Proposed Wisconsin Carry Law

[Lammie]

imported post

bnhcomputing:

Fundamentaly I think your plan has merit. There are a couple of items I would like to bring up. Changing the firearm transfer form is a bit difficult unless you would wish it to apply only to handguns. In Wisconsin a purchaser of long guns fills out federal for 4473 and then goes thought the NICS process for a background check. On the other hand the Wisconsin DoJ is the point of contact for all handgun purchases The purchaser fills out Wisconsin form DJ-LE-FH2 and the Wisconsin Department of Justice performs the background check. While it may be possible to change the Wisconsin form to add a reciprocity clause it may be quite difficult to get the federal 4473 form changed.

Second: I, like many others on this forum bristle at the thought of having to get law enforcement permission to exercise a constitutional right. Instead of a statement "Conceled carry permit requested" I would prefer to see a statement similar to "Reciprocity permit requested".

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

bnhcomputing:

Fundamentaly I think your plan has merit. There are a couple of items I would like to bring up. Changing the firearm transfer form is a bit difficult unless you would wish it to apply only to handguns. In Wisconsin a purchaser of long guns fills out federal for 4473 and then goes thought the NICS process for a background check. On the other hand the Wisconsin DoJ is the point of contact for all handgun purchases The purchaser fills out Wisconsin form DJ-LE-FH2 and the Wisconsin Department of Justice performs the background check. While it may be possible to change the Wisconsin form to add a reciprocity clause it may be quite difficult to get the federal 4473 form changed.

Second: I, like many others on this forum bristle at the thought of having to get law enforcement permission to exercise a constitutional right. Instead of a statement "Conceled carry permit requested" I would prefer to see a statement similar to "Reciprocity permit requested".

Hadn't thought about the federal form thing, that's why debate here is good.

I'll settle for a simple modification to the STATE handgun purchase form, AND agree to your suggested wording. Through that in with my original proposal, and we should be good to go...

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/Legal/index.htm

LRB Legal The Legal Services section of the LRB includes approximately 20 attorneys, each with specific subject matter expertise, who draft all proposed legislation; prepare analyses of all bills, joint resolutions, and resolutions; provide legal advice to legislators and state agencies; assist the legislature in making procedural rule determinations; and staff conference committees.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

The next session starts in January.

 

[32HR MAG]

imported post

If we don't shoot for the moon.We might not even get off the launch pad.It seems that some on this forum don't have much confidence in the firearms friendly residents of this state.Remember we made the contacts to our reps twice before.Granted it wasn't exactly the best concealed carry laws going,but we pushed the buttons.We can and should go for what is wanted.Remember politicians are people that love what they do,spend others money so they don't need to spend what is theirs.It's always easy when you are IN office.

 

[Lammie]

imported post

32HR Mag:

Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution reads: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any lawful purpose. In Hamdan the WSSC defined bear to mean carry. Not open carry. Not concealed carry. Just plain carry. That's where the moon is, just a plain no nonsense "carry" law without regards to manner.

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

32HR Mag:

Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution reads: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any lawful purpose. In Hamdan the WSSC defined bear to mean carry. Not open carry. Not concealed carry. Just plain carry. That's where the moon is, just a plain no nonsense "carry" law without regards to manner.

I do not like the sound of "Carry Law" it just sits wrongly with me,

I feel we would be better having currentlaws repealed as opposed to trying to make more. Our state constitution already protects our right to carry, we just need to remove prohibitions as to how and where we can exercise that right.

IE; the purple paisley shirt law!
No law states what we can do, just what we are not supposed to do.


EDITED for spelling corrections, I got a badcase of fat fingers hitting too many keystonight

 

[32HR MAG]

imported post

Don't get me wrong here.I sure don't want more laws.I was trying to say that if we let the law makers know how and what we feel.Then the laws that are on the books can then be struck down or changed.Struck down is best changed is second.
In the end if we don't get what we want we vote them out.Majority rules

 

[AaronS]

imported post

32HR MAG wrote:

If we don't shoot for the moon.We might not even get off the launch pad.It seems that some on this forum don't have much confidence in the firearms friendly residents of this state.Remember we made the contacts to our reps twice before.Granted it wasn't exactly the best concealed carry laws going,but we pushed the buttons.We can and should go for what is wanted.Remember politicians are people that love what they do,spend others money so they don't need to spend what is theirs.It's always easy when you are IN office.

