Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: SB93 and Reciprocity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes, , USA
    Posts
    167

    SB93 and Reciprocity

    What's the story on reciprocity for SB93? I did a search on the pre-enrolled pdf of SB93 and came up dry. Can anyone direct me to language on this? Were amendments not edited into SB93 in the pre-enrolled version?

    Feel free to comment if you have specific knowledge. A comment on another thread here said it would take another legislative bill. Sounds strange, I would think that would have been addressed in SB93 and/or amendments.

    Pardon me if I don't understand the intricacies of the Wisconsin legislative processes.

    Looking forward to being 'legal' in the Dairyland.

    BTW, congrats to all of you for seeing this through, especially those in the trenches. It's been a long hard road. For those of you purists that have a bone to pick with bits of this bill, remember that you've gotten a big portion of your Liberty back. There will be other legislative sessions for 'fine tuning' and hopefully a clean Constitutional Carry bill.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    No one knows what states will accept a WI permit or whose permit WI will honor as the DOJ has not made that decision yet.
    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
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
    What's the story on reciprocity for SB93? I did a search on the pre-enrolled pdf of SB93 and came up dry. Can anyone direct me to language on this? Were amendments not edited into SB93 in the pre-enrolled version?

    Feel free to comment if you have specific knowledge. A comment on another thread here said it would take another legislative bill. Sounds strange, I would think that would have been addressed in SB93 and/or amendments.

    Pardon me if I don't understand the intricacies of the Wisconsin legislative processes.

    Looking forward to being 'legal' in the Dairyland.

    BTW, congrats to all of you for seeing this through, especially those in the trenches. It's been a long hard road. For those of you purists that have a bone to pick with bits of this bill, remember that you've gotten a big portion of your Liberty back. There will be other legislative sessions for 'fine tuning' and hopefully a clean Constitutional Carry bill.
    I'm not quoting the exact language of the law, but it says that as long as the person who has the permit submitted to a background check to get the permit..... In essence, MOST states will be honored by WI, there are a few however that a background check isn't mandated by law. But from what I've read, those people can submit to a background check if they choose to carry in WI
    Rand Paul 2016

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    C'mon Guys

    It’s real easy to find.

    175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
    ….
    (f) Out−of−state license" means a valid permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by another state if all of the following apply:
    1. The permit, license, approval, or other authorization is for the carrying of a concealed weapon.
    2. The state is listed in the rule promulgated by the department under s. 165.25 (12) and, if that state does not require a background search for the permit, license, approval, or authorization, the permit, license, approval, or authorization designates that the holder chose to submit to a background search.
    (g) Out−of−state licensee" means an individual who is 21 years of age or over, who is not a Wisconsin resident, and who has been issued an out−of−state license.

    The key question is the interpretation of (f)(1). Does “concealed weapon” mean a license for any specific weapon qualifies or the license must be for a “weapon” as defined in Wisconsin law (handgun, Taser, non-switchblade knife or billy club) or the license must be for any possible concealed weapon? For instance, a Michigan CPL certainly would meet the background check/training requirements but since the possession, much less concealed carry of a Taser or billy club is unlawful in Michigan does this mean that (A) a Michigander cannot carry at all in WI, (B) cannot carry a Taser or billy club (pistols only), or (C) can carry anything a Cheesehead could? Given that the requirements for a WI license are the same regardless of the weapon to be carried and a MI CPL is for a type of concealed weapon, in my opinion “C” is the correct answer. But you never know how bureaucrats will see it.

    My guess on a several states -
    Honored in WI - AK, AZ, FL, IA, ID, MI, MN, MO, NM, TX, UT
    Not Honored in WI - AL, ME, MD, IN, WA (training issue)
    Residents of non-honored states, IL and VT may use a non-resident (FL, MN, UT are likely choices) permit in WI.

    That is recognition.


    175.60 (18) RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS. The department may enter into reciprocity agreements with other states as to matters relating to licenses or other authorization to carry concealed weapons.

