• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Let's get together and write the freedom to carry bill we WANT to see!

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
I copied this from West Virginia's proposed law.

What do you all think? Should we include it?

Sorry guys been gone for a few days.
The big ugly sign is something that troubles me. We get offended when government tells us what we can and can't do, now we ask government to tell a buisness what they have to do. Seems hypocriticle to me. If we act as adults and know that a buisness dosen't want carriers in there then we stay out, seems simple. The idea of limited government applies to everyone. Freedom applies to everyone, even if we don't like what they do with that freedom. If we truly believe in the idea of limited government then we should want it for everyone, not only us.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Sorry guys been gone for a few days.
The big ugly sign is something that troubles me. We get offended when government tells us what we can and can't do, now we ask government to tell a buisness what they have to do. Seems hypocriticle to me. If we act as adults and know that a buisness dosen't want carriers in there then we stay out, seems simple. The idea of limited government applies to everyone. Freedom applies to everyone, even if we don't like what they do with that freedom. If we truly believe in the idea of limited government then we should want it for everyone, not only us.

I'll +1 that.
Leave it be, don't worry about the sign. That can be added later if needed. Keep it clean and concise. I thought we kind of agreed on that on the first or second page of this thread.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
Let's keep it simple and clean.

Originally Posted by johnny amish Sorry guys been gone for a few days.
The big ugly sign is something that troubles me. We get offended when government tells us what we can and can't do, now we ask government to tell a buisness what they have to do. Seems hypocriticle to me. If we act as adults and know that a buisness dosen't want carriers in there then we stay out, seems simple. The idea of limited government applies to everyone. Freedom applies to everyone, even if we don't like what they do with that freedom. If we truly believe in the idea of limited government then we should want it for everyone, not only us.
I'll +1 that.
Leave it be, don't worry about the sign. That can be added later if needed. Keep it clean and concise. I thought we kind of agreed on that on the first or second page of this thread.
I agree; the sign just complicates the bill unnecessarily.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
I agree; the sign just complicates the bill unnecessarily.

I was orginally in favor of the sign due to the faux firearms not permitted stance of Blains. I have flipped :exclaim:
on this. I am now in favor of not having it. Keep the submission simple. The sign language should be developed, but kept in reserve to provide if the business community has a concern about notification.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Signs should be a separate law and they should be huge to let everyone know they hate people who choose to protect themselves.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Signs should be a separate law and they should be huge to let everyone know they hate people who choose to protect themselves.

Good idea. All it takes is a little slip of the keys to make 5"x6" into 5'x6' (he he he):lol:

Sorry, I could not help it.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Good idea. All it takes is a little slip of the keys to make 5"x6" into 5'x6' (he he he):lol:

Sorry, I could not help it.
Maybe not that large, but at least 10"x10" for it to be a legal sign, otherwise it should have no weight.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I have slightly simplified and formatted the final bill to look just like the real thing. It is in PDF format. See what you think....

View attachment 5119

Generally OK.

However, I had a typo on a definition of vehicle. It should point to 340.01(74) not 340.01(64).

And this is the 1st time I'm doing anything like this so I guess I have a question, why are we including the rest of 167.31 instead of just 167.31(4) which is the only part we are really changing.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Can someone PM me the final draft? I would like to approach my state reps on sponsoring the bill

We are getting real close. Should be done tonight or tomorrow. My question is whether we can just 'fix' 167.31(4) or do we need to fix the rest. I believe we can just do 167.31(4) but I've been wrong before.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
OK. I think this is it. Final thoughts?

Removed 'stand your ground'. It is now purely Constitutional Carry.

We can do 'big ugly sign' and 'stand your ground' separately.

An Act to repeal 23.33 (3)(e), 29.089, (2), 941.23, 941.235, 941.237, 941.24; to amend 939.22(10), to repeal and recreate 948.605, 167.31(4); relating to: the common law right and the Wisconsin and United States constitutionally recognized rights to carry and use a weapon for security or defense.
LRB Analysis

