Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: What SB93's (as amended) permit gets you

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

    What SB93's (as amended) permit gets you

    I have been confused so I spent some time digging through the amendments that passed and came up with the following statement. Please blow holes in it if you can.


    The only thing the WI permit will allow you to do in addition that you can't do without it is oc or cc from 1000' from a school up to the school property line.

    If you choose to not get the permit, you have to unload, encase and lock the firearm inside the 1000' radius.

    Please, don't assume I think that restriction is good, just wanted to clarify and verify my reading.

    The rest of the law I think has been covered before.

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest
    you have to unload, encase and lock the firearm inside


    this bill is anti-OC. yet another restriction, yet another part to dance, yet another sell out.

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    you have to unload, encase and lock the firearm inside


    this bill is anti-OC. yet another restriction, yet another part to dance, yet another sell out.
    Can you please provide a cite to the 'anti-OC' comment? It does not put any additional restrictions on OC. You can oc anywhere you can cc under this bill.

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Can you please provide a cite to the 'anti-OC' comment? It does not put any additional restrictions on OC. You can oc anywhere you can cc under this bill.
    anti-OC by adding another restrictive step to vehicle transport, lock my gun? yeah, sure. Nik can warm up the lawyers for this one, for me. vehicle transport in my book is part of OC. i will NOT have my ability to defend myself hampered any further while under transport.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Can you please provide a cite to the 'anti-OC' comment? It does not put any additional restrictions on OC. You can oc anywhere you can cc under this bill.
    Considering we dont have to "lock" our cases now...

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    anti-OC by adding another restrictive step to vehicle transport, lock my gun? yeah, sure. Nik can warm up the lawyers for this one, for me. vehicle transport in my book is part of OC. i will NOT have my ability to defend myself hampered any further while under transport.
    Please understand I am not supporting the change from unloaded, encased to unloaded, encased and LOCKED, I was just trying to make sure I understand what this proposal gets us and what the permit in the proposal gets us.

    I see it needs one change before I am really happy about this proposal.

    Ideally, it should treat permitted and non-permitted folks alike in the GFSZ.

    As a backup, it should at the very least not impose additional restrictions (locking) to non-permitted folks.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest
    I'd argue this stuff with you further, but i am watching TV just now, and we'll have to do it later:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6vJY...layer_embedded
    Last edited by McX; 05-27-2011 at 09:25 AM. Reason: spellllllllling

  8. #8
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    This is what I sent Neal Kedzie:

    Neal,

    Once again, I appreciate your work and what you have said at all the meetings. It seems you 'get it'.

    I wanted to make sure you understand one of the unintended consequences of bill as it stands now.

    Today, according to 948.605(3), I can transport a weapon within 1000' of a school only if:

    That is not loaded and is:
    a. Encased; or
    b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

    As part of the new SB 93, that is amended to read (only highlighting the important part):

    948.605 (2) (b) 1m. An individual who possesses the firearm in accordance with
    18 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

    18 USC 922 (q)(2)(b):
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (iii) that is -
    (I) not loaded; and
    (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
    (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
    (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
    employer of the individual;
    (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
    (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
    premises is authorized by school authorities.

    The language that is different than the current WI GFSZ is specifically the word LOCKED in 18 USC 922 (q)(2)(b)(iii)(II) in a locked container

    As I said, I just want you to be aware that hunters, for example, who drive down an interstate within 1000' of a school, who didn't get a WI permit because they have no interest in open or concealed carry of a handgun, would violate this law.

    I know you enjoy hunting and I have no idea if you are planning on getting a permit or not but if you didn't you would be affected by this change as well.

    Ideally, I would like permit holders and non-permit holders treated the same, the bill does seem to do that except in this one instance.

    --
    Paul L Fisher
    He has been supportive so far and I assume (yeah, yeah) that he doesn't realize the issue. We shall see what he responds/does. Others might want to send something similar.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    A little bit off the topic of what the permit will get you in WI, is what a permit will get you out of WI. Some reciprocity. For me personally, it means I won't have to stop at the WI-MI border in Land O Lakes, unload and encase my pistol before proceeding into MI on hwy 45... several times a week. IOW, it'll get me MI reciprocity that my current wallet full of non-resident permits dooesn't. I know this is the fault of the MI laws, but not living there, I can't do much about that situation. No politicion is going to listen to the complaints of a non-voter in their state.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    OK, I'm pretty good at reading legalese, but I'll admit I could've gotten tripped up here due to the excessive level of cross referencing and not knowing which amendment(s) got enrolled. What amendments got enrolled?

