• 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.

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

paul@paul-fisher.com

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

Captain Nemo

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

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
You Can Ignore Facts You Don't Like But They Still Exist

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.
 

Zeus

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
194
Location
Neenah
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 :D
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
941.235  Carrying firearm in public building.
941.235(1) (1) Any person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
941.235(2) (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
941.235(2)(a) (a) Peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.
941.235(2)(c) (c) A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
941.235(2)(d) (d) A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
941.235(2)(e) (e) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).


a firearm In the context used the word firearm is all inclusive; Meaning any firearm in any manner of carry. In Wisconsin statutes a firearm is defined as "Any device that expells a bullet by the force of gunpowder".

A license received as a result of 175.60 gives a person the privilege to conceal carry a handgun only. Note: I'm talking firearms only, I acknowledge that there are other types of non-firearm weapons included in 175.60. There is also a question as to whether or not the 175.60 issued license also allows a person to carry a visible handgun in a GFSZ as the language in the GFSZ statute 948.605 implies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
Effective date text 1. On private property not part of school grounds;
Effective date text 2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: Open or concealed carry of longuns prohibited in public buildings. Open carry of handguns prohibited in public buildings. Only a duly licensed civilian licensed under 175.60 may carry a firearm in an unposted public building and that firearm must be concealed.

My opinion.
 
Last edited:

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
941.235  Carrying firearm in public building.
941.235(1) (1) Any person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
941.235(2) (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
941.235(2)(a) (a) Peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.
941.235(2)(c) (c) A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
941.235(2)(d) (d) A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
941.235(2)(e) (e) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).


a firearm In the context used the word firearm is all inclusive; Meaning any firearm in any manner of carry. In Wisconsin statutes a firearm is defined as "Any device that expells a bullet by the force of gunpowder".

A license received as a result of 175.60 gives a person the privilege to conceal carry a handgun only. Note: I'm talking firearms only, I acknowledge that there are other types of non-firearm weapons included in 175.60. There is also a question as to whether or not the 175.60 issued license also allows a person to carry a visible handgun in a GFSZ as the language in the GFSZ statute 948.605 implies.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
Effective date text 1. On private property not part of school grounds;
Effective date text 2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: Open or concealed carry of longuns prohibited in public buildings. Open carry of handguns prohibited in public buildings. Only a duly licensed civilian licensed under 175.60 may carry a firearm in an unposted public building and that firearm must be concealed.
My opinion.

I know of no citations in the current statutes that support the "firearm must be concealed" phrase in the OPINION paragraphs that I highlighted in red

As cited above, the statute states the crime that a person commits if they go armed with a firearm in any building ...

paragraph (2)(e) says this section (statute 941.235) does not apply to a Wisconsin or out-of-state licensee.

SO... what statute do you think prohibits a licensee from open carrying in a state building if the building is NOT posted at the door?

The holder of a Wisconsin Concealed Carry License, has whatever priveleges are granted by the statutes. period.

P.S. As the holder of a Wisconsin Driver License, I have documentation (state issued photo id) to support my voting in the next election. The document is not CALLED a Wisconsin voter id card, but it meets the requirement of the appropriate statutes and rules. What the document was originally intended for is moot.
 
Last edited:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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.

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 :banana:.

With WI info of course.

yes-I-am-carrying-a-concealed-handgun-shirt.jpg

Love these! Definitely going to have to try out that first idea :)
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
e6chevron:

Read 941.235 again. It prohibits the carry of all firearms in public buildings. Initially the manner of carry is moot. An exception is made to the manner of carry and kind of firearm for those that have a CCL. In short the exception means that if a person is licensed under 175.60 to carry a concealed weapon (in regards to firearms; handgun only) they may carry a concealed handgun in a public building. (that is providing the building is not posted.) There is no exemption for open carry of handguns or any other firearm for that matter.

