• 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.

AB299 introduced - Exclude off-duty LEO from GFSZ

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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
 
M

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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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!!!! :banghead:

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.
 

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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.
 

Packfanatic

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
177
Location
North of Madison
+1000

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!!
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
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:

Packfanatic

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
177
Location
North of Madison
State Assy Reply

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!
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
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?
 
Top