• 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.

A suggested cleanup of legislation for the 2013-2014 session

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Let me start out with the statement that I support the complete repeal of 941.23 as well as all other infringement on our rights, however, on the pragmatic side, I think we have a good chance of making some targeted fixes to the existing law.

Here is my suggested fixes. I will add onto it as I come up with ideas. Please feel free to discuss.

Add: 941.23(2)

941.23(2)(f) An individual who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in compliance with 167.31.

I would call this the MKEGal amendment. This would once and for all invalidate State v. Walls.

Add: 175.60(4)(b)

175.60(4)(b)3 The department may not require any specific curriculum for any instructors other than the ones it certifies to meet the training requirements under par. (a)1.

This would clarify that the DOJ cannot regulate 'a national or state organizations' classes. They can setup any rules they want for the classes taught by their instructors, however, they would not be able to tell Wisconsin Carry or the NRA that they need a special Wisconsin class.
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
How about this?
941.23(2)(f) An individual who carries a [strike]concealed and[/strike] dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in compliance with 167.31.
Or possibly:
941.23(2)(f) An individual who carries a [strike]concealed and[/strike] dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in or on any vehicle or means of conveyance in compliance with 167.31.
I'm trying to get bicycles, motorized wheelchairs, farm equipment, etc. included with cars, motorcycles, boats, private planes,
AND
to remove the idea that if it's in a car it's concealed.
Anyone with a better way to write that, have a go at it.
 
Last edited:

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Let nonresidents apply for concealed carry licenses

I guess my argument is that 941.23 is the concealed carry statute.

The state now has the mechanism in place to handle the demand. They would gain millions of dollars for almost no expenditure, as these people can already carry in Wisconsin with another states permit.

Why pass on the virtually "free" money when it would be so simple to become the "go to" state for out of state permits. Wisconsin has many advantages over Florida and Utah if it would choose to go this route.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
Why are laws so complicated and intricate a maze of web. It can't be constitutional carry can it?? But I guess we have to comply....sigh... But as my Pierce county DA told me " it is more complicated than that..." I suppose he means once we have fired the gun. You all, I am sure you know, it has been a joy to carry my 357 all over Ellsworth and Prescott. can';t wait for wifey to budget my Utah permit so I can carry in MN. And yes Grumps I need to mane a visit. Right now I have a respiratory viral and on prednisone to help me breath. I, will make it to your hut and will pay you with an authentic Tandoori chicken and Naan bread and other delicious spicy Indian food I can cook.

I need to look up all firearm statutes.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,328
Location
northern wis
Why not come into compliance with the Wis consitution.

Any weapon carried for sporting, recreation, self defense or other lawfull purpose can be carried with out restriction.

.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
OK... since 941.23 (2) (e) already nullifies the ccw law for a person's own property, add to that.

175.60 (2g) says
Unless the licensee or out-of-state licensee is carrying a concealed weapon in a manner described under s. 941.23 (2) (e), a licensee shall have with him or her his or her license document and photographic identification card

The current bit:
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/23/2/e
An individual who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on land that he or she owns, leases, or legally occupies.
Proposed addition:
An individual who carries a concealed and dangerous weapon, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (j), in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on land that he or she owns, leases, or legally occupies, or in or on a vehicle which is under the individual's control or which the operator has given permission for such possession.

Combined with Paul's proposed 941.23(2)(f), I don't see how any cop or DA could possibly misinterpret it again.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Gfsz

Replace 948.605(2)(b)1m so that it reads:
A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (ii) (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).

Repeal 948.605(2)(b)1r

The effect of this is that CCL holders would be able to carry INSIDE A SCHOOL, like they can in UT and other states.

Yes, I know, the Federal GFSZ is unconstitutional, however, until it is ruled as such, we need to live with it and this is as far as we can go within the Federal law.
 
Last edited:

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
I'd like to see 66.0409 amended to included all weapons, not only firearms. This would negate the silly knife restrictions in some municipalities, e.g., Milwaukee and martial arts weapons restrictions in others, e.g., Madison.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,328
Location
northern wis
Beacuse this is a wish list.

Repeal all weapons laws or change the law to read.

It shall be illegal ,only when used in commison of a crime.

Thus if you robbed, murdered ect then one could be charged with a weapons violation.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Since not everyone knows the citations for each of these, I went back and added hyperlinks to the existing statutes to all my suggestions so that people can understand what I mean.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
1. Strengthen 66.0409
2. Stand Your Ground
3. No municipality can post.
4. Court Houses must provide lock boxes
5. Police stations are no longer prohibited carry (except the jail area of course).
6. a. Any place that posts "No Weapons" must have armed security (think of all the jobs that will create!) and metal detectors. or b. No business can prevent its employees or customers from carrying.
7. Eliminate GFSZ
8. Carry on 1-12 school grounds is no longer illegal.
9. Eliminate 48 hour waiting period for handguns.
10. Bring back capital punishment (firing squad only as it is the cheapest method).
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
2. Stand Your Ground

Wisconsin is, and always has been, a "stand your ground" state. What complicates things is a 1999 Court of Appeals case that says it's OK for a jury to weigh one's opportunity to retreat when determining whether a reasonable amount of force was used. The new castle doctrine law eliminated that for residence, vehicle and place of business, but presumably that complication still stands for anywhere else you may be at the time of an attack.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
If You Hold a Valid CWL.

I'd like to see 66.0409 amended to included all weapons, not only firearms. This would negate the silly knife restrictions in some municipalities, e.g., Milwaukee and martial arts weapons restrictions in others, e.g., Madison.

these restrictions don't apply to you. The issuance of a license is a positive act by the state that supersedes any subordinate jurisdiction law (except as provided by the statute itself). This is different from unlicensed open carry (UOC). Since UOC was/is generally legal without a specific state law but local jurisdictions attempted to use home rule as a vehicle to interfere with the carrying of firearms, 66.0409 was necessary to (1) clarify that firearms regulation was a statewide concern and (2) limit the ability of municipalities (I don't think home rule applies to counties and towns) to halt/restrict the selling, ownership, carrying, etc. of firearms. This is still the case for the unlicensed individual. So -

1. For the licensed individual, local restrictions on weapons covered by the license are irrelevant except to the extent provided by state statute.
2. For the unlicensed individual, local restrictions on firearms only are generally prohibited under Wis. Stat. 66.0409. However local restrictions on non-firearm weapons are valid unless and until the state expands pre-emption as you suggest. Non-CWL weapons can still be prohibited even for licensees, so leave the throwing stars and nunchakus at home. Another way to say this is that preemption for CWL weapons is implicit in the granting of a license.

Please note that this is my analysis, not legal advice. All standard disclaimers apply.
 
Last edited:

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
How about doing away with the 48 hour waiting period for Wisconsin residents purchasing a handgun for those who are already vetted by obtaining their CWL through the state?

How about not needing a NICS background check for people purchasing long guns who currently have a valid WI CWL too?

Allegedly, my extended perpetual delay status for purchasing a handgun has been fixed at the state level, I plan to find out soon with another handgun purchase, Lets hope so.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
How about doing away with the 48 hour waiting period for Wisconsin residents purchasing a handgun for those who are already vetted by obtaining their CWL through the state?

How about not needing a NICS background check for people purchasing long guns who currently have a valid WI CWL too?

Allegedly, my extended perpetual delay status for purchasing a handgun has been fixed at the state level, I plan to find out soon with another handgun purchase, Lets hope so.

How about some citations? I have no clue where those are.
 
Top