My opinion
Don't misinterpret my post few have fought more tenaciously for constitutional carry than I. My post only points out some impediments in our way. I don't like ss941.235 but there is no way it can be twisted to imply that just because a person has a license to carry a concealed handgun IAW 175.60 that it gives them the privilege to carry a visible firearm in a public building.
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Let's Break It Down

Let

NO(X) = nonlicensee carrying handgun openly in/at X
NC(X) = nonlicensee carrying handgun concealed in/at X
LO(X) = licensee carrying handgun openly in/at X
LC(X) = licensee carrying handgun concealed in/at X

Irrelevant exceptions are not addressed.

Let's start out by pretending that there are no firearms laws in Wisconsin. NO(WI) is legal, NC(WI) is legal. LO and LC don't exist.

Here comes Wis. Stat. 941.23. (concealed carry is banned)
NO(WI) is legal. NC(WI)is illegal. LO doesn't exist. LC doesn't exist.

Here comes Wis. Stat. 941.235. (carry in government building is banned)
NO(capitol) is illegal. NO(elsewhere) is legal. NC(WI) is illegal. LO doesn't exist. LC doesn't exist.

Here comes Act 35 which
1. Created the CWL meaning other than as specified in Act 35:

LC(WI) is legal. LO(as before) is not affected (legal). NO(as before) is not affected (legal). NC(as before) is not affected (illegal).

2. Modified 941.235 to exempt L from 941.235. It doesn't say LO or LC, just L.

LO(capitol) is legal, LC (capitol) is legal, Nx(capitol) is illegal. No change to Nx(capitol).

The exemption from 941.235 is for the person (licensee) not for a person/carry mode combination. Same for GFSZ (except grounds). LO or LC is ok even within 1000'. NO within 1000' is illegal. NC within 1000' is doubly illegal.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
175.60  License to carry a concealed weapon.
(2) Issuance and scope of license.
175.60(2)(a)(a) The department shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to any individual who is not disqualified under sub. (3) and who completes the application process specified in sub. (7). A license to carry a concealed weapon issued under this section shall meet the requirements specified in sub. (2m).

(c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed.

Definition: (j) "Weapon" means a handgun, an electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a), a knife other than a switchblade knife under s. 941.24, or a billy club.

Just because a person has a CCL IAW 175.60 does not give them a carte blanche authority to open carry a firearm in all locations one may carry a concealed weapon. A CCL is specific to handguns, other defined weapons and concealement. 175.60 is but an exemption to statute 941.23 and gives a civilian the privilege to carry a concealed weapon under specific conditions. The following paragraph from Hamdan expresses the WSC opinion.

¶48. Wisconsin's current CCW statute is very broad. It is essentially a strict liability offense. The legislature has not authorized any statutory defenses or exceptions (other than peace officers) to the broad prohibition found in the statute. As presently construed, the statute prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I, Section 25. In addition, the statute reaches unloaded firearms as well as loaded ones, see Wis.Stat.§939.22(10) (defining a "dangerous weapon" under the CCW statute), and applies to any weapon within a individual's reach, see Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433-34, if the person knows the weapon is present.

175.60 is simply the legislature's response to the strict liability.

Both manners of carry are separately affected by other statutes as they apply. i.e. 941.235, 948.605 and 167.31.

There is no way that 175.60 can be read so as to suck open carry into the privileges afforded by 175.60. No matter how one formulates or twists it 941.235still says that visible carry of firearms in a public building is prohibited. 175.60 does not provide an exception. 175.60 only provides an exception for concealed carry as licensed by 175.60. It does apply to a specific manner and types of weapons.

No matter what one's personal opinion of Walker is he was not about to make such a bold statement without getting an opinion from state lawyers, the LRB and the DoJ as to whether or not his position can be defended by state statute.

my opinion
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
There is no way that 175.60 can be read so as to suck open carry into the privileges afforded by 175.60. No matter how one formulates or twists it 941.235still says that visible carry of firearms in a public building is prohibited. 175.60 does not provide an exception. 175.60 only provides an exception for concealed carry as licensed by 175.60. It does apply to a specific manner and types of weapons.

No matter what one's personal opinion of Walker is he was not about to make such a bold statement without getting an opinion from state lawyers, the LRB and the DoJ as to whether or not his position can be defended by state statute.

my opinion
Well said! Your opinion is well found.
 
Top