Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Stopped by Representatives Nass and Gunderson, Senator Kedzie

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Stopped by Representatives Nass and Gunderson, Senator Kedzie

    I was in Madison on some other business so I figured I'd drop off the new Constitutional Carry brochure to my elected officials.

    I had never previously found Representative Nass's office open so was pleasantly surprised that it was. Nass wasn't there but I spent close to an hour talking to one of his assistants about Constitutional Carry.

    He brought up some issues I had never given much thought to:

    1. AZ, VT, AK and IA have much different Tort laws than WI. His contention is that to carry a firearm with impunity, we need that fixed so that we just can't be sued willy nilly for actions we take with our firearms. My point is that we are already operating with tha liability by open carrying so concealed carry shouldn't be held up for that.
    2. If Constitutional Carry is passed, he is of the opinion that with the current WI laws, private property owners would not be able to preclude firearms.
    3. Gunderson is taking the lead and is trying to rework the old legislation so that any compromises that were put in to 'buy' Democratic votes are taken out of it.

    I let him know that my stance is that even though I would like the tort reform he was talking about and would like a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, I want 941.23 repealed and 167.31 tweaked to allow vehicle carry.

    I then stopped by Representative Gunderson's office, he wasn't there either so I chatted with his assistant as well.

    I then went to Senator Kedzie's office. He wasn't there either. Gave his assistant the brochure and reminded him of our previous conversations.

    Overall, I learned a little more about the states inner workings and let some folks know we are watching them.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 12-14-2010 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Fleshed out tort item.

  2. #2
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Good job Paul!
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Racine, wi
    Posts
    8
    I'm not sure I understand what #2 on that list means.

  4. #4
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by theJurk View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what #2 on that list means.
    It means that businesses would have to allow carry.
    Last edited by oak1971; 12-14-2010 at 03:57 PM.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Sounds like Nass' staff has done some homework. Good sign. They are going to have watch very carefully what the Legislative Reference Bureau drafts. The LRB staff works in Madison, most likely live in Madison, read Isthmus editorial comment every Thursday and have spent the last several years drafting legislation for Democrat majorities .
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 1FASTC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tomahawk
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I was in Madison on some other business so I figured I'd drop off the new Constitutional Carry brochure to my elected officials.

    I had never previously found Representative Nass's office open so was pleasantly surprised that it was. Nass wasn't there but I spent close to an hour talking to one of his assistants about Constitutional Carry.

    He brought up some issues I had never given much thought to:

    1. AZ, VT, AK and IA have much different Tort laws than WI. His contention is that to carry a firearm with impunity, we need that fixed so that we just can't be sued willy nilly for actions we take with our firearms. My point is that we are already operating with tha liability by open carrying so concealed carry shouldn't be held up for that.
    2. If Constitutional Carry is passed, he is of the opinion that with the current WI laws, private property owners would not be able to preclude firearms.
    3. Gunderson is taking the lead and is trying to rework the old legislation so that any compromises that were put in to 'buy' Democratic votes are taken out of it.

    I let him know that my stance is that even though I would like the tort reform he was talking about and would like a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, I want 941.23 repealed and 167.31 tweaked to allow vehicle carry.

    I then stopped by Representative Gunderson's office, he wasn't there either so I chatted with his assistant as well.

    I then went to Senator Kedzie's office. He wasn't there either. Gave his assistant the brochure and reminded him of our previous conversations.

    Overall, I learned a little more about the states inner workings and let some folks know we are watching them.
    Your response to his point about tort reform was spot on. Castle Doctrine takes care of the tort laws he is referring to. He makes a good point for the argument that the Castle Doctrine is needed in Wisconsin, that it's a law that makes very good sense. Good work, Paul!

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by theJurk View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what #2 on that list means.

    I believe what it really means is that if you are carrying concealed then the owner wouldn't be able to see it so the property owner couldn't make a decision one way or the other since they do not know you are carrying a firearm.

    As it is right now property rights override gun rights so even if we got Constitutional Carry we cannot carry where the property owners do not allow it...concealed or open.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Kelevra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    darkness
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I was in Madison on some other business so I figured I'd drop off the new Constitutional Carry brochure to my elected officials.

    Overall, I learned a little more about the states inner workings and let some folks know we are watching them.
    Awesome! This is good news. Thank you for taking the time. This is what I mean about making our own noise to counter the opposition's emotional bleating... Great work!

  9. #9
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I was in Madison on some other business so I figured I'd drop off the new Constitutional Carry brochure to my elected officials.

