• 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.

SB 93 Update: Carrying & Possessing Firearms in Wisconsin | State Bar of Wisconsin

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
By attending this webcast, you’ll learn the major provisions of SB 93, and be able to answer questions such as:
•Can you bring a gun into Lambeau field or other public places?
•What about schools? Workplace environments?
•Will handguns be permitted in courthouses when court is in session?
•How about beyond the security point at an airport?
Instead of paying $95 to hear a DOJ attorney explain how they'll break the law, people can read the law for themselves for free (PDF below).

Will people be allowed to carry in...:
Lambeau Field? No. They've already said they'll post themselves as a criminal empowerment zone.
Public places? Yes.
Schools? Colleges, yes, unless they post. Children's schools, not on the grounds [except in very limited circumstances]. With a permit, yes, within 1000'.
Workplaces? Yes, unless the business owner decides to give up the immunity from liability.
Courthouses? No, unless a permit holder & listed in the law, or given permission by a judge.
. . . Municipal buildings that also include courtrooms? Not in the court while in session, unless a permit holder & listed in the law, or given permission by a judge.
Beyond airport security? Not unless you're a federal marshal or LEO w/ special permission, or part of the armed flight crew program.

What you’ll learn:
•How the licensing system will work [OK, this might actually be useful to hear]
•What will be considered proper training to carry a concealed weapon
•What kinds of weapons can be carried
•Places where you can and cannot carry a concealed weapon
Again, people can read the bill for free, and apparently get a clearer understanding than the 'pros' at DOJ.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
Instead of paying $95 to hear a DOJ attorney explain how they'll break the law, people can read the law for themselves for free (PDF below).

Again, people can read the bill for free, and apparently get a clearer understanding than the 'pros' at DOJ.

No one would ever bother except an attorney who needs the continuing legal education credit the course provides for $75 to bar members.
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
No one would ever bother except an attorney who needs the continuing legal education credit the course provides for $75 to bar members.

and that's a problem. They are going to be spreading their lies to other lawyers who the residents would then turn around and ask legal question of who would would then be given the same incorrect info the lawyers were given....
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Tom Neoinarian's post is most unprofessional if indeed he is a
professional. "So I'm the one" professional enough to do this, as he
shoots his credibility into the internet.
What does this class you listed have to do with Administrative Code which is being developed? You can't have a class on something which has not yet been put into effect..
 

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
Or maybe these stupid munciple attorney's who can't seem to actually read the law will learn their proposed local bans are no good.

BTW, who is Tom Neoinarian and what does he have to do with this class? This class in taught by a guy name perlman.
Unless I haven't gotten to that post yet.
 

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
No one would ever bother except an attorney who needs the continuing legal education credit the course provides for $75 to bar members.

"Please note that the archive is for informational purposes only and does not qualify for continuing legal education credits."
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Then how can you and Tom comment on Code not yet developed?

I have spoken with at least 2 different people (I will have to check my notes. I may have talked to a 3rd) who have 1st hand knowledge from DOJ contacts. neoinarien being one of them. All of the stories match. None of these people know each other.
So I am the guy, and attorney (former state prosecutor and I've spent time in the court of appeals and while there did work on firearms law), with connections within the DOJ committee who is putting together the admin code, training course, etc.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I have spoken with at least 2 different people (I will have to check my notes. I may have talked to a 3rd) who have 1st hand knowledge from DOJ contacts. neoinarien being one of them. All of the stories match. None of these people know each other.

So we have you and a kid one year out of College. I think the Inquirer has better sources.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Oak, I disagree with much of what neoinarian has posted so far, but I think your characterization isn't right.

If what he's saying is true ("former state prosecutor"), I hardly think it's fair to characterize him as "a kid one year out of college".

Besides, aren't we supposed to try to avoid personal insults/attacks, relying instead on facts with citations?
(ETA: forum rules #6 & 9)
 
Last edited:

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
"Please note that the archive is for informational purposes only and does not qualify for continuing legal education credits."

Mlutz, you had an eye jump. The sentence you cite refers to the ARCHIVED class content, not the webcast class:

"Only the purchaser will have access to the live webcast seminar and the credits attached to the live webcast. After the seminar, the purchaser will get access to the archive of the event via myStateBar for approximately 90 days. Please note that the archive is for informational purposes only and does not qualify for continuing legal education credits."
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Oak, I disagree with much of what neoinarian has posted so far, but I think your characterization isn't right.

If what he's saying is true ("former state prosecutor"), I hardly think it's fair to characterize him as "a kid one year out of college".

Besides, aren't we supposed to try to avoid personal insults/attacks, relying instead on facts with citations?
(ETA: forum rules #6 & 9)

IF.
 
Top