• 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.

Suggested Constitutional Carry legislation

paul@paul-fisher.com

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

Attachments

  • PPA-F_2-4-11.pdf
    74.4 KB · Views: 288
Last edited:

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
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.
 

jpm84092

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

paul@paul-fisher.com

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

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
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/showthread.php?85837-Gene-German-News-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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

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

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

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

fester225

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
11
Location
Sauk County
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.
 

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
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-111s1132is/pdf/BILLS-111s1132is.pdf

Don
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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-111s1132is/pdf/BILLS-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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
cowboyridn said:
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/s...imself-against-intruder&p=1518852#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.
 
Top