Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Selective GFSZ enforcement...

  1. #1
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626

    Selective GFSZ enforcement...

    I was at the Monona Memorial day parade...great parade, was bout about 1.75hrs long... It started AT the Monona-Grove High school...so, knowing i would be setting up chairs 'right there' for obvious reasons i wasnt OCing...but i did notice that several of the parade entrants were in full military uniform (WWII, Korea, Viet Nam era) lots were carrying M1's, a few M16 (probably ARs)and SEVERAL were carrying what looked to be holstered 1911s... Should the GFSZ rule have applied to them? Im assuming so...could selective enforcement be used as a legal defense?

  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    I was at the Monona Memorial day parade...great parade, was bout about 1.75hrs long... It started AT the Monona-Grove High school...so, knowing i would be setting up chairs 'right there' for obvious reasons i wasnt OCing...but i did notice that several of the parade entrants were in full military uniform (WWII, Korea, Viet Nam era) lots were carrying M1's, a few M16 (probably ARs)and SEVERAL were carrying what looked to be holstered 1911s... Should the GFSZ rule have applied to them? Im assuming so...could selective enforcement be used as a legal defense?
    I believe there is an exemption for permission granted by 948.605(2)(b)(4) says : "By an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;"

    Maybe we could do an open records request?

    I thought the same thing in Elkhorn. The M1's carried by the vets were definitely encased.

  3. #3
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    these M1s were definately NOT encased...and the sidearms were holstered...Im gonna guess that the statute you menioned has to do with the school OKing a shooting club...this parade just happened to start at the high school...

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest
    i find it interesting; the powers that be will hide behind a claimed bill of Constitutional Carry, and then sell us a permit to violate a federal statute.....................who's zoomin who?

  5. #5
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    i find it interesting; the powers that be will hide behind a claimed bill of Constitutional Carry, and then sell us a permit to violate a federal statute.....................who's zoomin who?
    Interesting is a nice way of putting it...

  6. #6
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronS View Post
    Interesting is a nice way of putting it...
    agreed, i didnt want to get kicked off of here for cussin, being i'm a gentleman and all (burp).

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Information on the Federal GFSZ that may be of interest.

    The following is some information concerning the federal GFSZ. It would appear that the state version 948.605 is just excess baggage we have to deal with. Note a couple of points. 1. The LEOSA does not protect off-duty or retired cops from the reach of the GFSZ law. 2. A permit to carry issued by another state only gives one the authority to carry a loaded and uncased firearm in the state for which it was issued. A Utah permit only gives one the right to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Utah as far as the ATF is concerned. 3. As far as the federal law is concerned the term "private property" is conditional. A private residence located in a public building does not appear to be exempted. 4. The penalty for conviction of violating the federal GFSZ is very severe. It specifically states that a convicted person is banned from owning a firearm for life.

    What does this all mean? It means that if a person carries a firearm which in any point of it's travel has moved by interstate commerce it doesn't much matter what the state laws are concerning a GFSZ. The federal law prevails as evidenced by the court cases listed in the below information. That almost mandates that any carry law passed by our legislature must have a provision in it for a permit. People who intend to carry in other states with reciprocity and those that wish to carry concealed or visible in a Wisconsin "School zone" must have a state issued permit for exemption from the federal GFSZ act. Not having that provision means that a law endorsing constitutional carry of a firearm in most of the larger cities is of no value to amny of us because of overlapping 1000 foot school zones. There are a number of states that are challenging the interstate commerce issue of the federal law however I am not aware that any have been successful. Please correct me if you think I have any of this analysis wrong.

    Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    Page 1 of BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Protect A Permit Holder From GFSZA 1995The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was enacted as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990[1] and signed by President George H.W. Bush on November 29, 1990.

    It was subsequently declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by the United States Supreme Court, and was therefore voided. This case, United States v. Lopez (1995), was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

    Following the Lopez decision, Congress made minor changes requiring that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce," and re-enacted the law with President William J. Clinton's signature as the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 Title 18 U.S.C Section 922(q). As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. Although The 1995 GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.

    Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:


    Page 2 of BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Protect A Permit Holder From GFSZA 1995United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)

    United States v Tait (Eleventh Circuit 2000)

    United States v Haywood (Third Circuit 2002)

    United States v Smith (Sixth Circuit 2005)

    United States v Dorsey (Ninth Circuit 2005)

    United States v Nieves-Castaño (First Circuit 2007)

    United States v Weekes (Third Circuit 2007)

    United States v Benally (Tenth Circuit 2007)

    United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (First Circuit 2008)




    Contents [hide]
    1 Text of the law
    1.1 Definitions
    1.2 Penalty
    1.3 Effect:
    1.4 Proposed Amendment:
    1.5 More Information:
    2 References

    [edit] Text of the lawTitle 18 U.S.C §922(q) The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 States:

    (A) 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 a school zone.


