Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Poll - Proposed Ammendments for SB93

  1. #1
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Poll - Proposed Ammendments for SB93

    I am not advocatiing for ammendments this session, but we all know the laguage needs to be cleaned up and we should have a clear vision of what to bing to them so they can fix things when they come back in the fall.

    What do you want to see changed?

    Ideas I have heard so far are:

    1 -Eliminate 48 hour waiting period for handgun purchases for Licensee's

    2- Allow licensee's to carry in thier vehicle on school grounds for the purpose of pick-up adn drop-off as long as the Licensee's does not leave the vehicle while carrying.

    3- Clarify posting requirements.(more info to come)

    4-Add any weapons carried by a licensee to the the pre-emption in 66.0409

    5- Add something to 66.0409 like "An political subdivision of the state retains ordinances or resulions, preempted by 66.0409, whether enforced or not, shall not be immune, shall be open, to civil liability"
    or
    anything else that would give it teeth.

    What else are we looking for? Short of Constitutional Carry that is. We have to be realiistic that it will take time to build stronger support for it.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 06-26-2011 at 04:06 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Wolf1477's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Up Nort' Wi
    Posts
    188
    Signage:

    Require at least a 12x12 (something not a standard size or able to be cut from a standard size down to) posted *prominently* with the correct statute numbers, else the posting is invalid. Wi "No Trespassing", Tx and Al sign requirements as examples.

    My initial thought off the cuff
    Last edited by Wolf1477; 06-17-2011 at 04:40 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf1477 View Post
    Signage:

    Require at least a 12x12 (something not a standard size or able to be cut from a standard size down to) posted *prominently* with the correct statute numbers, else the posting is invalid. Wi "No Trespassing", Tx and Al sign requirements as examples.

    My initial thought off the cuff
    CAn anyone post a picture of or a link to the Texas and Alabama sign requirements so I can get an idea?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Remove the word "locked" from the state GFSZ law. It's always been unloaded and encased. Now it's unloaded and in a "locked" case. Not exactly sure if this change applies just to handguns, or to long-guns too. If it applies to long-guns, this change will create a few million "instant criminals" next hunting season. There's probably not a hunter in this state that won't drive through a school zone with grandpa's old gun case holding a shotgun or rifle.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by safcrkr View Post
    Remove the word "locked" from the state GFSZ law. It's always been unloaded and encased. Now it's unloaded and in a "locked" case. Not exactly sure if this change applies just to handguns, or to long-guns too. If it applies to long-guns, this change will create a few million "instant criminals" next hunting season. There's probably not a hunter in this state that won't drive through a school zone with grandpa's old gun case holding a shotgun or rifle.
    I has been removed as part of SSA2. You are still in violation of Federal law but there is nothing the WI legislature can do about it.

  6. #6
    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
    I has been removed as part of SSA2. You are still in violation of Federal law but there is nothing the WI legislature can do about it.
    So, was it always that way and we just did not realize it? If I took the time to read that whole discussion I would know.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I has been removed as part of SSA2. You are still in violation of Federal law but there is nothing the WI legislature can do about it.
    I don't think it has. They deleted the state exceptions and defaulted to the federal in SB93. That's still there in SSA2 to bill SB93. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB93-SSA2.pdf , page 57 lists the "exceptions" to the GFSZ, lines 21-22 lists the federal law exceptions - among which are unloaded and in a "locked" container or gun rack. If they removed it, the change hasn't hit the SB93-SSA2 pdf yet.

  8. #8
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by safcrkr View Post
    I don't think it has. They deleted the state exceptions and defaulted to the federal in SB93. That's still there in SSA2 to bill SB93. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB93-SSA2.pdf , page 57 lists the "exceptions" to the GFSZ, lines 21-22 lists the federal law exceptions - among which are unloaded and in a "locked" container or gun rack. If they removed it, the change hasn't hit the SB93-SSA2 pdf yet.
    Page 57 line 22 of the attachment you referenced lists USC USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

    Notice, no (iii), that is the reference to 'locked' cases. SSA1 had (iii).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Page 57 line 22 of the attachment you referenced lists USC USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

    Notice, no (iii), that is the reference to 'locked' cases. SSA1 had (iii).
    Thanks... I missed that. Good news. I withdraw my request.

  10. #10
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    I say pass it as is and fix it later.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Appleton, WI
    Posts
    276
    I would love to see the waiting period go away, I mean c'mon, one on my hip but I have to "cool down" for the new one?

  12. #12
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    I say pass it as is and fix it later.
    This thread IS about what we want fixed later.

    Most want it as is as not to risk losing it all. I am not afraid of that. I do concede so that the Senate won't have to come back just to pass and focus all their energy on campaigning for the recalls as a solidified party, except maybe Shultz.

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by apierce918 View Post
    I would love to see the waiting period go away, I mean c'mon, one on my hip but I have to "cool down" for the new one?
    Thats numero uno on the fix it list.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    CAn anyone post a picture of or a link to the Texas and Alabama sign requirements so I can get an idea?
    Google Image "Texas 30.06 Sign" and you'll see it. There's particular things that make a 30.06 sign valid.

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ignposting.htm

    The pics of the ones I've saw, that are "clear", don't seem to be valid under texas law.
    Last edited by Ken8521; 06-26-2011 at 06:25 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Deadscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    56
    Remove the two day waiting period for handgun purchases.
    Discussing Concealed Carry in Wisconsin at www.armedbadger.com

  16. #16
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadscott View Post
    Remove the two day waiting period for handgun purchases.
    For licensees, it's on the list.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Most already know my change....

    Remove the 4 month waiting period of the repeal 167.31....

    And no permit required UP to school property.....

    Like either of the above is gonna happen.....

    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Appleton, WI
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    For licensees, it's on the list.
    should be for everyone

  19. #19
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Updated OP. It's still sloppy.

Posting Permissions

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