Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: SB93 for dummies

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

    SB93 for dummies

    I am including myself in this. Here is a summary of SB93, as amended.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/lc_amdt/sb093.pdf

  2. #2
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Thanks..Complete and easy read... for us dummies...

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Thanks for thinking of me lol

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Ok Paul, This is Dummy #1 writing. I'm a little confused on the GFSZ issue.

    Quote 1 from basic SB93 (Page 2 of the document)

    Gun-Free School Zones
    Under current law, any person who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
    knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is guilty of a Class I felony. “School zone”
    is defined as: (a) in or on the grounds of a school; and (b) within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a
    school. Under Senate Bill 93, it is a Class I felony to knowingly possess a firearm at a place that the
    individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on the grounds of a school. Possession in the
    area within 1,000 feet of school grounds is not prohibited in the bill.


    Quote 2 from substitute amendment 1 (page 5 of the document)

    Gun-Free School Zones
    In addition to prohibiting a person from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the person
    knows, or has reasonable cause to believe is on the grounds of a school, the substitute amendment
    prohibits any person from possessing a firearm at a place the individual knows, or has reasonable cause
    to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school. The penalty for violating this provision is a
    Class B forfeiture.



    As it appears in quote 1 above, under the unamended SB93 there is no penalty for possesing a firearm in the 1000 foot zone. The only penalty is a Class I felony if a person knowingly possesses a firearm on the grounds of the school Quote: "Possession in the area within 1000 feet of school grounds is not prohibited in the bill".

    Within quote 2 above, which is extracted from the substitute amendment to SB93, states that the possesion of a firearm within 1000 feet of the school grounds invokes a penalty of a Class B forfeiture. Quote: "The penalty for violating this provision is a Cass B forfeiture".

    The opening statement of Amendment 1 states that the purpose of the ammendment is to provide for an optional licensing process to carry a concealed weapon in a school zone. It furthur states that amendment 1 does not convey any additional rights over the basic SB93 except to allow concealed carry in the 1000 foot school zone. I would presume that would alsso mean no additional penalty.

    Either I am missing something or something doesn't add up.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 06-06-2011 at 02:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Either I am missing something or something doesn't add up.
    Good points. Reading the actual SSA1 and SSA1-SA3 and SSA1-SA4, my interpretation is that SB93, as amended RIGHT now, an optional permit is only required to open or conceal carry within 1000' of of the school property. If you do not have the permit and carry within the 1000' zone, it is a forfeiture (heard up to $1000 fine) and still a Federal felony.

    A permit will give you no additional 'rights' outside the school zone.

  6. #6
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289
    Another dummy chiming in to thank you... and ask a question.

    This does not seem to address traveling in a vehicle with a firearm, is that correct?

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by cleveland View Post
    Another dummy chiming in to thank you... and ask a question.

    This does not seem to address traveling in a vehicle with a firearm, is that correct?
    Yet it does. With this, the dance is finished. We can open or conceal in a vehicle. We can shoot from inside a vehicle in self-defense only.

    No more unloaded encased (assuming no school zone).

  8. #8
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Yet it does. With this, the dance is finished. We can open or conceal in a vehicle. We can shoot from inside a vehicle in self-defense only.
    No more unloaded encased (assuming no school zone).
    This is covered under the new amendments to the "Castle Doctrine" bill... Correct..??

    Or is it part of the SB-93 amendments..??

    Still a dummie here......

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman1 View Post
    This is covered under the new amendments to the "Castle Doctrine" bill... Correct..??

    Or is it part of the SB-93 amendments..??

    Still a dummie here......

    Outdoorsman1
    This is SB93. I'm trying to keep the threads separate so please ask that question there.... Sorry!

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest
    i saw something regarding permits; to be issued by the dept. of justice? they around here? probably mail in, after printing it off the net? fingy prints and such? training idea now dead and gone?

  11. #11
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289
    So the issue of traveling with a loaded firearm is address, it's just addressed in a separate bill (castle doctrine) that addresses a separate issue. Correct?

    My head hurts...

  12. #12
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by cleveland View Post
    So the issue of traveling with a loaded firearm is address, it's just addressed in a separate bill (castle doctrine) that addresses a separate issue. Correct?

    My head hurts...
    No, it is in this law. Castle doctrine only deals with self defense. SB93 only deals with carrying. SB93 says I can carry in the car. It modifies the 167.31 so that we can also discharge our weapon inside the vehicle for self defense but only in context of fixing 167.31 which stopped shooting from a vehicle because they didn't want hunting.

    The civil and criminal liability for actually shooting someone is the Castle doctrine law (separate thread).

  13. #13
    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
    i saw something regarding permits; to be issued by the dept. of justice? they around here? probably mail in, after printing it off the net? fingy prints and such? training idea now dead and gone?

    So far, no prints, no training. They haven't actually brought it to the Senate floor, the earliest would be tomorrow. We shall see.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Paul,

    I understand your wanting to keep the threads seperate... and I agree as they can be confuseing in their own right let alone the added combined confusion...

    I was refering to your statement in this thread that mentioned being able to shoot from a vehicle in self defence (colored in Red in my original reply question.

    Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com
    Yet it does. With this, the dance is finished. We can open or conceal in a vehicle. We can shoot from inside a vehicle in self-defense only.No more unloaded encased (assuming no school zone).
    My question pertained to your stsement in this thread that seemed to reference the discussion in the "other" thread regarding shooting from a vehicle in self defence.

