paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I am including myself in this. Here is a summary of SB93, as amended.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/lc_amdt/sb093.pdf
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/lc_amdt/sb093.pdf
Either I am missing something or something doesn't add up.
Another dummy chiming in to thank you... and ask a question.
This does not seem to address traveling in a vehicle with a firearm, is that correct?
Yet it does. With this, the dance is finished. We can open or conceal in a vehicle. We can shoot from inside a vehicle in self-defense only.
No more unloaded encased (assuming no school zone).
This is covered under the new amendments to the "Castle Doctrine" bill... Correct..??
Or is it part of the SB-93 amendments..??
Still a dummie here......
Outdoorsman1
So the issue of traveling with a loaded firearm is address, it's just addressed in a separate bill (castle doctrine) that addresses a separate issue. Correct?
My head hurts...
i saw something regarding permits; to be issued by the dept. of justice? they around here? probably mail in, after printing it off the net? fingy prints and such? training idea now dead and gone?
Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com
Yet it does. With this, the dance is finished. We can open or conceal in a vehicle. We can shoot from inside a vehicle in self-defense only.No more unloaded encased (assuming no school zone).
Originally Posted by cleveland
So the issue of traveling with a loaded firearm is address, it's just addressed in a separate bill (castle doctrine) that addresses a separate issue. Correct?
My head hurts...
No, it is in this law. Castle doctrine only deals with self defense. SB93 only deals with carrying. SB93 says I can carry in the car. It modifies the 167.31 so that we can also discharge our weapon inside the vehicle for self defense but only in context of fixing 167.31 which stopped shooting from a vehicle because they didn't want hunting.
The civil and criminal liability for actually shooting someone is the Castle doctrine law (separate thread). Paul L Fisher
Member:
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Founder Club
NRA
Gun Owners of America
Paul,
I understand your wanting to keep the threads seperate... and I agree as they can be confuseing in their own right let alone the added combined confusion...
I was refering to your statement in this thread that mentioned being able to shoot from a vehicle in self defence (colored in Red in my original reply question.
My question pertained to your stsement in this thread that seemed to reference the discussion in the "other" thread regarding shooting from a vehicle in self defence.
Per your statement in THIS thread, I will ask again...
Does the ability to shoot from a vehilce in self defence stem from an amendment in the Castle Doctrine bill or the SB-93 bill.
Outdoorsman1
So after this became law, if I were to go to UW-Milwaukee or MATC carrying, since those are gov't schools, gov't-owned buildings, I would be legally allowed to carry & they are not allowed to say otherwise, right?...may not enter or remain in any part of a nonresidential building that the person does not own or occupy after the owner of that building... or occupant of that part of the building, has notified the person...
This provision does not apply to a part of a building occupied by the state or a political subdivision of the state...
"nonresidental building" includes any privately or publicly owned buildings on the grounds of a university or college.
Both. Look at my response in post 12 and let me know if you need more clarification.
A couple paragraphs above the "GF"SZ discussion they talk about (basically) trespass.
So after this became law, if I were to go to UW-Milwaukee or MATC carrying, since those are gov't schools, gov't-owned buildings, I would be legally allowed to carry & they are not allowed to say otherwise, right?
Because I know many schools that have private institutional no-weapons policies (but of course have completely open campuses... campi?... w/ no metal detectors) threatening expulsion if a student or staff member carries.
Also, wouldn't that negate the whole "can't carry in a courthouse" thing?