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in the senate and assemble, do enact as follows.
Section 1. 23.33 (3)(e) of the statutes is repealed.
Section 2. 29.089 (2) of the statutes is repealed.
Section 3. 167.31(4) of the statutes is repealed and recreated to read:
167.314(4)EXCEPTIONS. (a) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to any of the following who place, possess, transport, load or discharge a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat or aircraft or discharge a firearm from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway:
1. A private citizen who meets all of the following:
a. is at least 18 years of age
b. Is not a felon in this state or in another state of a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state
c. Is not judged mentally incompetent in a court of law.
d. Is not convicted of a crime of domestic violence.
e. Is not convicted of habitual substance abuse (3 occasions).
f. Is not convicted of stalking.
g. Is not declared a sexual predator.
1.1. paragraph 1 above does not apply to any person arrested in the process of shooting at or killing of state wildlife.
2. A member of the U.S. armed forces.
3. A member of the national guard.
4. A private security person who meets all of the following
requirements:
a. He or she holds either a private detective license issued
under s. 440.26 (2) (a) 2. or a private security permit issued under
s. 440.26 (5).
b. He or she holds a certificate of proficiency to carry a firearm
issued by the department of regulation and licensing.
c. He or she is performing his or her assigned duties or responsibilities.
d. He or she is wearing a uniform that clearly identifies him
or her as a private security person.
e. His or her firearm is in plain view, as defined by rule by the
department of regulation and licensing.
(am) 1. Subsections (2) (a), (c) and (d) and (3) (a) and (b) do
not apply to a peace officer who, in the line of duty, loads or discharges
a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat or aircraft or
discharges a firearm from or across a highway or within 50 feet of
the center of a roadway.
2. Subsection (2) (b) does not apply to a peace officer who
places, possesses or transports a firearm in or on a vehicle, motorboat
or aircraft while in the line of duty.
(b) Subsections (2) (a), (b) and (c), (3) (a) and (b), and (3m) do
not apply to the holder of a scientific research license under s.
169.25 or a scientific collector permit under s. 29.614 who is using
a net gun or tranquilizer gun in an activity related to the purpose
for which the license or permit was issued.
(bg) 1. Subsection (2) (a), (b), (c), and (d) does not apply to
a state employee or agent, or to a federal employee or agent, who
is acting within the scope of his or her employment or agency, who
is authorized by the department of natural resources to take animals
in the wild for the purpose of controlling the spread of disease
in animals and who is hunting in an area designated by the
department of natural resources as a chronic wasting disease eradication
zone, except that this subdivision does not authorize the
discharge of a firearm or the shooting of a bolt or arrow from a bow
or crossbow across a state trunk highway, county trunk highway,
or paved town highway.
1g. Subsection (2) (b) and (c) does not apply to a landowner,
a family member of the landowner, or an employee of the landowner
who is using a firearm, bow, or crossbow to shoot wild animals
from a farm tractor or an implement of husbandry on the
landowner’s land that is located in an area designated by the
department of natural resources as a chronic wasting disease eradication
zone.
Section 4. 941.23 of the statutes is repealed.
Section 5. 941.235 of the statutes is repealed.
Section 6. 941.237 of the statutes is repealed.
Section 7. 941.24 of the statutes is repealed.
Section 8. 939.22 (10) of the statutes is amended to read:
(10) “Dangerous weapon” means any loaded firearm; any device designed as a weapon and capable
of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
Section 9. 948.605 of the statues is repealed and recreated to read:
948.605 Firearms and school zones
(1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(a) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet-firing gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter pistol.
(b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1)(b).
(c) “School zone” means in or on the grounds of a school.
(2) COMMISSION OF A CRIME IN A SCHOOL ZONE.
(a) Any individual who uses a firearm in commission of a crime in a school zone is guilty of a Class I felony.
(3) Establishment of individual licensure.
In consideration that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the people in Article I, section 25, of the Wisconsin constitution and by the second amendment of the United States constitution, a person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Wisconsin constitution is considered to be individually licensed and verified by the state of Wisconsin within the meaning of the Provisions regarding individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.
 
Last edited:

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
b. Never convicted of a felony in this state or in another state of a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state
c. Never judged mentally incompetent in a court of law.
d. Never convicted of a crime of domestic violence.
e. Never convicted of habitual substance abuse (3 occasions).
f. Never convicted of stalking.
g. Not declared a sexual predator.


What if they were convicted, but then pardoned or exonerated?
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
b. Never convicted of a felony in this state or in another state of a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state
c. Never judged mentally incompetent in a court of law.
d. Never convicted of a crime of domestic violence.
e. Never convicted of habitual substance abuse (3 occasions).
f. Never convicted of stalking.
g. Not declared a sexual predator.

What if they were convicted, but then pardoned or exonerated?
Very good question. Anyone know how this is handled?

I would assume that if they were exonerated, the guilty verdict is reversed so that one should be OK. Pardoned, I'm not sure.

I only ask because "never" is a very strong word
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
How about just taking out the word never? Then it would mean only current felons.

Then it would have to read something like this

1. A private citizen who meets all of the following:
a. is at least 18 years of age
b. Is not a felon in this state or in another state of a crime that would be a felony if committed in this state
c. Is not judged mentally incompetent in a court of law.
d. Is not convicted of a crime of domestic violence.
e. Is not convicted of habitual substance abuse (3 occasions).
f. Is not convicted of stalking.
g. Is not declared a sexual predator.
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,

An Act to repeal 23.33 (3)(e), 29.089, (2), 941.23, 941.235, 941.237, 941.24; to amend 939.22(10), to repeal and recreate 948.605, 167.31(4); relating to: the common law right and the Wisconsin and United States constitutionally recognized rights to carry and use a weapon for security or defense.
LRB Analysis

To use the words of Art 1 sec 25
 
Top