    As I read SB93 (as published, unamended) this thread is irrelevant because:

    1: SB93 eliminates the need to unload and encase while passing through a "school zone" because:

    Code:
    Section 70. 948.605 (2) (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
    SB93,18,99 948.605 (2) (title) Possession of firearm on the grounds of a school.
    (changing from "in a school zone" to "on the grounds of a school"). It is that section to which the reference to 18 USC 922 applies.

    It excuses carry (on school grounds) that complies with 18 USC 922 (the federal GFSZA)

    2: WI law can't modify 18 USC 922.

    So as I read SB93, carry within 1000 feet of a school would be OK, as would anything else in compliance with the referenced paragraphs of 18 USC 922.

    The change in #1 is not conditional upon having the license.

  11. #11
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    Hey SAFCRKR,

    I may have to stop by you and get a file cabnet lock so that I can turn the armrest in my truck into a "Locked Gun Rack Attached to a Vehicle". I think I may have to design a new safe to allow people quick access to a firearm in a vehicle.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  12. #12
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    OK, I'm pretty good at reading legalese, but I'll admit I could've gotten tripped up here due to the excessive level of cross referencing and not knowing which amendment(s) got enrolled. What amendments got enrolled?

    As I read SB93 (as published, unamended) this thread is irrelevant because:

    1: SB93 eliminates the need to unload and encase while passing through a "school zone" because:

    Code:
    Section 70. 948.605 (2) (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
    SB93,18,99 948.605 (2) (title) Possession of firearm on the grounds of a school.
    (changing from "in a school zone" to "on the grounds of a school"). It is that section to which the reference to 18 USC 922 applies.

    It excuses carry (on school grounds) that complies with 18 USC 922 (the federal GFSZA)

    2: WI law can't modify 18 USC 922.

    So as I read SB93, carry within 1000 feet of a school would be OK, as would anything else in compliance with the referenced paragraphs of 18 USC 922.

    The change in #1 is not conditional upon having the license.
    SSA1 was enrolled, SA3-SSA1 was enrolled and SA3-SSA1 was enrolled.

    In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the title says, it's the stuff underneath. In other words, they could of called the section "Paul Fisher is a really cool guy" and the as part of the text below it contradict it and the wording of the actual law makes the rules.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    OK, fine. The stuff underneath also changes it from school zone to grounds of a school, too.

    Code:
    948.605 (2) (a)  Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place
    that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is  a school zone on the
    grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony.
    I'll take a look at the parts you mention as enrolled but I don't think there's anything in there that changes what I posted here or above.
    Last edited by Teej; 05-27-2011 at 12:18 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Ahh, OK. SSA1 puts the 1000 foot restriction back in (for non-licensees), but drops it from a felony (as currently legislated) to a class b forfeiture (fine of up to $1,000).

    But again, without a license, the federal law still applies, so for what that's worth...

    My bad on the wording - I think the proper term is "engrossed", not "enrolled".
    Last edited by Teej; 05-27-2011 at 12:28 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    Ahh, OK. SSA1 puts the 1000 foot restriction back in (for non-licensees), but drops it from a felony (as currently legislated) to a class b forfeiture (fine of up to $1,000).

    But again, without a license, the federal law still applies, so for what that's worth...
    I agree, my intent with this thread is to dissect this law. We all know, I believe that the Federal GFSZ law sucks.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I agree, my intent with this thread is to dissect this law.
    Agreed. Gotta know what's what!

  17. #17
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CalicoJack10 View Post
    Hey SAFCRKR,

    I may have to stop by you and get a file cabnet lock so that I can turn the armrest in my truck into a "Locked Gun Rack Attached to a Vehicle". I think I may have to design a new safe to allow people quick access to a firearm in a vehicle.
    you thinking like me, one of those fingy print openy things?

  18. #18
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    Ahh, OK. SSA1 puts the 1000 foot restriction back in (for non-licensees), but drops it from a felony (as currently legislated) to a class b forfeiture (fine of up to $1,000).

    But again, without a license, the federal law still applies, so for what that's worth...

    My bad on the wording - I think the proper term is "engrossed", not "enrolled".
    Federal law allows you to carry in a school zone, on school grounds and within 1000 feet IF IF IF liscensed to do so in that state. A permit alllows you to do this but the bill peals that back to exclude school grounds and in the school building.

    So you will NOT be in violation of Fedral GFSZ to carry within 100 feet IF you have a permit from the state.

    From page 36 of SSA1-SB93:

    948.605 (2) (b) (intro.) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a
    firearm by any of the following:
    948.605 (2) (b) 1m. An individual who possesses the firearm in accordance with
    18 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
    1r. Except if the individual is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as
    defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

    EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, I get what you mean. What good is a Class B Forfiture on the state level if its still a felony on the federal level to go armed without a permit.

