• 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.

questions about proposed law

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/bills/LRB-11-2027-1.pdf


Penalties for certain offenses related to weapons
The bill establishes penalties for offenses that relate to concealed weapons or that are committed by licensees. First, a licensee or out−of−state licensee who fails to carry his or her license document or photographic identification, or to display either upon the request of a law enforcement officer, while the person is carrying a
concealed weapon, may be required to forfeit $25. Second, a licensee who, for a second or subsequent time, or an individual whose license is suspended or revoked who fails to notify DOJ of a change in address within 30 days of the change may be
required to forfeit $50. Third, a licensee who carries a concealed weapon in a place where the bill prohibits him or her from doing so may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 30 days or both
Problem– description here is vague, prohibited meaning someone’s private property??

29.089 (2) (intro.) Except as provided in sub. (3), no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. This subsection does not apply to any of the following:
.
29.089 (2) (d) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out−of−state
licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g), if the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s.
175.60 (1) (bm). - - -
Problem– this excludes knives that are otherwise considered concealed weapons. What are rules for knives here?
Wisconsin Wildlife Refuge”.
SECTION 14. 29.091 (2) of the statutes is created to read:
29.091 (2) The prohibition in sub. (1), as it relates to the possession or control of a loaded or unencased gun or firearm within a refuge established under s. 23.09 (2) (b), does not apply to any of the following:
same as above


167.31 (2) (b) 1. Except as provided in subd. 2. and sub. (4), no person may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded
problem – why unloaded?

175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon
-(f) “Out−of−state license” means a valid permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by another state if all of the following apply
- (g) “Out−of−state licensee” means an individual who is 21 years of age or over, who is not a Wisconsin resident, and who has been issued an out−of−state license

problem – a WI resident cannot get an out of state license and use it in WI???

(1Cool RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS. The department may enter into reciprocity agreements with other states as to matters relating to licenses or other authorization to carry concealed weapons.
-- I think all licenses are recognized, correct

943.13 Trespass to land.
943.13 (1m) (b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises. This paragraph does not apply to a licensee or out−of−state licensee if the owner’s or occupant’s intent is to prevent the licensee or out−of−state licensee from carrying a firearm on the owner’s or occupant’s land.
– does this mean carry rights trump property owner rights?


What about...


1.CCW license holder should be able to carry while hunting, any season, anywhere. Also, on any lakes.
2. don't make it a legal infraction to carry into a posted area. They can make you leave, and if you dont you can be ticked for trespassing.
3. no civil liability if you use your weapon in a legal, justified shoot.
4. do not need to notify police that you are carrying unless they ask
5. self defense is presumed and needs to be challenged, not proved
6. state preemption over local laws
7 car carry, concealed or open, without a permit, loaded
8 ok to carry on city bus, train, or any public transit
9 no need for fingerprints on renewal
10 castle doctrine, anywhere one is legally allowed to be
 
Last edited:

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
Actually, I realize there are two different bills.
But, this is the one I was wanting comment on.

Any ideas.
 

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
Hmmm. Everyone is pressing for constitutional carry?
Be that as it may, I wasn't pressing for either bill. I doubt you know my interest in which bill I would support.

I had specific questions about the bill I listed. I would think we could discuss that here. Or am I worng?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Hmmm. Everyone is pressing for constitutional carry?
Be that as it may, I wasn't pressing for either bill. I doubt you know my interest in which bill I would support.

I had specific questions about the bill I listed. I would think we could discuss that here. Or am I worng?
Then what do you want to discuss? Why do you support that bill over 2007-1?
 

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
Ok. I've never said I supported one bill over the other. I'm trying to understand issues.
Let's say this is an academic excersize.

It probably wasnt clear...the questions are at the end of the paragraphs above. The bold didnt come out like I thought it would. I made the questions red.

ks
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Permits are fees, fees are just another name for taxes. The GOP said they'd balance the budget without raising taxes.

If you are told to leave and you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing (whether you are carrying or not).

Knives are excluded because this is a firearm carry bill.

167.31 was created to "prevent" people from hunting from their vehicles. However, this law is so broad that you cannot even lean your firearm on your vehicle!

175.60 I know nothing about, so I will not comment.

943.13, no, as of now, your personal protection does not trump private property rights. IN on the other hand, people can now keep their firearms in the vehicles at work, even if the company prohibited it before.

1. Agreed, Constitutional Carry solves this issue.
2. Trespass laws already exist.
3. AB-69 is currently in the works.
4. Why do police need to know you are protecting yourself?
5. See #3
6. Why is this an issue? Do you want to try to learn every single law for local areas?
7. Constitutional Carry solves these issues.
8. Constitutional Carry solves this issue.
9. Why should law abiding citizens be treated as criminals?
10. See #3
 

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
Thanks for your comments...

Permits are fees, fees are just another name for taxes. The GOP said they'd balance the budget without raising taxes.

If you are told to leave and you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing (whether you are carrying or not). What is your opioion of how this bill effects carrying on private property? I think I included the statute.

Knives are excluded because this is a firearm carry bill. That's not true. Knives are specifically mentioned several times.

167.31 was created to "prevent" people from hunting from their vehicles. However, this law is so broad that you cannot even lean your firearm on your vehicle! That wasn't my question...why would a handgun need to be unloaded?