    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone 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;

    (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.


    (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—

    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

    (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

    (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or

    (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

    (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.




    [edit] DefinitionsTitle 18 U.S.C. §921(25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.




    [edit] PenaltyTitle 18 U.S.C Section 924(a) establishes the penalty for violating GFSZA:

    Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.
    Note: A conviction under the 1995 GFSZA will cause an individual to become a "prohibited person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This will bar them from legally owning firearms for the rest of their life.




    [edit] Effect: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2011)

    The GFSZA of 1995 deters all forms of unlicensed carry nationwide:

    Nearly every State in the nation allows some form of unlicensed carry by law-abiding citizens. This may be open-carry, vehicle-carry, or concealed carry without the need for a permit. The Federal GFSZA deters unlicensed carry by making it a federal crime for an individual carrying a gun to travel on public sidewalks, streets, or highways that pass within one-thousand (1000) feet of the property line of a K-12 school. The large number of K-12 schools in developed areas makes it difficult for an individual to travel any distance without entering a Gun Free School Zone.


    Concealed-carry reciprocity agreements between States do not qualify as a GFSZA exception:

    Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit. Forty-eight (48) States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens. Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits, just as they recognize an out-of-state driver's license. Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State in which the school zone is in, it is effectively impossible for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA. An ATF Letter Explains the Situation.




    The GFSZA of 1995 deters carry under the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA)

    The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA) which was intended to give qualified law enforcement officers the protection of carrying nation-wide does not provide any exceptions to Federal Law. Although the GFSZA of 1995 does provide an exception for a law-enforcement officer performing their official duties, it does not provide any protection for an off-duty officer. An off-duty officer is unable to legally travel within one-thousand (1000) feet of any K-12 school while armed. [2]


    The GFSZA of 1995 makes it illegal to have a gun at home in some circumstances

    Although the Federal GFSZA has an exception for firearms possessed in privately owned homes, it is possible for someone to be convicted under GFSZA for having a firearm in their home in certain circumstances. For example, if a person's home is also part of property owned by a public entity. This occurred in United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007)


    The GFSZA of 1995 Prohibits Discharge by Most People

    Although the GFSZA95 allows a citizen to discharge a firearm on private property, it prohibits discharge in the Gun Free Zones under any circumstance, unless the person discharging the firearm is a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity, is contracted by the school (security guard), or is participating in a program approved by the school. Even though a carry permit exempts an individual from the GFSZA95 possession restrictions in the State that physically issued it, their permit never exempts them from the discharge restrictions. [3]

    [edit] Proposed Amendment:United States Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has drafted legislation that would repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995. This legislation has not been introduced.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Here is the link to the ATF letter explaining the validity of an out of state permit issued by another state, i.e. Utah and Florida, as pertining to GFSZ.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...za1995_ccw.pdf

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation What About "Fascimile" Firearms...On School Grounds?!?

    I forgot to post this last week but I witnessed 1903 Springfield rifles being used by the JROTC unit at a high school event last week. Now I know these rifles were de-milled to be used by the rifle team which immediately makes them "Fascimile" firearms under Wisconsin law. How do I know? Because I cannot buy ANY of these rifles from any online source as stated on their websites because Wisconsin considers demilled firearms "Fascimile" firearms. And yes, I know for certain that none of the rifles at this school are capable of firing a round.

    Oh, but they did have individual hard cases for each rifle and did transport them in accordance with 167.31.

    Just a thought...

  9. #9
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    I guess id like to know HOW an average citizen who happens to be a vet, can get away with GFSZ obvious violations?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    So that means any police officer in Stoughton going to or from work with a firearm that isn't encased is basically violating federal law, since the middle school is only 3 blocks away.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    I think HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act would apply, but I don't know how that would all interact. It would be fascinating though to see an off-duty officer get charged with it and "let the courts figure it out" like they tell us.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721
    Many urban cops are asked to carry off duty. However, this is hilarious since they WILL come onto public property within a school zone while carrying. To comply with this law they would need to have a case in hand to unload/encase whenever they enter the zone. However, I am not aware of any case where an off-duty officer has been charged with violating this law. Just think about all the times when an off-duty cop is in the right place at the right time and catches a criminal doing something. It happens about once per week in the city of Milwaukee. Because of all the schools public and private in the urban area, it is likely that he is in a school zone before, during, or after the chase.

