Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Copy Cat Cauton

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Copy Cat Cauton

    Now that the budget situation is finalizing it is probable that serious work will begin on a manner of carry bill will get more serious attention in the legislature. As that happens we must be on alert. There will most certainly that there will be some legislatore, and perhaps some LRB lawyers, will want to expedite action by suggessting that the legislature craft a bill similar to Minnesota's. We must make those that would want to take that course that the situation concerning the right to carry arms in Minnesota ans Wisconsin are worlds apart. Minnesota is one of only six states in the union that do not have a right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution. That means that beyond the protection of the U.S. Constitution and it's second amendment the carry of firearms in Minnesota in any way, shape or form is at the discretion of the state. The Minnesota legislature has no sworn duty to protect citizens right to bear arms. The circumstances are entirely different in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin legislators must swear to uphold the constitution of the state of Wisconsin and the rights it affords, as an oath of office. It must protect those rights as paramount. It must protect those rights exclusive of state statutes. There is no question that legislation drafted under those venues must be different. It has been confirmed by both the Attorney General and the Wisconsin Supreme Court that under the umbrella of Art I sec 25 the people of Wisconsin have the constitutional right to open carry firearms, and under certain conditions to carry concealed firearms. In regards to concealed carry; if the people have the right to carry concealed weapons under certain provisions of the constitutional amendment without the need of mandatory training and permits, how then can the legislature demand that they do so for other provisions. The answer is that it can't. We must make sure that bell is run loud and clear.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 03-16-2011 at 04:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Excellent information...

    PM Sent.

    Outdoorsman1

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    constitutional carry

    In my earlier post I discussed the folly of trying to copy Minnesota’s personal protection system in Wisconsin. In part of the post I made this statement “In regards to concealed carry; if the people have the right to carry concealed weapons under certain provisions of the constitutional amendment without the need of mandatory training and permits, how then can the legislature demand that they do so for other provisions.” I’d like to further explain what I meant by that statement.

    Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution contains a number of activities for which Wisconsin citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. One of those activities is “security”. In the 2003 case of State v Hamdan the Wisconsin supreme court addressed the impact of ss941.23 (The prohibition of concealed carry of firearms by private citizens) against the constitutional RKBA amendment, specifically as it applies to the activity of security. The Court did some judicial construction and dissected the definition of the word security. It acknowledged the existence of personal security but declared that the portion of the definition that applied to the circumstances surrounding Hamdan was the security of property and business. It in it’s conclusion the Court found that ss941.23 is a violation of Hamdan’s constitutional rights given by Art I sec 25 and is a violation of our constitutional rights under similar circumstances.

    In my opinion some questions surface.

    First:
    The Wisconsin supreme court ruled that under the circumstances of Hamdan the prohibition of carrying a concealed firearm was an infringement on constitutional rights. The Court made no prerequisite of the need of firearm training and a permit to carry a concealed weapon before granting a defense of constitutional infringement. How then can the Legislature demand otherwise. To do so would be unconstitutional.

    Second:
    The dissection of the definition of the word security by the Court presents another dilemma. The Court separated the definition into that of personal security and security of property and business. The Court ruled that the carry of concealed weapons is constitutional as applied to security of property and business but not personal security. How can it declare it does not apply to the total definition of security? The constitutional amendment makes no such dissection. The Court decision defies simple logic.

    Third:
    The Court’s use of judicial construction to restrict the definition of security presents a huge problem to the legislature. The Wisconsin supreme court holds that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm without need of permits or mandatory training in order to provide security of property and business . How then can the legislature require permits and mandatory training in order to carry a concealed weapon for the reason of personal and family security? If the two definitions coincide, as intended by the constitutional amendment, who makes the determination as to which circumstance prevails and who decides if the person required training and permit or did not?

