SB93 and Reciprocity

apjonas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

You Are Quite Correct

NavyLCDR said:

Eagle2009 never contradicted himself.

Click to expand...

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.

bobcat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

While that is not specifically for reciprocity, it affects permits in general.

NavyLCDR said:

[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.

Click to expand...

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.