Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Suggested Constitutional Carry legislation

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

    Suggested Constitutional Carry legislation

    Here is the suggested Constitutional Legislation that we hashed out on OCDO.

    I know it isn't perfect, however, no organization had anything written that they were willing to share at the moment.

    Please forward this to your legislator and let them know this is the framework f what we want.

    I know we want Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground, in addition, sign specifications for people banning carrying as well as other stuff I can't remember.

    I want to thank all those who were involved in this, specifically Brass Magnet to start it. There were many other editors and I only took over after 99% of the hard work was done.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 02-04-2011 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Fixed formatting.

  2. #2
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Here is the suggested Constitutional Legislation that we hashed out on OCDO.

    I know it isn't perfect, however, no organization had anything written that they were willing to share at the moment.

    Please forward this to your legislator and let them know this is the framework f what we want.

    I know we want Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground, in addition, sign specifications for people banning carrying as well as other stuff I can't remember.

    I want to thank all those who were involved in this, specifically Brass Magnet to start it. There were many other editors and I only took over after 99% of the hard work was done.
    Nice job! I will be printing and mailing as well as emailing this out.

  3. #3
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068

    Cool One Suggestion

    Great Job - and I have one suggestion to clarify the bill and make it more grammatically correct:

    Your Bill states at 167.314(4)(a)(1)(b):

    b. Is not a felon in this state or in another state of a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state

    Perhaps you meant to write: b. "Has not been convicted of a felony in this state or convicted of an action or infraction in another state that would be a felony, if committed in this state.

    I am only trying to be helpful. I would not want to see your idea perish due to grammar. I understood what you meant, but that is not what is written (in legalese). (I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV.)
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by jpm84092 View Post
    Great Job - and I have one suggestion to clarify the bill and make it more grammatically correct:

    Your Bill states at 167.314(4)(a)(1)(b):

    b. Is not a felon in this state or in another state of a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state

    Perhaps you meant to write: b. "Has not been convicted of a felony in this state or convicted of an action or infraction in another state that would be a felony, if committed in this state.

    I am only trying to be helpful. I would not want to see your idea perish due to grammar. I understood what you meant, but that is not what is written (in legalese). (I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV.)
    Look at it now.

  5. #5
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    One more little change:

    One more little change:

    167.31(4)EXCEPTIONS reads
    1. A private citizen who is not preclude under 941.29
    Should be, "who is not precluded under 941.29
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    One more little change:

    167.31(4)EXCEPTIONS reads
    Should be, "who is not precluded under 941.29
    Fixed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Formatted. Thanks to Dave.

  8. #8
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Formatted. Thanks to Dave.
    I downloaded it and didn't see the new formatting?! Maybe you have to delete the original first?
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    I downloaded it and didn't see the new formatting?! Maybe you have to delete the original first?
    OK. Try now.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    I met with Senator Pam Galloway this morning and gave her a copy of the bill. From the conversation that we had, I would say that she supports the concept of constitutional carry. Right now there seems to be a lot on the legislature's plate - jobs, budget etc. Not that what we a pushing isn't important, but these other things need attention first and Gov. Walker is running the show.

    From the conversation, what needs to happen is that groups like the NRA, WGO, WCI, USCCA , etc need to formally back Constitutional Carry with a proposal that all can accept and stand behind. Also, every senator and representative needs to be educated on Constitutional Carry and a scorecard kept as to their position on the issue. As of now, some have not decided and some are not knowledgeable enough to make a decision, regardless of the WIS GOP platform and resolutions.

    Senator Galloway fully supports our right to carry, but she can't foresee how it will work out. She is Constitutionally orientated and recognizes the permit problems.

    I felt a little frustrated, as did Paul, but the door was not slammed shut on Constitutional Carry.

    Before you jump on me and say "what do you think we have been do here for weeks and months?", we need to establish a dialogue with our representatives and act as resources to help them make decisions. We need to give them supporting evidence (facts) for Constitutional Carry. I have given her the Good Guns Bans Bad article, Legislative Initiative flyer, and other articles on Constitutional Carry. And when I get other information, it is going to her (and Rep Jerry Petrowski) as well. My Legislators will not be able to say "I didn't know about...."

    Nik posted a great letter with a lots of info that can be used in letters, emails, phone calls and meetings.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ws-Flash/page4
    and I used this info to back up what I said to her.

    Right now our job is to educate them about the facts that support Constitutional Carry and don't let up until they see the light.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    From the conversation, what needs to happen is that groups like the NRA, WGO, WCI, USCCA , etc need to formally back Constitutional Carry with a proposal that all can accept and stand behind. Also, every senator and representative needs to be educated on Constitutional Carry and a scorecard kept as to their position on the issue. As of now, some have not decided and some are not knowledgeable enough to make a decision, regardless of the WIS GOP platform and resolutions.
    At least they are speaking out of the same play book. The same basic points.