I have to say, that the big thing, the important thing, is to remember that the rest of the state has a larger vote then Milwaukee, or Madison. The state will do what we all tell it to. We just have to agree to stand.

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

So, since people keep shooting down any idea from Gene because it's Gene (I personally don't understand the animus towards him in this forum, his plan is particularly sound and not by itself unconstitutional), does anyone have a particular plan for dealing with the 1000 foot school zones or case/vehicle issues?

Since the Legislature and the Governor are apparently unwilling to role back those restrictions (don't tell me that 1000 foot or vehicle carry will pass through Jim Doyle or through the Legislature, it's like pressuring the New Jersey legislature for shall-issue, it's NOT gonna happen), perhaps something a lot more constructive such as a federal lawsuit should be filed to invalidate those restrictions, with a good 2A attorney like Alan Gura or John Monroe?

 

[Lammie]

imported post

Nutczak:

You are correct. Article I section 25 is our carry "law".

 

[Lammie]

imported post

Perhaps we should pick off the birds one duck at a time. The three statutes that appear to give us the most grief are the tavern law, the vehicle transport law and the school zone law. The tavern law is troublesome but only partly restrictive to our RKBA rights. It applies only to handguns and then only if not approved by the proprietor. A violation brings with it a misdemeanor charge but with no loss of firearm rights. The vehicle transport law is a inconvienience but is a restriction not a prohibition of our rights. It is neither a misdemeanor or a felony. It is a forfieture, akin to a speeding ticket. Maximum penalty by law is $175. The "school zone law" is by far the most threatening to our rights. It carries with it a penalty of felony with lifetime loss of our firearm rights. It is by far the most restrictive of our movement while armed, and we see in Milwaukee that the 1000 foot rule is being used by law enforcement as a type of entrapment tool. I say it is being used as an entrapment toolbecause until after the release of the AG memo, and perhaps discussion of it on this forum, the Milwaukee police paid little attention to the 1000 foot rule. Another post on this forum showed the location of recent firearm crimes in Milwaukee, many of which took place within 1000 feet of a school. In researching those incidences I have not been able to find one case where carry of an uncased firearm in a school zone was added to the charges. (I'm sure I will be corrected if I amwrong). To me thatadds up to say thatlaw enforcement is using theschool zone law as their new tool of harassment. I'm sure they are just biding their time and waiting to geta chargable school zone violation to use against us.

Unfortunately I read a lot of talk about the school zone restriciton on the forum but no real plan of action. I suppose it has a lot to do with the severity of the penalty. I feel this is where we should concentrate our attention. We should be putting pressure on our local and state political representatives, the Attorney General office and the media to repeal the law as being an unconstitutional state and federal restriction on our RKBA. It has already been found unconstitutional by the USSC.

If the USSC court ruling concerning the Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution determines that the Second amendment is incorporated to the states, it will be interesting to see if rulings of unconstitutionality. Arguments are supposed to take place early next Summer.

If we can be successful in getting the shool zone law "shot" down in our state we will get very close to a Vermont or Alaska type firearm carry. Certainly it would create a momentum by which we can attack the other restrictions. i.e. public buildings, concealment, vehicle transport and taverns.

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Perhaps we should pick off the birds one duck at a time. The three statutes that appear to give us the most grief are the tavern law, the vehicle transport law and the school zone law. The tavern law is troublesome but only partly restrictive to our RKBA rights. It applies only to handguns and then only if not approved by the proprietor. A violation brings with it a misdemeanor charge but with no loss of firearm rights. The vehicle transport law is a inconvienience but is a restriction not a prohibition of our rights. It is neither a misdemeanor or a felony. It is a forfieture, akin to a speeding ticket. Maximum penalty by law is $175. The "school zone law" is by far the most threatening to our rights. It carries with it a penalty of felony with lifetime loss of our firearm rights. It is by far the most restrictive of our movement while armed, and we see in Milwaukee that the 1000 foot rule is being used by law enforcement as a type of entrapment tool. I say it is being used as an entrapment toolbecause until after the release of the AG memo, and perhaps discussion of it on this forum, the Milwaukee police paid little attention to the 1000 foot rule. Another post on this forum showed the location of recent firearm crimes in Milwaukee, many of which took place within 1000 feet of a school. In researching those incidences I have not been able to find one case where carry of an uncased firearm in a school zone was added to the charges. (I'm sure I will be corrected if I amwrong). To me thatadds up to say thatlaw enforcement is using theschool zone law as their new tool of harassment. I'm sure they are just biding their time and waiting to geta chargable school zone violation to use against us.

