW crimes, but it did create an obligation to protect rights guaranteed by the amendment.
¶39. The State's broad police power to regulate the ownership and use of firearms and other weapons continues, notwithstanding Article I, Section 25. Nonetheless, the amendment's broad declaration of the right to keep and bear arms inevitably impacts the exercise of that power. In this state, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power.
¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.
¶71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.
Last edited:
duckdog
Regular Member
Damn straight. My guess is that the DNR really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on with that rule, if it were to ever really be challenged. It would be nice if it were to get in front of the A.G. for review, but until someone actually ends up getting ticketed and fighting it, it probably wont.
Let's face it, as stated above, the DNR is prime for a good public neutering. In the north where I'm from, it would be hard to find more than a handfull of people that have the time of day for the DNR, and I would suspect that if a person were to take pretty much any DNR ticket in front of a jury, they'd be hard pressed to get a conviction due to those feelings. Take your pick... you have the bears, wolves, fishers, DNR, and now cougars. And around my neck of the woods, there's enough hate for all of them to go around.
Let's face it, as stated above, the DNR is prime for a good public neutering. In the north where I'm from, it would be hard to find more than a handfull of people that have the time of day for the DNR, and I would suspect that if a person were to take pretty much any DNR ticket in front of a jury, they'd be hard pressed to get a conviction due to those feelings. Take your pick... you have the bears, wolves, fishers, DNR, and now cougars. And around my neck of the woods, there's enough hate for all of them to go around.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
I asked this very same question to the Secretary of the DNR. (Verbal conversation, no record). He tried the , "we can regulate hunting" BS with me and never gave me a straight answer.
Every Warden I've talked with, from at least four different counties have all said the same thing, "we would have to actually OBSERVE someone in the act of 'hunting' before we could do anything."
It is my belief/opinion that location (in the city, or out on the back forty) and time of year, date, doesn't matter, your right to carry is still constitutionally protected.
Every Warden I've talked with, from at least four different counties have all said the same thing, "we would have to actually OBSERVE someone in the act of 'hunting' before we could do anything."
It is my belief/opinion that location (in the city, or out on the back forty) and time of year, date, doesn't matter, your right to carry is still constitutionally protected.