Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: A list of State Statutes concerning firearms we would like to see repealed.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    A list of State Statutes concerning firearms we would like to see repealed.

    Lets start with

    941.23 Carrying concealed weapon.
    941.235 Carrying firearm in public building.
    941.237 Carrying handgun where alcohol beverages may be sold and consumed.
    941.24 Possession of switchblade knife.
    941.25 Manufacturer to register machine guns.
    941.26 Machine guns and other weapons; use in certain cases; penalty.
    941.27 Machine guns.
    941.28 Possession of short−barreled shotgun or short−barreled rifle.
    941.29 Possession of a firearm.
    941.291 Possession of body armor.
    941.295 Possession of electric weapon.

    There I have taken these from http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...es-and-Caselaw
    Thank you Brass Magnet
    Last edited by J.Gleason; 10-22-2010 at 09:15 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    in washington

    9.41.270 weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm-unlawful carrying or handling-pennalty-exceptions.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Lets start with

    941.23 Carrying Concealed Weapon
    Thanks, James, you tried, and I appreciate it.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Lets start with

    941.23 Carrying Concealed Weapon
    You could allways just link the wisconsin state statutes and caselaw post. I think all of them repealed would be a good start.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    You could allways just link the wisconsin state statutes and caselaw post. I think all of them repealed would be a good start.
    That is an excellent Idea!

    Fixed it.
    Last edited by J.Gleason; 10-21-2010 at 09:32 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Krusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    281
    29.089 No firearms in State Parks ...

    167.31 ...in vehicles must be encased and unloaded.

    948.605 GFSZ

    I hope nobody on here will disagree with any of these.
    IF YOU WANT TO BURN OUR AMERICAN FLAG, PLEASE WRAP YOURSELF UP IN IT FIRST...

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    There are other self defense items I'm sure we'd like to see repealed as well. Tasers/stun guns and (certain types of) pepper spray come to mind.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    There are other self defense items I'm sure we'd like to see repealed as well. Tasers/stun guns and (certain types of) pepper spray come to mind.
    I absolutely agree, I would like to be able to have access to a less lethal means of defense too.

    The stupidest law in Wisconsin regarding pepper spray?? That it cannot contain any dye!! WTF? wouldn't the dye make it easier for the police to identify the person who got sprayed? What the hell is so terrible about a marker dye in pepper spray?

  9. #9
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    You could allways just link the wisconsin state statutes and caselaw post. I think all of them repealed would be a good start.
    Yes, all of the above.

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    I don't believe a complete repeal would be necessary for all the laws. One could modify the concealed weapons law to something similar to Vermont's where it is a crime to '[carry] a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man." In Wisconsin I would simply modify the statute to make it a crime to conceal a weapon in commission of a crime, e.g., a felon concealing to hide illegal possession, a robber hiding a gun in commission of a stick-up, etc.

    The school zone law could remain-- modified to make it a crime (or a penalty enhancer) to use a firearm in commission of a crime within a school zone.

    Such modifications would not interfere with open and concealed carry yet still allow prosecution of criminals, not the law-abiding. They would be similar to laws that exist in some areas that make wearing a mask during a crime to be a separate crime whereas wearing a mask in all other circumstances remains perfectly legal.
    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"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    I don't believe a complete repeal would be necessary for all the laws. One could modify the concealed weapons law to something similar to Vermont's where it is a crime to '[carry] a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man." In Wisconsin I would simply modify the statute to make it a crime to conceal a weapon in commission of a crime, e.g., a felon concealing to hide illegal possession, a robber hiding a gun in commission of a stick-up, etc.

    The school zone law could remain-- modified to make it a crime (or a penalty enhancer) to use a firearm in commission of a crime within a school zone.