Unfortunately I read a lot of talk about the school zone restriciton on the forum but no real plan of action. I suppose it has a lot to do with the severity of the penalty. I feel this is where we should concentrate our attention. We should be putting pressure on our local and state political representatives, the Attorney General office and the media to repeal the law as being an unconstitutional state and federal restriction on our RKBA. It has already been found unconstitutional by the USSC.

If the USSC court ruling concerning the Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution determines that the Second amendment is incorporated to the states, it will be interesting to see if rulings of unconstitutionality. Arguments are supposed to take place early next Summer.

If we can be successful in getting the shool zone law "shot" down in our state we will get very close to a Vermont or Alaska type firearm carry. Certainly it would create a momentum by which we can attack the other restrictions. i.e. public buildings, concealment, vehicle transport and taverns.

Exactly. However, again, Jim Doyle will veto any Legislative repeal of the 1000 foot school zones situation. There needs to be a federal lawsuit filed by a COMPETENT 2A centric attorney.

Likely after McDonald is incorporated there is a strong possibility of a challenge against Illinois' full carry ban (the only state to have this restriction).

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

Nutczak wrote

I do not like the sound of "Carry Law" it just sits wrongly with me,

I feel we would be better having currentlaws repealed as opposed to trying to make more. Our state constitution already protects our right to carry, we just need to remove prohibitions as to how and where we can exercise that right.

Get over it. Every state, even the vaunted states of Vermont and Alaska, has a "carry law" which regulates the method of carry and where you can carry.

As for "removing prohibitions", there are only two methods of doing so, through the legislative process (which Governor Doyle WILL veto) or through a civil suit. Since the first method is completely impossible politically, there needs to be a legal challenge filed by a competent 2A-centric attorney.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Please be clear about who are the incompetent Second Amendment 'centric' attorneys so that we could select a competent one, other than Alan Gura, of whom you approve (as you do CCW-trainers in OC-Wisconsin).

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Please be clear about who are the incompetent Second Amendment 'centric' attorneys so that we could select a competent one, other than Alan Gura, of whom you approve (as you do CCW-trainers in OC-Wisconsin).

Was that an attempt at a logical fallacy? Wow, I critique a statute that is proposed on a Gun Rights Examiner Board, state that the proposal is an improvement over the current situation in Wisconsin, and because of this, I am some sort of "approving" or "support" of Gene personally. What, you think I make money off of Gene's work in Wisconsin, when I'm all the way over here in Washington State, which has zero training required at all? :quirky

What's even worse is your implication that anyone that I may suggest is tainted, including the lawyer that practically reversed the 2nd amendments fortunes on all levels of the US court system, all because of your personal spat with Gene?

Quit acting like a drama queen. You'd rather rant on forums and angrily pound on a keyboard than actually do things that are effective.

The rest of you: You want to fix your school zone problem? Then contact Alan Gura (who overturned collective rights with Heller) or John Monroe (who is suing West Milwaukee for their unlawful stop of Parabellum). We have hundreds of members here that could pool their money together for a civil case fund that can go after WS948.605. You'll likely have to wait after McDonald, to actually file a case, but you have the months between now and June 2010 when the decision is handed down to organize a fund.

To quote a recent movie: "Nut up or shut up".

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I have no idea what you did somewhere else or its significance, only of what has been said here on OCDO. I try to read primary (or as 'primary' as I can) sources and actively avoid Readers Digest-like rhetoric.

You find 'implication' where I mean none. Alan Gura is a hero, but I disagree with your estimation of others. My differences with CCW-trainer are principled and based on my experience in his declared field of expertise, CCW training, and his political affiliations with NRA/clients.