    But you do understand that the Federal Prosecutor has the burden of that you afffected interstate or foreign commerce.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 05-27-2011 at 01:52 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Please understand I am not supporting the change from unloaded, encased to unloaded, encased and LOCKED, I was just trying to make sure I understand what this proposal gets us and what the permit in the proposal gets us.

    I see it needs one change before I am really happy about this proposal.

    Ideally, it should treat permitted and non-permitted folks alike in the GFSZ.

    As a backup, it should at the very least not impose additional restrictions (locking) to non-permitted folks.
    Nick Clark has said that he spoke with Galloways office and I believe and ammendment will be introduced on the Senate floor to reslove the "locked" issue.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by CalicoJack10 View Post
    Hey SAFCRKR,

    I may have to stop by you and get a file cabnet lock so that I can turn the armrest in my truck into a "Locked Gun Rack Attached to a Vehicle". I think I may have to design a new safe to allow people quick access to a firearm in a vehicle.
    I've already got a handgun safe in my pick-up truck. It's bolted to the center hump of the floor in the rear seat area. It's made by American Security Products (AMSEC) a leading maker of gun safes. It's called "The Pistol Packer" and I believe they quit making it with the Simplex mechanical push-button combo lock that mine has and went to an electronic version. I've had it in my truck for 9 years. When I drove that truck every day, that's where my Glock 19 "lived", along with 3 mags, checkbook, spare keys, etc. Now I drive a cargo van, with a small safe bolted down in the rear cargo area, which is my G19's new home.

    Walmart sells a small lock box that'll hold 2 full sized handguns, with an electronic push button lock, for about $30 (also has a keyed bypass in case batteries die). I've got one of those at home under the bed (I got grandkids living here, so I keep guns locked but easily accessible). It holds my wife's Glock 17 and my Ruger Blackhawk .45LC. Perfect for under a car seat in GFSZ if the proposed law stays as is.

    BTW, you probably need a "cam lock", not a file cabinet lock. Cam locks are cheap (about $7) and come in 4 differant lengths.
    Last edited by safcrkr; 05-27-2011 at 01:59 PM. Reason: spelling

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Nick Clark has said that he spoke with Galloways office and I believe and ammendment will be introduced on the Senate floor to reslove the "locked" issue.
    This is correct. I talked with a senior staffer who told me it was DEFINITELY NOT their intent that you have to lock your case.

    I pointed out that nearly EVERY hunter in the state will be in violation of the law on their way from their home to their hunting grounds because most cases are just zipper-shut.

    This current bill (if it doesn't get amended more) (big if) EXPANDS the ability to OC.

    You NO LONGER have to do your 'routine' to get in and out of your car. EVEN if you don't get a permit, You can now sit IN your car and unholster/case your firearm before you go driving (when you will likely cross a school zone)

    If you know you route doesn't cross a school zone, you will, under the new law be able to OC while you drive WITH NO PERMIT so long as you don't cross school zones.

    And given that most of our starting/ending points are on private property, we can now be unload/case IN the car (no more standing in the pouring rain doing the unload/case ritual)

    IN ADDITION, you can now CONCEAL carry WITHOUT a permit EVERYWHERE you can currently open carry (and more because you can oc/conceal in your car)

    Now, EVEN if you don't get a permit, you can conceal carry in stores you go etc. You can throw your coat over your sidearm from the car to the store, pull your coat off in the store and throw it in your shopping cart and be OC'ing. BIG step forward.

    YES, upon further review, GFSZ's still suck. But we gave up NOTHING and gained a WHOLE bunch (if it passes like it is now)

    Of course I hope they can pull the GFSZ permit restriction, but I don't think they will. I think its STILL a long-shot to pass even with the GFSZ permit requirement, but I think it WILL pass like that... WHY? Because the NRA called the current bill with that amendment "the perfect bill" (of course we disagree) but...

    I think the constitutional carry movement in Wisconsin REALLY moved the NRA a long way on this one. I didn't really take it at face value when it was said to me, but a VERY 'in the know' lobbyist (nor the NRA lobbyist) told me a couple months ago "whatever the NRA wants, the NRA will get". I argued with him. I told him about the grass roots movement here with other groups (WCI being one of them) (tea party coalition, etc) He smiled and repeated himself to me "Nik, whatever the NRA wants this bill to be, it will be"

    So that is why I think we WILL get this current bill passed in its current form. Cause the NRA calls it "perfect"

    I think that for as much as we have REALLY moved Senators and Assembly people, we ALSO moved the NRA. Moving the NRA closer to 'pure' constitutional carry was AS important as everything else we did.

