• 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.

Stopped by Representatives Nass and Gunderson, Senator Kedzie

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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I would like the tort reform he was talking about and would like a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, I want 941.23 repealed and 167.31 tweaked to allow vehicle carry.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:

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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 .
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
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!
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Kelevra

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
69
Location
darkness
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!
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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!
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
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.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
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!
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Nonsense

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.
 

shotcop

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Colorado
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!
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top