    I think the legislature must put aside it’s gun phobia and external influences and must review the simple wording of Article I section 25
    ‘The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose”.
    Words that as an elected body the legislature has the moral and legal duty to uphold without playing games with the wording and intent.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    In my earlier post I discussed the folly of trying to copy Minnesota’s personal protection system in Wisconsin. In part of the post I made this statement “In regards to concealed carry; if the people have the right to carry concealed weapons under certain provisions of the constitutional amendment without the need of mandatory training and permits, how then can the legislature demand that they do so for other provisions.” I’d like to further explain what I meant by that statement.

    Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution contains a number of activities for which Wisconsin citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. One of those activities is “security”. In the 2003 case of State v Hamdan the Wisconsin supreme court addressed the impact of ss941.23 (The prohibition of concealed carry of firearms by private citizens) against the constitutional RKBA amendment, specifically as it applies to the activity of security. The Court did some judicial construction and dissected the definition of the word security. It acknowledged the existence of personal security but declared that the portion of the definition that applied to the circumstances surrounding Hamdan was the security of property and business. It in it’s conclusion the Court found that ss941.23 is a violation of Hamdan’s constitutional rights given by Art I sec 25 and is a violation of our constitutional rights under similar circumstances.

    In my opinion some questions surface.

    First:
    The Wisconsin supreme court ruled that under the circumstances of Hamdan the prohibition of carrying a concealed firearm was an infringement on constitutional rights. The Court made no prerequisite of the need of firearm training and a permit to carry a concealed weapon before granting a defense of constitutional infringement. How then can the Legislature demand otherwise. To do so would be unconstitutional.

    Second:
    The dissection of the definition of the word security by the Court presents another dilemma. The Court separated the definition into that of personal security and security of property and business. The Court ruled that the carry of concealed weapons is constitutional as applied to security of property and business but not personal security. How can it declare it does not apply to the total definition of security? The constitutional amendment makes no such dissection. The Court decision defies simple logic.

    Third:
    The Court’s use of judicial construction to restrict the definition of security presents a huge problem to the legislature. The Wisconsin supreme court holds that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm without need of permits or mandatory training in order to provide security of property and business . How then can the legislature require permits and mandatory training in order to carry a concealed weapon for the reason of personal and family security? If the two definitions coincide, as intended by the constitutional amendment, who makes the determination as to which circumstance prevails and who decides if the person required training and permit or did not?

    I think the legislature must put aside it’s gun phobia and external influences and must review the simple wording of Article I section 25
    ‘The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose”.
    Words that as an elected body the legislature has the moral and legal duty to uphold without playing games with the wording and intent.
    Thank You Captain Nemo!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  5. #5
    Regular Member bluehighways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    142
    Beautifully written and articulate. Thank you Captain Nemo.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Get familar with the "Permit to Carry" Minnesota law, that's what the Madison residents who infest the LRB will providing as their thinking "outside the box" to the left wing Dems and RINOs to address controlling those nasty open carriers.

    http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/...rmit/FAQs.html
    Last edited by Flipper; 03-17-2011 at 11:46 AM.
    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.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post Specific suggestions for amendments if PPA-style legislation is pursued

    As someonewho has studied many states' licensing laws, there are a few bad parts of the Minnesota permit to carry statute, Minn. Stat. § 624.714, as well as some good parts.

    If your Legislature decides to go with a licensing bill, their likely starting point will (or should) be the original version of the PPA vetoed by Jim Doyle in 2006, SB 403. SB 403 was written and subsequently amended to get the 2/3 vote in both houses that would have been necessary to override Doyle's veto (as you will recall, Doyle managed to flip enough votes in the Assembly to sustain his veto). This year, whatever bill is passed will need only a simple majority. Therefore, this year's bill should be much better simply by virtue of needing 16 fewer votes in the Assembly and 5 fewer votes in the Senate than SB 403 did.


