Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: AB299 introduced - Exclude off-duty LEO from GFSZ

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    AB299 introduced - Exclude off-duty LEO from GFSZ

    Let's get people who are licensed included in this as well or it should not pass!!!

    To recap, current GFSZ law allows LEO to carry on school grounds only while on duty. This change would allow them to carry, for example, if they are going to their child's soccer game.

    A special class of citizens, I think NOT!!!

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB299hst.html



  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    This is the letter I sent to my Representatives:

    I see that Representative Kleefisch introduced AB-299, which will allow off-duty LEO's, but not us common folk, to carry loaded firearms on school grounds.

    I will only support this and urge you to not support this unless wording is changed to allow off duty LEO's as well as licensed individuals, as defined by 175.60 in Act 35.


    Having an elite class of people with super rights is un-American. The GFSZ laws in general are uneffective and unconstitutional. Carving out exceptions for LEOs is discriminatory.


    --

    Paul L Fisher

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest
    special priviledges for the beautiful people. i thought we were all equal in this country.............i guess some are more equal than others.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Sent to my reps as well.
    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)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I see that Representative Kleefisch introduced AB-299, which will allow off-duty LEO's, but not us common folk, to carry loaded firearms on school grounds.

    I will only support this and urge you to not support this unless wording is changed to allow off duty LEO's as well as licensed individuals, as defined by 175.60 in Act 35.


    Having an elite class of people with super rights is un-American. The GFSZ laws in general are uneffective and unconstitutional. Carving out exceptions for LEOs is discriminatory.


    --

    Paul L Fisher
    Not to stur the pot or anything, but wouldn't onlying allowing LEO and LICENSED INDIVIDUALS to carry still be having an elite class of people with super rights?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Not to stur the pot or anything, but wouldn't onlying allowing LEO and LICENSED INDIVIDUALS to carry still be having an elite class of people with super rights?
    Hey! Don't confuse me with the facts!!!!

    I realized that after I sent it but as long as I'm part of the elite class, it's OK. (sarcasm)

    I guess I'm trying to get as many rights restored as possible and I know that they won;t go to permitless carry this soon so I am trying to chip away at restrictions.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Not to stur the pot or anything, but wouldn't onlying allowing LEO and LICENSED INDIVIDUALS to carry still be having an elite class of people with super rights?
    While I think we all want carry without a permit system, the barrier to entry for the special class of "Licensed individuals" is so low as to be easily overcome by any non-criminal with the desire to enter it.
    The barrier to entry for the class of "LEO" is extremely high, and many law-abiding citizens are absolutely excluded from it for various reasons. We do not want to continue allowing our lawmakers to further segregate us and make them more equal than the rest of us. Maybe send a copy of Animal Farm to any politician that doesn't agree with this stance.

  8. #8
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    We do not want to continue allowing our lawmakers to further segregate us and make them more equal than the rest of us. Maybe send a copy of Animal Farm to any politician that doesn't agree with this stance.
    What he said.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Paul:

    A permit to carry allows the holder to carry in the GFSZ. This bill only gives off duty officers the same privilege we will have with a CC permit. Or did you mean that the bill should also include open carry by private citizens?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Paul:

    A permit to carry allows the holder to carry in the GFSZ. This bill only gives off duty officers the same privilege we will have with a CC permit. Or did you mean that the bill should also include open carry by private citizens?
    No. Permit holders will be allowed within the GFSZ, but NOT on the school grounds itself. This bill will only allow off-duty police officers to be on actual school grounds with a weapon. Permit holders would still have to stay off the actual school grounds. Hence, this bill creates a "superior class" of individuals by creating a privilege/right only for certain people. That is, LEO.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I guess I'm trying to get as many rights restored as possible and I know that they won;t go to permitless carry this soon so I am trying to chip away at restrictions.

    I see what you were trying to say and I know that constitutional carry doesn't really exist since the constitution doesn't seem to exist anymore. I was just pointing out that your exact word usage in the email were a little contradicting. I'm sure it made perfect sense to your legislator though, they all seem to think that charging a fee and slapping a licensing scheme on a right you were born with is some how within the realm of the 2nd Amendment.

    Being that, for now, a license is the only way to protect yourself from the criminals in government, I do agree with what you were saying to your legislator.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I stand corrected. My apologies to Paul. I forgot that the school grounds are considered part of the school zone not just the 1000 foot perimeter around the school grounds.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I stand corrected. My apologies to Paul. I forgot that the school grounds are considered part of the school zone not just the 1000 foot perimeter around the school grounds.
    No problem!

  14. #14
    Regular Member bluehighways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    142
    Email sent to my representative.
    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North of Madison
    Posts
    177

    +1000

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    This is the letter I sent to my Representatives:
    I also sent my represenative a letter today as well.

    I hate liberalism and I definitely dislike separating classes because of elitism. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Also I asked him to reach across and under the aisle and get support for this to be changed to include us common folks. EVERYONE PLEASE write your reps now!!

  16. #16
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    One more thing to distract us from aggressively pursuing AB69-Castle Doctrine, adding No Duty to Retreat and Stand Your Ground Anywhere.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Besides mentioning the discriminatory double standard, I made sure to mention the supposedly big-deal of permits. If they're not a big deal, then why are we requiring them? If they're a big enough deal to require them, then they must mean something. If the state is going to require special permits for a privilege that should be a right, then I'm going to put it to them and make that permit give privileges.

    "If permits are so important, then they should have importance, and "off-duty" citizens should have the same rights as off-duty LE."
    Last edited by DangerClose; 10-04-2011 at 07:40 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North of Madison
    Posts
    177

    State Assy Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Let's get people who are licensed included in this as well or it should not pass!!!

