-
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.
-
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 FAQ from the LRB
- Thread starter paul@paul-fisher.com
- Start date
Deadscott
Regular Member
Excellent find, this answers most of the questions I had. Thank you.
technician
Regular Member
Thanks, printed out copies for friends and family.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Pam for Governor!!
Here's the memo about preemption she has on her page.
Maybe EauClaire & Madistan & Killwaukee should get copies of that...
ETA: Oh, I like the main memo, the one w/ the FAQ about cc in WI.
On pg. 2 they mention that we have to show permit & ID to an officer only if that officer is
"acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority". :banana: :monkey
But wait - see pg. 9, talking about whether certain old statutes were repealed.
This says no, exceptions were created for permit holders.
That's not what I understood. I thought everyone was going to be equal EXCEPT for the "school zone", state parks, & publicly-owned buildings.
Pg. 10, about vehicle carry, seems to say that it will NOT be considered concealed in a car.
Here's the memo about preemption she has on her page.
Maybe EauClaire & Madistan & Killwaukee should get copies of that...
ETA: Oh, I like the main memo, the one w/ the FAQ about cc in WI.
On pg. 2 they mention that we have to show permit & ID to an officer only if that officer is
"acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority". :banana: :monkey
But wait - see pg. 9, talking about whether certain old statutes were repealed.
This says no, exceptions were created for permit holders.
That's not what I understood. I thought everyone was going to be equal EXCEPT for the "school zone", state parks, & publicly-owned buildings.
Pg. 10, about vehicle carry, seems to say that it will NOT be considered concealed in a car.
Last edited:
oak1971
Regular Member
That bit about GFSZ doesn't look so good, unless I read it incorrectly.....
duckdog
Regular Member
I don't see where permit holders are exempt from the 1000' rule, either.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
So true. I can assure you that a permit holder can carry in the 1000' school zone. Definitely a BIG oversight in this memo.
GlockRDH
Regular Member
makes you wonder if there are more errors/oversights in this...
Carcharodon
Regular Member
It sounds to me that if you are in the 1000 ft zone, carrying openly or concealed, with a permit, but not in the school or on the school grounds, it is a fine but not a felony. However, no permit is still a felony within 1000 ft.That bit about GFSZ doesn't look so good, unless I read it incorrectly.....
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Actually, no.
So... no permit within 1000' of a school but not on school property, a class b forfeiture (no crime, just a fine). Permit in same area, no problem.
Permit or not, on school grounds is a state Felony.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
The information on page 9 that refers to the Gun Free School zone is incorrect. The bill reduces the penalty for knowingly open carry of a firearm in the 1000 foot boundary from a felony to a misdemeanor but the open carry of a firearm is still prohibited. Concealed carry is exempted from the prohibition if the person has a valid concealed carry permit. The permit satisfies the requirements of paragraph 948.605(2)(b)2 as listed below. Senator Galloway and the LRB must be informed of this misunderstanding by the LRB.
(2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
948.605(2)(a)
(a) Any individual 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.
948.605(2)(b)
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
948.605(2)(b)1.
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
948.605(2)(b)2.
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
948.605(2)(a)
(a) Any individual 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.
948.605(2)(b)
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
948.605(2)(b)1.
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
948.605(2)(b)2.
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
duckdog
Regular Member
That's what I thought you had said. I read it, too. The memo does explain most things pretty nice, though.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Captain, the law changes the 1000' carry open or concealed from a felony to a class B forfeiture, not a misdemeanor. Can you point out where it says the permit requires concealing within the 1000'? I agree, the school grounds is still a felony, permit or not.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/enrolled/sb93.pdf
Doesn't mentioned concealed.
xenophon
Regular Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the way open carry goes.
Regarding school "zones":
If you open carry, you don't have to get a permit. But, you need that permit if you want to be in a school zone (defined at 1000ft of school property).
Basically open carry is the same as it was before. You have to have the permit to get into like bars/restaurants or state parks and other places that the SB93 now allows. I think only thing that might have changed for open carry with no permit, besides the school zone penalty, as the car possession provision?
