Specific suggestions for amendments if PPA-style legislation is pursued
As someonewho has studied many states' licensing laws, there are a few bad parts of the Minnesota permit to carry statute,
Minn. Stat. § 624.714, as well as some good parts.
If your Legislature decides to go with a licensing bill, their likely starting point will (or should) be the original version of the PPA vetoed by Jim Doyle in 2006,
SB 403. SB 403 was written and subsequently amended to get the 2/3 vote in both houses that would have been necessary to override Doyle's veto (as you will recall, Doyle managed to flip enough votes in the Assembly to sustain his veto). This year, whatever bill is passed will need only a simple majority. Therefore, this year's bill should be much better simply by virtue of needing 16 fewer votes in the Assembly and 5 fewer votes in the Senate than SB 403 did.
I will highlight here the biggest changes that should be made to the the original version of SB 403 (aside from not requiring a license at all):
- Strike out page 15, lines 11-15, and insert in lieu thereof language requiring the periodic notification of all other states that Wisconsin honors their concealed carry licenses and requiring the entry into written reciprocity agreements with those states that require written agreements (Ohio & West Virginia) in order to recognize Wisconsin licenses. This amendment will maximize the number of states that will honor the Wisconsin license. While Iowa unilaterally honors all other states' licenses, their lack of a mandate to inform all other states and legal authority to enter into written reciprocity agreements where required is hindering their efforts to get their permits recognized in many states.
- Strike out and page 23, lines 11 and 12 (conforming amendment for Amendment 1 above).
- Strike out proposed subsections (2i), (2j), and (2k) on pages 24-29 (eliminate implied consent to chemical testing).
- Strike out line 4, page 34 (eliminates disqualification from licensure for unlawful carrying in restricted areas).
- Strike out line 5, page 35 (allow issuance of licenses to nonresidents--for either GFSZA exemption or reciprocity).
- On page 45, line 7, strike out "under sub. (3m)(b)" (expands eligibility for attorney's fees award to any person who successfully appeals a denial, suspension, or revocation of a license instead of just those denied instructor certifications). This is one of the most important amendments I can suggest, as it will guard against any abuses of the system by guaranteeing that good (and expensive) attorneys will take these cases, which most people will be unable to afford without the guarantee of an attorney's fee award if they prevail.
- Beginning on page 46, line 25, strike out clauses 1. through 7. and 10. of paragraph (16)(a). This amendment would remove all carry bans in unsecured areas of state & local government buildings.
- Strike out page 48, line 14, through page 49, line 13, and corresponding criminal penalty provisions on page 49, line 18 (eliminates additional no-carry zones and conditions).
- Rewrite section 74, beginning on page 64, line 23, to require a "big ugly sign" that very few people will go through the process of properly designing and posting before concealed carry could be restricted or prohibited on private property. For an example of BUS specifications, see proposed §61-7-15a of 2011 WV HB 3125. I also recommend reading the proposed rewrite of §61-7-14 for pointers on how to water down the private property language to the point that only a true moron could ever be subject to adverse legal actions for unlawfully carrying on private property where the property owner has prohibited carrying.
- Unspecified amendment to require that the background check procedures include a NICS check (and an Immigrant Alien Query for alien applicants) and any other procedures necessary to qualify the Wisconsin license for the federal firearm purchase background check exemption under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(A), which Iowa and Michigan receive, and amend Wisconsin state law to exempt licensees from the state firearm purchase background checks and waiting periods.
There are probably a few other amendments I could suggest. Additionally, there may be some need to rewrite parts of the bill to reflect other changes in the affected statutes that have occurred over the last 5 years. However, if your Legislature goes with a PPA-style law, I believe the best amendments will be those that take out some of the concessions that were made in efforts to secure the additional (and now unnecessary) votes to override past vetoes. At this time, with the exception of the disqualification for carrying in prohibited places, I do not recommend removing any of the other disqualification factors, as they will enable other states (e.g.,
Minnesota) with more restrictive reciprocity laws to honor Wisconsin licenses.