175.60 I know nothing about, so I will not comment.

943.13, no, as of now, your personal protection does not trump private property rights. IN on the other hand, people can now keep their firearms in the vehicles at work, even if the company prohibited it before. Agreed, you would be able to keep a handgun in you vehicle, even parked on private property. That makes sense. Just wasn't sure the other language about carrying on private property.


1. Agreed, Constitutional Carry solves this issue. Again, I was not addressing the CC, but the permit law.
2. Trespass laws already exist.
3. AB-69 is currently in the works. Ah, so a different bill. Missed that.
4. Why do police need to know you are protecting yourself? Not sure your point here. Some States require you notify police if stopped. I dont see the need.
5. See #3
6. Why is this an issue? Do you want to try to learn every single law for local areas? Again, not sure of your point. Seems like preemption makes sense. Not clear how that is addressed in bill. May have missed it.
7. Constitutional Carry solves these issues. Talking this bill not CC. It was not clear here.
8. Constitutional Carry solves this issue. Above
9. Why should law abiding citizens be treated as criminals? Dont know what your point is. Seems to me if you have given finger prints once, that should be enough. Not clear that is covered in the bill.
10. See #3
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Sorry, I was confusing this bill with the current laws.

State preemption is Statute 66.0409 (see sig for state statutes and caselaws).
WI does not honor any carry permit. WI is an open carry state as long as you do not carry:

1. 1000' of a school
2. in a public building (this includes the bathrooms in your local parks)
3. places that serve alcohol for consumption (class B liquor license) unless you have the manager on duty or owner's permision
4. state parks
5. in your vehicle

Not to mention, in Article 1, Section 25, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." Permits are not rights, they are privileges.

Police have no need to check if you are a law abiding citizen, so they have nothing to fear from us. They do not need to know if we are carrying or not.

If there are permits, they can regulate what you can and cannot do. Our carry laws are somewhat confusing, we do not need them to be even more confusing with permits.
Seriously though, Constitutional Carry solves the issues you have questions about. It makes things a whole lot less complicated.

Again, for hunting laws, I'm not entirely sure how they interact with carry laws.

Why do honest citizens need to be finger printed? What type of person is finger printed? Criminals! This isn't the land to prove your innocence, we are innocent until proven guilty.
 

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
We seem to be talking passed each other. I'm not comparing this bill to CC or to the WI constitution.

I am just asking questions points about this bill...

ks


Sorry, I was confusing this bill with the current laws.

State preemption is Statute 66.0409 (see sig for state statutes and caselaws).
WI does not honor any carry permit. WI is an open carry state as long as you do not carry:

1. 1000' of a school
2. in a public building (this includes the bathrooms in your local parks)
3. places that serve alcohol for consumption (class B liquor license) unless you have the manager on duty or owner's permision
4. state parks
5. in your vehicle

Not to mention, in Article 1, Section 25, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." Permits are not rights, they are privileges.

Police have no need to check if you are a law abiding citizen, so they have nothing to fear from us. They do not need to know if we are carrying or not.

If there are permits, they can regulate what you can and cannot do. Our carry laws are somewhat confusing, we do not need them to be even more confusing with permits.
Seriously though, Constitutional Carry solves the issues you have questions about. It makes things a whole lot less complicated.

Again, for hunting laws, I'm not entirely sure how they interact with carry laws.

Why do honest citizens need to be finger printed? What type of person is finger printed? Criminals! This isn't the land to prove your innocence, we are innocent until proven guilty.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
167.31 was created to "prevent" people from hunting from their vehicles. However, this law is so broad that you cannot even lean your firearm on your vehicle!
The current Statute allows the leaning of an unloaded firearm against a vehicle...

167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
bows.
(2) PROHIBITIONS; MOTORBOATS AND VEHICLES; HIGHWAYS AND
ROADWAYS. (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle,
unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or
crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case
(d) Subsection (2) (b) does not prohibit a person from leaning
an unloaded firearm against a vehicle
 
Last edited:

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Hmmm. Everyone is pressing for constitutional carry?
Be that as it may, I wasn't pressing for either bill. I doubt you know my interest in which bill I would support.

I had specific questions about the bill I listed. I would think we could discuss that here. Or am I worng?

I am only interested in constitutional carry. Permits are for suckers.
 

ksks

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
112
Location
wi
To quote Charlie Brown, "Good Grief"

I'm just trying to get some info on this particular bill.
 

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
ksks - I understand were you are coming from, there are just a lot of people on this forum that think that permits are like the devil (I don't blame them, and I agree with them). What everyone needs to realize is that we are on the same side.

That being said, hell yes I want Constitutional Carry, but lets not forget that they are proposing this Shall-Issue bill as well, it is better than the last Shall-Issue bill that was proposed... however, if there are things that we don't like in the Shall-Issue bill we need to let our legislators know what those things are. Tell them that you want Constitutional Carry (they are calling it 'Right to Carry'), but also let them know what is wrong with the Shall-Issue (besides the obvious permits).

So ksks asking questions about the Shall-Issue bill isn't a bad thing. I think we need to do our best to make sure that both of these bills are as good for us as they can be. If we just concentrate on the Right to Carry bill and it doesn't pass them we are left with a Shall-Issue bill that could have been better.

Carry on!
 
Last edited:
Top