• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SB93 for dummies

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
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?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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).
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
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
 
M

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?
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
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...
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
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:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
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?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
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?
 
Top