Permits question

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Your wrong about the state Constitution having more authority than the federal Constitution. They must not conflict with one another.

Again, not true. State constitutions may regulate things the feds may not. I believe now that most of the bill of rights has been incorporated, the states cannot conflict with those amendments which have been incorporated, but states may do LOTS of things the feds aren't allowed to.

You are right in that governments have infringed the right to keep and bear arms. But that does not make it right, and certainly not in line with what the founders of this country intended.

I agree

State Parks and wildlife areas, GFSZ issue, vehicles which are private property or maybe even your domicile if you lived in an RV or houseboat. The ability to conceal your weapon, that the state supreme court agreed must be allowed in certain circumstances like your home or business. I believe these are infringements.

I agree

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

I don't think the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed. How you USE your firearm is certainly subject to many regulations as "using" it can affect the rights of another, but having it on you, a law abiding citizen, I don't believe was intended to be infringed. Right to carry and right to use are obviously 2 different discussions.

As an organization of course, we are picking our battles and we are starting with what we believe are the most onerous of restrictions and those capable of defeating first. But as a matter of principle, there are many restrictions that ultimately are only encumbering the law-abiding. Potentially all of those restrictions may find themselves in WCI's crosshairs in the future

Just brainstorming here:

-vehicle carry
-restaurant carry (why don't you have a right to self defense just because you are eating at a place where alcohol is served?)
-government building carry (why can't you carry in a library? why can't you carry at your city hall, your taxes paid for the buildings, they are as public as public buildings get, don't you have a right to self defense in those places? I believe you certainly DO)
park carry
-state park carry
-school zone
-permit's
-mandatory training

All those will potentially be on the list of things we may challenge.

I do believe Wisconsin can repeal 941.23. It is possible.

I'm not an odds-maker nor an actuary, so I won't guess at the probabilities, but no doubt in my mind it is possible.

No doubt in my mind it is possible THIS legislative session if people in each district contact and establish communication/educate their local assembly candidates and senators. If people just sit back and think the next governor is going to make "true" right to carry in Wisconsin a pressing issue and strong-arm it through the legislature like Obama did healthcare... NO... that won't happen. The media won't jump on our side and force it through. The governor won't force it through, But WE can make it happen this session if we all establish contact and educate our own local assemblymen and senators.

I KNOW for sure 2 of the 4 candidates from my assembly district the 84th assembly district support true right to carry as per the Wisconsin GOP platform. (not directed at any one person) Does yours?

edited to add:

please don't anyone use my words to throw in anyone's face, this is merely a statement of what I believe as well as beliefs shared by the board and officers of WCI, the only ones authorized to speak on its behalf.

 

[minuteman]

I disagree

its one of the reasons the second amendment was written, definitely not the only reason.

The "security of a free state" goes far beyond defense against a tyrannical government, but also defense against criminals. Self-defense is the first law of nature. How secure is a free state if criminals rule it? How free is a free state if you can't protect your own life? Your private property, etc?

How could the second amendment convey the power to individuals against a tyrannical government, but yet then leave an individual dependent upon that government for defense against criminals etc?

The security of a free state means a lot of things, protection against a tyrannical government only being ONE of them.



http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

I understand you aren't claiming we don't have a right to self-defense, just that the second amendment doesn't confirm that right... But it does.

What is the reason the 2nd amendment and the bill of rights were written? To secure those rights from government being able to take them away or abusing them. The whole bill of rights is defense against tyrannical government.

I agree with what your saying, but I am talking about why it was written, not the many uses for the rights. Free speech and free press have numerous uses, so does keeping and bearing arms.

It is stating that a militia being necessary for the security of a free state, is a reason why the already existing right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As you noticed they did not just say the people have the right to keep and bear arms, they are adding to that common law right which was well established. That right was not given by the 2nd Amendment, it confirms and protects it from future government abuse or changes in the common law or code which might infringe it.

Again I agree with what you are saying, I just do not agree that they must give every reason why a right exists. They have given many reasons in our state Constitution, which is fine and great, but not necessary.

Yes we have the right to self defense which pre-dates the 2nd amendment just like the right to keep and bear arms did. It is a common law right or a natural inherent right, we have the right to life and can defend it. It is included within the state Constitution, confirming already existing common laws.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

What is the reason the 2nd amendment and the bill of rights were written? To secure those rights from government being able to take them away or abusing them. The whole bill of rights is defense against tyrannical government.

