Senate panel to vote on revamped conceal-carry bill

[Motofixxer]

Amendment 5-
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..."
They should not even be approaching you! Without a warrant or verified complaint.


"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

"A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

So where is the injured party of someone carrying openly or concealed?
What personal injury is there by someone lawfully carrying?
Where is the real complainant? and what's the real interest in the adjudication by the complainant?

We all have the Right to a fair trial. It's well established that a Conflict of Interest prohibits a fair trial.

Who does the judge represent? The state!!! The state statutes v. You

Any judge representing a party to the action has to recuse himself.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

My understanding of the bill (just from reading it, not from any 'official' source) is that you would still need a permit to carry within 1000 feet of a school.

IF that understanding is correct, this is not a legitimate constitutional carry bill.

Those school zones are EVERYWHERE. Driving in a car, you are on public roads. If you are carrying and DRIVE across a school zone ( a virtual guarantee) you are subject to a class b forfeiture. (again, if I read the bill correct) That is a poison pill.

Its a virtual defacto need to get a permit.

TRUE you would still need a permit to be "safe" under the Federal GFSZ law, but we all know they aren't prosecuting that law in other constitutional carry states.

Wisconsin needs to change its STATE GFSZ law to 'school grounds' so that IF AND WHEN that federal law is challenged/dealt with, we don't have a state law to deal with as well.

It doesn't appear to me they merged an optional permit bill into a constitutional carry bill, it appears they merged an optional constitutional carry right into a shall-issue permit bill (but kept the senate bill 93 name to perhaps pull a snow-job over on those seeking constitutional carry)

With the state GFSZ's in place for non-permit holders, the constitutional carry aspect is a farce.

By defaulting to Federal language, they are poisoning the bill for Constitutional Carry. According to the letter of the language, you could have a firearm legally "encased" according to the current WI definition and requirement for GFSZ and you would be in violation. Federal language states a locked container or a locked rack on a motor vehicle. If you walk onto the sidewalk in front of a gun store within a GFSZ and the firearm is simply in a sleeve, OEM box, etc you are in violation.

 

[apjonas]

I Fell Down and Went Boom

ajonas:

How do You Fell about Public Building Carry?

aadvark

How do I feel about public building carry? I'd rather tell you what I think. But first tell me what you mean by "public building" - no it isn't obvious.

 

[apjonas]

I Think You Have It Right

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.

Your employer can control your conduct in relation to your employment. As an exception to this general ability, your employer cannot prevent you from carrying in your vehicle (even though you may be on the job while driving) or are in his parking facility. So when you are taking the 16" Supremo with breadsticks from your Pinto to the customer's door, you can't carry (if prohibited by the boss). Of course this is the time you are most likely to need your sidearm. You can play Don't Ask Don't Tell or carry anyway. Depending upon the specifics, you may also be considered an independent contractor (not an employee) in which case you can do it your way. I think this provision is designed to prevent you from having to drive back home to arm up before going out after work.

 

[apjonas]

In Which Section?

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.

Where is the "preemption" language?

 

[safcrkr]

By defaulting to Federal language, they are poisoning the bill for Constitutional Carry. According to the letter of the language, you could have a firearm legally "encased" according to the current WI definition and requirement for GFSZ and you would be in violation. Federal language states a locked container or a locked rack on a motor vehicle. If you walk onto the sidewalk in front of a gun store within a GFSZ and the firearm is simply in a sleeve, OEM box, etc you are in violation.

It gets worse.... the amendment repeals (removes) the GFSZ "exceptions" for being encased or in a locked rack. On page 35, line 23 of the amendment, it says - "SECTION 82. 948.605 (2) (b) 1. to 5. and 7. of the statutes are repealed." The current exceptions are - if it's "encased" is 948.605(2)(b) 3.a., the exception for a locking rack in a vehicle is 948.605(2)(b) 3.b. It repeals both "exceptions"... 3 falls between 1.to 5. WTF?

 

[McX]

no thanks, no deal!

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

It gets worse.... the amendment repeals (removes) the GFSZ "exceptions" for being encased or in a locked rack.

What they did was default to the Federal GFSZ language. This sucks as it may no longer be simply "encased". It must be in a locked case or a locked rack if you do not have a permit. Here is the proposed amended chapter.

948.605 (2) (b) 1m. An individual who possesses the firearm in accordance with
218 USC 922 (q) (2) (b) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

 

[McX]

screw this! thinking that anything they offer under the guise of Constiutional Carry with restrictions is ANY kind of a deal. i tender my resignation.

 

[phred]

screw this! thinking that anything they offer under the guise of Constiutional Carry with restrictions is ANY kind of a deal. i tender my resignation.

Not so quick!

Instead of looking at what you may not do, start looking at what you may do.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

Not so quick!

Instead of looking at what you may not do, start looking at what you may do.

^^^^^^^^^^^ .... I agree....

Outdoorsman1

 

[safcrkr]

If Interceptor Knight and I are correct in interpreting the "new" GFSZ stuff, and the bill would default us to the federal rules of requiring a "locked" case, then here's what you can longer do. You cannot travel through any 1,000' school zone with a handgun unloaded and in a traditional zippered or tied pistol case unless it has a lock on it... unless you have a permit. Even with a permit (which only apply to handguns), you cannot travel through any 1,000' school zone with any long gun in a traditional zippered soft gun case unless you somehow rig it to be locked.

If you're going up north for hunting season, and while on a two-lane highway that goes through any small town, you will probably drive right past a school in that town. When you do, you violate the "new" language of the state GFSZ law unless the case your deer rifle or shotgun is in, is locked.