    Such modifications would not interfere with open and concealed carry yet still allow prosecution of criminals, not the law-abiding. They would be similar to laws that exist in some areas that make wearing a mask during a crime to be a separate crime whereas wearing a mask in all other circumstances remains perfectly legal.
    I most definitely agree!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brookfield, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    24
    Don't forget about college carry, pretty sure that one's still on the books. And if I may add, some of the police on campus (real police) tried to tell me that my unloaded, encased and in my trunk 1911 was illegal so long as my vehicle was on campus property.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    No college carry is not a statute, but a regulation/rule not subject to the legislature and its electorate - US.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    One could modify the concealed weapons law to something similar to Vermont's where it is a crime to '[carry] a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man."
    While I'm sure most of us understand VT's intent to mean intent to initiate without provocation the injury of someone else, words matter in the law and are subject to interpretation later by fallible humans. The list of people jammed up because of later interpretation of a dead author's good intent is a long one. If attacked my purpose in carrying is most certainly to wreak the most grievous harm necessary to win the fight.

    I like the intent of the thread discussion. I'll vote for the original repeal, though, applying consequences to bad behavior, not prior assumptions about what a person's intent may or may not be. Just strike it.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    I don't believe a complete repeal would be necessary for all the laws. One could modify the concealed weapons law to something similar to Vermont's where it is a crime to '[carry] a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man." In Wisconsin I would simply modify the statute to make it a crime to conceal a weapon in commission of a crime, e.g., a felon concealing to hide illegal possession, a robber hiding a gun in commission of a stick-up, etc.

    The school zone law could remain-- modified to make it a crime (or a penalty enhancer) to use a firearm in commission of a crime within a school zone.

    Such modifications would not interfere with open and concealed carry yet still allow prosecution of criminals, not the law-abiding. They would be similar to laws that exist in some areas that make wearing a mask during a crime to be a separate crime whereas wearing a mask in all other circumstances remains perfectly legal.
    Though I don't disagree that this could be a compromise I don't think any of what you listed is necessary.

    It's already illegal, once intent is proven, to carry a gun for avowed purpose to harm another. It's called conspiracy to commit "Blank".

    It's already a crime to commit a crime, even in a school zone.

    Once again, as a compromise, maybe I would go with this but "I just don't see the need".
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Though I don't disagree that this could be a compromise I don't think any of what you listed is necessary.

    It's already illegal, once intent is proven, to carry a gun for avowed purpose to harm another. It's called conspiracy to commit "Blank".

    It's already a crime to commit a crime, even in a school zone.

    Once again, as a compromise, maybe I would go with this but "I just don't see the need".
    A "conspiracy" requires an agreement between two or more persons. A single person can intend to commit any crime, but there is no conspiracy without at least a second person agreeing to participate do a certain degree.

    Yes, it's a crime to commit a crime. That's a tautology. But committing a crime in a school zone can be an additional crime, or bring greater penalties as an enhancer.

    There is no "need" for those things, however they do provide a means to penalize actual criminal behavior. Secondly there was a least a hint of good intention behind outlawing concealed carry and limiting firearms near schools. The problem is that the current laws apply equally to the law-abiding and law-breakers. This puts the otherwise law-abiding person in an unfortunate dilemma-- either comply with the law and reduce one's level of personal security, or break the law and risk the penalties. That is unfair, in my opinion. My suggestion puts all the risk of committing the crime where it ought to be-- on the criminal-- while not limiting the otherwise law-abiding person's ability to exercise their rights or to maintain their higher level of personal security.
    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"

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Whoops

    Should have said "intent" to commit. It was just too many "intents" so it confused me, unintentionally.

    I learned a new word too: tautology. I had to look that one up. Yes it was tautology, please alert the department of redundancy department! The funny thing is; in relation to Vermont's language, that when punishing a crime twice we can still alert the department of redundancy department. Kind of like texing while driving was pretty much already illegal before they passed the bill except it's called inattentive driving.

    In any case, I do agree, and personally have no problem with "penalty enhancers" as long as they don't affect the LAC. I wouldn't call the specific Vermont example a penalty enhancer, at least to my understanding.

    I was also hoping (and maybe you did) that you'd catch on to my "I just don't see the need" quotation.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 10-22-2010 at 11:02 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  18. #18
    McX
    Guest
    gun statutes i would like repealed?..............................all of them. that should do it- and again, thusly i have spoken.