A government that doesn't allow you to protect yourself is a tyrannical government. If a government prohibits you from defending your own life THAT is tyranny.

The right to defend yourself (against criminals) and against a tyrannical government is all part of the 2nd Amendment. The link I included provides further explanation.

It is stating that a militia being necessary for the security of a free state, is a reason why the already existing right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Right. And the "security of a free state" is a whole lot more than just government wouldn't you agree? How free are you if you can't defend your life. How "secure is the free state" if you can't defend your life? not just from government but from criminals

Anyway... my only point is that the ability to uprise against the government wasn't the only point of the second amendment (though it was a big part of it) but also the greater picture of "security of a free state" which includes self-defense.

I think this is important because although the founding fathers didn't intend the bill of rights to be the ONLY rights we have, unfortunately, thats how its turning out. So at least we should educate people that the 2nd amendment is clearly about the larger picture of self-defense (as the link I provided documents)

 

[minuteman]

Again, not true. State constitutions may regulate things the feds may not. I believe now that most of the bill of rights has been incorporated, the states cannot conflict with those amendments which have been incorporated, but states may do LOTS of things the feds aren't allowed to.

Of course, as long as the 2 do not conflict with one another. Anything not in the Constitution rests with the state or the people. What is allowed in the Constitution are the only things the federal government may do.

Being allowed to do things the federal government cannot do is not conflicting, it is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Its called being a sovereign state.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Spartacus]

These things have happened because of people like you, who think the government can do no wrong, even making excuses for them. I already mentioned many of the infringements in this state, which you seemed to agree with. State Parks and wildlife areas, GFSZ issue, vehicles which are private property or maybe even your domicile if you lived in an RV or houseboat. The ability to conceal your weapon, that the state supreme court agreed must be allowed in certain circumstances like your home or business. I believe these are infringements.

You seem to misunderstand me quite a bit but thats alright...you seem to misunderstand quite a bit. Heres an example:

Really do you think every citizen having the right to keep and bear arms would be anarchy?

When obviously we all DO have the right...

Are the above mentioned items "infringements"? I agree that they are. Are they "infringements" as relates to the second amendment? I do not believe so, and have stated that the federal government has left it up to the sovereign states to regulate the details through legislation.

You don't think federal amendments can be regulated through legislation? Next time you are at the movie theater yell "FIRE" at the top of your voice and find out how secure your first amendment rights are. Joke about having a bomb in your luggage when going through airport security and see where that gets you...

Also a lot of you guys are fond of talking about "natural" or "common" law. Much of what we have in statutory law comes from a basis of natural law but good luck trying to use common law as a defense in a courtroom setting. I used to be involved with a network of "sovereign citizens" or "patriots" and those guys would get their a$$es kicked in court every time.

 

[minuteman]

Right. And the "security of a free state" is a whole lot more than just government wouldn't you agree? How free are you if you can't defend your life. How "secure is the free state" if you can't defend your life? not just from government but from criminals

Yes I agree. They do not have to list reasons for a right. There are many reasons the right to keep and bear arms is vital. Defending yourself is one, being able to provide for your family by hunting or protecting livestock is another. Defending against invasion or enemies is another reason.

I am talking about why the bill of rights and 2nd Amendment exists. That is to protect those rights from tyrannical government. I am not saying the only purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is defense against government, obviously it is just one of the many.

 

[Captain Nemo]

As I see it the role of constitutional authority between the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions is in a way similar to the Wisconsin preemption statute. By that I mean just as Wisconsin’s local governments can not make firearm laws more strict than the State nor can state constitutions make amendments more strict than the U.S. constitution. Meaning a state constitution can not trump the federal constitution. On the other hand the U.S. constitution must recognize the state’s authority to self govern.

The landmark cases of Heller and McDonald reflect the division of constitutional authority. Both cases are immensely important in establishing our federal fundamental right to keep and bear arms but their impact at the state level is less compelling. Heller established that every qualified citizen of the United states is entitled to the right to keep and bear arms and congress can not eviscerate (infringe) that right. The McDonald ruling built on the Heller ruling by declaring that the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms was also incorporated to the states. Meaning that state and local governments also may not enact laws that would deny a qualified individual from the right to posses a firearm. However, both rulings fell short of dictating the time. place and manner under which the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised. I believe SCOTUS intentionally left that determination up to the states. The Wisconsin Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue in State v Hamdan.

¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.

¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. See State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, 244 Wis.2d582, 628 N.W.2d820. It is constitutional. We hold that only if the public benefit in this exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional as applied.

Fortunately paragraph 41 is there as a control on paragraph 46.

My opinion: The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution establishes that every qualified U.S. citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be denied by federal, state or local governments. The regulation of the time, place and manner by which that right is exercised is left to the individual states.

OK Spartacus. Go for it.

 

[Spartacus]

My opinion: The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution establishes that every qualified U.S. citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be denied by federal, state or local governments. The regulation of the time, place and manner by which that right is exercised is left to the individual states.

OK Spartacus. Go for it.

Hell man, you just made my point.

That is exactly what I am saying oh captain my captain...

 

[minuteman]

You don't think federal amendments can be regulated through legislation? Next time you are at the movie theater yell "FIRE" at the top of your voice and find out how secure your first amendment rights are. Joke about having a bomb in your luggage when going through airport security and see where that gets you..

Your making strange arguments again, like grenades on a commercial airplane. When you disrupt the safety and security of someone else then there is a problem. If you yelled fire in a theater without reason you would have the same problem. That is infringing on someone else to the point of putting their security and maybe life in jeopardy.

Of course the federal amendments can be regulated, they clearly are. There are free speech zones and permits to assemble etc etc. As well as permits in many states to bear arms and places where someone cannot carry. I do not believe that was the intention of the founding fathers, and it is the argument of anti gun people, socialists, and the government, but yes you are right that it has been accepted.

The Constitution has been perverted badly over the years. I know you disagree but that is how I feel. We both agree that the state needs to change or repeal the concealed carry law, but I will be upset when people suggest we compromise. I know that you just believe we have little chance for CCW without permits and training, I think we do have a chance and should never stop fighting for it. Those who suggest we bend over and take whatever we get are not helping the cause. We have to fight for our rights, even if they are written and clear they have been violated, such as police harassment when we open carry.

 

[protias]

And lets not forget some wonderful quotes by Thomas Jefferson. Maybe you'll understand the true nature of our 2A rights after reading the quotes from one of the founding fathers.

Quotes - Thomas Jefferson



The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson



"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson



"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson



"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson



The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

It is a shame so few people read Thomas Jefferson. He was a smart man.

 

[Spartacus]

^^^ So is Captain Nemo... This Post Should Put an End to The Debate

As I see it the role of constitutional authority between the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions is in a way similar to the Wisconsin preemption statute. By that I mean just as Wisconsin’s local governments can not make firearm laws more strict than the State nor can state constitutions make amendments more strict than the U.S. constitution. Meaning a state constitution can not trump the federal constitution. On the other hand the U.S. constitution must recognize the state’s authority to self govern.

The landmark cases of Heller and McDonald reflect the division of constitutional authority. Both cases are immensely important in establishing our federal fundamental right to keep and bear arms but their impact at the state level is less compelling. Heller established that every qualified citizen of the United states is entitled to the right to keep and bear arms and congress can not eviscerate (infringe) that right. The McDonald ruling built on the Heller ruling by declaring that the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms was also incorporated to the states. Meaning that state and local governments also may not enact laws that would deny a qualified individual from the right to posses a firearm. However, both rulings fell short of dictating the time. place and manner under which the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised. I believe SCOTUS intentionally left that determination up to the states. The Wisconsin Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue in State v Hamdan.

¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.

¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. See State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, 244 Wis.2d582, 628 N.W.2d820. It is constitutional. We hold that only if the public benefit in this exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional as applied.

Fortunately paragraph 41 is there as a control on paragraph 46.

My opinion: The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution establishes that every qualified U.S. citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be denied by federal, state or local governments. The regulation of the time, place and manner by which that right is exercised is left to the individual states.

OK Spartacus. Go for it.

Thanks for that Sir.

 

[McX]

permits?! we don't need no steenin permits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[apjonas]

I guess that is what baffles me. Why is it OK for me to OC with no training/permit but all of a sudden I wear a jacket and I need training?

