I'll Try
Can you please expound in as few as possible words your bullet points.
Gee, I thought I had done pretty good originally but since you asked.
A WI licensee (who by definition must be a WI resident) is permitted under federal law to carry anywhere in a school zone, whether on the property or within 1000 feet.
A WI resident who has no licensee or only one(s) granted by (a) state(s) other than Wisconsin is prohibited by federal from carrying in a school zone (whether school property of within 1000 feet).
A non-WI resident cannot carry in a school zone because he does not possess a WI license. Any other licenses are irrelevant.
A person, without regard to residency, may carry in a school zone if he possess a license granted by the state in which the school is located.
A person who possess a license that is recognized via reciprocity or other means by the state in which the school is located may not carry in a school zone on the basis of that license.
In Wisconsin (may be other states as well) the law treats a OOSL as a (in-state) licensee for the purpose of a GFSZ. Now that is the state's position (as well as restricting licensees from school property) but it is unclear whether the feds agree. The main problem in my view is whether the granting of this license (here the "permission" not a little card evidencing the permission) requires Wisconsin officials to independently determine if the OOSL is "entitled to receive" the license which has a little card as evidence) granted by another state. The feds may well ask - if it is ok with Wisconsin that the OOSL carries in the 1000 ft zone (remember school property prohibited by WI law) why don't the just issue a card to the non-resident just as they do with residents? WI doesn't even have to do the same amount of work - just have the OOSL show his non-WI license and print out a Wisconsin license for him.
This is one of those situations that only lawyers could love. It seems pretty straightforward and everybody's needs are being me but the language of the (federal) statute (it can be argued) doesn't permit the easy answer (without a court case). I can see and could argue either side. Maybe some attorney will. Certainly for $300/hour plus expenses.
Hope this helps. If not, ask again.