  19. #19
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by grantgorgen View Post
    Don't forget about college carry, pretty sure that one's still on the books. And if I may add, some of the police on campus (real police) tried to tell me that my unloaded, encased and in my trunk 1911 was illegal so long as my vehicle was on campus property.
    As Doug pointed out. It must have been a school rule, because it was not any law. I think you will have to take that up with your college.
    If any real cop told you it was law, I would like a copy of it (the law), as I do not know of any. Just love the way the police like to tell us what the law is (and then go look it up to find out). I would think that the police would have learned that trust is earned...

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    The source of the Wisconsin university system regulation has been cited here previously. It will be found in the Wisconsin Administrative Code and Regulations, again, for the university system.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Speaking of colleges that are part of the UW system, aren't the buildings publicly owned?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    I am sure that you and I would agree that they are, but, the devil being in the details, I suspect that they are owned by the appointed trustees.

  23. #23
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Speaking of colleges that are part of the UW system, aren't the buildings publicly owned?
    For the most part yes. As Mr. Huffman reminded us, the UW campus grounds themselves are off-limits to weapons without permission. It's covered under Administrative Code UWS Chapter 18 "Conduct on University Lands."
    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"

  24. #24
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Working on this one

    Quote Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
    29.089 No firearms in State Parks ...

    167.31 ...in vehicles must be encased and unloaded.

    948.605 GFSZ

    I hope nobody on here will disagree with any of these.
    I'm working on the 29.089 No firearms in State Parks issue, its in a prior post on here. I've also recveived an email from the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin ACLU in Madison who is also reviewing the complaint and will let me know if they will accept it.

    Don
    Last edited by cowboyridn; 10-23-2010 at 03:14 AM. Reason: Add .PDF

  25. #25
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    ACLU response to 29.089 No firearms in State Parks complaint

    Quote Originally Posted by Krusty View Post
    29.089 No firearms in State Parks ...

    167.31 ...in vehicles must be encased and unloaded.

    948.605 GFSZ

    I hope nobody on here will disagree with any of these.
    Dear Mr. Marso,

    We have received and reviewed your e-mail requesting assistance. The ACLU/WIF is a private, not-for-profit organization that accepts very few cases for direct representation, and lacks the staff or resources to act as a general legal clinic, provide legal research or discuss individual cases on a person to person basis. We do not have the ability to offer immediate assistance to emergency situations. We also rely on individuals that were personally affected by the governmental agency or public entity’s violation of civil liberties rights to file a written complaint to consider looking into the matter.

    Even though we usually require a formal complaint to be filed with us for consideration of our assistance using our complaint form, since your e-mail inquiry is extensive, detailed and include your mailing address, we will accept and process it as a formal written complaint. Although you will receive a written response after our careful review and consideration, please be informed, it typically takes at least 10 weeks for an individual complaint to be processed. When the final determination is made, we will send you a letter in response to your complaint. We cannot advise our complainants with the “status” of their specific complaint during the time it is being processed. You may also note, depending on the situation, it may take longer then 10 weeks for the complaint to be processed. As it is with all legal matters, it may require a significant amount of time to complete our review, especially given our limited resources

    Please be advised that this is not a promise of representation. Because the process of reviewing your complaint may take some time, you should continue to take whatever steps are necessary to protect your interests. The ACLU/WIF is a private, not-for-profit organization that accepts very few cases for direct representation. Should we decide to take your case, our assistance may be limited to certain issues, and may require a lengthy time to find a volunteer attorney.

    If your inquiry is regarding legal research of a specific civil liberties issue, you can review our website or ACLU’s national website, www.aclu.org, which is full of previous ACLU Reports and other useful information that may be helpful to you.

    You should also note, when sending documents to the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, please send copies, not originals. According to our document management policy, we destroy all inquiries and documents sent to us after seven (7) years. If you must send originals, please indicate how you will retrieve them after we finish our review of your inquiry. You may be required to pay to have documents sent to you.

    Sincerely,

    Paralegal/Intake Coordinator

    ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc.
    Last edited by cowboyridn; 10-23-2010 at 03:05 AM. Reason: Add more

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
  •