• 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.

Wisconsin Open Carry Pamphlet

Parabellum

Founder's Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

This thread is being started to begin the compilation of an Open Carry Pamphlet for Wisconsin. Any advice would be appreciated and hopefully we can have a pamphlet ready soon.:)
 

Rick Finsta

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
232
Location
Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Statutelistings may become complicatedfor WI without also listing the important case law. It may be best to list a link to the online statutes and names of some relevant ones, as the annotations online include the case law.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
imported post

What's the point of an OC pamphlet? There are no statutes that address OC directly. The only ones that I think would be of interest deal with (1) restrictions on possession in government buildings and (2) school zones. This doesn't begin to cover the myriad regulations of colleges and universities (whether or not they have legal force) to say nothing of local attitudes that can be a problem. If you just want to list statutes, a 3x5 card should suffice. Really.
 

Parabellum

Founder's Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Decoligny thank you for posting those it will make things a lot easier. Doug this thread is about discussing just that, do you have any suggestions as to which if any annotations would be helpful? Rick are you suggesting some links to where this info could be found cause i think that would be a good idea, i think some of the other states also have links on them. And apjonas the reason for the pamphlet is to start getting the word out that open carry is legal in the state of Wisconsin because a great sum of the populace is ignorant of this fact. Personally i like the look of Virginia's pamphlet, any thoughts?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
imported post

I think it is a waste of time because unlike a state like Virginia, Wisconsin leans heavily to the no carry side. Furthermore some of the court decisions are so convoluted that it is nigh impossible for the average person to understand. But if you insist here is a start:



Wisconsin State Constitution Article I; Section 25 That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998] The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute. This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether thestatute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the 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. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen’s desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen’s home or in his or her privately−owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual’s interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.

http://[font=Calibri] [/font](http:// www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wisconst.pdf)

*All Wisconsin firearms laws noted here are provided only* for your convenience. You are responsible to know and understand safety and the law before you carry a firearm.

Wisconsin does not require firearm registration but it does not issue or honor any Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP), by whatever name.

In Wisconsin, in theory, one may openly carry a handgun in plain sight (holstered, of course). Concealed carry is generally illegal. Loaded handguns on the seat are considered concealed.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
imported post

Parabellum behaved in a manner that would be consistent with any Wisconsin pamphlet and we know how that turned out. Don't go down the road of giving what amounts to legal advice to strangers. Kicking around ideas here is fine but you are opening up yourself to big liability if some other party relies on the pamphlet and ends up like Parabellum.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

apjonas wrote:
Wisconsin State Constitution Article I; Section 25 That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
:question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question:
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,709
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Forget bureacratic pamphlet making.

Just start some low OCing around Wisconsin on foot, and get it in the news as perfectly legal. Big things happen from little ideas.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
imported post

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.


[align=left][1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998][/align]

[align=left]Annotations: The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute.[/align]

[align=left]This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of[/align]

[align=left]review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the[/align]

[align=left]statute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264[/align]

[align=left]Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350.[/align]

[align=left]The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms[/align]

[align=left]are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public[/align]

[align=left]benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s[/align]

[align=left]need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an[/align]

[align=left]otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and[/align]

[align=left]bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry,[/align]

[align=left]and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately[/align]

[align=left]operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises.[/align]

[align=left]State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.[/align]

[align=left]A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed[/align]

[align=left]weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may[/align]

[align=left]raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s[/align]

[align=left]interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep[/align]

[align=left]and bear arms substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed[/align]

[align=left]weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment[/align]

[align=left]was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his[/align]

[align=left]or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665[/align]

[align=left]N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.[/align]

[align=left]Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen’s desire to[/align]

[align=left]exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in[/align]

[align=left]the citizen’s home or in his or her privately−owned business. It logically and necessarily[/align]

[align=left]follows that the individual’s interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of[/align]

[align=left]security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations.[/align]

[align=left]An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear[/align]

[align=left]arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121,[/align]
714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.





pkbites wrote:
apjonas wrote:
Wisconsin State Constitution Article I; Section 25 That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
:question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question::question:
You said it. I don't know what happened! This might be Virginia.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,181
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

It is incredible that the same legislators that spent good political capital in passing the 1998 Section 25 Amendment to the Wisc. Constitution have sat idly by as activist judges have turned the will of the people on its ear. Absolutely unbelievable!