    There doesn’t appear to be limitation on this ability, so Michigan could be covered under a reciprocity agreement.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Not Honored in WI - AL, ME, MD, IN, WA (training issue)
    I'm sorry, I read your writeup here a couple times plus the bill and didn't see a word about training being required for reciprocity.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    If WI has a 24 hour database to look up CCW permits, then WV and WI should be able to get a reciprocity agreement, as WV doesn't do recognition, only reciprocity.
    There are a few states(CO and FL I know) that will automatically recognize any state's permit that in turn recognizes theirs.
    WA doesn't recognize(or won't sign agreements) with any states that don't fingerprint.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Training should not be an issue. People from states that don't have a traaining requirement can take the MD Police Training Commission Firearms Safety Training Course on the internet. Took me about 30 minutes including printing the certificate. It's free. As far as I can tell, but IANAL, that course is acceptable under para 4.1.c of ss175.60.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    DoJ

    is responsible for the administrative side of the new law. While I agree that there is no explicit requirement that an out of state license require training to be recognized, it is illogical to require WI residents to undergo training for a permit while allowing OOS licensees to carry in WI having not met a similar requirement. You can probably extend this to any OOS license that fails to meet any requirement imposed for the issuance of a WI license. Please do not jump up and down and scream about the words in the statute. The text of the statute is very important but sometimes interpretation goes beyond the text, something I think most people will acknowledge even if they don't like it. I am not saying that I support such an interpretation and policy, only that I think it will likely be so.

    Some other potentially problem areas:

    1. As stated elsewhere the statute [175.60(1)(f)(1)] the definiton of an OOS license, requires that "The permit, license, approval, or other authorization is for the carrying of a concealed weapon."

    Should the limiting factor be the scope of the license, WI law or both?

    A KY CCDW is valid for items beyond those covered by a WI license but nobody would argue that a KY CCDW holder may carry a switchblade in WI. Thus the boundary of WI law is a limiting factor.

    In MI, a CPL is issued and valid only for the carrying of a concealed pistol. Is is an "OOS license" under the WI statute? I think so. Even though it doesn't cover every concealed weapon (as defined by WI) in its issuing state, it does cover at least one. But DoJ may have a different view.

    2. 175.60(2)(d) says "For purposes of 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii), an out−of−state licensee is licensed by this state."

    Pretty straightforward, right? The problem is that the ultimate interpretation of this provision and its effect is likely to be done in a federal court. WI cannot interpret federal law by state statute. Some poor schmoe is going to rely on this and be arrested carrying in a school zone in Milwaukee with only a Florida CCW.

    This issues and others, if and when they arise, will be dealt with by court decision and additional legislation. These concerns are on the edge of the concealed carry issue and won't impact the vast majority of WI licensees but since somebody asked.....

    One last thing, nobody should try to be too clever by half and carry in WI on a OOSL, if you can plausibly be described as a WI resident. There is no hard and fast set of criteria for making such a determination but if things go south and it is found you are a WI resident, your other permit is going to be as useful as the proverbial screen door in a submarine. Violation of the concealed carry law, GFSZ x 2, etc. are possibilites - it ain't worth it.
    Last edited by apjonas; 06-25-2011 at 10:50 AM. Reason: more stuff

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Remember, those carrying under reciprocity commit a federal crime everytime they travel armed on a public sidewalk, road, or highway which passes within 1000 feet of a school's property line because of the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...es-Act-of-1995


    Here is an ATF Letter Confirming This:

    www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
    Last edited by Eagle2009; 06-25-2011 at 11:15 AM.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    Remember, those carrying under reciprocity commit a federal crime everytime they travel armed on a public sidewalk, road, or highway which passes within 1000 feet of a school's property line because of the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...es-Act-of-1995


    Here is an ATF Letter Confirming This:

    www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf





    And when has anyone been arrested, charged, and convicted for a federal felony for merely carrying?
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post





    And when has anyone been arrested, charged, and convicted for a federal felony for merely carrying?
    +1
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    And when has anyone been arrested, charged, and convicted for a federal felony for merely carrying?

    People should know the risks. A "law-abiding gun owner" follows all the laws, not just the ones they agree with. Funny picture btw.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Interestingly you say you think that "training" should be an issue in recognition...that is not what the law demands...only a BI by the issue state in question.

    Recognition and reciprosity are two different concepts. ID recognizes WA, but WA does not recognize ID, so their is no offical "receprosity" but there is recognition on the part of ID. (ID has provision for an special 18 year old CPL)

    Will WI recognize WA (no training)? According to the law as I read it, yes.

    Will WA recognize WI? maybe, I see nothing in the law to prevent it. RCW 9.41.073 states a permit from any state that has manditory fingerprint BI of criminal and mental heath, and will only issue to persons over 21.

