Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Letter to legislators
Copy of letter to my legislators. I don't really care what you think of it but it expresses my opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is longer than it should be but it concerns a subject that I feel is of great importance. I would be honored if you would take some of your valuable time to read it.
This legislative session will no doubt see legislation introduced involving the carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens. The legislation introduced may range from a highly restrictive law similar to the personal protection acts of early 2000 to recognition of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. A right as contained in Article I section 25 of our state constitution “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose”. A right that is short and simple and without any ambiguity.
On July 15 2003 the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) issued two rulings in regards to the carry of concealed firearms, one the case of State v Hamdan and the other the case of State v Cole. The gist of those decisions were that the people of Wisconsin do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes listed in the constitution. However, the Court ruled that because statute 941.23 (Nobody except a peace officer may go armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon) existed prior to the enactment of Art I sect 25 it was presumed to be constitutional and that it is a restriction of the manner by which a firearm is carried and not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms itself. (Note: the WSC did not rule that the carry of a concealed weapon per se was unconstitutional, only that statute 941.23 which restricted the manner of carry was constitutional).
In other words the Court ruled that the statute was not an infringement on the state constitution because it did not restrict carry of a firearm but only the manner by which a firearm may be carried. The WSC ruled that the restriction on the manner of carry is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms because there is an alternate manner available. That alternate being open carry. Open carry with no required permitting system or mandated training just a clear criminal record and evidence that the person exercising the right is law-abiding.
Since those 2003 rulings the constitutional right of open carry has been affirmed by the WSC, lower courts and on April 20, 2009 by the state attorney general. It is clear that the courts do not see the carry of concealed firearms for personal protection as being outside the scope of the constitution but see statute 941.23 as a legacy restriction of the manner by which a firearm is carried. The supposed conflict of manner of carry does not exist in Art I sec 25. The amendment is manner of carry neutral. The conflict exists only by court decision. Decision that can be corrected by the legislature. In the coming months there will likely be a number of proposals presented to the legislature to address that conflict. The proposals will likely range from a highly restrictive permitting system to recognition of the fundamental constitutional right given by Art I sec 25.
A number of states are reviewing and/or changing their firearm laws in recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms provided by their state constitutions, states such as AK, VT, AZ, SC, TN, MT and TX. Wisconsin should be next.
A legislative law that would recognize the fundamental right of constitutional carry in Wisconsin would be preferred but the solution may be more simple than the drawn out process of bill passage, that is, rescind statute 941.23, or at a minimum modify it. It could be modified to read “Subject to the exceptions below concealed carry of firearms by other than a peace officer is allowed“. Certain exceptions could be inserted such as -- except for felons and those judged mentally incompetent, guilty of substance abuse, alcoholic, registered sexual predators or convicted of felonious crimes of domestic abuse.
Finally: The aftermath of the horrible shootings in Arizona will surely bring out cries of more gun control from the anti-gun factions. Anti-gun advocates that will morbidly try to use the incident to further their agenda. Rest assured that those shootings are abhorred no stronger than from the gun enthusiasts in the country. Gun enthusiasts that would not resist any reasonable restrictions that can be proven to have prevented the atrocious act from happening. The shootings serve up a warning. A warning that the world is unfortunately becoming more violent and fractious. The need for personal protection is becoming a fact of society. One may ask where was law enforcement in Tucson when the tragedy occurred? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to provide for individual protection. It only has the responsibility to provide protection for the public as a whole. That ruling applies to members of state legislatures as well as the general public. Because local law enforcement has no mandated responsibility to provide individual protection many legislators nationwide are or are considering carrying firearms so that they may provide for their own personal protection. Protection that should also apply to private citizens. Now is the time to review the impact and the precise words of Art I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitutional and recognize that every law-abiding citizen of Wisconsin has a fundamental right to provide for their own personal protection.
Copy of letter to my legislators. I don't really care what you think of it but it expresses my opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is longer than it should be but it concerns a subject that I feel is of great importance. I would be honored if you would take some of your valuable time to read it.
This legislative session will no doubt see legislation introduced involving the carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens. The legislation introduced may range from a highly restrictive law similar to the personal protection acts of early 2000 to recognition of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. A right as contained in Article I section 25 of our state constitution “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose”. A right that is short and simple and without any ambiguity.
On July 15 2003 the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) issued two rulings in regards to the carry of concealed firearms, one the case of State v Hamdan and the other the case of State v Cole. The gist of those decisions were that the people of Wisconsin do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes listed in the constitution. However, the Court ruled that because statute 941.23 (Nobody except a peace officer may go armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon) existed prior to the enactment of Art I sect 25 it was presumed to be constitutional and that it is a restriction of the manner by which a firearm is carried and not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms itself. (Note: the WSC did not rule that the carry of a concealed weapon per se was unconstitutional, only that statute 941.23 which restricted the manner of carry was constitutional).
In other words the Court ruled that the statute was not an infringement on the state constitution because it did not restrict carry of a firearm but only the manner by which a firearm may be carried. The WSC ruled that the restriction on the manner of carry is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms because there is an alternate manner available. That alternate being open carry. Open carry with no required permitting system or mandated training just a clear criminal record and evidence that the person exercising the right is law-abiding.
Since those 2003 rulings the constitutional right of open carry has been affirmed by the WSC, lower courts and on April 20, 2009 by the state attorney general. It is clear that the courts do not see the carry of concealed firearms for personal protection as being outside the scope of the constitution but see statute 941.23 as a legacy restriction of the manner by which a firearm is carried. The supposed conflict of manner of carry does not exist in Art I sec 25. The amendment is manner of carry neutral. The conflict exists only by court decision. Decision that can be corrected by the legislature. In the coming months there will likely be a number of proposals presented to the legislature to address that conflict. The proposals will likely range from a highly restrictive permitting system to recognition of the fundamental constitutional right given by Art I sec 25.
A number of states are reviewing and/or changing their firearm laws in recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms provided by their state constitutions, states such as AK, VT, AZ, SC, TN, MT and TX. Wisconsin should be next.
A legislative law that would recognize the fundamental right of constitutional carry in Wisconsin would be preferred but the solution may be more simple than the drawn out process of bill passage, that is, rescind statute 941.23, or at a minimum modify it. It could be modified to read “Subject to the exceptions below concealed carry of firearms by other than a peace officer is allowed“. Certain exceptions could be inserted such as -- except for felons and those judged mentally incompetent, guilty of substance abuse, alcoholic, registered sexual predators or convicted of felonious crimes of domestic abuse.
Finally: The aftermath of the horrible shootings in Arizona will surely bring out cries of more gun control from the anti-gun factions. Anti-gun advocates that will morbidly try to use the incident to further their agenda. Rest assured that those shootings are abhorred no stronger than from the gun enthusiasts in the country. Gun enthusiasts that would not resist any reasonable restrictions that can be proven to have prevented the atrocious act from happening. The shootings serve up a warning. A warning that the world is unfortunately becoming more violent and fractious. The need for personal protection is becoming a fact of society. One may ask where was law enforcement in Tucson when the tragedy occurred? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to provide for individual protection. It only has the responsibility to provide protection for the public as a whole. That ruling applies to members of state legislatures as well as the general public. Because local law enforcement has no mandated responsibility to provide individual protection many legislators nationwide are or are considering carrying firearms so that they may provide for their own personal protection. Protection that should also apply to private citizens. Now is the time to review the impact and the precise words of Art I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitutional and recognize that every law-abiding citizen of Wisconsin has a fundamental right to provide for their own personal protection.
Last edited:
