Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: SB131 - Mandatory minimum sentence for carrying if a felon and other stuff

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

    SB131 - Mandatory minimum sentence for carrying if a felon and other stuff

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB-131.pdf

    This is Senator Darling's response to Chief Ed Flynn wanting concealed without a permit being a felony.

    At first glance, it doesn't look bad. I need to read it and digest some more.

    From what I understand at the moment, if you are caught carrying and are ineligible to own a firearm (fail the background check at purchase), it's a 3 year minimum sentence.

    It seems to screw around with the 'new' (post SB93) 941.23 so I have to look to see what that does before I make MY final decision.

    Others feel free to look at it and give feedback. It is in the Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations in the Senate and has a public hearing on 6/21 (this Tuesday).

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    It is already a felony under state and federal laws for felons to possess a firearm. Why do we need more laws?

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Cust...on-firearm.asp

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/felony.asp

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Cust...on-firearm.asp
    Last edited by protias; 06-18-2011 at 08:28 AM.
    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)

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest
    obviously these felons need to obtain their permits, so in the future, they will be compliant criminals.

  4. #4
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    It is already a felony under state and federal laws for felons to possess a firearm. Why do we need more laws?

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Cust...on-firearm.asp

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/felony.asp

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Cust...on-firearm.asp
    Protias, with all due respect, the links you provided takes us to a page of a law firm that does not cite any statutes except that of the definition of a firearm. I won't tell you what I think of lawyers. Wtihout statutes, I don't know what they say it true.

    If anyone knows the statutes, that would be helpful.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 06-18-2011 at 09:17 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Fond du Lac Wisconsin
    Posts
    171
    This is what sheriff Clarke was talking about at the hearing in Madison. He would like to see these penalties run consecutive to any other sentence. District attorneys seem to consistantly plea bargain these gun charges away. Making them mandatory and consecutive would do away with this problem.

    This law has nothing to do with an accidental "shirt/coat" coverup by a law obeying citizen.

    So far I would support this law.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Protias, with all due respect, the links you provided takes us to a page of a law firm that does not cite any statutes except that of the definition of a firearm. I won't tell you what I think of lawyers. Wtihout statutes, I don't know what they say it true.

    If anyone knows the statutes, that would be helpful.
    Felon in possession of a firearm in a violation of Wisconsin Statute WI 941.29, and is a crime against persons or property that may be an underlying felony for a burglary charge. State v. Steele, 2001 WI App 34, 241 Wisconsin 2d 269, 625 N.W.2d 525, 00-0190
    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)

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

    It is already illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in Wisconsin. ss941.29(1)(a) plus there is a penalty enhnacer for carrying a concealed weapon by a felon 939.645(2)(c). Statute says the penalty enhancer applies to any crimes committed under statutes 939 - 948. 941.23 certainly falls within that range.

    Another case of our lawmakers not knowing the existing laws.

    My opinion.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Grant Guess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    217
    I would like to see an enhancer of a mandatory sentence of use of a deadly weapon for a FIRST TIME offender. If they use a firearm in the commission of a felony for robbing a convenience store, bank, citizen, they get 3 years with Bubba straight out of the gate. Make these first-timers pay dearly for deciding to become a felon with a gun.
    Gun Control Defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning or carrying a firearm.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    What a stupid redundancy.

    It is already illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in Wisconsin. ss941.29(1)(a) plus there is a penalty enhnacer for carrying a concealed weapon by a felon 939.645(2)(c). Statute says the penalty enhancer applies to any crimes committed under statutes 939 - 948. 941.23 certainly falls within that range.

    Another case of our lawmakers not knowing the existing laws.

    My opinion.
    Totally agree , It is the negligence of the D.A.'s in not using the laws readily available to them along with judges who let repeat offenders off lightly, To me it seems that the language wants to extend the net to cause for more gun rights to be taken away more easily thru abuse of power.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    ss939.645 says nothing about there needing to be a repeat crime. It can be applied at first offense. The enhanced penalty imposed by 939.645(2)(c) is up to $5000 additional fine and up to 5 years increased incarceration.

    The problem is that the enhancer is seldom applied and many times plea bargained out of the criminal activity charge.

    We don't need new laws just because the legislators and law enforcement are ignorant of those already on the books. In my opinion there is no excuse for Flynn, the chief of police of the largest metropolitain area of the state, not knowing the state firearm laws in detail. Of course, his grandstanding has nothing to do with intelligence or understanding. It is simply political posturing.

    My opinion.

  11. #11
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Its a stupid law anyway, criminals couldn't give a darn if its legal or not.

    There is no exception in the 2nd Amendment that strips criminals of the rights enumerated therein.

