• 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.

What SB93's (as amended) permit gets you

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I have been confused so I spent some time digging through the amendments that passed and came up with the following statement. Please blow holes in it if you can.


The only thing the WI permit will allow you to do in addition that you can't do without it is oc or cc from 1000' from a school up to the school property line.

If you choose to not get the permit, you have to unload, encase and lock the firearm inside the 1000' radius.

Please, don't assume I think that restriction is good, just wanted to clarify and verify my reading.

The rest of the law I think has been covered before.
 
M

McX

Guest
you have to unload, encase and lock the firearm inside


this bill is anti-OC. yet another restriction, yet another part to dance, yet another sell out.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
you have to unload, encase and lock the firearm inside


this bill is anti-OC. yet another restriction, yet another part to dance, yet another sell out.

Can you please provide a cite to the 'anti-OC' comment? It does not put any additional restrictions on OC. You can oc anywhere you can cc under this bill.
 
M

McX

Guest
Can you please provide a cite to the 'anti-OC' comment? It does not put any additional restrictions on OC. You can oc anywhere you can cc under this bill.

anti-OC by adding another restrictive step to vehicle transport, lock my gun? yeah, sure. Nik can warm up the lawyers for this one, for me. vehicle transport in my book is part of OC. i will NOT have my ability to defend myself hampered any further while under transport.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
anti-OC by adding another restrictive step to vehicle transport, lock my gun? yeah, sure. Nik can warm up the lawyers for this one, for me. vehicle transport in my book is part of OC. i will NOT have my ability to defend myself hampered any further while under transport.

Please understand I am not supporting the change from unloaded, encased to unloaded, encased and LOCKED, I was just trying to make sure I understand what this proposal gets us and what the permit in the proposal gets us.

I see it needs one change before I am really happy about this proposal.

Ideally, it should treat permitted and non-permitted folks alike in the GFSZ.

As a backup, it should at the very least not impose additional restrictions (locking) to non-permitted folks.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
This is what I sent Neal Kedzie:

Neal,

Once again, I appreciate your work and what you have said at all the meetings. It seems you 'get it'.

I wanted to make sure you understand one of the unintended consequences of bill as it stands now.

Today, according to 948.605(3), I can transport a weapon within 1000' of a school only if:

That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

As part of the new SB 93, that is amended to read (only highlighting the important part):

948.605 (2) (b) 1m. An individual who possesses the firearm in accordance with
18 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

18 USC 922 (q)(2)(b):
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(iii) that is -
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) 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;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.

The language that is different than the current WI GFSZ is specifically the word LOCKED in 18 USC 922 (q)(2)(b)(iii)(II) in a locked container

As I said, I just want you to be aware that hunters, for example, who drive down an interstate within 1000' of a school, who didn't get a WI permit because they have no interest in open or concealed carry of a handgun, would violate this law.

I know you enjoy hunting and I have no idea if you are planning on getting a permit or not but if you didn't you would be affected by this change as well.

Ideally, I would like permit holders and non-permit holders treated the same, the bill does seem to do that except in this one instance.

--
Paul L Fisher

He has been supportive so far and I assume (yeah, yeah) that he doesn't realize the issue. We shall see what he responds/does. Others might want to send something similar.
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
A little bit off the topic of what the permit will get you in WI, is what a permit will get you out of WI. Some reciprocity. For me personally, it means I won't have to stop at the WI-MI border in Land O Lakes, unload and encase my pistol before proceeding into MI on hwy 45... several times a week. IOW, it'll get me MI reciprocity that my current wallet full of non-resident permits dooesn't. I know this is the fault of the MI laws, but not living there, I can't do much about that situation. No politicion is going to listen to the complaints of a non-voter in their state.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
OK, I'm pretty good at reading legalese, but I'll admit I could've gotten tripped up here due to the excessive level of cross referencing and not knowing which amendment(s) got enrolled. What amendments got enrolled?

As I read SB93 (as published, unamended) this thread is irrelevant because:

1: SB93 eliminates the need to unload and encase while passing through a "school zone" because:

Code:
Section 70. 948.605 (2) (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
SB93,18,99 948.605 (2) (title) Possession of firearm on the grounds of a school.

(changing from "in a school zone" to "on the grounds of a school"). It is that section to which the reference to 18 USC 922 applies.

It excuses carry (on school grounds) that complies with 18 USC 922 (the federal GFSZA)

2: WI law can't modify 18 USC 922.

So as I read SB93, carry within 1000 feet of a school would be OK, as would anything else in compliance with the referenced paragraphs of 18 USC 922.

The change in #1 is not conditional upon having the license.
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
Hey SAFCRKR,

I may have to stop by you and get a file cabnet lock so that I can turn the armrest in my truck into a "Locked Gun Rack Attached to a Vehicle". I think I may have to design a new safe to allow people quick access to a firearm in a vehicle.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
OK, I'm pretty good at reading legalese, but I'll admit I could've gotten tripped up here due to the excessive level of cross referencing and not knowing which amendment(s) got enrolled. What amendments got enrolled?