    Of course you can play the "who moved who" game. Did we move the senators and assemblymen and the NRA followed, or did we move the NRA and the senators and assemblymen followed.

    Who knows, but I do know that constitutional carry was a pipe-dream a year ago, and now, its almost law. Its not "pure" but I believe we will be "5th best" in the nation.

    No permit concealed carry on ALL private property in the state. THAT is a huge step forward. No permit concealed carry on all PUBLIC property that isn't in a school zone (or gov building) Thats better than all but 4 states.

    I will be glad to see this "in the bank" in the form of a signed law so we can solidify the achievement, BEGIN to exercise the right (rights exercised are rights NOT lost) and continue to pound on the GFSZ issue.

    I ALSO think, despite NOT liking it, the GFSZ issue can REALLY appease big-city LEO bosses as a selling point. Mr. Flynn can pretty much GUARANTEE that NO ONE on the north side of Milwaukee will be able to carry without a permit. (again, I don't like it, but he can't bitch about "no permits" in Milwaukee, because save private property, NO ONE can go anywhere on Milwaukee's near-north/near-south side without being in a school zone.)

    His complaints about SB 93 are baseless. His "troops" as he likes to call them, when they encounter someone on the streets of Milwaukee with a gun, that person will HAVE to have a permit (because they are 99% likely in a school zone)

    Mayor Barrett is full of it too. He went to a park on the north side a few days ago and said "I don't think we need people in this park with guns who didn't have to get a permit and background check" and HE is beating a fake drum. The park he was in was IN A SCHOOL ZONE and anyone in that park WOULD have only been legal if they got the 'optional' permit.

    The criticism from LE bosses and anti-gun politicians is completely voided because of that GFSZ permit requirement. (again, I don't like it, but it is) In urban areas, the police will continue to have EVERY tool at their disposal to deal with people who have guns 'on the street' or 'in their car' etc.
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  22. #22
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman View Post
    No permit concealed carry on ALL private property in the state. THAT is a huge step forward. No permit concealed carry on all PUBLIC property that isn't in a school zone (or gov building) Thats better than all but 4 states.
    Nik,

    just a clarification. It should read "No permit carry on ALL private property in the state. THAT is a huge step forward. No permit carry on all PUBLIC property that isn't in a school zone (or some gov buildings) Thats better than all but 4 states."

    You can oc or cc in all the same places.

  23. #23
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    This bill is way better than what we started with in Arizona.

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Nik,

    just a clarification. It should read "No permit carry on ALL private property in the state. THAT is a huge step forward. No permit carry on all PUBLIC property that isn't in a school zone (or some gov buildings) Thats better than all but 4 states."

    You can oc or cc in all the same places.
    Not only is this bill way better than what we started with in Arizona, it sets up the philisophical issue correctly. If you can open and conceal carry nearly everywhere in the state except the insanely stupid 1000 foot school zone, why can't you carry in the school zone?

    It makes no sense, and if we did not have the stupid Federal law, it would probably go as well. Keep pushing. You have shown that you have the beginnings of the organization that will become a real powerhouse in Wisconsin. The lessons that you have been learning are priceless.

    My hat is off to you.

    Still, do not slack off. Many a bill has been lost in the last few days. Now is when the heat is needed more than ever. I suspect this is the best that can be obtained in Wisconsin, *this* session.
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 05-27-2011 at 03:19 PM. Reason: spelling and grammer

  24. #24
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlutz
    Considering we dont have to "lock" our cases now...
    We could get charged/convicted under federal law if we're caught with it not locked.
    One more reason I put a lock on my case.

    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET
    Federal law allows you to carry in a school zone, on school grounds and within 1000 feet IF IF IF licensed to do so in that state.
    A permit allows you to do this but the WI bill peels that back to exclude school grounds and in the school building.
    So WI law would be more strict than federal law.
    I just read today a statement by the TX US Attorney saying that states can't make laws that go against federal law or the Constitution.
    (TX tried to stop the TSA gropefest & porn scanners by making it a crime to improperly touch someone & apply the law to TSA agents.)
    ((Leaving aside the state's rights issue, the feds also can't make laws that go against the Constitution.))

    But you do understand that the Federal Prosecutor has the burden of that you afffected interstate or foreign commerce.
    Pretty much every gun has traveled across state lines, which is the excuse the feds make for trying to regulate them.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    ((Leaving aside the state's rights issue, the feds also can't make laws that go against the Constitution.))
    Except for the complete 4th Amendment violations for any public transportation (mostly air travel).
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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