Copy Cat Cauton

Captain Nemo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Captain Nemo said:

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.

Click to expand...