    If any of us is ever charged with this, we must challenge the DA to prosecute off-duty officers who are told to carry off duty in the city.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The GFSZA of 1995 deters carry under the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA)

    The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA) which was intended to give qualified law enforcement officers the protection of carrying nation-wide does not provide any exceptions to Federal Law. Although the GFSZA of 1995 does provide an exception for a law-enforcement officer performing their official duties, it does not provide any protection for an off-duty officer. An off-duty officer is unable to legally travel within one-thousand (1000) feet of any K-12 school while armed. [2]


    Excerpt from earlier post.

    There is no GFSZ exemption for either active or retired officers contained in HR218 (LEOSA) All LEOSA does is authorized active and retired police officers to carry a concealed weapon. Notice as you read the law, which follows, that LEOSA does not allow them to carry a concealed weapon in places prohibited by State law.

    H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
    (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

    One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America

    AT THE SECOND SESSION

    Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

    An Act

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.



    SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

    `Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

    `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

    `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

    `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

    `(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

    `(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

    `(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

    `(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

    `(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

    `(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

    `(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

    `(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

    `(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

    `(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

    `(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

    `(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

    `926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.



    SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

    `Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

    `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

    `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

    `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

    `(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

    `(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

    `(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

    `(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

    `(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

    `(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

    `(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

    `(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

    `(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

    `(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

    `(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

    `(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

    `(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

    `(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

    `(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

    `(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

    `(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

    `926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.



    Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.









    !

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest
    i think we need Ouji board, or 8 ball (remember the old 8-balls?) to direct enforcement.

    8 ball says: your 50 feet outside the school zone limit, you may go.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Judge orders Plymouth teacher tried on gun charge; 2 other counts dropped
    Steve Pardo/ The Detroit News
    Plymouth — A district judge today dropped two weapons charges against a Plymouth High School teacher but ruled there was enough evidence presented for him to stand trial on another felony gun count.

    Judge Michael J. Gerou of 35th District Court dropped charges of felony firearm and carrying a weapon in a school zone against Raymond Schepansky, 52, saying the offenses weren't applicable. But Gerou upheld a charge of felony firearm possession, a five-year felony.

    "We're going to be aggressive to get that dismissed as well," said Richard Convertino, Schepansky's Plymouth-based attorney.

    Police said they found a 9mm handgun in a shoulder holster stuffed under the driver's side seat of Schepansky's car when he was stopped April 14 on the road leading to the high school. The handgun was unloaded, but police said two magazines with six cartridges each were in the attached pouches on the holster.

    State law defines a school zone as a building used for instruction or a playing field, Gerou explained. He noted when Schepansky was stopped, he was still about 1/3 of a mile from the school.

    "The gun was not discovered in a building nor was it on or near a playing field," Gerou said. "This defendant did not have a gun on school property as defined by the statute. Had this incident occurred closer to the school, a better argument could be made that this was school property."

    Plymouth Associate Principal Erin MacGregor testified May 6 that he told the military history teacher to take the day off after meeting with Schepansky April 13. That meeting came about after another teacher told the associate principal that Schepansky was agitated that day and that he had slammed his laptop computer shut and said, "Some people need to die."

    Elizabeth Benages, a Plymouth High teacher, also testified May 6 that Schepansky said he wanted to kill MacGregor when four educators, including Schepansky and Benages, met at a restaurant after work April 1. She didn't report that instance to authorities until April 13.

    Schepansky remains free on a free on a $100,000 bond. He is on unpaid administrative leave from the school.

    spardo@detnews.com

    (313) 222-2112


    Subscribe to Detroit News home delivery and receive a SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY OFF



    From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110531/...#ixzz1O1kzrHH0

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Does anybody know if SB93 as amended by SSA1, which attaches an optional permit system, would allow carry of either or both a concealed firearm and a visible firearm in a School zone with such permit? I'm getting a little nervous that the legislature is on the road to building a camel instead of a horse, as was the original plan.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Does anybody know if SB93 as amended by SSA1, which attaches an optional permit system, would allow carry of either or both a concealed firearm and a visible firearm in a School zone with such permit? I'm getting a little nervous that the legislature is on the road to building a camel instead of a horse, as was the original plan.
    1000' would not be applicable for either OC or CC if you have the permit. The property is still off limits. You aren't the only one to think this was the way to get permits into WI...
    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)

  18. #18
    McX
    Guest
    said he said, said he said,.................... interesting context for a points to consider: said he said is now a crime, anyone with an axe to grind can said he said. I thought society used to look down on, and discourage rat bastards.

Posting Permissions

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