Senate panel to vote on revamped conceal-carry bill

The amended bill still has flaws, but it's better than the permit-only bill.

1) + carry in state parks (or fish hatcheries) [thanks for the catch, Jason!]
2) + specifically exempts lawful shooting from prosecution under "no discharge" laws
3) + specifically exempts carry from DC charges
4) - links a carry license to a driver's license; in fact, uses the SAME #
5) + the DOJ can't make up limitations; has to follow exactly what's in the law & issue a license
6) + specifically states that the permit law has no effect on OC, & the right to carry concealed with or without a license is the same
6a) + repeals 941.23
7) - only to 21yo+ adults; 18yo - 20 364/365yo are left out
8) + must issue or deny in 21 days
9) + names of licensees are NOT public
10) + good for 5 years, DOJ must remind 3mo ahead of expiration
11) + penalties for LEO who behave badly
12) - off-limits: courthouse, jail, LEO lair (no provision for metal detectors & free lockers)
13) + immunity for businesses that allow carry
14) - allows colleges to ban carry: "any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college"
15) ? one section appears to say that gov't owned buildings can't ban carriers, then the next section says they can. (Again, no mention of metal detectors & free lockers.)
16) - DOES NOT DO AWAY w/ THE "GF"SZ!!! It makes "in or on the grounds of a school" a felony, and "within 1000' " a forfeiture... unless you're licensed.

MKEgal said:

1) - still no carry in state parks (or fish hatcheries)

Click to expand...

If I read this part correctly:

29.089 (2) Except as provided in sub. (3) and except if the firearm is a handgun as defined in s. 175.35 (1) (b), no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.

Click to expand...

I bolded the appropriate passage. Looks to me like a handgun is fine, don't sling your AR :lol:. I could be wrong as I don't read leagalise to well.

MKEgal said:

16) - DOES NOT DO AWAY w/ THE "GF"SZ!!! It makes "in or on the grounds of a school" a felony, and "within 1000' " a forfeiture... unless you're licensed.

Click to expand...

Wasn't this fixed in the original bill? Maybe a poison pill for us city folks to get the not so optional; optional permit? A concession made to get more sponsors? I could foresee a deal being made like that because they know a majority of city dwellers will need the permit to go about the city. If they left the old language with the school grounds only a lot of us would chance the federal law. Even more reason we need WCI to succeed on the school zone challenge.

I live near a school. If this bill passes with does it mean that I have to have a permit to conceal carry to avoid a federal GFSZ violation or can I carry to the school's property line without a permit?

Re: licensing

From what I'm seeing, it does not have anything in common with the driver license, but allows the issuing department to contract them to the DMV. Unless there is a line I missed.

You forgot: -too easy signage.

cheezhed said:

I live near a school. If this bill passes with does it mean that I have to have a permit to conceal carry to avoid a federal GFSZ violation or can I carry to the school's property line without a permit?

Click to expand...

Yes, you need a permit, unless you are on private property with permission, Kinda like it is now.

Sorry - But You're Wrong Again

Mlutz said:

I was wrong, its started on the 11th. And the link,
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html

Click to expand...

While the laws generally took effect on May 11th, the provision about the home state license does not start until January 1, 2012. The newsletter has the details. Now it only applies to states that have a reciprocity agreement with Utah or recognize a Utah CFP. Wisconsin will not recognize a Utah CFP for a Wisconsin resident so it could be argued that a WI CCW will not be a requirement for WI residents. That would make more sense - why would Utah reward permittees of a state that does not recogize the Utah CFP at all (e.g. New Jersey) but conversely, punish residents of states that do recognize it (at least for non-residents of those states).

MKEgal said:

The amended bill still has flaws, but it's better than the permit-only bill.

1) - still no carry in state parks (or fish hatcheries)
2) + specifically exempts lawful shooting from prosecution under "no discharge" laws
3) + specifically exempts carry from DC charges
4) - links a carry license to a driver's license; in fact, uses the SAME #
5) + the DOJ can't make up limitations; has to follow exactly what's in the law & issue a license
6) + specifically states that the permit law has no effect on OC, & the right to carry concealed with or without a license is the same
6a) + repeals 941.23
7) - only to 21yo+ adults; 18yo - 20 364/365yo are left out
8) + must issue or deny in 21 days
9) + names of licensees are NOT public
10) + good for 5 years, DOJ must remind 3mo ahead of expiration
11) + penalties for LEO who behave badly
12) - off-limits: courthouse, jail, LEO lair (no provision for metal detectors & free lockers)
13) + immunity for businesses that allow carry
14) - allows colleges to ban carry: "any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college"
15) ? one section appears to say that gov't owned buildings can't ban carriers, then the next section says they can. (Again, no mention of metal detectors & free lockers.)
16) - DOES NOT DO AWAY w/ THE "GF"SZ!!! It makes "in or on the grounds of a school" a felony, and "within 1000' " a forfeiture... unless you're licensed.

Click to expand...

Great job MKEgal. I believe Jason is correct though that handguns are allowed in state parks and fish hatcheries. That class B forfeiture (fine up to $1,000) for knowingly being with 1,000 feet of a school ground is bad news, not to mention that without a carry license, we are still subject to the federal felony charge of knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school zone. The powers to be want us to be licensed.

"If a non-resident applicant is from a state that either has a formal reciprocity agreement with Utah or recognizes the Utah concealed firearm permit, the applicant must hold and provide proof of a current concealed firearm or concealed weapon permit issued by the applicant’s state of residency upon application for the Utah concealed firearm permit."
From:http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/BCINewsletterApril2011.pdf

I did see this in sb93

"Out-of-state licensee" means an individual who is 21 years of age or over,
who is not a Wisconsin resident, and who has been issued an out-of-state license"

So...
"or recognizes the Utah concealed firearm permit"

It looks like Wisconsin will honor the Utah permit, and as a resident of Wisconsin, you would need to have the Wisconsin permit before you could apply for the Utah or renew. After Jan 01, 2012 of course.