The NRA, and its clients, profit by selling dispensations (a la the pre-Reformation Church), that are exceptions to infringements of the Second Amendment.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

 

[comp45acp]

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

Nutczak wrote

I do not like the sound of "Carry Law" it just sits wrongly with me,

I feel we would be better having current laws repealed as opposed to trying to make more. Our state constitution already protects our right to carry, we just need to remove prohibitions as to how and where we can exercise that right.

Get over it.  Every state, even the vaunted states of Vermont and Alaska, has a "carry law" which regulates the method of carry and where you can carry.

As for "removing prohibitions", there are only two methods of doing so, through the legislative process (which Governor Doyle WILL veto) or through a civil suit.  Since the first method is completely impossible politically, there needs to be a legal challenge filed by a competent 2A-centric attorney.

I agree that we will never have "Vermont style" carry in Wisconsin-it just aint' gonna happen-ever. You are also right that Chairman Doyle will veto any kind of pro-firearm bill. However, he will be gone in a year and the political landscape could look much different. The carry law that Gene German is proposing looks very well thought out to me. It allows for carry either open or concealed, allows for un-permitted open carry (with all the current restrictions) for those who refuse to take a training course and get a permit. This bill pretty well mirrors the MN bill which is one of the best in the country. It allows for tavern carry, even carry at the state capitol. The MN carry law has been in effect for a number of years now with excellent result in terms of being effective and dispelling all the lies that the Jim Doyles of the world like to tell about shootings at Christmas pageants and shopping malls. This is an important point that can be repeatedly pointed out to those who oppose carry in Wisconsin during legislative hearings.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

comp45acp wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

Nutczak wrote

I do not like the sound of "Carry Law" it just sits wrongly with me,

I feel we would be better having currentlaws repealed as opposed to trying to make more. Our state constitution already protects our right to carry, we just need to remove prohibitions as to how and where we can exercise that right.

Get over it. Every state, even the vaunted states of Vermont and Alaska, has a "carry law" which regulates the method of carry and where you can carry.

As for "removing prohibitions", there are only two methods of doing so, through the legislative process (which Governor Doyle WILL veto) or through a civil suit. Since the first method is completely impossible politically, there needs to be a legal challenge filed by a competent 2A-centric attorney.

I agree that we will never have "Vermont style" carry in Wisconsin-it just aint' gonna happen-ever. You are also right that Chairman Doyle will veto any kind of pro-firearm bill. However, he will be gone in a year and the political landscape could look much different. The carry law that Gene German is proposing looks very well thought out to me. It allows for carry either open or concealed, allows for un-permitted open carry (with all the current restrictions) for those who refuse to take a training course and get a permit. This bill pretty well mirrors the MN bill which is one of the best in the country. It allows for tavern carry, even carry at the state capitol. The MN carry law has been in effect for a number of years now with excellent result in terms of being effective and dispelling all the lies that the Jim Doyles of the world like to tell about shootings at Christmas pageants and shopping malls. This is an important point that can be repeatedly pointed out to those who oppose carry in Wisconsin during legislative hearings.

This is nothing more than an attempt to line his pockets with cash. We already have unpermitted open carry, without training. If one can carry open without training then why not concealed as well? Will your good friend Gene instruct this training for free?
I can receive free training from Doug Huffman that covers anything necessary.

This is nothing more than an attempt by an instructor to weasel his way to the legislative table in an effort to have himself crowned as the almighty instructor for the State of Wisconsin.

The only way to dissolve this issue is to take away any training requirement. According to the SCOTUS, one does not have to be trained, registered, permitted or pay a fee to exercise one's rights.

If one chooses to seek training that is their option and not a requirement to exercise their rights.

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

As to challenging the unconstitutionaloty opf the GFSZ's, Don;t we have a current ocdo member that has been charged with violating those imaginary lines, and had his firearm confiscated?

I believe his initial are C S, he is very limited as to what he canpost due to pending litigation.

Does anyone know if his attorney will be challengingthe arrest and charge on a constitutional level?

So what is the deal with some clown from another state coming to the WI forum and start with name-calling? Whats with these friggin guys?