Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Walker's administration bars open carry of weapons in state buildings

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Walker's administration bars open carry of weapons in state buildings

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...134779118.html

    I have no idea why they would ban OC and allow CC. Are they even able to ban a certain method of carry?
    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)

  2. #2
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Thats rather dumb...i prefer to OC in that building.

  3. #3
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    The Interwebs:

    Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder that makes it difficult to:

    Tell the difference between real and unreal experiences

    Think logically

    Have normal emotional responses,

    Behave normally in social situations


    This administration has some.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...134779118.html
    Are they even able to ban a certain method of carry?
    I don't see why not. Some places (such as MKEGal's coffee shop) prohibit CC, but are fine with OC.

    As long as the restriction is posted indicating the restriction, they should be fine.

    They could always quote from Hamdan as well...

    124 Wisconsin Stat. 941.23 is similarly constitutional when applied to the defendant because it does not eliminate the right of an owner of a privately operated business to bear arms for security or defense but simply limits the manner in which he or she may exercise the right to bear arms. That is, 941.23 does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes. Rather, it limits the manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon that is on a person or within a person's reach not be concealed.[67] The gist of the offense is the concealment. Thus, nothing about Wis. Stat. 941.23 comes close to eviscerating, destroying, frustrating, or nullifying the right to bear arms in Wisconsin for the defendant here or any other person. The right to bear arms "is not impaired by requiring individuals to carry weapons openly."[68]
    Simply reverse open / concealed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    thinking...get a 8.5x11 iron on transfer sheet...print the image of my g27...iron it to the right side of my sweatshirt...so as to give the appearnce of OC..while Ill actually have the sweatshirt CC my polymer protector.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    I told you we were lied to back in May

    And was repeated scolded for using such a strong word.

    BUT...

    We were repeatedly told they wouldn't infringe on OC, "OH NO, we'll never do it." Well, here it is! Soon WI will be a privilege CC by permit only state, mark my words. We were sold down the river. Every day that passes I become more certain a recall of Walker will succeed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    And was repeated scolded for using such a strong word.

    BUT...

    We were repeatedly told they wouldn't infringe on OC, "OH NO, we'll never do it." Well, here it is! Soon WI will be a privilege CC by permit only state, mark my words. We were sold down the river. Every day that passes I become more certain a recall of Walker will succeed.
    Any member of this forum who's happy about that has an IQ approximately equal to their caliber.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    They aren't going to move us to a may-issue state. There is no need to overreact to this. And a recall of walker would be the worst thing to happen to this state right now.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    And was repeated scolded for using such a strong word.

    BUT...

    We were repeatedly told they wouldn't infringe on OC, "OH NO, we'll never do it." Well, here it is! Soon WI will be a privilege CC by permit only state, mark my words. We were sold down the river. Every day that passes I become more certain a recall of Walker will succeed.
    OC in government buildings was totally prohibited by statute back in May. There has been no loss of OC territory but rather modest gains. I am not sure what a "privilege CC by permit only state" is but I do know that with very narrow exceptions concealed carry requires a license now. If you desire a recall of Gov. Walker, you may want to consider what a Gov. Falk might do. It's ok to be angry, just don't be stupid. WI would have had CC eight years ago if certain "pro-gun" forces hadn't got into a snit and torpedoed Scott McCallum. CC is not engraved in stone and can be modified or removed if the right combination of political stars align.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Where Have You Been?

    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    [url]Are they even able to ban a certain method of carry?
    Concealed carry was banned for over 100 years. Then the earth cooled and Act 35 appeared.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542
    We need to have some of these made now! I was going to do it anyway but looks like I absolutely need one next time I go to the capitol .

    With WI info of course.

    Last edited by Jason in WI; 11-30-2011 at 07:41 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) praised the move, saying that an open carry policy could have led to allowing rifles and shotguns to be brought into the building and would have been intimidating to visitors like schoolchildren.

    He needs to read the law.
    Only licensees may [legally] carry in a taxpayer-owned building,
    and the license only allows carry of pistols, not long guns.
    Why didn't the reporter mention that?
    And I think kids would probably either take it in stride or be interested.

    Jocelyn Webster, a spokeswoman for the Department of Administration, had no comment late Wednesday on Miller's story about being allowed to carry openly in the Capitol. She said the state was availing itself of the provisions in state law allowing property owners to decide whether to allow concealed carry on their premises.
    "Even before recent changes in state law, open carry was prohibited in state buildings. State buildings will maintain the policy."


    State workers have to notify their supervisor in writing that they have a permit and intend to carry a concealed weapon before doing so.
    Webster declined to say how many state employees have notified their supervisors that they will be carrying a concealed gun.
    The Journal Sentinel has made a request for the information under the state's open records law.
    And so it starts.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Here is the letter I sent the Governor.

    I heard that you are going back on your decision to allow carrying, open and concealed, in the Capitol.

    So.... the very people you are counting on to withstand the potential recall, the backbone of your support, you are going to irritate us?


    Has there been an issue? Has any non frothing at the mouth anti-gunner (average folk) actually complained?