There should be a FAQ on open carry without a permit
Regarding school "zones":
If you open carry, you don't have to get a permit. But, you need that permit if you want to be in a school zone (defined at 1000ft of school property).
Basically open carry is the same as it was before. You have to have the permit to get into like bars/restaurants or state parks and other places that the SB93 now allows. I think only thing that might have changed for open carry with no permit, besides the school zone penalty, as the car possession provision?
There should be a FAQ on open carry without a permit
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the way open carry goes.
Regarding school "zones":
If you open carry, you don't have to get a permit. But, you need that permit if you want to be in a school zone (defined at 1000ft of school property).
Basically open carry is the same as it was before. You have to have the permit to get into like bars/restaurants or state parks and other places that the SB93 now allows. I think only thing that might have changed for open carry with no permit, besides the school zone penalty, as the car possession provision?
There should be a FAQ on open carry without a permit
Yes. I have not found anywhere in the law that says ANYTHING about mandating concealed. If I have a permit, I can carry open or concealed the same places. The permit gives me more places.
The new law without a permit adds car carry.
xenophon
Regular Member
I can just see it now though. Open carrying in car, and you are not a permit holder. Officer sees gun during some traffic stop or something, and asks for permit. Fun begins during this initial learning/training period for officers? And just imagine that scenario in Madison.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Paul:
I agree the LRB needs to clarify the law better. You are correct that the state penalty has been reduced from a felony to a forfieture. You are also correct that the law and/or statute doesn't make any reference to manner of carry. However, the statute does say carry in the 1000 foot zone is exempted if the person has a license issued by the state or a political subdivison thereof. The license that will be issued by the state of Wisconsin under SB93 authorizes a specific manner of carry, concealed carry. By default the only manner of carry lawful in public areas of the 1000 foot zone is concealed carry because that is the only manner of carry the license issued under SB93 authorizes. Open carry is not entirely prohibited because a license to carry in the "zone" could still be obtained from the school board or political subdivision on an individual basis.
Technically I suppose the LRB statement is correct. The carry of firearms in the 1000 foot zone is still prohibited. Only the penalty for doing so has been reduced. However, the prohibition of carrying is subject to exemptions. One of them being a valid license from the state. The permit issued under SB93 satisfies the licensing provision but restricts the manner of carry to concealed carry.
My opinion
I agree the LRB needs to clarify the law better. You are correct that the state penalty has been reduced from a felony to a forfieture. You are also correct that the law and/or statute doesn't make any reference to manner of carry. However, the statute does say carry in the 1000 foot zone is exempted if the person has a license issued by the state or a political subdivison thereof. The license that will be issued by the state of Wisconsin under SB93 authorizes a specific manner of carry, concealed carry. By default the only manner of carry lawful in public areas of the 1000 foot zone is concealed carry because that is the only manner of carry the license issued under SB93 authorizes. Open carry is not entirely prohibited because a license to carry in the "zone" could still be obtained from the school board or political subdivision on an individual basis.
Technically I suppose the LRB statement is correct. The carry of firearms in the 1000 foot zone is still prohibited. Only the penalty for doing so has been reduced. However, the prohibition of carrying is subject to exemptions. One of them being a valid license from the state. The permit issued under SB93 satisfies the licensing provision but restricts the manner of carry to concealed carry.
My opinion
Last edited:
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I am willing to believe you, however, I see nowhere in the definition of what the permit allows you to do the word 'concealed'. In addition, there is no definition of 'concealed'. I contend that the permit, while it is called 'License to carry a concealed weapon.' it never mentions concealing or manner of carrying.
175.60 is the part that defines the permit and the process. Starts on page 7 of https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/enrolled/sb93.pdf
The only place I see the word 'concealed' is when the section describes the out of state license. 175.60(f)
lockman
State Researcher
The technical issue here is that the statute has an exemption based on the possession of a license issued to the carrier, the manner of carry does not render the exemption inoperable. This issue has come up in other states and unless the statute itself mandates the carrier conceal, concealment is allowed but not required.