Because there is no constitutionally-protected right (in Wisconsin) to carry a concealed weapon. Hamdan provided an exception to the rule but not enough to get excited about. If you meet the exception, training is not required. If you don't meet the exception, all the training in world doesn't matter.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Because there is no constitutionally-protected right (in Wisconsin) to carry a concealed weapon. Hamdan provided an exception to the rule but not enough to get excited about. If you meet the exception, training is not required. If you don't meet the exception, all the training in world doesn't matter.

I understand the current interpretation of the law, I am asking the question at a more fundamental level. Why is a concealed weapon more dangerous and therefore need more regulation?

To use antis arguments 'if you OC someone can grab it'.

 

[bnhcomputing]

[QUOTE=paul@paul-fisher.com;1351183]I understand the current interpretation of the law, I am asking the question at a more fundamental level. Why is a concealed weapon more dangerous and therefore need more regulation?[/QUOTE]

You have got the argument spot on here Paul. Every person I talk to about OC/CC I ask that same question, tell me the difference such that OC is legal now, but they want CC to require permitting....

I have asked this question I bet 1,000 time or more. I have NEVER been given an answer, NEVER. If you every get a valid reason, let me know

 

[apjonas]

An Old Concept

is that concealed weapons are the tools of criminals and those of bad of character who wanted to get the drop on the lawabiding citizen. Most of the restrictions started with concealed weapons. Not as a means to expand control, but rather that they were evil in themselves and should be proscribed by law.

I understand the current interpretation of the law, I am asking the question at a more fundamental level. Why is a concealed weapon more dangerous and therefore need more regulation?

To use antis arguments 'if you OC someone can grab it'.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

is that concealed weapons are the tools of criminals and those of bad of character who wanted to get the drop on the lawabiding citizen. Most of the restrictions started with concealed weapons. Not as a means to expand control, but rather that they were evil in themselves and should be proscribed by law.

The old 'the tool is the evil' argument. I see.

Personally, I am comfortable OC'ing and probably would be comfortable CC'ing. I guess I want the option. Not that anyone who has seen me would want to see me shirtless, but if I need to be, let me be. If I want to wear a heavy coat (in WI?) then if it obstructs the view of my weapon, no biggie. If I want double protection and OC one weapon and CC a backup, good for me.

I know, preaching to the choir.

 

[Spartacus]

Here is Your Answer... Now You Can't Say You've Never Gotten One.

You have got the argument spot on here Paul. Every person I talk to about OC/CC I ask that same question, tell me the difference such that OC is legal now, but they want CC to require permitting....

I have asked this question I bet 1,000 time or more. I have NEVER been given an answer, NEVER. If you every get a valid reason, let me know

is that concealed weapons are the tools of criminals and those of bad of character who wanted to get the drop on the law abiding citizen. Most of the restrictions started with concealed weapons. Not as a means to expand control, but rather that they were evil in themselves and should be proscribed by law.

Are guns evil in and of themselves? No of course not. Do guns make it easier for evil men to do heinous acts? Yes of course, hence the plethora of legislation surrounding concealed carry.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Because there is no constitutionally-protected right (in Wisconsin) to carry a concealed weapon. Hamdan provided an exception to the rule but not enough to get excited about

I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as you...

Because courts are suppose to exercise restraint and not legislate from the bench the WSC did indeed find that you DO have a constitutionally protected right to carry a concealed weapon in your home/business. (because those were the facts of that case)

In Vegas they found you have a constitutionally protected right to carry concealed while you are out and about (if you have a dangerous job, have been a victim of a crime before, felt you had reason to carry blah blah blah) (because those were the facts of that case)

Without legislating from the bench, courts don't offer rulings on issues not in front of them.

I believe the WSC may very well find there are LOTS of other places you have a constitutional right to conceal carry as well, those cases have just not come up in front of the court yet. I happen to know an attorney with a track record of success challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin laws who very much believes, for example, that Wisconsin's vehicle carry restriction could be found unconstitutional.

I guess what I'm offering is don't sell your constitutional rights short in Wisconsin just yet.

 

[Spartacus]

I happen to know an attorney with a track record of success challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin laws who very much believes, for example, that Wisconsin's vehicle carry restriction could be found unconstitutional.

Yep that one seems to be a no-brainer.

Again, I do not see the vehicle carry statute as a constitutional "infringement" as much as misguided legislation designed mostly to protect LEO during traffic stops.