As I read SB93 (as published, unamended) this thread is irrelevant because:

1: SB93 eliminates the need to unload and encase while passing through a "school zone" because:

Code:
Section 70. 948.605 (2) (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
SB93,18,99 948.605 (2) (title) Possession of firearm on the grounds of a school.

(changing from "in a school zone" to "on the grounds of a school"). It is that section to which the reference to 18 USC 922 applies.

It excuses carry (on school grounds) that complies with 18 USC 922 (the federal GFSZA)

2: WI law can't modify 18 USC 922.

So as I read SB93, carry within 1000 feet of a school would be OK, as would anything else in compliance with the referenced paragraphs of 18 USC 922.

The change in #1 is not conditional upon having the license.

SSA1 was enrolled, SA3-SSA1 was enrolled and SA3-SSA1 was enrolled.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the title says, it's the stuff underneath. In other words, they could of called the section "Paul Fisher is a really cool guy" :banana: and the as part of the text below it contradict it and the wording of the actual law makes the rules.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
OK, fine. The stuff underneath also changes it from school zone to grounds of a school, too.

Code:
948.605 (2) (a)  Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place
that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is  [strike]a school zone[/strike] [u]on the
grounds of a school[/u] is guilty of a Class I felony.

I'll take a look at the parts you mention as enrolled but I don't think there's anything in there that changes what I posted here or above.
 
Last edited:

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Ahh, OK. SSA1 puts the 1000 foot restriction back in (for non-licensees), but drops it from a felony (as currently legislated) to a class b forfeiture (fine of up to $1,000).

But again, without a license, the federal law still applies, so for what that's worth...

My bad on the wording - I think the proper term is "engrossed", not "enrolled".
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Ahh, OK. SSA1 puts the 1000 foot restriction back in (for non-licensees), but drops it from a felony (as currently legislated) to a class b forfeiture (fine of up to $1,000).

But again, without a license, the federal law still applies, so for what that's worth...

I agree, my intent with this thread is to dissect this law. We all know, I believe that the Federal GFSZ law sucks.
 
M

McX

Guest
Hey SAFCRKR,

I may have to stop by you and get a file cabnet lock so that I can turn the armrest in my truck into a "Locked Gun Rack Attached to a Vehicle". I think I may have to design a new safe to allow people quick access to a firearm in a vehicle.

you thinking like me, one of those fingy print openy things?
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Ahh, OK. SSA1 puts the 1000 foot restriction back in (for non-licensees), but drops it from a felony (as currently legislated) to a class b forfeiture (fine of up to $1,000).

But again, without a license, the federal law still applies, so for what that's worth...

My bad on the wording - I think the proper term is "engrossed", not "enrolled".

Federal law allows you to carry in a school zone, on school grounds and within 1000 feet IF IF IF liscensed to do so in that state. A permit alllows you to do this but the bill peals that back to exclude school grounds and in the school building.

So you will NOT be in violation of Fedral GFSZ to carry within 100 feet IF you have a permit from the state.

From page 36 of SSA1-SB93:

948.605 (2) (b) (intro.) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm by any of the following:
948.605 (2) (b) 1m. An individual who possesses the firearm in accordance with
18 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
1r. Except if the individual is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as
defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, I get what you mean. What good is a Class B Forfiture on the state level if its still a felony on the federal level to go armed without a permit.

But you do understand that the Federal Prosecutor has the burden of that you afffected interstate or foreign commerce.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Please understand I am not supporting the change from unloaded, encased to unloaded, encased and LOCKED, I was just trying to make sure I understand what this proposal gets us and what the permit in the proposal gets us.

I see it needs one change before I am really happy about this proposal.

Ideally, it should treat permitted and non-permitted folks alike in the GFSZ.

As a backup, it should at the very least not impose additional restrictions (locking) to non-permitted folks.

Nick Clark has said that he spoke with Galloways office and I believe and ammendment will be introduced on the Senate floor to reslove the "locked" issue.
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
Hey SAFCRKR,

I may have to stop by you and get a file cabnet lock so that I can turn the armrest in my truck into a "Locked Gun Rack Attached to a Vehicle". I think I may have to design a new safe to allow people quick access to a firearm in a vehicle.

I've already got a handgun safe in my pick-up truck. It's bolted to the center hump of the floor in the rear seat area. It's made by American Security Products (AMSEC) a leading maker of gun safes. It's called "The Pistol Packer" and I believe they quit making it with the Simplex mechanical push-button combo lock that mine has and went to an electronic version. I've had it in my truck for 9 years. When I drove that truck every day, that's where my Glock 19 "lived", along with 3 mags, checkbook, spare keys, etc. Now I drive a cargo van, with a small safe bolted down in the rear cargo area, which is my G19's new home.

Walmart sells a small lock box that'll hold 2 full sized handguns, with an electronic push button lock, for about $30 (also has a keyed bypass in case batteries die). I've got one of those at home under the bed (I got grandkids living here, so I keep guns locked but easily accessible). It holds my wife's Glock 17 and my Ruger Blackhawk .45LC. Perfect for under a car seat in GFSZ if the proposed law stays as is.

BTW, you probably need a "cam lock", not a file cabinet lock. Cam locks are cheap (about $7) and come in 4 differant lengths.
 
Last edited:
Top