• 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.

Will my MN permit (WI resident) be good enough in WI?

Big River Leather

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
81
Location
Pierce County, WI
...or will I be giving up some rights that I might otherwise have if I got my WI permit?

I wonder if possessing the MN permit would be enough documentation that I've been through the background check and training, should I have to /decide to get a WI permit.

I'm so looking forward to the day when I can feel as safe in WI as I do in MN.
 

Deadscott

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
56
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
If your a Wisconsin resident you will need a Wisconsin permit to carry legally. Your MN permit will satisfy the Wisconsin training requirement but you will still need a new background check to receive your Wis. permit
 
Last edited:

Eagle2009

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
66
Location
United States
Last edited:

Deadscott

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



The substitute amendment also permits a licensee or an out-of-state licensee to possess a firearm
within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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/showthread.php?81674-Gun-Free-School-Zones-Act-of-1995


Here is an ATF Letter Confirming This:

www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

In most states you would be correct. Our authors appear to have gotten it right.

It'll be interesting...the BATF is under the impression that you must have a physical document from the state in question, but that's not what 18USC922 actually says.

Of course, federal law trumps state law, so the only thing states can do is physically, rather than statutorily, license OOS licensees.

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

Doesn't mean it won't get tested in court, but at least they tried.
 
Last edited:

Big River Leather

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
81
Location
Pierce County, WI
I guess since my biggest concern has always been the GFSZ, I had better succumb and cough up the $50 for the permit to avoid any hassles born of ignorance, either on the part of LEO's, the court or myself.

Somehow, because of this, I feel they have won :banghead:
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
In most states you would be correct. Our authors appear to have gotten it right.

It'll be interesting...the BATF is under the impression that you must have a physical document from the state in question, but that's not what 18USC922 actually says.

Of course, federal law trumps state law, so the only thing states can do is physically, rather than statutorily, license OOS licensees.

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

Doesn't mean it won't get tested in court, but at least they tried.

Bingo! - and as long as the license holder (paper or not) has meet the critera in 18 USC for the background check all is good. Vermonters do not have this out for GFSZA even under constitutional carry.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Teej said:
BATF is under the impression that you must have a physical document from the state in question, but that's not what 18USC922 actually says.
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located... and the law of the State... requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State... verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license
So by only honoring permits from states which require a background check (isn't that all of them that issue permits?), is WI OK under the part that says WI LEA must verify the person is qualified?
That's the only sticking point I see.
As someone pointed out in another thread, "license" means "permission" as much as, or more than, it means a document.

federal law trumps state law
That is an ongoing fight. Part of that whole "checks & balances" thing.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
So by only honoring permits from states which require a background check (isn't that all of them that issue permits?), is WI OK under the part that says WI LEA must verify the person is qualified?
That's the only sticking point I see.
As someone pointed out in another thread, "license" means "permission" as much as, or more than, it means a document.


That is an ongoing fight. Part of that whole "checks & balances" thing.

Does this mean the Feds will not allow the state to "go green", and force them to issue paper?
 
Top