    Here's a clue, the people who you are making happy will NOT vote for you, no matter WHAT you do! The people who you are making mad by doing this are the middle of the road folks who might just stay home during the recall election.


    If there are isolated issues, deal with those on an individual basis, don't paint us all with a broad brush.


    I hope this is just a short term brain fart. Leave the Capitol accessible to all of us.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    WA has unlicensed loaded long gun (and pistol) open carry in the Capitol building,..and has forever. It has never been a problem..right up to the gov's office door, and inside if you have an invite. School kids used to be able to carry long guns to school for show and tell...at least in the free states. Why should we shield kids from a natural right (at least that is what the US and WA constitution calls it)

    Is the WI government afraid of their constituents? Criminals that would do you harm will carry into the building and could care less what the law is. Law abiding citizens will not carry into the areas that are restricted, only becasue they abide the law...so what do you think.

    Protias and Paul. If you want to add this to your letter to the gov, you can tell him this is a comment from a WA resident, that has friends in WI.

    Edit to add: BTW: Washington CeaseFire (equiv to your WAVE) has made it a point to attack OC here in WA, and I understand it is being orchastrated by the VPC in DC in all states that allow OC... It is an attempt to divide and conquer....you know...I don't OC so banning OC won't effect me...I don't drink so banning beer won't effect me, I don't smoke, so banning smoking won't effect me, etc etc...until they come for your favorite, then no-one is left to support you...Well, I actually do all of the above, and I'm aready alerting my representitave that this is a no-go.
    Last edited by hermannr; 11-30-2011 at 08:43 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Here is the letter I sent the Governor.
    Where do you get that they are going back on allowing concealed carry? It only says open carry...

  16. #16
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    Where do you get that they are going back on allowing concealed carry? It only says open carry...
    Re-reading my letter, I guess I wasn't precise enough. The subject of the email was "Banning open carry in the Capitol".

  17. #17
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068

    Post On Being Tactically Smart - in the struggle against anti-gun forces.

    I have no "dog in this fight", but reading the article I took notice of a point that may need consideration by members of this forum. The Wisconsin Capital has been a hotbed of political contention and the Republican Administration may be trying to prevent the anti-gun liberal camp form over-reacting to open carry and use that as an excuse to further protest. It is the old - save the schoolchildren lie and the media has made itself quite clear in that it doesn't want to be bothered by inconvenient truths when reporting on pro-gun issues.

    As a previous post has pointed out, "no open carry ground was lost" and in this case, an ounce of prevention may prevent the need for a pound of cure.

    On the one hand I have the deepest admiration for those who stand up for their rights. On the other, "good generalmanship" may preclude openings for Jeri and her WAVE crew to make attacks in the media. Remember my friends, that part of our goal is winning the hearts and minds of those who are sitting on the fence with respect to owning and carrying a firearm for the purpose of self-defense and the defense of loved ones. At the end of the day, the more licensed carriers we create, the more votes for legislators who pro-gun viewpoints. If there is one thing that legislators keep close tabs on it is the number of NRA members and Permit (License) holders that are in their district. Come the next election in WI, those numbers will influence legislators and WI may take yet take one more step toward Constitutional Carry with optional permit/license for those who travel or are concerned with Federal FGSZ areas.

    Yellow Cat Out -
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  18. #18
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    [QUOTE=MKEgal;1658904]
    He needs to read the law.
    Only licensees may [legally] carry in a taxpayer-owned building,
    and the license only allows carry of pistols, not long guns.
    QUOTE]

    I have read the law and so have many others. I suggest you read it better before you post mis-information with authority.

    A licensee can only conceal a handgun, tazer, knife or billy club.

    941.235 only states 'firearms'. As per statute, a licensee could open carry practically anything that would be considered a firearm, but they can only conceal a handgun, taxer, knife or billy club.

  19. #19
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Re-reading my letter, I guess I wasn't precise enough. The subject of the email was "Banning open carry in the Capitol".

    I heard that you are going back on your decision to allow carrying, open and concealed, in the Capitol.
    Did you do that onpurpose, so that you would get a reply stating that CC would still be allowed or did you just not read the article?

  20. #20
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Doesn't want to scare the sheeple.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  21. #21
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Did you do that onpurpose, so that you would get a reply stating that CC would still be allowed or did you just not read the article?
    I guess I'm being obtuse.

    My intent, between the subject "Banning open carry in the Capitol" and the rest of the email was to say that the decision was made on or about 11/1 that carry, in any form, would be allowed in the Capitol, assuming we met the requirements of 941.235. The implication, which obviously I hid too much, was that the decision to allow open and concealed was reversed and now they will only allow concealed.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The case reference to paragraph 124 in Hamdan is of little value to the argument. It is the personal opinion of justice Bablitch. The WSC decision in Hamdan ends at paragraph 89.

    By prohibiting a right (open carry) and mandating a privilege (concealed carry) I feel the governor creates a conflict with Article I section 25. Essentially the decision evicerates Art.I sect 25 as concerns the rights of the people. I think these paragraphs in the WSC decision in Hamdan are relative.

    38. The adoption of Article I, Section 25 did not affect prior judicial interpretations of the CCW statute or the availability of privilege defenses for CCW crimes, but it did create an obligation to protect rights guaranteed by the amendment.