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

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

apjonas wrote:
Parabellum behaved in a manner that would be consistent with any Wisconsin pamphlet and we know how that turned out. Don't go down the road of giving what amounts to legal advice to strangers. Kicking around ideas here is fine but you are opening up yourself to big liability if some other party relies on the pamphlet and ends up like Parabellum.

That is why you always include a disclaimer statment on any pamphlet. On the California one it reads:

This pamphlet is not legal advice. It is based solely on the author's limited understanding of California penal Code. The author is NOT a lawyer. Please review the Penl Code fully for yourself and consult a legal professional about any questions on the legality of Open Carry.

The author assumes no responsibility or liability for actions taken by anyone other than the author himself.
 

Parabellum

Founder's Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The pamphlet is not to tell people to open carry only inform them as to its legality.The first amendment protects that right. The annotations to the 25th article are only specified to concealed carry, Hamdan clearly stated that the concealed carry prohibition was only legal because there was another manner of carry,visible. And if the state prosecuted against the other one the state would have to wield to the amendment. Mike if I could continue carrying I would but as im still unarmed I think this is a good alternative, for now. i would like to have pamphlets ready by the 4th so I can hand them out at the courthouse.:p
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
imported post

Parabellum wrote:
The pamphlet is not to tell people to open carry only inform them as to its legality.The first amendment protects that right. The annotations to the 25th article are only specified to concealed carry, Hamdan clearly stated that the concealed carry prohibition was only legal because there was another manner of carry,visible. And if the state prosecuted against the other one the state would have to wield to the amendment. Mike if I could continue carrying I would but as im still unarmed I think this is a good alternative, for now. i would like to have pamphlets ready by the 4th so I can hand them out at the courthouse.:p


Sorry, Parabellum unauthorized practice of law is not protected by the First Amendment. I am not saying that is what such a pamphlet constitutes but that if it is found to be so, a free speech claim isn't going anywhere. The annotations are for the whole RKBA - not just concealed carry. Some do specifically address CC (apparently no OC cases) but the general principles apply to OC - that is why you cannot carry in a government building or school zone. While you are correct in that some form of carry (whether categorized OC or CC) must exist, the constitution does not require that all OC must be legal.
 

Parabellum

Founder's Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

apjonas wrote:
Parabellum wrote:
The pamphlet is not to tell people to open carry only inform them as to its legality.The first amendment protects that right. The annotations to the 25th article are only specified to concealed carry, Hamdan clearly stated that the concealed carry prohibition was only legal because there was another manner of carry,visible. And if the state prosecuted against the other one the state would have to wield to the amendment. Mike if I could continue carrying I would but as im still unarmed I think this is a good alternative, for now. i would like to have pamphlets ready by the 4th so I can hand them out at the courthouse.:p
Sorry, Parabellum unauthorized practice of law is not protected by the First Amendment. When did I say I was practicing law? And I have yet to see were handing out pamphlets is not protected by the First Amendment. Its no different than speaking in a public forum.
I am not saying that is what such a pamphlet constitutes but that if it is found to be so, a free speech claim isn't going anywhere. But it is what your saying, and a free speech claim goes farther than you seem to think. Especially in light of the fact that there will be a disclaimer like every other pamphlet has.
The annotations are for the whole RKBA - not just concealed carry.No, its just for concealed carry, read it again and state where it makes another claim.
Some do specifically address CC (apparently no OC cases) but the general principles apply to OC - that is why you cannot carry in a government building or school zone.There's only two and they both address concealed carry, the general principles actually do not apply to OC, and the reason we cant carry in government buildings and school zones are because of other laws directly stating that we cannot carry there, not because of the annotations to that Article.
While you are correct in that some form of carry (whether categorized OC or CC) must exist, the constitution does not require that all OC must be legal. What other types of OC are there? or do you mean as to WHERE one can OC? or are you referring to one's attitude while carrying? this last part is not specific, it leaves itself open to too much interpretation.
apjonas, I get the impression that you are against making a pamphlet. If this is the case let me explain this thread, it is to solicit advice on the content and layout of a Wisconsin OC and/or Gun Rights Pamphlet, your post of Virginia's constitutional RKBA (although out of place) was appreciated. if you would like to contest the point of making a pamphlet you should post on "Wisconsin needs better organization" by Pointman where this started. If however your concern is over the intent of the pamphlet then you should wait until there is a draft of one before raising objections or advising caution as they are counter productive at this stage.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
imported post

