• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Open letter to recently hired Wisconsin legislators

bigdaddy1

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
cowboyridn said:
My letter to the Governor


Governor Scott Walker
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53707 November 5, 2010

Governor,


My letter today is about Wisconsin Statute 941.23 which has recently been found unconstitutional on its face by a Clark County Circuit Judge in "State v. Joshua D. Schultz, Clark County Case No. 10-CM-138" as overly broad in violation of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The government’s interest in prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons is the State’s “police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.” See State v. Hamdan, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 463 (2003)”. Is the Promotion of health, safety, and welfare, of citizens an appropriate use of the police power? As the Governor, you must proceed to answer the question and determine if the power is appropriately used here.

Is sec. 941.23 narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest? The answer as Governor should clearly be “no.” In Hamdan, “the statute prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

In reading Hamdan the court went on to state that “we have described Wisconsin’s exceptionally restrictive scheme to show how it heightens the conflict between sec. 941.23 and the rights in Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution adding to the conflict is the fundamental rights set forth in the Second Amendment.
Wisconsin statute 941.23 prohibits judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court staff and child support agency workers, and many more citizens that have received legitimate death threats from carrying a concealed weapon for personal safety.

Open carry or open display of a firearm is not a feasible alternative to concealed carry. Open carry can and has resulted in overzealous police and/or prosecutors charging disorderly conduct under sec. 947.01, Wis. Stats., for what the court considers the lawful open carrying and display of handguns.
The argument that this will not happen with reasonable prosecutors has already been proven wrong. See the Wisconsin State Journal article, at the following citation: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html This article details how five men were issued disorderly conduct citations for eating at a Culver’s restaurant while having firearms in holsters in plain view.

Thus, while the State has an interest in public safety, sec. 941.23 is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest nor is it the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not to be abridged by any State law. Sec. 941.23 must also fail under the application of the Fourteenth Amendment and must be repealed.


Don Marso
Click to expand...



I like the letter, very good sir. I hope you wouldnt mind if it were borrowed?
 
M

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
bigdaddy1 said:
I think your missing my point. If you are concealed carrying and you cross a state line, you may be in violation of that states carry law. I don't want to stop at the border, unload and stow my weapon each time I cross a state line.
Click to expand...
I think we all understand what you are looking for, however, there is no guarantee that any state will honor a permit even if we had permit CC in lieu of a repeal of 941.23.

Typically, a state will require the same training as their permit. So, why should WI be restricted by training just because some other state is?

If you want to carry in other states, you should look to get a permit a state with the most required training, as that permit will likely get you into the most other states, a permit such as Utah's is a common one which MN accepts.

You are going to have to get all of that training regardless if you want to carry in conceal in MN, why make the rest of the people of the state go through paying for all of training and permit process so we can carry every day in Wisconsin?
 
A

apierce918

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
276
Location
Appleton, WI
paul@paul-fisher.com said:
No we shouldn't. If you want reciprocity, get another states out of state permit. If we allow WI to setup the bureaucracy for a permit system, they will somehow make it required.
Click to expand...

I go to michigan about once a month to visit family (my home state) so i'de still be screwed, even though i had a CPL from Michigan (still have it, but not valid since i'm now a Wisconsin resident)

Michigan only recognizes a carry permit from your home state. Utah permit? fine... if you are a Utah resident.

That would be a real downer If i used to be able to carry in Michigan... but not wisconsin... then turned into i can carry in wisconsin... but not michigan.
 
R

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Go for a "stand your ground" regulation, such as we have here in Washington state. Castle doctrine limits you to your home; stand your ground says we have a right to defend ourselves wherever we have a legal right to be, not just in our homes. We have to have a permit for concealed carry, no training required, and OC is legal statewide without a permit. You do, however, have to have a permit to carry loaded in a vehicle, OC or CC, otherwise you have to carry unloaded in a vehicle. We also have state preexemtion meaning no city, town, municipality can pass any law or regulation stricter than the state law. Some of you may recall the battle over Mayor Nickels parks ban; he lost that one and was turned out of office at election time. I would like to see nationwide legal carry of some kind. Why should my ability to protect myself stop at a state border?!? The only problem I can see with that is that then it might fall under federal regulation, hence the reciprocity between states that we have now.
 
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Bigdaddy1.

Minnesota has no residency requirements in order to obtain a permit to conceal carry. Fill out the paperwork, jumpthrough the proper hoops, pay a fee and as a Wisconsin resident you can obtain a permit to conceal carry in Minnesota. That may be subject to change at the whim of the Minnesota legislature. Minnesota is one of the six states that do not have a right to keep and bear arms amendment in their state constitution. A carry permit in Minnesota is a state issued privilege.

Using the NICS or Wisconsin DoJ process to Validate a person's character is problematic. Anyone purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer goes through a background check. If the purchase is a long gun the check is made through the National Instant Check System. A NICS check is free. Background checks for handgun purchases from a dealer are conducted by the Wisconsin Department of justice. The state charges a $13 fee to conduct the check. Who would pay that fee for a validation card for interstate reciprocity?

I'm not saying your sugesstion is not workable. I'm saying that it isn't as cut and dried as it appears on the surface.

Also you say you don't want to stop at the border and unload and stow your weapon every time you enter Minnesota. If you are entering Minnesota from Wisconsin in or on a vehicle your weapon should already be unloaded and stowed. ref. ss167.31.
 
bigdaddy1

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Captain Nemo said:
Bigdaddy1.

Also you say you don't want to stop at the border and unload and stow your weapon every time you enter Minnesota. If you are entering Minnesota from Wisconsin in or on a vehicle your weapon should already be unloaded and stowed. ref. ss167.31.
Click to expand...

So with a CC permit if you cross a reciprocal boarder you still can not have the weapon at your side?
 
Last edited:
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
That depends on how a speculated CC law would read but if there isn't an exclusion for those with a CC permit then statute 167.31 applies. All firearms must be unloaded and enclosed in a lawful case. In fact that is why if 941.23 is repealed so that we have choice of carry then statute 167.31 must also be repealed or modified.

My opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top