    Official reciprosity is not necessary in either state if your state of issue meets the requirements. Neither state says "training" is necessary to recognize another state's CPL.
    Last edited by hermannr; 06-25-2011 at 01:14 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by paul
    I read your writeup here a couple times plus the bill and didn't see a word about training being required for reciprocity.
    +1 (Although as someone else pointed out, technically we're talking about recognition.)

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas
    I agree that there is no explicit requirement that an out of state license require training to be recognized, it is illogical to require WI residents to undergo training for a permit while allowing OOS licensees to carry in WI having not met a similar requirement.
    +1 Yet that's how the law is.
    Someone from PA can carry in WI, though the PA permit doesn't require training.
    I can use my PA permit to get a WI permit, [ditto].
    Yet there are people squawking about how the MD course doesn't meet the training requirements for WI.


    2. 175.60(2)(d) says "For purposes of 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii), an out−of−state licensee is licensed by this state."
    Some poor schmoe is going to rely on this and be arrested carrying in a school zone in Milwaukee with only a Florida CCW.
    Show us where this has happened elsewhere.
    Vermont, maybe, where it's impossible for citizens to meet the requirements of the federal law.

    Heck, show us any thug in WI, arrested for carrying in a school zone (probably among other crimes) who was convicted even of the state crime, let alone charged w/ the federal one.

    I haven't heard of anyone, nationwide, who's been convicted under the federal law.
    Actually, I don't know of anyone who's been charged for it.
    Wonder who in the DOJ would be the right person to answer a FOIA about that?
    Last edited by MKEgal; 06-25-2011 at 02:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post





    And when has anyone been arrested, charged, and convicted for a federal felony for merely carrying?
    Plus the law says KNOWINGLY. If I travel to G.B. or anywhere in WI for that matter, can the prove that I KNEW there was a school within 1000 ft of where I was?
    Rand Paul 2016

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    You all will find this interesting. This is an internal Milwaukee police department E-mail legally obtained by "Wisconsin Carry" through an open records act request. In this E-mail, the police are describing Gun Free School Zones Act as the "silver bullet" to arrest otherwise lawful carriers. Now that it's more difficult for them to use the state law, who is to say they wont use the federal law?

    milwaukeepdtalkgfsza.pdf
    Last edited by Eagle2009; 06-25-2011 at 11:59 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Eagle2009:

    State/local LE does not have juristiction to arrest under Federal law, just like the FBI and ATF do not have juristiction to arrest under state law.

    Get off your school zone kick will you. You have no idea what you speak of
    Last edited by hermannr; 06-26-2011 at 02:20 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Tsk Tsk Tsk

    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Eagle2009:

    State/local LE does not have juristiction to arrest under Federal law, just like the FBI and ATF do not have juristiction to arrest under state law.
    You are incorrect. At least as it pertains to criminal offenses. I don't know about civil - and please do not post that a person can never be arrested for a civil offense. It isn't that frequent but it can and does happen.

    Get off your school zone kick will you. You have no idea what you speak of
    I regret that you are upset but please remain calm. Could you tell me specifically where I stated something that is untrue? It must be an alleged fact, opinions are just opinions.
    Last edited by apjonas; 06-26-2011 at 10:10 AM. Reason: grammar

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Eagle2009:

    State/local LE does not have juristiction to arrest under Federal law, just like the FBI and ATF do not have juristiction to arrest under state law.

    Get off your school zone kick will you. You have no idea what you speak of
    State/local LE can arrest for federal violations. Everything I have said about the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is a fact, and has been documented through court cases and official letters. If you have documentation that proves anything I've said about the law wrong, I'd like to see it. You can pretend this doesn't exist, but it doesn't change the facts.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    When You Get to the Point

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    State/local LE can arrest for federal violations. Everything I have said about the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is a fact, and has been documented through court cases and official letters. If you have documentation that proves anything I've said about the law wrong, I'd like to see it. You can pretend this doesn't exist, but it doesn't change the facts.
    of being able to post more than once in thread without contradicting yourself, I'll be glad to engage.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes, , USA
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    It’s real easy to find.