    To recap, current GFSZ law allows LEO to carry on school grounds only while on duty. This change would allow them to carry, for example, if they are going to their child's soccer game.

    A special class of citizens, I think NOT!!!

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB299hst.html


    _ _ _ _ _,

    Thank you for your email.

    I don’t believe AB 299 will come to a vote before the entire legislature. I tend to agree with you though that allowing an off-duty LEO to carry on school grounds would be discriminatory considering that when they are not on duty they are no different from any other law abiding citizen. If we carve out an exception for them then why not members of the military and when does it stop?

    Sincerely,

    Keith Ripp
    Wisconsin State Representative
    47th Assembly District

    Thats a good reply!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    AB229 is not needed. Current statute already have provision for off duty cops to be armed on school property. Lets look at reaality. The overwhelming majority of times that an off duty officer would be on school property is if they are attending a special event or some extra-curricular activity of a friend or family member. The rest of the time they would be there as a result of an on-duty call. If certain law enforcement officers feal they have a need to be armed when at those special events the current GFSZ statute allows them to get permission from school authorities to be armed while on school property. In fact those same school authorities could proclaim that all off duty active law enforcement officers can be armed while on school property. That permission also applied to us until Act 35. All AB229 does is give carte blanche state approval to all officers.

    948.605(2)(b)5.

    5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;


    A contract is merely an agreement between two or more persons or businesses.

    My opinion.

  20. #20
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    No. Permit holders will be allowed within the GFSZ, but NOT on the school grounds itself. This bill will only allow off-duty police officers to be on actual school grounds with a weapon. Permit holders would still have to stay off the actual school grounds. Hence, this bill creates a "superior class" of individuals by creating a privilege/right only for certain people. That is, LEO.
    and then the question is raised: since the law is grey regarding permit holders discharging in self defense in a school zone, what will the law do to 'the beautiful people' who discharge on school property in self defense?

  21. #21
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Amendment 1 passed http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/docu.../REG/AB299-AA1

    It is available for the Assembly to vote on. We need to get it amended or killed.

    Here is the bill: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/docu...2011/REG/AB299

  22. #22
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    As we all know LEOs are more well trained with firearms, more responsible, more level-headed, less likely to have a negligent discharge, less likely to shoot than the average gun nut. (NOT!).
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  23. #23
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    As we all know LEOs are more well trained with firearms, more responsible, more level-headed, less likely to have a negligent discharge, less likely to shoot than the average gun nut. (NOT!).

    There, fixed it for you...
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  24. #24
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Anyway, I did send off an email to both my reps.

    Dear Rep. Krusick,

    I have recently become aware of 2 bills (AB299 and AB479) regarding permissions of police and concealed carry.

    AB299 text reads;
    Current law generally prohibits a person from possessing or discharging a firearm in, or on the grounds of, a school or within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school. Current law contains several exemptions to this prohibition, including law enforcement officers who are acting in their official capacity and, if the person is not in or on the grounds of a school, a person who holds a license to carry a concealed weapon. This bill eliminates the requirement that the officer be acting in his or her official capacity if the officer is authorized to carry a firearm; the officer is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the law enforcement agency that could result in the suspension or loss of his or her law enforcement authority; the officer is qualified
    under standards established by the law enforcement agency to use a firearm; the law enforcement officer is not prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm; the firearm is not a machine gun or a destructive device, such as a bomb; the officer is
    not carrying a firearm silencer; and the officer is not under the influence of an intoxicant.

    AB479 text reads;
    Under current federal law, with certain exceptions, a law enforcement officer may carry a concealed weapon if he or she is also carrying an identification issued by the law enforcement agency that employs him or her; this federal provision
    explicitly preempts any state prohibition. Under current state law, any person may apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. When the person submits an application, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must run a background check on the
    applicant to see if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm. The person must also submit a fee to cover the costs of the application and the background check and must submit proof of training. Under this bill, DOJ must provide a license to carry
    a concealed weapon to all law enforcement officers without the fee, background check, or training required by applicants who are not law enforcement officers.


    In my opinion, AB299 is far too vague to become a law, it is unclear if the intent is to allow uniformed officers acting out of official capacity the ability to be on school grounds while armed, or is its intent to allow off duty the ability to carry concealed weapons on school grounds? Act 35 exempts license holders from GFSZ's 1000 foot rule, but does not exempt license holders from the actual school grounds. AB299 would give permissions police officers that citizens are not allowed. AB479 effectually exempts the police from requirements of Act 35 altogether. These bills are unfair as defined by the 14th amendment stated "nor shall any state ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A law specifying any class OR persons as exempt from a law is violating the 14th amendment unless that law pertains to all people. I am not against law enforcement officers the right to carry concealed weapons, however there should not be a separate set of rules for any class elite. I hope you have the opportunity to review these bills, and to express my concerns in my place.

    I did get a response from both, stating they will look into it. I sent these out a few weeks ago.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Not Really

    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    and then the question is raised: since the law is grey regarding permit holders discharging in self defense in a school zone, what will the law do to 'the beautiful people' who discharge on school property in self defense?
    The "law" - meaning we are not restricted to statutes alone permits use of a weapon in self-defense even if discharge is otherwise illegal. Even a violent felon is permitted to pick up a firearm for such a purpose. Beyond self-defense is the broader concept of "necessity." Thus a person who shoots a malefactor in self-defense and then breaks into a pharmacy to obtain supplies to treat the wound would not be liable for trespass or theft.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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