    Per your statement in THIS thread, I will ask again...

    Does the ability to shoot from a vehilce in self defence stem from an amendment in the Castle Doctrine bill or the SB-93 bill.

    Outdoorsman1

    Edited to add... Never mind.. answered here....

    Originally Posted by cleveland
    So the issue of traveling with a loaded firearm is address, it's just addressed in a separate bill (castle doctrine) that addresses a separate issue. Correct?

    My head hurts...
    No, it is in this law. Castle doctrine only deals with self defense. SB93 only deals with carrying. SB93 says I can carry in the car. It modifies the 167.31 so that we can also discharge our weapon inside the vehicle for self defense but only in context of fixing 167.31 which stopped shooting from a vehicle because they didn't want hunting.

    The civil and criminal liability for actually shooting someone is the Castle doctrine law (separate thread). Paul L Fisher

    Member:

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Founder Club
    NRA
    Gun Owners of America
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 06-06-2011 at 03:46 PM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  15. #15
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289
    Got it! Thanks!!!

    This fan dangled inter-web thingy sure is useful for getting edu-ba-cated.

  16. #16
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman1 View Post
    Paul,

    I understand your wanting to keep the threads seperate... and I agree as they can be confuseing in their own right let alone the added combined confusion...

    I was refering to your statement in this thread that mentioned being able to shoot from a vehicle in self defence (colored in Red in my original reply question.



    My question pertained to your stsement in this thread that seemed to reference the discussion in the "other" thread regarding shooting from a vehicle in self defence.

    Per your statement in THIS thread, I will ask again...

    Does the ability to shoot from a vehilce in self defence stem from an amendment in the Castle Doctrine bill or the SB-93 bill.

    Outdoorsman1

    Both. Look at my response in post 12 and let me know if you need more clarification.

  17. #17
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    confused about "nonresidential building"

    A couple paragraphs above the "GF"SZ discussion they talk about (basically) trespass.
    ...may not enter or remain in any part of a nonresidential building that the person does not own or occupy after the owner of that building... or occupant of that part of the building, has notified the person...
    This provision does not apply to a part of a building occupied by the state or a political subdivision of the state...
    "nonresidental building" includes any privately or publicly owned buildings on the grounds of a university or college.
    So after this became law, if I were to go to UW-Milwaukee or MATC carrying, since those are gov't schools, gov't-owned buildings, I would be legally allowed to carry & they are not allowed to say otherwise, right?

    Because I know many schools that have private institutional no-weapons policies (but of course have completely open campuses... campi?... w/ no metal detectors) threatening expulsion if a student or staff member carries.

    Also, wouldn't that negate the whole "can't carry in a courthouse" thing?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Both. Look at my response in post 12 and let me know if you need more clarification.
    I'm good per my edited to add info in my post # 14..

    Outdoorsman1
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 06-06-2011 at 03:51 PM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  19. #19
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    A couple paragraphs above the "GF"SZ discussion they talk about (basically) trespass.

    So after this became law, if I were to go to UW-Milwaukee or MATC carrying, since those are gov't schools, gov't-owned buildings, I would be legally allowed to carry & they are not allowed to say otherwise, right?

    Because I know many schools that have private institutional no-weapons policies (but of course have completely open campuses... campi?... w/ no metal detectors) threatening expulsion if a student or staff member carries.

    Also, wouldn't that negate the whole "can't carry in a courthouse" thing?
    My interpretation says they can't block me unless they have metal detectors and lock boxes. I am not willing to bet money on that though.

  20. #20
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289
    Re outdoorsman's question, because I want to be sure I understand this too:

    SB93 covers the right to have a loaded gun in a vehicle, but not the right to shoot the attacker because current law prohibits discharging a firearm inside of a vehicle. Discharging a firearm inside of a vehicle is where the castle doctrine comes in.

    Did I get that right?

  21. #21
    McX
    Guest
    i heard carry in the courthouse with written permission from the judge? if that is so i'm going to go for a historic carry moment someday in the future. that one i'll have to get a pic on!

  22. #22
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by cleveland View Post
    Re outdoorsman's question, because I want to be sure I understand this too:

    SB93 covers the right to have a loaded gun in a vehicle, but not the right to shoot the attacker because current law prohibits discharging a firearm inside of a vehicle. Discharging a firearm inside of a vehicle is where the castle doctrine comes in.

    Did I get that right?
    No, there are 2 parts of discharging a firearm in a vehicle. Actually 3.

    1. A loaded gun has to be in the vehicle. Currently illegal.
    2. Shooting from a vehicle. Currently illegal.
    3. Hitting someone from step 2. Currently, we could be charged with murder and/or sued.

    1 and 2 is fixed by SB93.
    3 is fixed by Castle Doctrine.

  23. #23
    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
    i heard carry in the courthouse with written permission from the judge? if that is so i'm going to go for a historic carry moment someday in the future. that one i'll have to get a pic on!
    Yes.

  24. #24
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289
    Thanks!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Paul:

    I understand your response but it still doesn't answer what appears to be a conflicting statement in the base bill.


    'Possession in the area within 1,000 feet of school grounds is not prohibited in the bill". This is from page 2 of the refernce document.

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
  •