    While I am sure to get flamed for this, there is no exception in ANY of the founding documents to strip criminals of ANY rights. Why? Because at the time, the King could and did arbitrarily strip anyone of rights by labeling them a criminal. So too can our own government do likewise.
    Last edited by oak1971; 06-18-2011 at 11:09 AM.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest
    Because at the time, the King could and did arbitrarily strip anyone of rights by labeling them a criminal.

    let us not forget Churches that engage in this same practice. i have some experience in this.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Deadscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    56
    Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet recently sentenced a felon caught with a gun to just eight months at the county jail with daytime work-release - something the sheriff likened to a "bed and breakfast stay at my correctional facility."

    Similar sentences, he told lawmakers, are handed down daily in Milwaukee County

    Link: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noq...122844633.html

    The article goes on to say there were problems with the Officer making the arrest. It implies that he has been less than competent in the past. It continues, "That very well could have become a major problem if the case had gone to trial."

    The article also states; "Earlier this month, the defendant cut a deal with prosecutors, agreeing to plead guilty to the gun charge in exchange for having a drug count dropped. The judge followed the prosecutor's recommendation and sentenced Cloyd to eight months at the Milwaukee County Correctional Facility-South.

    Typically, Milwaukee County prosecutors ask for at least a year in prison for felons convicted of possessing a firearm. Daryl Kastenson, Cloyd's public defender, pointed out at the sentencing hearing that the felon wouldn't do his time at a county facility because his probation had already been revoked and he had been ordered to spend the next year in a state prison.

    What I read is that this charge will run concurrent with his other felony charges and probation violations. During the year he will spend in prison he will also be doing his time for the ILLEGAL concealed carry He will receive NO extra time for the weapons charge.

    Under this law the Judge [Wisconsin's Own Mullahs] will have to follow the sentencing guidelines and tack on 3 more years. The Judge will still have the discretion to run the sentence concurrently, but the minimum will be 3 years.

    The part that seems to be what CC opponents wanted is the Straw Purchase portion. To me this is just common sense. It should be a felony to buy a weapon for someone who can not legally do so.

    I support these new sentencing guidelines.
    Discussing Concealed Carry in Wisconsin at www.armedbadger.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    If this law forces judges by statute to follow the sentencing guidelines already in the law, and takes away the plea bargaining and judicial leniancy, then I'm all for it too.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadscott View Post
    Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet recently sentenced a felon caught with a gun to just eight months at the county jail with daytime work-release - something the sheriff likened to a "bed and breakfast stay at my correctional facility."

    Similar sentences, he told lawmakers, are handed down daily in Milwaukee County

    Link: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noq...122844633.html

    The article goes on to say there were problems with the Officer making the arrest. It implies that he has been less than competent in the past. It continues, "That very well could have become a major problem if the case had gone to trial."

    The article also states; "Earlier this month, the defendant cut a deal with prosecutors, agreeing to plead guilty to the gun charge in exchange for having a drug count dropped. The judge followed the prosecutor's recommendation and sentenced Cloyd to eight months at the Milwaukee County Correctional Facility-South.

    Typically, Milwaukee County prosecutors ask for at least a year in prison for felons convicted of possessing a firearm. Daryl Kastenson, Cloyd's public defender, pointed out at the sentencing hearing that the felon wouldn't do his time at a county facility because his probation had already been revoked and he had been ordered to spend the next year in a state prison.

    What I read is that this charge will run concurrent with his other felony charges and probation violations. During the year he will spend in prison he will also be doing his time for the ILLEGAL concealed carry He will receive NO extra time for the weapons charge.

    Under this law the Judge [Wisconsin's Own Mullahs] will have to follow the sentencing guidelines and tack on 3 more years. The Judge will still have the discretion to run the sentence concurrently, but the minimum will be 3 years.

    The part that seems to be what CC opponents wanted is the Straw Purchase portion. To me this is just common sense. It should be a felony to buy a weapon for someone who can not legally do so.

    I support these new sentencing guidelines.
    Under federal law, it is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

    http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/factshe...w-purchase.cfm
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Under federal law, it is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

    http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/factshe...w-purchase.cfm
    Yes it is, but if the feds don't take the case and prosecute it (which they often decline to do unless it's a multiple offender) then it remains up to the state to do so. The state cannot bring felony charges under state law, and cannot enforce the federal law if the feds decline. That is what the problem seems to be, and is why they want the state law to mirror the fed. If the feds don't take the case, the state can exact the same penalty as the feds have, but in a state court where prosecutions are more likely.

  17. #17
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    OK, I am still not decided on this but my reading says that you would of had to have been PREVIOUSLY convicted of a violent felony under 301.048 (2) (bm) for the mandatory 3 year sentence. So.... on my 1st felony I wouldn't get the 3 year sweetener.

    As for the straw purchase, it is a Federal Felony already, someone convince me either way that we should/shouldn't make it a state one as well?

    As I said, I haven't made up my mind yet and see some advantages to the straw purchase part, so far. What would be some of the unintended consequences?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Grant Guess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    217
    Here is one issue that I have to the straw purchaser law...

    Imagine a pistol that you bought legally and sold it 20 years ago. It has been re-sold 10X since and none have been on paper.

