Not intirely correct I_K. The following paragraph is from State v Hamdan.
¶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.
The Administrative Code is unconstitutional becasue it does not allow an alternative means by which to exercise the constitutional right given by Art. I sec. 25. The State does not allow concealed carry under any circumstance (ref. para 48 of Hamdan) and the administrative code does not allow open carry of firearms during the 24 hour period preceding the opening of the gun deer season. During that 24 hour period the State has evicerated our right to keep and bear arms. Something the WSC says the State can not do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶40. The nature of this limitation is well established. Faced with similar challenges, other states applying a reasonableness standard in the context of regulating firearms have recognized that "[t]he police power cannot [ ] be invoked in such a manner that it amounts to the destruction of the right to bear arms." State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1237 (Wyo. 1986) (emphasis added).18 Some states have employed language less demanding than "destruction," assuring that "regulations or restrictions [on a constitutional right to bear arms for defensive purposes] do not frustrate the guarantees of the constitutional provision." City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139, 145 (W. Va. 1988) (emphasis added);19 see also State v. Kessler, 614 P.2d 94, 99 (Or. 1980) (stating that regulations restricting the possession or manner of carrying personal weapons are valid "if the aim of public safety does not frustrate the guarantees of the state constitution"); State v. Boyce, 658 P.2d 577, 579 (Or. Ct. App. 1983) (holding that a limitation on the right to bear arms is permissible when the means chosen to protect the public "do[es] not unreasonably interfere with the right"). Case law reveals that while the right to bear arms for lawful purposes is not an absolute, neither is the State's police power when it eviscerates this constitutionally protected right.
¶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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
para 20 below describes the elements that the State must prove to convict a person of carrying a concealed weapon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶20. To convict a person of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wis.Stat.§941.23, the State must prove three elements. First, the State must show that a person who is not a peace officer went armed with a dangerous weapon. State v. Dundon, 226 Wis.2d654, 661, 594 N.W.2d780 (1999) (citing State v. Asfoor, 75 Wis.2d411, 433-34, 249 N.W.2d529 (1977)). Second, the State must show that the defendant was aware of the presence of the weapon. Id. (citing Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433). Third, the State must show that the weapon was concealed. Id. (citing Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 432, 230 N.W. 76 (1930)). Over the years, every element of the statute has been vigorously litigated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administative code fails constitutional muster in that it doen't allow any manner of carry of firearms, open or concealed during the 24 hours preceding the deer season. In fact it forces a person to carry their firearm concealed which is contrary to para 20 above. In fact by requiring the firearm unloaded also makes it ineffective for security and defense.
My opinions