    I had never previously found Representative Nass's office open so was pleasantly surprised that it was. Nass wasn't there but I spent close to an hour talking to one of his assistants about Constitutional Carry.

    He brought up some issues I had never given much thought to:

    1. AZ, VT, AK and IA have much different Tort laws than WI. His contention is that to carry a firearm with impunity, we need that fixed so that we just can't be sued willy nilly for actions we take with our firearms. My point is that we are already operating with tha liability by open carrying so concealed carry shouldn't be held up for that.
    2.If Constitutional Carry is passed, he is of the opinion that with the current WI laws, private property owners would not be able to preclude firearms.
    3. Gunderson is taking the lead and is trying to rework the old legislation so that any compromises that were put in to 'buy' Democratic votes are taken out of it.

    I let him know that my stance is that even though I would like the tort reform he was talking about and would like a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, I want 941.23 repealed and 167.31 tweaked to allow vehicle carry.

    I then stopped by Representative Gunderson's office, he wasn't there either so I chatted with his assistant as well.

    I then went to Senator Kedzie's office. He wasn't there either. Gave his assistant the brochure and reminded him of our previous conversations.

    Overall, I learned a little more about the states inner workings and let some folks know we are watching them.
    I disagree - would not trespass apply? I do not believe private property owners that operate businesses open to the general public should be allowed to ban defensive carry of arms in such areas.

  10. #10
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    I disagree - would not trespass apply? I do not believe private property owners that operate businesses open to the general public should be allowed to ban defensive carry of arms in such areas.
    I argued the same thing, he said, however, that Constitutional Carry, in its purest form would trump private property rights. In my conversation with this gentleman, sometimes I wasn't completely sure whether he was sometimes playing devils advocate and laying out the extreme viewpoint or if he really meant what he said. He does work for a politician, after all.

  11. #11
    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 lockman View Post
    I disagree - would not trespass apply? I do not believe private property owners that operate businesses open to the general public should be allowed to ban defensive carry of arms in such areas.
    Although I agree with your disagreement I disagree with the rest of your post; but that's just me.

    Good job on checking with the Reps Paul!
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  12. #12
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068
    The experiences with other States that allow private property owners to restrict carry bear out some market truths. Businesses in Utah can post "No Guns" signs. They have no weight in law and if "discovered" a person carrying can be asked to leave and charged with trespass if they do not leave when asked. However, store owners have learned that when they put up "No Guns" signs, they see a drop off in their business and many citizens are willing to tell them why. The signs come down shortly after that. By way of example, the local Cabela's had a policy that required open or concealed carry people to check their guns at the service desk and then the employees would unload them and put a trigger lock on. That policy did not last one week. The new policy is that persons exercising their second amendment right to open carry or concealed carry not remove their handgun from its' holster; except to lawfully defend themselves from a forcible felony.

    While I am a second amendment purist, I do believe that my neighbor can ask me to refrain from carrying on his privately owned property. If that happens, I just will not go there anymore. As much as I espouse second amendment rights, personal property rights are also important.

    Carry on.
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1FASTC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tomahawk
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    I disagree - would not trespass apply? I do not believe private property owners that operate businesses open to the general public should be allowed to ban defensive carry of arms in such areas.
    In AZ, which has laws I hope Wisconsin considers, it's a class 3 mindemeanor to carry in a place of business that has properly posted signs prohibiting carry of firearms, with some caveats.
    As a business owner myself, I feel I should be entitled to allow or disallow whomever I feel like on the premesis. Businesses are open to the public at the owners discretion. They can trespass anyone they want as they see fit. Yes, they could face civil repercussions if their actions are discriminatory in nature.

    Constitutional carry FTW!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Nonsense

    Quote Originally Posted by jpm84092 View Post
    The experiences with other States that allow private property owners to restrict carry bear out some market truths. Businesses in Utah can post "No Guns" signs. They have no weight in law and if "discovered" a person carrying can be asked to leave and charged with trespass if they do not leave when asked. However, store owners have learned that when they put up "No Guns" signs, they see a drop off in their business and many citizens are willing to tell them why. The signs come down shortly after that. By way of example, the local Cabela's had a policy that required open or concealed carry people to check their guns at the service desk and then the employees would unload them and put a trigger lock on. That policy did not last one week. The new policy is that persons exercising their second amendment right to open carry or concealed carry not remove their handgun from its' holster; except to lawfully defend themselves from a forcible felony.

    While I am a second amendment purist, I do believe that my neighbor can ask me to refrain from carrying on his privately owned property. If that happens, I just will not go there anymore. As much as I espouse second amendment rights, personal property rights are also important.