    One other point I forgot. Rep Nass assistant said, "let's not forget it is only the 1st week in February". His point is that they were sworn in 1/3 and didn't start the session until later.

    My point to everyone I talked to was that I understood that the economy and jobs come 1st and I would appreciate a job, but other reps/sens have introduced other non-job/economy bills and have had action. They either need to stick to the plan or start introducing other important legislation.

  12. #12
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    I hope you all don't mind, but I sent a copy of your (soon to be?) bill to the NRA. I brought it up to them, and the person I talked to asked to see it. I also asked for the NRA to help us in Wisconsin, get the laws we want. I asked for them to give it to law makers in our state.

    I can't say if it will be of any help at all, but it has to be worth a try. If we did get NRA backing, we would have a lot more power to make the needed changes.
    I will let you know if I get a reply back. Might take some time.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronS View Post
    I hope you all don't mind, but I sent a copy of your (soon to be?) bill to the NRA. I brought it up to them, and the person I talked to asked to see it. I also asked for the NRA to help us in Wisconsin, get the laws we want. I asked for them to give it to law makers in our state.

    I can't say if it will be of any help at all, but it has to be worth a try. If we did get NRA backing, we would have a lot more power to make the needed changes.
    I will let you know if I get a reply back. Might take some time.
    I had sent a copy to Austin Jordan from the NRA. He had no comment so far.

    It is true, however, that if we get NRA backing, it would help a lot!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sauk County
    Posts
    11

    In the mean time...

    I'm wondering why we have any language describing schools in this legislation, unless it's to repeal the ban on guns within 1000 feet of schools. I don't think I should have to make my point here but... Why don't we create a requirement that all schools must post a sign which says, "Armed Psychopaths Must Register At The Front Desk"?

    On the other hand, maybe I'm just not reading the bill correctly.

    It seems to me we ought to be using this legislative "down time" to educate legislators. When our time does come, there will be less complaining about unnecessary issues.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Mailed copies to both Senator Cowles (R) & Rep Weininger (R)
    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 ???

  16. #16
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436
    [QUOTE=paul@paul-fisher.com;1460399]Here is the suggested Constitutional Legislation that we hashed out on OCDO.

    I know it isn't perfect, however, no organization had anything written that they were willing to share at the moment.

    Please forward this to your legislator and let them know this is the framework f what we want.

    I know we want Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground, in addition, sign specifications for people banning carrying as well as other stuff I can't remember.

    I want to thank all those who were involved in this, specifically Brass Magnet to start it. There were many other editors and I only took over after 99% of the hard work was done.[/QUO

    You should add an exception the proposed bill for anyone who is licensed under, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010.

    Link to the Bill that passed and signed by the President

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...111s1132is.pdf

    Don

  17. #17
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Thumbs down Woulda', shoulda', coulda'....

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    You should add an exception the proposed bill for anyone who is licensed under, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010.

    Link to the Bill that passed and signed by the President

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...111s1132is.pdf

    Don
    You should have made your suggestion while we were working on it and asking for suggestions....
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  18. #18
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    You should add an exception the proposed bill for anyone who is licensed under, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010.

    Link to the Bill that passed and signed by the President

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...111s1132is.pdf

    Don
    Don,

    I appreciate your feedback. As I said before, this is just a starting point for the legislators that have said "We've never seen any suggested legislation". As such, we (I can only speak really for myself) am not planning on changing it at this time. I know it's not perfect. We just need something introduced. I know people will offer amendments and such. I have no problem with that. I just want some kind of action, sooner rather than later.

  19. #19
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn
    You should add an exception the proposed bill for anyone who is licensed under Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010.
    They'll be covered just like any other citizen when we get Constitutional Carry.
    No need to make special priviledges for them (as was done w/ the Federal bill).

    On another note, here's Castle Doctrine from Colorado that (IMHO) has very clear citizen-protective language:
    (From this thread, post #29: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...52#post1518852 )
    C.R.S. 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
    (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

    (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

    (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
    Now the thread this came from is because of the DA in a certain situation ignoring the law & the harassing the citizen who defended himself from 3 home invaders (killed 1 who pointed a gun at him). But the law is good.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Good job keeping the ball rolling guys!

    I like to think the effort here helped make our gun laws a little more palatable!
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Good job keeping the ball rolling guys!

    I like to think the effort here helped make our gun laws a little more palatable!
    Welcome back Brass

    I missed you.

  22. #22
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Stand your ground language

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    ....On another note, here's Castle Doctrine from Colorado that (IMHO) has very clear citizen-protective language:

    (From this thread, post #29: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...52#post1518852 )
    C.R.S. 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
    (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

    (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

    (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.


    Now the thread this came from is because of the DA in a certain situation ignoring the law & the harassing the citizen who defended himself from 3 home invaders (killed 1 who pointed a gun at him). But the law is good.
    It also needs the stand-your-ground language like in Florida's 776.013 (3).
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    Last edited by davegran; 06-24-2011 at 04:12 PM.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •