jeff niles
Regular Member
Do we still have to stay 1000 feet from schools with a permit?
-
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.
-
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.
Cc by schools
- Thread starter jeff niles
- Start date
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
No.
Happy days are here again, The skies above are clear again...
Now for Constitutional Carry.
Happy days are here again, The skies above are clear again...
Now for Constitutional Carry.
Last edited:
xenophon
Regular Member
Negative. Permit holders can be in the school zone. Just not ON SCHOOL GROUNDS or IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING.
bye bye school zone 1000ft rule for permit holders. thank goodness.
logables
Regular Member
There will be no constitutional carry as long as Governor Walker is in office. My opinion.
Plankton
Regular Member
Off topic.
I'm looking forward to being able to choose to conceal or openly carry.
Gee, thanks for your opinion Spartacus.
logables
Regular Member
Not off topic as another poster first brought it up. Sour grapes, perhaps. My opinion.
cleveland
Regular Member
On topic:
Does the sidewalk count as school property?
Does the sidewalk count as school property?
logables
Regular Member
I'm looking forward to being able to choose to conceal or openly carry.
Gee, thanks for your opinion Spartacus.
You are quite welcome. My opinion.
Lurchiron
Regular Member
I'm looking forward to being able to choose to conceal or openly carry.
Gee, thanks for your opinion Spartacus.
I'd say low blow...but since Spitandcuss never had a pair; no blood, no foul...Carry On:dude:
xenophon
Regular Member
I sure won't miss all the cased, uncased. Just get in and go!
I'm with you on that one. won't miss that bs one bit.
jpm84092
Regular Member
Gentlemen, the fight is not over.
SB93 as amended, may have passed both the Assembly and Senate and will likely be signed by Governor Walker, but our struggle is not over.
We need WI law to mirror UT law and allow those who opt for a permit to carry not only on the grounds that are outside the legal boundary (property lines) of a school, but also within those grounds (just like UT).
We also need a "Constitutional Carry" provision that makes it clear that the permit is optional for those worried about the Federal GFSZ and for interstate reciprocity.
OK, so part of me is a 2nd Amendment Constitutional advocate, the other part of me does not think that background checks, if limited to criminal behavior in the past, are such a bad idea. In my humble opinion, persons such as those convicted of going armed with a firearm while intoxicated, or who have committed a violent offense that involved a firearm, should not be granted a permit willy nilly. And, likewise, should not qualify for Constitutional Carry unless circumstances and facts are submitted that strongly suggest that any tendency toward misbehavior with a firearm has been corrected.
Carry on..
SB93 as amended, may have passed both the Assembly and Senate and will likely be signed by Governor Walker, but our struggle is not over.
We need WI law to mirror UT law and allow those who opt for a permit to carry not only on the grounds that are outside the legal boundary (property lines) of a school, but also within those grounds (just like UT).
We also need a "Constitutional Carry" provision that makes it clear that the permit is optional for those worried about the Federal GFSZ and for interstate reciprocity.
OK, so part of me is a 2nd Amendment Constitutional advocate, the other part of me does not think that background checks, if limited to criminal behavior in the past, are such a bad idea. In my humble opinion, persons such as those convicted of going armed with a firearm while intoxicated, or who have committed a violent offense that involved a firearm, should not be granted a permit willy nilly. And, likewise, should not qualify for Constitutional Carry unless circumstances and facts are submitted that strongly suggest that any tendency toward misbehavior with a firearm has been corrected.
Carry on..
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Does the word "felon or domestic violence" appear in the 2nd amendment? I don't recall seeing it there. Is a felon's life worth any less than another? Didn't they serve their sentence, suffer their punishment, and pay their debt to society? Do you want to be prejudged on your past? Are you the exact same person you were 1, 5, or 10 yrs ago? Don't we have Statutes prohibiting acts of violence with weapons? Just some questions to ponder?
Last edited:
Eagle2009
Regular Member
This is only partly true. Permit holders are still subject to the FEDERAL Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 when they travel outside of the State that physically issued their permit. Also, there is never an exception in the federal law for discharging a firearm in a school zone under any circumstances. If you ever discharge your firearm within 1000 feet of a school (even in Wisconsin) for any reason, you are subject to federal felony prosecution.
Read this official letter from BATFE written to a permit holder telling him he is subject to prosecution under the federal law, even though he is in full compliance with state law.
www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
Last edited:
lockman
State Researcher
The state may grant you a license or "license" without physically giving you a piece of paper or plastic. Law grant people license to do all sorts of things that are otherwise illegal. WI has done this with the recognized out of state permits with the condition of the background check, which is complaint with the new GFSZ act.
I'm still on the fence for this. Violent felons should face capital punishment, but I do agree, non-violent felons (pretty much anything is a felony now
) should have their rights reestablished.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
It is not compliant with the Federal GFSZ unless WI does the background checks. It is irrelevant and academic though because no WI prosecutor is going to charge anyone.
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
The language prohibits possession on school "grounds". Technically, the sidewalk is part of the street (public right-of-way). I would not be surprised if someone would receive a citation and be forced to fight it though.