    39. The State's broad police power to regulate the ownership and use of firearms and other weapons continues, notwithstanding Article I, Section 25. Nonetheless, the amendment's broad declaration of the right to keep and bear arms inevitably impacts the exercise of that power. In this state, constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police power

    41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.

    44. As we explained in Cole, when an exercise of the State's police power implicates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the validity of the exercise is measured by the reasonableness of the restriction on the asserted right.

    71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.

    In Hamdan the WSC and later the Attorney General, ruled that because of the strict application of the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23, open carry was the only reasonable alternate manner of carry and therefore constitutionally protected by Art I sec 25.


    Open carry of firearms was never allowed in goverment buildings, concealed or otherwise, prior to A-35. A-35 now makes an exception in ss941.235 for concealed carry by licensed individuals. Some issues arise. First: It trumps a constitutional right (open carry) with a state issued privilege (concealed carry). Second: For those persons that do not have the means to obtain a concealed carry license it eviscerates their constitutional rights under Art I sec 25.

    Finally: ss941.235 no longer absolutely prohibits carry of firearms in state buildings. It only regulates the manner and types that may be carried. Essentially Act 35 changed the reach to imply that the carry of long guns and visible handguns is still prohibited but the carry of licensed conceal carry of handguns is allowed. In doing so it recognizes the need for persons to provide for their personal protection in public buildings. However, it regulates that manner in such a way that it eviscerates a right and replaces it with a privilege. It discriminates against persons that do not have the means to acquire the privilege. Even though Act 35 recognizes the need for personal protection by firearms in public buildings it denies that right to certain qualified persons. Therefore the state ban of open carry by lawful unlicensed citizens in defference to people with a licensed privilege is unconstitutional.

    These are my opinions. Do what you will with them.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 12-01-2011 at 12:35 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Re-reading my letter, I guess I wasn't precise enough. The subject of the email was "Banning open carry in the Capitol".
    Ah ok lol. You had me worried for a second.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    You Can Ignore Facts You Don't Like But They Still Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    The case reference to paragraph 124 in Hamdan is of little value to the argument. It is the personal opinion of justice Bablitch. The WSC decision in Hamdan ends at paragraph 89.

    41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.

    44. As we explained in Cole, when an exercise of the State's police power implicates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the validity of the exercise is measured by the reasonableness of the restriction on the asserted right.

    71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.

    In Hamdan the WSC and later the Attorney General, ruled that because of the strict application of the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23, open carry was the only reasonable alternate manner of carry and therefore constitutionally protected by Art I sec 25.

    Open carry of firearms was never allowed in goverment buildings, concealed or otherwise, prior to A-35. A-35 now makes an exception in ss941.235 for concealed carry by licensed individuals. Some issues arise. First: It trumps a constitutional right (open carry) with a state issued privilege (concealed carry). Second: For those persons that do not have the means to obtain a concealed carry license it eviscerates their constitutional rights under Art I sec 25.
    Your reasoning is flawed. There is no constitutional right to carry in a government building. The state may ban open carry, concealed carry or both in government buildings without implicating Article I, Section 25. The state could also say handguns are ok, billy clubs are not. Carry on Tuesdays is ok, but not Wednesdays. As you point out:

    Finally: ss941.235 no longer absolutely prohibits carry of firearms in state buildings. It only regulates the manner and types that may be carried. Essentially Act 35 changed the reach to imply that the carry of long guns and visible handguns is still prohibited but the carry of licensed conceal carry of handguns is allowed.
    I don't see how Act 35 did what you claim. Can you point to the language that implies that OC is prohibited?

    In doing so it recognizes the need for persons to provide for their personal protection in public buildings.
    That is your interpretation but there is no evidence that this was the legislature's intent.

    However, it regulates that manner in such a way that it eviscerates a right and replaces it with a privilege.
    There is no right to begin with. This was a reduction in the restriction. You seem to be arguing that the state must either completely ban carrying in the capitol or not restrict it at all.

    It discriminates against persons that do not have the means to acquire the privilege. Even though Act 35 recognizes the need for personal protection by firearms in public buildings it denies that right to certain qualified persons. Therefore the state ban of open carry by lawful unlicensed citizens in defference to people with a licensed privilege is unconstitutional.
    You are reading things into Act 35 that aren't there. If a CWL is a privilege then the state has the power to limit that privilege.

    These are my opinions. Do what you will with them.
    It's good that people think about these matters and you make some valid points. I just believe that your conclusion doesn't follow.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Neenah
    Posts
    194
    I'm not happy about the laws we have now either but you have to walk before you can run. This lib ass state isn't going to jump from OC only to constitutional in a day. Be smart and keep driving forward. Getting rid of the ass clown Doyle was the first step. I have made my feelings known to Walker and lets not forget he can't sign a bill that was never presented. They sent him what we have and he signed it. It's not perfect but it's a start. Now let's keep marching forward. After some data has been collected over time, it will provide the evidence we need to show that CC is the way to go. It's a process. You don't ask a girl to marry you on the first date
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    --Thomas Jefferson

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
  •