    I think you know where I am going on this...
    Gun Control Defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning or carrying a firearm.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    47
    They won't prosecute anyone with this law even if it is passed IMO. How will they prove that someone specifically purchased a weapon for a felon? Prosecutors won't go after cases that are difficult if not impossible to prove. Unless the person is dumb enough to admit to the crime and sign a written statement I just don't see the value. The enhancer provision will be used but I doubt it will be of much value. Look at the California 3 strikes law and prison overcrowding as a fine example of putting more people behind bars not working. We don't have room to house the criminals we have, making longer terms and new crimes up to create more criminals only makes that problem worse. We need to decriminalize a laundry list of things first so we can put violent criminals behind bars. Until then laws like this won't be effective.
    ".......shall not be infringed."

  20. #20
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Don't live in WI, but may I comment? Extra laws such as this serve no go purpose and can only be misused.

    There is a lot of difference between a violent crime where a firearm is USED in the commission of a crime, and someone having a 4" clasp knife in his posession. but never used, when some teenage kid decides to take a car, that is not his own, for a joyride. (Change, grand theft auto,,,,, enhansed?) You do not think there should be provision for a DA to take this into consideration?

    There is a lot of difference between the above senerio and a forced carjacking in which the owner/driver of an auto has a gun or knife jammbed into his face and he is ordered out of his car.

    Think about it. I am sure there are plenty of provisions for the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime already. A new law is not necesary.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The "straw purchase" portion is smoke. I was a FFL holder for 25 years. Never ran into a situation that came close to a straw purchase. Unless you want it to stretch so far as to include a man buying a gun for his wife as a present. All FBI reports I have read state that surveys of criminals committing crimes with firearms find that 85% of the guns were purchased from friends, family or stolen. If that is indeed a valid percentage the probablility of a criminal risking a straw purchase is very small. A "trunk" purchase is much less risky. The only way a straw purchase law could be significantly effective if it was required that ALL firearm sales must be conducted through a FFL dealer. We certainly don't want that. The law most certainly would have an exception for transfer of firearms between family members or estate settlements. It would not stop the stealing or the "trunk" sales therefore it would have no effect on criminals obtaining firearms. As so often happens it will just be a law handicapping the law-abiding citizen. Besides what's good enough for the ATF is good enough for me. re Arizona gun running episode.

    The high media attention to a few dramatic "straw purchases" leads one to believe it is a daily occurrance. It is not. 98% of FFL dealers are very careful to whom they sell a firearm. The risks to them are too high.

    The only part of SB131 I would support is if it changed current law ( 939.645) to make the penalty enhancer for a felon carrying a concealed firearm mandatory instead of discretionary.

    My opinion
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 06-18-2011 at 02:46 PM.

  22. #22

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Anyone Watch The Hearings Of "Project Gunrunner" On C-Span???

    I watched most of it last week and it was disgusting. I don't want to hijack this thread but a few comments posted brought some things to mind.

    When I watched the hearings one of the ATF agents testifying AGAINST the corrupt BATFE gun running scheme said that the straw purchaser violation only merits a short sentence of less than a year and usually the offenders only get probation because it is their FIRST criminal offense. He stated that if it weren't their first criminal offense (felony) then they couldn't pass the NICS check to start with.

    Another thing one of them said was that the Fn 5.7 pistols penetrate police bullet proof vests. Now that was interesting since the BATFE themselves tested the Fn 5.7 with the ammunition available to civilians and it does NOT penetrate vests. The ATF agents also suggested that ALL long arm purchases of 2 or more should be reported to the federal government since that would make their job much easier. Right.

    Link: http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...le-pistol.html

  24. #24
    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
    OK, I am still not decided on this but my reading says that you would of had to have been PREVIOUSLY convicted of a violent felony under 301.048 (2) (bm) for the mandatory 3 year sentence. So.... on my 1st felony I wouldn't get the 3 year sweetener.?
    Paul, YOU would not be a prohibited person until after your first felony conviction. If it was for a violent felony listed under 301.048 (2) (bm), then there would be a 3 year minimum sentence for a 941.29 conviction only AFTER you became a felon.

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    As for the straw purchase, it is a Federal Felony already, someone convince me either way that we should/shouldn't make it a state one as well?
    The only way a person would get prosecuted for a Federal Felony is if it was a FBI or ATF case. Currently, a State DA can only prosecute it as a Misdemeanor. This bill would make it a felony on the state level so that DA's could prosecute it as a felony.

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    As I said, I haven't made up my mind yet and see some advantages to the straw purchase part, so far. What would be some of the unintended consequences?
    My only concern would be for the women that through coercion or threat of force would make a straw-purchase. It should be a felony to coerce or force someone to make a straw purshase, not the straw purchaser. It should only be a felony for anyone that freely and willingly made straw-purchase. I don't know how that would be written.

Posting Permissions

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