    Carry on.
    There is a difference between specific signage being required by law and signs having "no weight." All signs have weight, it is just a question of how much. The canard about signs having no weight and that personal notice is required is brought up in discussions about carrying in business in just about every state. Utah law says:

    76-6-206. Criminal trespass. /edited for space/
    (1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
    (2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary.......
    ........
    (b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
    (i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
    (ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
    (iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
    ... (3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
    (b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
    (4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
    (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
    (b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    68
    I believe in gun rights but also honor property rights. If you don't own opr control the place then the rules aren't yours to make. You don't want me and my gun inside? I'll vote my dollars and go elsewhere. My rights don't trump theirs in their place of business!

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    good job. I am glad you posted this,I have know most of this info for some time but for the members that think constitutional carry is going to be an easy thing to obtain..Madison & law making is much more complex than most people know. Years ago When I was on the State board of directors with ABATE of WI - a state motorcycle rights organization. I was sent to Washington DC all expenses paid & trained to lobby our law makers by the AMA - American Motorcycle Association.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252

    Stand Your Ground, not castle doctrine

    Do not ask for castle doctrine, Demand stand your ground. That way you should be protected from liability wherever you are if you are forced to defend yourself with deadly force.
    But add the words "Not liable for using justifiable deadly force" in plain words in the bill anyway so there is no doubt.

  18. #18
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    Do not ask for castle doctrine, Demand stand your ground. That way you should be protected from liability wherever you are if you are forced to defend yourself with deadly force.
    But add the words "Not liable for using justifiable deadly force" in plain words in the bill anyway so there is no doubt.
    The only thing I am demanding so far is repeal of 941.23 and of the part of 167.31 that precludes car carry.

    Once that passes, I will demand other stuff.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Tort Liability is a VERY Legitimate Concern, and I have Personnally NEVER given that any Attention myself!

    I will have to Carefully Consider Tort Liability when I Poise The Question Concerning Constitutional Carry to my Legilsators here in Georgia.

  20. #20
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    It means that businesses would have to allow carry.
    No, it means that they have no way to preclude what they cannot see. In other words, it would leave private property owners without effeicient means to exercise thier right.

  21. #21
    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 BROKENSPROKET View Post
    No, it means that they have no way to preclude what they cannot see. In other words, it would leave private property owners without effeicient means to exercise thier right.
    That brings up an interesting point. I know we have had our disagreements in this area in the past Brokensproket and won't get into that but:

    What would stop a private property owner from installing a metal detector? I agree it may not be efficient but as staunch a private property rights supporter as I am I don't see any reason they can't preclude it.

    For example, as private property owner I should be able to disallow anyone with herpes coming into my store and trying on clothes, or sitting on my toilet seats (You know, where everyone seems to catch STD's ) but I have no efficient way of checking that either.

    This might be borderline but it's an interesting argument. That all being said, I don't disagree that a person choosing to conceal when a private property owner disallows it is in the wrong.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    No, it means that they have no way to preclude what they cannot see. In other words, it would leave private property owners without efficient means to exercise their right.
    I am fine with that.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  23. #23
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    Sounds like he's not "for guns" at all.

    1. Tort laws would apply to open carry, and it's MY CHOICE about what risks I take or not. Not his or anybody else's. I do stuff that could get me sued every day (so does everybody else, drive today?) Is he going to ban driving too? This point is just a lame excuse.

    2. Precluding guns is not an option anyway. Anybody, can say "leave now" to anybody for any reason (including none) with a few very small and well defined protected classes on business property, and on private there are no restrictions on precluding people aside from lawfully signed warrants and rights of way.

    Both of these are made up excuses that follow from "I don't like guns" rather being built on sound premises followed to logical conclusions.

    The guy should have kept his mouth shut about it, he just damaged the reputation of the politician he works for.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Paul, was Gunderson the same one that looked like he just graduated high school that we met at your first get together in Delavan? If so, he was very supportive of our cause and was receptive to unlicensed carry.

    Oh wait, I forgot you have me on ignore. Oh well. Somebody quote me please so his highness can read my question?
    Last edited by Spartacus; 12-15-2010 at 04:07 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Paul, was Gunderson the same one that looked like he just graduated high school that we met at your first get together in Delavan? If so, he was very supportive of our cause and was receptive to unlicensed carry.

    Oh wait, I forgot you have me on ignore. Oh well. Somebody quote me please so his highness can read my question?
    There ya go.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

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
  •