    I will highlight here the biggest changes that should be made to the the original version of SB 403 (aside from not requiring a license at all):
    1. Strike out page 15, lines 11-15, and insert in lieu thereof language requiring the periodic notification of all other states that Wisconsin honors their concealed carry licenses and requiring the entry into written reciprocity agreements with those states that require written agreements (Ohio & West Virginia) in order to recognize Wisconsin licenses. This amendment will maximize the number of states that will honor the Wisconsin license. While Iowa unilaterally honors all other states' licenses, their lack of a mandate to inform all other states and legal authority to enter into written reciprocity agreements where required is hindering their efforts to get their permits recognized in many states.
    2. Strike out and page 23, lines 11 and 12 (conforming amendment for Amendment 1 above).
    3. Strike out proposed subsections (2i), (2j), and (2k) on pages 24-29 (eliminate implied consent to chemical testing).
    4. Strike out line 4, page 34 (eliminates disqualification from licensure for unlawful carrying in restricted areas).
    5. Strike out line 5, page 35 (allow issuance of licenses to nonresidents--for either GFSZA exemption or reciprocity).
    6. On page 45, line 7, strike out "under sub. (3m)(b)" (expands eligibility for attorney's fees award to any person who successfully appeals a denial, suspension, or revocation of a license instead of just those denied instructor certifications). This is one of the most important amendments I can suggest, as it will guard against any abuses of the system by guaranteeing that good (and expensive) attorneys will take these cases, which most people will be unable to afford without the guarantee of an attorney's fee award if they prevail.
    7. Beginning on page 46, line 25, strike out clauses 1. through 7. and 10. of paragraph (16)(a). This amendment would remove all carry bans in unsecured areas of state & local government buildings.
    8. Strike out page 48, line 14, through page 49, line 13, and corresponding criminal penalty provisions on page 49, line 18 (eliminates additional no-carry zones and conditions).
    9. Rewrite section 74, beginning on page 64, line 23, to require a "big ugly sign" that very few people will go through the process of properly designing and posting before concealed carry could be restricted or prohibited on private property. For an example of BUS specifications, see proposed §61-7-15a of 2011 WV HB 3125. I also recommend reading the proposed rewrite of §61-7-14 for pointers on how to water down the private property language to the point that only a true moron could ever be subject to adverse legal actions for unlawfully carrying on private property where the property owner has prohibited carrying.
    10. Unspecified amendment to require that the background check procedures include a NICS check (and an Immigrant Alien Query for alien applicants) and any other procedures necessary to qualify the Wisconsin license for the federal firearm purchase background check exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(A), which Iowa and Michigan receive, and amend Wisconsin state law to exempt licensees from the state firearm purchase background checks and waiting periods.
    There are probably a few other amendments I could suggest. Additionally, there may be some need to rewrite parts of the bill to reflect other changes in the affected statutes that have occurred over the last 5 years. However, if your Legislature goes with a PPA-style law, I believe the best amendments will be those that take out some of the concessions that were made in efforts to secure the additional (and now unnecessary) votes to override past vetoes. At this time, with the exception of the disqualification for carrying in prohibited places, I do not recommend removing any of the other disqualification factors, as they will enable other states (e.g., Minnesota) with more restrictive reciprocity laws to honor Wisconsin licenses.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    PersonalProtection Act

    WVCDL:

    The ORIGINAL Personal Protection Act was SB214 and was vetoed by Doyle in 2004. The veto override by the assembly failed on Feb. 3, 2004.Please review your post and see if it is still as intended or if it is intended to address the second veto of the PPA.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    WVCDL, thanks for the posting. Hope the lobbyists on our side are reading the posts here and working with the authoring legislators to minimize LRB influence.
    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.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    WVCDL:

    The ORIGINAL Personal Protection Act was SB214 and was vetoed by Doyle in 2004. The veto override by the assembly failed on Feb. 3, 2004.Please review your post and see if it is still as intended or if it is intended to address the second veto of the PPA.
    My previous comments & proposed amendments all referenced this version of 2005 SB 403, which I believe was subsequently amended.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

Posting Permissions

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