Senate panel to vote on revamped conceal-carry bill

[oliverclotheshoff]

what constitutes school grounds is it the lawn they mow, the sidewalk they shovel or the parking spots in front of the school where the buses park

just curious what other peoples take on this is due to tha fact i will be moving to a new house across the street from the towns schools

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

what constitutes school grounds is it the lawn they mow, the sidewalk they shovel or the parking spots in front of the school where the buses park

just curious what other peoples take on this is due to tha fact i will be moving to a new house across the street from the towns schools

It is their property. So, under the amendment with a permit, you could walk on the sidewalk but not in their parking lot.

 

[Max]

I just got off the phone with senator Bob Wirch's office. Did not speak to Bob but I was told Bob supports conceal carry but cannot comment on SB-93 as it is being rewritten as we speak and the committee will vote on it at 1:30 today.

 

[ksks]

Can someone who has some sway, ask that "concealed weapon" be referenced instead of "handgun," then include knives as a concealed weapon????

Knives need to have a pre-emption.

 

[apierce918]

The only potential charges would be federal.

But there aren't federal agents out patrolling school zones.

In Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska, the local police can't file federal charges against you. I presume they 'could' refer you to the feds for charges, but that hasn't happened.

Of course I don't want to be the first one they start issuing charges against, but that said, if the federal law makes it illegal, why have a duplicate state law. If the fed law gets challenged/overturned, then once again, Wisconsin would be stuck behind the times.

Ok, I think I get it, lol.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

No. As long as your drive NEVER passed through a school zone, you would be legal. Good luck with that, have you seen the school zone maps?

I am talking about just going up to the local gas staion / grocery store (small town) where I am 100% sure I would not be in any school zone.... I understand the permit / school zone thing and will get the permit (when any permit bill becomes law) to travel through school zones when I am driving anywhere other than described above....

Outdoorsman1

 

[phred]

Hubert pointed something out that I missed. We need it changed.

I will email Kedzie. Phred, if you could ask Galloway for clarification/fixing.

I have sent emails to Galloway with concerns about the GFSZ 1000 ft part as well as the posting of govt buildings which would in effect prohibit the use of the "facilities" in a park, campground, picnic area, etc.

Then this morning I called her office with the same message. She was in meetings but her aide now knows the issues quite well. He knows things needs to be "fixed" otherwise it can't be called Constitutional Carry

 

[MKEgal]

From what I'm seeing, it does not have anything in common with the driver license, but allows the issuing department to contract them to the DMV. Unless there is a line I missed.

You forgot: -too easy signage.

+1 on the easy signage; why not use the same requirements as for posting land?

As for the DL = cc permit #:

(i) "State identification card number" means the unique identifying driver number assigned to a person by the department of transportation under s. 343.17 (3)(a) 4. or, if the person has no driver number, the number assigned to the person on an identification card issued under s. 343.50.

A license document for a license issued under this section shall contain... A unique identification number for each licensee

(5)Application and renewal forms.
The forms shall require the applicant to provide only his or her name, address, date of birth, state identification card number, race, sex, height, hair color, and eye color and shall include all of the following

So no, it doesn't actually say they'll use the DL#, but since they have it handy, why bother inventing another ID#? (Soooo difficult to have a computer generate a random unique number donchaknow.)

This will link a DL or ID to a permit. Whadayawannabet that, despite the law providing penaties for LEOs behaving badly, once they run someone's DL & find they have a permit, they'll behave badly?

With a separate permit #, & there's no requirement to disclose (glad to see that got taken out!) traffic stops will go as they always have. Officers will have to base their response on an individual's behaviour, not on what the officers think they might do because they might be armed. [Whether or not I am, why would I say anything? Hand over the DL, etc., remain silent.]

ksks - knives are already included:

(j) "Weapon" means a handgun, an electric weapon, as defined in s. 939.222(11m), a knife other than a switchblade knife under s. 941.24, or a billy club.

Just looked at the original bill, compared to the amendments. The amendment took out the language requiring metal detectors & lockers in gov't buildings that want to ban carry.
All buildings could be covered very simply by the same statute: nobody other than an on-duty LEO may carry a firearm, etc., beyond a security checkpoint if all people entering the building are required to pass through metal detectors AND if free lockers are provided before the checkpoint for the storage of items such as firearms that are not allowed in the building.

 

[aadvark]

To ALL Whom it may Concern:

This is a GOOD Bill, and it even Rivals Pro-Firearm States like South Dakota.

The Bill makes it a Class B Forfeiture to do any of The Following Acts: EITHER 1. Have a Firearm in a Public Building not being a Specified Building under The Code Section Proposal 941.232(2)(a)1 through 941.232(2)(a)4, IF You have been Asked NOT do so with that Particular Firearm or with a Firearm in General, OR 2. Have a Firearm with a 1000 Feet of a School, unless; The Person is in Compliance with at least 1 Exception Enumerated under Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(i) through 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(vii), which would Include Licensure under Paragraphs (d) through (g) of Proposed Wisconsin Code Section 175.60(1).

The Bill Amendment Stips The Authority of Law Enforcement Agencies to make a Disorderly Conduct Charge Allegation based on The Fact that a Person is otherwise Carrying a Loaded Firearm, an Openly Carried Firearm, or Legally Carrying a Concealed Weapon as such Term is Defined under Proposed Code Section 175.60(1)(j), with either a License or Meeting an Exception to such Licensure.

***NOTE: Firearms that are Openly Carried would be Disorderly Conduct Exempt, as would Concealed Weapons, under The Proposed Code Section Cited, Immediately above, BUT nothing in This Protection would be Extended to such Weapons, other than a Handgun, from being Disorderly Conduct Exempt for being Carried Openly.***

***I would Ask for another Amendment that would Allow License Holders Enumerated under Paragraphs (d) through (g) of Proposed Wisconsin Code Section 175.60(1) from being Exempt to The Application of Proposed Wisconsin Code Section 943.13(1m)(c)3 if such Person can Show such Tangible License upon Entry into a Public Building, other than those Buildings Specified under Code Section Proposals 941.232(2)(a)1 through 941.232(2)(a)4, and such Person is only in Possession of a Handgun.***

***I am Personally Uncertain as to whether or not Issueing Licenses with a Number Identical to other License Numbers is Beneficial to Help Stream-line Identification for Wisconsities, or if it could be a Detrimental for Wisconsinites Privacy. However, Social Security Numbers would NOT be able to be Used, under The Federal Privacy Act of 1974.***

aadvark

 

[apjonas]

I Took a Swipe

at putting some of the restrictions/features into simpler language. Comments welcome.

941.232 Carry is PROHIBITED (with the usual LEO, etc. exceptions) and is a Class C Misdemeanor

941.232 (2)(a) In/at the following:

941.232(2)(a)(1) Any portion of a building that is a police station, sheriff's office, or state patrol station.
941.232(2)(a)(2) A prison, jail, house of correction, or secured correctional facility.
941.232(2)(a)(3) A county, state, or federal courthouse.
941.232(2)(a)(4) A place beyond a security checkpoint in an airport.

941.232(2)(b) The restrictions in (2)(a) DO NOT apply to:
941.232(2)(b)(1) Carry in a vehicle driven or parked in a parking facility that is part of the prohibited locations.
941.232(2)(b)(2) A weapon carried in a courthouse by a judge or someone else with written permission from a judge.
941.232(2)(b)(3) A weapon carried in a courthouose by a DA or Assistant DA.

941.232(3)(a) An employer MAY ban employee carry of all weapons or particular type(s) of weapons while employee is on the job (totally or partially).
941.232(3)(b) Employer MAY NOT ban weapons/a particular type of weapon/ammo in employee's OWN vehicle EVEN if vehicle is used for work or driven onto employer's property.
941.232(3)(c) If employer PERMITS one or more employees to carry, he has NO liability for doing so.

TRESPASS WHILE CARRYING (not sure of penalty)

RAW LAND
943.13 (1m) (b) Carrying a firearm into or possessing a firearm on the land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises. However this restriction doesn't apply if the person carrying would have been permitted on the land but for the fact that he was carrying. This doesn't change any other provision of trespass law it just ensures that the penalties are applies because the land owner doesn't like guns.

NOTICE FOR RAW LAND
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) Notice is sufficient if a person has been personally told OR personally given written notice OR
if the land is has a sign, 11" x 11" or larger placed in at least two conspicuous places for every 40 acres.
The sign must include the name of the poster and whether he is the owner or occupant.
The poster must prove that the signs were up before the incursion.
If he can do so then the burdens shifts to the carrier to prove that the signs were not there at the time of the incursion.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (RB)
RB apparently includes single family homes, duplexes, apartment houses and the like.

943.13 (1m) (c)(1) Carrying a firearm into or possessing a firearm at a RB (other than one you own or lease) after notice by the owner (if the property is unleased) or the occupant (if the property is leased). If a detached home, RB includes the curtilege. If multi-unit, RB DOES NOT include common areas or the land. Thus the owner can ban carry on his front lawn but an apartment owner MAY NOT ban carry in the lobby or hallways.

NOTICE FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) For RB, notice is sufficient if a person has been personally told OR personally given written notice. I don't seen an option for signage.

NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (NRB)
NRB includes any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college. Apparently whether it is residential not.
943.13 (1m)(c)(2) Carrying a firearm into or possessing a firearm at a NRB (other than one you own or lease)
after notice from the owner (for any part of a property that is unleased) or the occupant (for any part of a
property that is leased). This DOES NOT apply to a part of a building occupied by the state OR one of its political subdivisions (see next section) OR to firearms in vehicles parked or driven in any part of the building used as a parking facility.

NOTICE FOR NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDIING
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) For NRB, notice is sufficient if a person has been personally told OR personally given written notice OR if the RB or NRB is posted with a sign or signs, 8.5" x 11" or larger, blaze orange in color, located in a prominent place (or places) near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.

GOVERNMENT BUILDING
943.13 (2)(c)(3) Carrying a firearm into or possessing a firearm in any part of a building owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit (other than one in which you lease residential or business property) after notice by the state or local governmental unit. This seems to apply to the ENTIRE building even if the state or local government owns, occupies or controls only a single office. This DOES NOT apply firearms in vehicles parked or driven in any part of the building used as a parking facility.

NOTICE FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDING
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) For NRB, notice is sufficient if a person has been personally told OR personally given written notice OR if the Government Building is posted with a sign or signs, 8.5" x 11" or larger, blaze orange in color, located in a prominent place (or places) near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign. This language seems to be inconsistent with 943.13 (2)(c)(3) as it suggests that the restrictions apply only to the government parts.

UNAUTHORIZED SIGNS
943.13 (3) Placing a sign similar to the ones described without the express consent of the owner or occupant is a Class C Forfeiture.

IMMUNITY FOR ALLOWING CARRY
943.13 (6) A person cannot be held liable because he did not prohibit somebody from carrying on his property.

SCHOOLS
948.605 (2) (a) Carrying a firearm on the grounds of a school or in a school zone is a Class I felony for everyone.
Carrying within 1000 feet of a school is a Class B Forfeiture for non-licensees unless they carry in
accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

 

[aadvark]

ajonas:

How do You Fell about Public Building Carry?

aadvark

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Does someone having a permit give up any other rights? For example, if I got a WI permit and open carried within 1000' of a school, could a LEO demand my permit and/or ID? Or, if I am concealing anywhere else and 'print', is that enough to be stopped and asked for permit?

 

[oliverclotheshoff]

paul you raised a question in my head if you have a permit to CC and you chose to OC can or could you be cited in one way or form for not CC'ing

and if this has been discussed already sorry for being redundant

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

paul you raised a question in my head if you have a permit to CC and you chose to OC can or could you be cited in one way or form for not CC'ing

and if this has been discussed already sorry for being redundant

No, from what I read, the permit allows you to carry any way you want at more places.

No permit, OC. Permit OC or CC.

 

[MKEgal]

941.232(3)(a) An employer MAY ban employee carry of all weapons or particular type(s) of weapons while employee is on the job (totally or partially).
941.232(3)(b) Employer MAY NOT ban weapons/a particular type of weapon/ammo in employee's OWN vehicle EVEN if vehicle is used for work or driven onto employer's property.

That part confused me. Read exactly as written, (b) literally says the employer can't ban an employee from carrying. Also can't ban an employee from having XYZ in their vehicle. Needs to be written better if they intended to say "can't ban from carrying in vehicle AND can't ban from having in vehicle".

GOVERNMENT BUILDING
943.13 (2)(c)(3) Carrying a firearm into or possessing a firearm in any part of a building owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit (other than one in which you lease residential or business property) after notice by the state or local governmental unit. This seems to apply to the ENTIRE building even if the government owns, occupies or controls only a single office.

So the state is, again, preempting private property rights. Only the person whose name is on the lease would be allowed to carry. No employees would, even with the blessing of the owner. Or people visiting a resident of a condo that happens to be in the building above where some public servant has an office.

SCHOOLS
948.605 (2) (a) Carrying a firearm in or on the grounds of a school [strike]or in a school zone[/strike] is a Class I felony for everyone.
Carrying within 1000 feet of a school is a Class B Forfeiture for non-licensees unless they carry in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

On school property = felony for everyone. [939.50(3)(i) a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 3 years and 6 months, or both.]
Within 3 blocks of a school, without a permit = up to $1000 fine. [939.52(3)(b)]
This seems to go against the statute that prohibits restriction of possession within a vehicle.

if I got a WI permit and open carried within 1000' of a school, could a LEO demand my permit and/or ID?

I re-read both the bill & the amendment, & don't see that they kept the (illegal) provision of producing ID on demand with no RAS of a crime.

That being said, even if you OC'd near a school, I think they couldn't demand to see your permit because they have no RAS of a crime. If you didn't have a permit it'd only be a forfeiture under the new law, so it's not a crime*. (They might try to arrest you anyway, like Brookfield did.)

In order to write a ticket, however, they'd have to know who you are, and once they have your name they can check for a license, and if it exists & is good then they can't write the ticket. (Or they can skip the step about checking for a license, & make you appear in court to contest it, at which point you're contesting being stopped w/ no RAS of a crime, compelled to ID yourself to police or punished for remaining silent & not IDing yourself, which is a whole 'nother issue.)

*939.12 A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime.

 

[oliverclotheshoff]

thanks paul im gad someone can make sense of the legalise
i sure as heck cant

 

[MKEgal]

No, from what I read, the permit allows you to carry any way you want at more places.
No permit, OC. Permit OC or CC.

Not the way I read it.
Either way would be legal for any non-prohibited person.
Getting a permit would make it legal for that person to carry (either way) anywhere up to the inner edge of the sidewalk of a school. Everyone without a permit would be stopped at the magical 1000' forcefield.

Section 57. 941.23 of the statutes is repealed. :banana: :monkey

175.60 Optional license to carry a concealed weapon.
(2) Issuance and scope of license
(c) This section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed. Except as provided in [school zone statute] the optional license issued under this section conveys no additional rights under Wisconsin state law to carry a firearm that is concealed than an individual who does not have a license issued under this section has to carry a firearm that is concealed.

FYI:

939.52 Classification of forfeitures
(3) Penalties for forfeitures are as follows:
(a) For a Class A forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $10,000.
(b) For a Class B forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $1,000.
(c) For a Class C forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $500.
(d) For a Class D forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $200.
(e) For a Class E forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $25.

So for the non-crime of being in an unmarked defense-free zone without a permission slip they want to be able to charge us $1000. Looks like another backdoor way to force people to get a permit (that's "only" going to be $60).

And how many criminals do you think will have to pay this fine? How many are currently charged w/ the school zone violation? I'm guessing the numbers will be similar. But let a parent walk her kid to school & BAM! I'm getting more cynical about our gov't as I get older.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

MKEGal, you are right. Sorry.

 

[MKEgal]

MKEGal, you are right. Sorry.

No need to apologize.
We're having a friendly discussion & trying to help each other understand stuff better.

But gee, if we can't understand it, & we've been paying attention & reading it closely, how well do you think the average person (including LEOs) is going to understand it?

I suspect the LEO learning curve will need to be pretty steep, esp. with the provision for punishment when they screw up.
We'll need to make a new pamphlet about carry laws once the law is signed.

 

[rcav8r]

That part confused me. Read exactly as written, (b) literally says the employer can't ban an employee from carrying. Also can't ban an employee from having XYZ in their vehicle. Needs to be written better if they intended to say "can't ban from carrying in vehicle AND can't ban from having in vehicle".

The way I read it, the employer can ban you from carrying IN the workplace, but not in your car or your car in his parking lot. In other words, if I'm a pizza delivery guy, the boss can stop me from carrying in the store or parking lot, but NOT while I'm in the car. If I were to leave the car to make the delivery, then technically, I still can't carry. Unless I'm printing and the addressee can see it, calls and complains, then I don't see how it would really affect me as a delivery driver.

Edited: reread paragraph and rearranged my thoughts.