What SB93's (as amended) permit gets you

BROKENSPROKET said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wisconsin Carry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mlutz said:

Considering we dont have to "lock" our cases now...

Click to expand...

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.

BROKENSPROKET said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Pretty much every gun has traveled across state lines, which is the excuse the feds make for trying to regulate them.

MKEgal said:

((Leaving aside the state's rights issue, the feds also can't make laws that go against the Constitution.))

Click to expand...

Except for the complete 4th Amendment violations for any public transportation (mostly air travel).

ccwinstructor said:

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.

Click to expand...

It would be political suicide for republicans to let this bill get killed. There is alot of contraversy in this state right now sides each side prettey much polarized. IF the bill fails, there will be a huge backlash from the republican base and the dems will take back the majorities.

BROKENSPROKET said:

It would be political suicide for republicans to let this bill get killed. There is alot of contraversy in this state right now sides each side prettey much polarized. IF the bill fails, there will be a huge backlash from the republican base and the dems will take back the majorities.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

BIG thank you Nick for the clarifications, and your calls to officials on our behalfs.

It would be political suicide for republicans to let this bill get killed.

Click to expand...

The bill will pass. The question is what amendments will be added to the bill before it does.

Has Anyone Else Noticed -

There is no 18 USC 922(q)(2)(b)(i), (iii), etc., it is 18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(i), (iii), etc.? This is not a matter of capitalization - (a) never equals (A)
(a) - subsection (lc Latin letter)
(1) - paragraph (arabic numeral)
(A) - subparagraph (uc Latin letter)
(i) - clause (lc Roman numeral)
(I) - subclause (uc Roman numeral)

Just the kind of thing a Sumijudge could use to toss out the law (or that section).

What Is The Purpose of

retaining the 18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(i) exception (private property not on school grounds) in SB93 when the main language already exempts everything not on school grounds? The explicit LEO exception in 948.605 was deleted because LEO's are covered by the 18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(vi) exception. It seems redundant. And superfluous. And unnecessary. And overkill.

GFSZ Summary

Comparing the difference in State (assuming SB93) and Federal GFSZ. Significant differences are in bold. It appears that "constitutional carry" afoot will be of little value in any urban area since the non-school zone corridors are few and far between. In a vehicle you can carry loaded in a locked rack (keep the key handy).


STATE (SB93)

Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony. Except:

A person who possesses a firearm on private property not part of school grounds.
A person who possesses a firearm that is not loaded and in a locked container.
A person who possesses a firearm that is in a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle.
A person who possesses a firearm for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone.
A person who possesses a firearm in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the person or an employer of the person.
A person who possesses a firearm as a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
A person who possesses a firearm that is unloaded 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.

FEDERAL

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private elementary or secondary school. Except:

A person who possesses a firearm on private property not part of school grounds;
A person who possesses a firearm that is not loaded and in a locked container.
A person who possesses a firearm that is in a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle.
A person who possesses a firearm for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone.
A person who possesses a firearm in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the person or an employer of the person.
A person who possesses a firearm as a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
A person who possesses a firearm that is unloaded 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.
A person who possesses a firearm and is licensed to do so by the State in which the school is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.

This last part is of no use in WI with just SB93.

apjonas said:

A person who possesses a firearm and is licensed to do so by the State in which the school is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.

This last part is of no use in WI with just SB93.

Click to expand...

Are you looking at SB93 or the current bill SSA1-SB93.

Before is was ammended, you are correct. Since it has been ammended, you are incorrect.

If you are focused on the word QUALIFED, under SSA1-SB93, passing a background check is the qualification.

apjonas said:

A person who possesses a firearm and is licensed to do so by the State in which the school is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.

This last part is of no use in WI with just SB93.

Click to expand...

And that is one of the reasons why SB93 was amended - to provide an avenue to satisfy the federal GFSZ. The other reason was to provide some form of reciprocity - at least with states requiring a permit from a person's home state such as Michigan.

btw, According to what you posted ap, the Wisconsin permit would not be any good in a Michigan GFSZ.

It Must Have the Original SB93

Apparently, the main document does not get updated to reflect last week's action. For those who don't get the optional license, the situation is as largely unchanged which is what I thought the thread was about .

There is still the (b) vs (B) problem. I would hope somebody with entree to the legislators would mention this. I can almost guarantee that it will come back to bite the posterior down the line.

I agree that a WI permit does not grant exemption from any MI GFSZ - at least the federal side, I don't know if MI has state GFSZ and what the rules are.

MI has recognition of home state permits, so reciprocity would not be required. Although if WI has a recognize all policy then you have de facto reciprocity.

phred said:

btw, According to what you posted ap, the Wisconsin permit would not be any good in a Michigan GFSZ.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the problem. You would need a permit from all 50 states to be able to go into the school zone of all of them.

I do not plan on doing "The Handgun Shuffle" while driving just to try and obey these goofy and useless GFSZ laws, If I have a cop that wants to stop me for a traffic infraction, I'll just continue past the school zone, or turn into a private parking lot before stopping my vehicle. Problem solved since it does not apply to private property.

How is he going to prove that my firearm was not unloaded and in a locked case at the time I was crossing a school zone?
And tantamount to that, how would he even know I was armed unless I give that information voluntarily?

I have it a little easier than most of you because there is only one school zone between my place of work and home, and to show how stupid this law really is, the school is not even viewable from the street I travel on, and there are zero signs that would lead someone to believe that a school is even there.

These clowns took a near perfect bill, and turned it into a clusterfluck with so many stipulations that we don't even know what it says anymore. And for what?

An Alternative

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Yes, that is the problem. You would need a permit from all 50 states to be able to go into the school zone of all of them.

Click to expand...

Has anybody tried to get Congress to change the GFSZ exception to include all licenses issued or recognized by a state? Essentially this would extend license recognition/reciprocity to the GFSZ issue.

Folks who are resistant to permits should realize that there is always going to be some benefit to permittees that the unwashed, er, unlicensed do not have. The simplest definition of a license is an authorization to do something that is otherwise prohibited. In WI, carrying openly is a negatively restricted act - it has no limitations except those acts that are expressly prohibited - school zones, government buildings... Concealed carry (as of the moment) is a positively restricted act - it is prohibited except except for certain acts that are expressly permitted - in your home, in your business....

apjonas said:

Has anybody tried to get Congress to change the GFSZ exception to include all licenses issued or recognized by a state? Essentially this would extend license recognition/reciprocity to the GFSZ issue.

Folks who are resistant to permits should realize that there is always going to be some benefit to permittees that the unwashed, er, unlicensed do not have. The simplest definition of a license is an authorization to do something that is otherwise prohibited. In WI, carrying openly is a negatively restricted act - it has no limitations except those acts that are expressly prohibited - school zones, government buildings... Concealed carry (as of the moment) is a positively restricted act - it is prohibited except except for certain acts that are expressly permitted - in your home, in your business....

Click to expand...

There was a bill intorduced in US Congress or Senate to make your resident permit good in all states that issue permtis, but I have no idea where that bill is at. I am sure someone else will know.

EDITED: I found it http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6573

BROKENSPROKET said:

There was a bill intorduced in US Congress or Senate to make your resident permit good in all states that issue permtis, but I have no idea where that bill is at. I am sure someone else will know.

EDITED: I found it http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6573

Click to expand...

Forced reciprocity is still reciprocity. It doesn't change the wording of GFSZ Act.