    175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
    ….
    (f) Out−of−state license" means a valid permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by another state if all of the following apply:
    1. The permit, license, approval, or other authorization is for the carrying of a concealed weapon.
    2. The state is listed in the rule promulgated by the department under s. 165.25 (12) and, if that state does not require a background search for the permit, license, approval, or authorization, the permit, license, approval, or authorization designates that the holder chose to submit to a background search.
    (g) Out−of−state licensee" means an individual who is 21 years of age or over, who is not a Wisconsin resident, and who has been issued an out−of−state license.

    The key question is the interpretation of (f)(1). Does “concealed weapon” mean a license for any specific weapon qualifies or the license must be for a “weapon” as defined in Wisconsin law (handgun, Taser, non-switchblade knife or billy club) or the license must be for any possible concealed weapon? For instance, a Michigan CPL certainly would meet the background check/training requirements but since the possession, much less concealed carry of a Taser or billy club is unlawful in Michigan does this mean that (A) a Michigander cannot carry at all in WI, (B) cannot carry a Taser or billy club (pistols only), or (C) can carry anything a Cheesehead could? Given that the requirements for a WI license are the same regardless of the weapon to be carried and a MI CPL is for a type of concealed weapon, in my opinion “C” is the correct answer. But you never know how bureaucrats will see it.

    My guess on a several states -
    Honored in WI - AK, AZ, FL, IA, ID, MI, MN, MO, NM, TX, UT
    Not Honored in WI - AL, ME, MD, IN, WA (training issue)
    Residents of non-honored states, IL and VT may use a non-resident (FL, MN, UT are likely choices) permit in WI.

    That is recognition.


    175.60 (18) RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS. The department may enter into reciprocity agreements with other states as to matters relating to licenses or other authorization to carry concealed weapons.

    There doesn’t appear to be limitation on this ability, so Michigan could be covered under a reciprocity agreement.
    Thanks, apjonas, that explains it. The pdf I had was not a complete copy of the bill. It only went to around 100.xx and said 'end'. Obviously, it was not the end.

    That would be sad that IN would not be honored. No, there is no training requirement and hasn't been since it's inception many decades ago. No blood in the streets and rarely is a crime committed by an LTCH holder while using a gun. Anecdotally, no more frequent than any other shall issue state... Oh, well, political correctness precludes 'shall not infringe'... No matter, as I have a 'permission slip' from UT.

    Now don't go beating on me saying I don't believe in training, I do (NRA Certified Instructor for starters). What I've noticed is those that tend to carry have a desire to find out about the law and get at least rudimentary training and like to practice regularly. Of those folks that I know that have sidearms and don't carry ever or quite rarely is because they are not comfortable doing so. At least that's what those folks say. Those folks tend not to get training or even go to the range. That's been my observation of many old and new LTCH holders over several decades. Just sayin'.

    Well, we'll just have to wait and see how the Wisc DoJ plays this.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    You Are Quite Correct

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Eagle2009 never contradicted himself.
    I misread a response to Eagle2009 as a quote of Eagle2009. My sincerest apologies to Eagle2009. Thank you NavyLCDR for pointing this out, as Eagle2009 kindly chose not to do so.

  23. #23
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by bobcat View Post
    That would be sad that IN would not be honored. No, there is no training requirement and hasn't been since it's inception many decades ago. No blood in the streets and rarely is a crime committed by an LTCH holder while using a gun. Anecdotally, no more frequent than any other shall issue state... Oh, well, political correctness precludes 'shall not infringe'... No matter, as I have a 'permission slip' from UT.
    I believe apjonas is reading into the statute. The law is fairly clear that when DOJ creates the list, that only a background check requirement is allowed.

    175.60(2)(b) says
    The department may not impose conditions, limitations,
    or requirements that are not expressly provided
    for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content
    of a license.
    While that is not specifically for reciprocity, it affects permits in general.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 06-28-2011 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Added cite

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    [snip]
    The problem is we need people to be convicted of this law and go to the US Supreme Court with a good lawyer that can get the damn law declared unconstitutional AGAIN.
    And we've got a better chance than ever to do so but no one needs to be convicted of anything!

    Individual citizens can now challenge federal legislation on 10A grounds.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

    Since a permit only technically qualifies you for your home state, you can at least challenge the requirement that you must be a resident of a state for your permit to exempt you from the federal GFSZA. This one really should be open and shut on 10A grounds instead of the usual interstate commerce clause challenge.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 06-28-2011 at 09:50 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

Posting Permissions

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