Parabellum wrote:
apjonas wrote:
Parabellum wrote:
The pamphlet is not to tell people to open carry only inform them as to its legality.The first amendment protects that right. The annotations to the 25th article are only specified to concealed carry, Hamdan clearly stated that the concealed carry prohibition was only legal because there was another manner of carry,visible. And if the state prosecuted against the other one the state would have to wield to the amendment. Mike if I could continue carrying I would but as im still unarmed I think this is a good alternative, for now. i would like to have pamphlets ready by the 4th so I can hand them out at the courthouse.:p
Sorry, Parabellum unauthorized practice of law is not protected by the First Amendment. When did I say I was practicing law? And I have yet to see were handing out pamphlets is not protected by the First Amendment. Its no different than speaking in a public forum.
You didn't and neither did I. My comments were not specific to you but to the whole enterprise. The "handing out" is not the issue. It is the analysis and statements within the pamphlet.
I am not saying that is what such a pamphlet constitutes but that if it is found to be so, a free speech claim isn't going anywhere. But it is what your saying, and a free speech claim goes farther than you seem to think. Especially in light of the fact that there will be a disclaimer like every other pamphlet has.
A disclaimer has some value but is not a shield. Since, as you note, the final product doesn't exist let's just wait and see.
The annotations are for the whole RKBA - not just concealed carry.No, its just for concealed carry, read it again and state where it makes another claim.
The very first note talks about the "police power" and the fact that the RKBA is fundamental but not absolute. This applies to OC as well as CC. The actual section constitutional provision doesn't even deal with OC/CC. The case cited is a CC case but that does not change the general principle laid down into one being applicable only to CC.
Some do specifically address CC (apparently no OC cases) but the general principles apply to OC - that is why you cannot carry in a government building or school zone.There's only two and they both address concealed carry, the general principles actually do not apply to OC, and the reason we cant carry in government buildings and school zones are because of other laws directly stating that we cannot carry there, not because of the annotations to that Article.
The annotations are not law but a guide. The reason that there CAN be OC restrictions is the principle of the "police power" discussed in the first paragraph, not the words there. I never claimed otherwise. All I am saying is that any annotation that does not limit itself to CC (or OC) applies to the whole gamut of RKBA.
While you are correct in that some form of carry (whether categorized OC or CC) must exist, the constitution does not require that all OC must be legal. What other types of OC are there? or do you mean as to WHERE one can OC? or are you referring to one's attitude while carrying? this last part is not specific, it leaves itself open to too much interpretation.
I thought you might have been suggesting since most CC is not allowed then any OC is lawful. If I misread your intent, sorry about that. I wanted to make sure that everybody understood OC has significant limits.
apjonas, I get the impression that you are against making a pamphlet. If this is the case let me explain this thread, it is to solicit advice on the content and layout of a Wisconsin OC and/or Gun Rights Pamphlet, your post of Virginia's constitutional RKBA (although out of place) was appreciated. if you would like to contest the point of making a pamphlet you should post on "Wisconsin needs better organization" by Pointman where this started. If however your concern is over the intent of the pamphlet then you should wait until there is a draft of one before raising objections or advising caution as they are counter productive at this stage.
Not at all. I'm trying to point out some potential problem issues not rain on the pamphlet parade. Go forth and do good work. I will be interested in seeing what you come up with.
 

Nytedrgn

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
20
Location
Lowell, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

If you want any photos or any sort of graphics let me know I will do what ever I can. I have yet to be able to get anywhere with that petittion since I have no printer, I will do anything to help this cause that is lawful and within my ability.
 

Parabellum

Founder's Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nytedrgn could you find a nice picture or portrait of John Adams along with some of his prominent gun quotes. I think that the recent series on HBO will give a statement from him more weight with liberals as most liberals do watch HBO. not to say HBO isnt good, I watch HBO every night. apjonas thank you for your clarifications, im sure when there is a draft you will be very helpful in its editing.

edit: I found a nice portrait and quote and have already added them to the draft. i have begun adding statutes but to save space ive been cutting out parts that repeat or dont specify or count towards firearms. I added the RKBA amendment and a disclaimer. I added a few links but could use some more, decided against putting NRA because they claim it is illegal to carry a gun in Wisconsin without stating that they mean CCW. Added Doyle's quote at Dells.


edit: I have a draft in progress but i coudlnt finish it, i have a conference tomorow that i have to get ready for so next time i post ill either be charged or rearmed. Could someone try to finish the draft of the pamphlet so we can all start editing it.
 

Attachments

  • OC Pamphlet.doc
    60 KB · Views: 199
Top