I hope we're wrong, and I don't think this is what the intent is, but that's what the amendment would do to statute 948.605 as we see it.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

I called and had a 20 minute conversation with Senator Galloway yesterday. After our conversation WCI's attorneys already picked up on that (locked case) reviewing the amendment yesterday and I called and spoke with one her her senior staffers about that issue.

I pointed out that now EVERY hunter in the state would need to buy new gun cases.

The staffer indicated it was NOT their intent to have that be the case and that she would take our concern to the legislative council to fix it.

 

[safcrkr]

I called and had a 20 minute conversation with Senator Galloway yesterday. After our conversation WCI's attorneys already picked up on that (locked case) reviewing the amendment yesterday and I called and spoke with one her her senior staffers about that issue.

I pointed out that now EVERY hunter in the state would need to buy new gun cases.

The staffer indicated it was NOT their intent to have that be the case and that she would take our concern to the legislative council to fix it.

I certainly hope so. This was a major screw up. My hunting partners drive up to Vilas County from the Milwaukee area. I asked them to count how many times they knowingly pass within 1,000' of a school on the drive up. NINE times for sure, and that's after they leave the four lane... maybe more that they don't know about. That'd be 9 violations per hunter, per gun, on each trip up north... and 9 more on the way home.

 

[Dave Workman]

As Wisconsin considers CCW, it could take lesson from Washington

Sometime today, a Wisconsin State Senate committee will vote on a proposal that would legalize concealed carry of firearms by private citizens in the Badger State, a right citizens of Washington State have enjoyed for generations.
Lots of Pacific Northwest eyes will be focused on the capitol at Madison while this debate unfolds, perhaps to gauge how well the argument goes for unlicensed "constitutional carry."



http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...ders-ccw-it-could-take-lesson-from-washington

 

[TangoDown]

The staffer indicated it was NOT their intent to have that be the case and that she would take our concern to the legislative council to fix it.

Heh heh...Puns!:lol:

But seruoisly did they happend to say anthing bout the GFSZ and how ununforcable it is? Or did hey mencion anything else theyd be changing with the bill?

-Tango

 

[apjonas]

GFSZ and non-Handguns

If Interceptor Knight and I are correct in interpreting the "new" GFSZ stuff, and the bill would default us to the federal rules of requiring a "locked" case, then here's what you can longer do. You cannot travel through any 1,000' school zone with a handgun unloaded and in a traditional zippered or tied pistol case unless it has a lock on it... unless you have a permit. Even with a permit (which only apply to handguns), you cannot travel through any 1,000' school zone with any long gun in a traditional zippered soft gun case unless you somehow rig it to be locked.

If you're going up north for hunting season, and while on a two-lane highway that goes through any small town, you will probably drive right past a school in that town. When you do, you violate the "new" language of the state GFSZ law unless the case your deer rifle or shotgun is in, is locked.

I hope we're wrong, and I don't think this is what the intent is, but that's what the amendment would do to statute 948.605 as we see it.

If you have a qualifying permit, the exception to GFSZ (Federal) covers any firearm, not just handguns. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

If you have a qualifying permit, the exception to GFSZ (Federal) covers any firearm, not just handguns. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

The short answer is that the WI permit only covers handguns so we will have no exception for long guns in WI.

A little more reason why is that we will not be licensed to carry a long gun by WI or a political subdivision of WI so we will not have an exception. Here is the full text....

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

 

[apjonas]

I Disagree

The short answer is that the WI permit only covers handguns so we will have no exception for long guns in WI.

A little more reason why is that we will not be licensed to carry a long gun by WI or a political subdivision of WI so we will not have an exception. Here is the full text....

Wisconsin does not license to carry any firearm. They may soon (optionally) license to carry a handgun concealed. If your interpretation were correct a licensee could not open carry a handgun within 1000'. Although the proposed law says that it doesn't impose any additional OC restrictions that isn't the point. The license is an exception to the manner of carry not what is being carried. It is the "How" not the "What" (in general, I understand that specific types of weapons are treated in the proposed legislation). With regard to "licensed to do so" - I think the interpretation used by the feds is that if you have a license, for concealed carry, to possess, whatever - issued under the conditions mentioned of 18 USC 922, you are exempt from GFSZ. It is not restrictive as to type of firearm, open or concealed, black gun or pink gun, caliber, etc.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Wisconsin does not license to carry any firearm. They may soon (optionally) license to carry a handgun concealed. If your interpretation were correct a licensee could not open carry a handgun within 1000'. Although the proposed law says that it doesn't impose any additional OC restrictions that isn't the point. The license is an exception to the manner of carry not what is being carried. It is the "How" not the "What" (in general, I understand that specific types of weapons are treated in the proposed legislation). With regard to "licensed to do so" - I think the interpretation used by the feds is that if you have a license, for concealed carry, to possess, whatever - issued under the conditions mentioned of 18 USC 922, you are exempt from GFSZ. It is not restrictive as to type of firearm, open or concealed, black gun or pink gun, caliber, etc.

I do not agree with your assessment. WI will be issuing a license to carry a "concealed weapon". A weapon is defined as a handgun, an electrical weapon, a knife or a billy club. With this license, you may carry a handgun openly or concealed within the currently prohibited 1000' GFSZ but not on school "grounds". The Federal law is specific. You may not carry "the" firearm unless licensed to do so (carry "the" (that specific) firearm). This pertains to Federal GFSZ only.
Upon further review, the current language of the WI proposal, so long as a firearm under 948 includes a long gun (which it does because long guns are prohibited in a school zone) allows you to carry a long gun if you are a "licensee" or an "out-of-state licensee". This means that you may carry openly or concealed a long gun or handgun within a school zone but not on school grounds so long as you have a license.

948.605 (2) (a)...... Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to
believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture.
Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following:..
1r. Except if the individual is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as
defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).