So where does it say that Wisconsin won't honor a Utah permit? I've been wrong before, and I very well could be reading it wrong.

Just finished sending out an email to every Representative and Senator in the state. Thanking them for their support of SB 93 or Urging them to support SB 93. We need to inundate them with our voices... I included the projected cost figures of licensing...



Make your wishes, known. Don't just sit back and wait for the other guy...

tap, tap, tap....................testing.............testing............is this thing on?..............ok...............please stand by for the following announcement; Permits? we dont need no steeeeeeenkin permits.................that is all............thank you.

[video=youtube;3_iQZiVD_zA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iQZiVD_zA[/video]

Hubert pointed something out that I missed. We need it changed.

Looking at the original bill, Page-18 changes the wording of 948.605 to "on the grounds of a school." This amendment, Page-35 now reads "Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture." Page-36 them mentions "licensee" as an exception.

Click to expand...

I will email Kedzie. Phred, if you could ask Galloway for clarification/fixing.

My understanding of the bill (just from reading it, not from any 'official' source) is that you would still need a permit to carry within 1000 feet of a school.

IF that understanding is correct, this is not a legitimate constitutional carry bill.

Those school zones are EVERYWHERE. Driving in a car, you are on public roads. If you are carrying and DRIVE across a school zone ( a virtual guarantee) you are subject to a class b forfeiture. (again, if I read the bill correct) That is a poison pill.

Its a virtual defacto need to get a permit.

TRUE you would still need a permit to be "safe" under the Federal GFSZ law, but we all know they aren't prosecuting that law in other constitutional carry states.

Wisconsin needs to change its STATE GFSZ law to 'school grounds' so that IF AND WHEN that federal law is challenged/dealt with, we don't have a state law to deal with as well.

It doesn't appear to me they merged an optional permit bill into a constitutional carry bill, it appears they merged an optional constitutional carry right into a shall-issue permit bill (but kept the senate bill 93 name to perhaps pull a snow-job over on those seeking constitutional carry)

With the state GFSZ's in place for non-permit holders, the constitutional carry aspect is a farce.

Vicki McKenna will be talking about this on her show today.

http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/May11/0524/0524gallowaylegcouncil.pdf

SENATE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT 1
The substitute amendment makes the following changes to Senate Bill 93:

Optional License Senate Substitute Amendment 1 creates a process to obtain an optional license to carry a concealed weapon.

The substitute amendment specifies that the optional license does not convey any additional rights under Wisconsin state law to carry a firearm that is concealed than the rights an individual who does not have a license has to carry a firearm that is concealed except that a person who obtains a license may possess a firearm in the part of a school zone that is not in or on the grounds of a
school.

Click to expand...

Under the proposed amendments, its still a felony for ANYONE to carry ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, but permit holders may carry IN SCHOOL ZONES. (they now differentiate between "School grounds" and "school zones" for permit holders.

If you do not get the 'optional' permit, you may not carry in school zones. Its the SAME as open carry is now.

Without the 'optional' permit you will need to unload and encase when you drive because you are virtually certain to cross school zones driving in populated areas. You will also need to be careful when you are not on private property just like you do now when you open carry that you don't cross a school zone.

IMO not a feasible constitutional carry bill.

Two questions...

Does this version eliminate the discussion on possible mandated training which is part of the "other" bill...???

And.. as this bill repeals the vehicle carry unload, case, uncase, load hassle, can someone explain (or point outwhere is talks about) needeing the optional permit to carry loaded and holstered while transporting in a motor vehicle...???

I understand the permit requierment for the school zone thing, but if I wanted to carry in the car locally (where I know I would not be in a school zone) would I still need the permit..???

Thanks...

Outdoorsman1

I understand the permit requierment for the school zone thing, but if I wanted to carry in the car locally (where I know I would not be in a school zone) would I still need the permit..???

Click to expand...

No. As long as your drive NEVER passed through a school zone, you would be legal. Good luck with that, have you seen the school zone maps?

Outdoorsman1 said:

Two questions...

Does this version eliminate the discussion on possible mandated training which is part of the "other" bill...???

And.. as this bill repeals the vehicle carry unload, case, uncase, load hassle, can someone explain (or point outwhere is talks about) needeing the optional permit to carry loaded and holstered while transporting in a motor vehicle...???

I understand the permit requierment for the school zone thing, but if I wanted to carry in the car locally (where I know I would not be in a school zone) would I still need the permit..???

Thanks...

Outdoorsman1

Click to expand...

The new SB93 with it's proposed amendment fixes 4 out of 5 places we can carry. It doesn't fix the GFSZ unless you get the optional permit. Also, there are some restrictions on some government buildings.

Since the federal law will still be in place, even if they change it. It is still illegal in a school zone without permit. So this will only rise for the person that broke the law and is prosecuted. Without the change the person that broke the law might face state and federal charges, with the change they would only face federal. Right?

apierce918 said:

Since the federal law will still be in place, even if they change it. It is still illegal in a school zone without permit. So this will only rise for the person that broke the law and is prosecuted. Without the change the person that broke the law might face state and federal charges, with the change they would only face federal. Right?

Click to expand...

The only potential charges would be federal.

But there aren't federal agents out patrolling school zones.

In Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska, the local police can't file federal charges against you. I presume they 'could' refer you to the feds for charges, but that hasn't happened.

Of course I don't want to be the first one they start issuing charges against, but that said, if the federal law makes it illegal, why have a duplicate state law. If the fed law gets challenged/overturned, then once again, Wisconsin would be stuck behind the times.