• 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.

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

paul@paul-fisher.com

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

McX

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

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County

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:

Peacekeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Fond du Lac Wisconsin
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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
 

Captain Nemo

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

Grant Guess

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
217
Location
Wisconsin, United States
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.
 

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Captain Nemo

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

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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:
M

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.
 

Deadscott

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
56
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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/noquarter/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.
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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/noquarter/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/factsheets/straw-purchase.cfm
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
Under federal law, it is a felony to be a straw purchaser.

http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/factsheets/straw-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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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 :banghead: 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?
 

Grant Guess

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
217
Location
Wisconsin, United States
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...
 

Drakon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
47
Location
Madison
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.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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.
 
Top