Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Ab299 scheduled for public hearing

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

    Ab299 scheduled for public hearing


  2. #2
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    The link doesnt show any information as to when or where the hearing will be?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  3. #3
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Having read and re-read the bill I may have to waffle a little. It is not clear from reading if this involves uniformed officers and if on school grounds.

    The text shows;
    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

    Doesn't state on or off duty nor does it states anything about exempting them from the license requirement. My interpretation is that it is allowing a uniformed officer acting NOT in an official capacity to be on school grounds armed. It should be worded more explicitly to indicate its intent.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I think the intent is that anyone employed as a LEO,
    whether on duty or not,
    whether in uniform or not,
    whether on official business at the school or not,
    will be allowed the special privilege of keeping & bearing arms in the building & on the grounds of a school.
    (Just like licensees are allowed to do across the country, with no problems, so why limit it to LEO?)
    It apparently even overrides the property rights of a private school to exclude certain citizens whom they deem to be undesirable.

    [ETA: and I don't see a restriction for LEO from within the state, so out-of-state residents would once again have more rights than WI residents, within WI.]

    Correct me if I'm misremembering, but the law already has an exemption for on-duty LEO.
    So this is one more instance of giving extra privileges to people based on their employment.
    Extra privileges while doing their job, fine. Sometimes they're needed.

    But someone who's off the clock is (supposed to be) just like everyone else... until there's an ND & the Chief says his employee shouldn't be treated like everyone else, or until there's a DUI & the officer isn't treated like any other citizen. (Both Milwaukee OD officers, but I'm sure similar things have happened across the state.)
    Last edited by MKEgal; 01-21-2012 at 07:07 PM.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    When you bring up the AB299 history screen, click on "committee"

    then in the small list box, click on "Upcoming Meetings"

    Then scroll to the bottom of the window, and click on the date of the meeting you are interested in.

    10:00 AM Wed. Jan. 25, 2012, 300 Northeast

    http://committeeschedule.legis.wisco...CRI-18333.html

    AB479, is also scheduled to be discussed.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 01-24-2012 at 01:30 AM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    The Assembly Amendment 1 to 11AB299 is flawed.

    January 27, 2012 − Offered by Representatives HEBL and KLEEFISCH.

    At the locations indicated, amend the bill as follows:

    1. Page 1, line 5: delete the material beginning with "and certain" and ending with "officers" on line 6.

    2. Page 2, line 1: delete the material beginning with that line and ending with with page 3, line 8.

    (END)
    1. The word "officers" does not exist on page 1 line 6. So, I'm not certain what is dropped in the "descriptive" portion of AB299.

    2. Here is what is deleted by 11AB299 Assembly Amendment 1:


    SECTION 1. Changed 813.12 (4m) (a) [Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions.] to adjust how the respondent named in the petition for injunction is informed, due to the change below in SECTION 2.

    SECTION 2. Changed 813.12 (4m)(a) [Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions.] To allow the respondent peace officer to possess a firearm when on duty, and while off duty if required as a condition of employment to possess a firearm while off duty.


    SECTION 3. Changed 813.122 (5m) [Child Abuse Injunction] to adjust how the respondent named in the petition for injunction is informed, due to the change below in SECTION 4.

    SECTION 4. Addition to 813.122 (5m) [Child Abuse Injunction] To allow the respondent peace officer to possess a firearm when on duty, and while off duty if required as a condition of employment to possess a firearm while off duty.


    SECTION 5. Changes would have been made to 941.29 (10) (a)[Possession of a Firearm] for someone enjoined under a domestic abuse injunction or child abuse injunction. Currently peace officers under injunction are allowed to possess a firearm when on duty or if required to do so as a condition of employment, while off duty. The change would have allowed peace officers under injunction the privilege to carry a firearm all the time.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  8. #8
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    I did send off emails to both my state reps, expressing my concerns of both ab299 and ab479.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Posting Permissions

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