Mag capacities, what entails an "assault rifle" etc.. please and thank you.

Welcome.

No mag limits.

We don't discriminate against types of rifles, only against the quality of their build.

Hell I think we can own a howitzer here.

A fiend of mine owns a blackpowder canon that is about 4ft long and has a bore of about 1.5 ".  Over 300,000 have CCW as well as being an open carry State.

No libtard inspired restrictions here.... no magazine limits, no bans on "evil looking" rifles, pretty much everything is legal to own. If there's federal restrictions, such as NFA items, then you must obey those fed laws. No gun owner licensing, no gun registration, no "permits to purchase" / FOID cards / handgun "inspections" like our neighbors.

We have a fairly large Republican majority in Senate & Assembly, and Republican Governor and Attorney General. Conservatives have majority on state Supreme Court.... so things aren't likely to go downhill anytime soon. A constitutional carry bill is currently working it's way through the legislature.

We have open carry (no license needed), and concealed carry (license needed, with some exceptions). CCW license is 5 years for $40 at present, with a renewal fee of $22. Handguns only, no long guns. No picture nor prints needed, but there are training requirements. You can get more info or apply  here There are restrictions to carrying in specific places.... schools, police stations, courthouses. No CCW license required to CCW on property you own, rent, or lease. WI does not issue CCW licenses to non-residents.

There is a 1000' "school zone", and any guns within 1000' of a school must be unloaded and cased, UNLESS you have a CCW license. The 1000' school zone does not apply to CCW licensed people, nor those residing within 1000', when on their property. NO guns allowed on school property.

Posting "no guns" by private parties has force of law.

Reciprocity with other states is fairly large.

Firearms in vehicles need not be cased, but long guns cannot be loaded. But be careful here. In the passenger compartment and within reach of occupants, uncased guns are considered "concealed" if below window line. If you have a CCW license, no problem with a handgun, but a CCW license does not allow concealed carry of a long gun.

Suppressors are legal to own, and to hunt with. Must have NFA tax stamp.

Also important... We have a pre-emption law. No body of govt can pass any gun laws stricter than state statutes. Gun laws are the same everywhere.

FWIW... knife laws are pretty good too. Switchblades ARE legal, and no blade length restrictions. Under state law, you can carry a concealed knife without permit if you are legally able to own or purchase a firearm.

...repeat deleted

Nice summary.  Couple comments, FWIW.

DISCLAIMER (I really just need to request a screen name change):
I am not a firearms attorney.  I am not even a good attorney.  If you have any real firearm related concerns you should consult an attorney of your choosing.  Do not rely on anything herein.  You really shouldn't even read anything I write.  You reading the comments presented or exchanged in this forum does not form an attorney client relationship (duh).  No research was done and the information more than likely is 100% wrong so DO NOT RELY ON THESE COMMENTS IN ANY WAY.  

I usually don't even comment in depth like this for this very reason, but I do have an interest in this type of thing and appreciate the dialogue.  

Yes.  And maybe no.  The carry law Wisconsin adopted is a bit different than other states, particularly in this regard.  There are posting requirements, and one could argue (not necessarily successfully) that inadequate posting, may not have force of law.  I am not advocating anyone testing a no firearm posting, but there are those that in light of the way our statutes are written may, perhaps, give more consideration to the phrase "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and carry anyways (such as in the story below).

Also, what is "force of law" the way our statutes are written? Business owners can restrict whatever they want and refuse service, enforcement is something different.  Trespass with a firearm where it is posted you may not do concealed carry is difficult to enforce by its very nature. It is a class B forfeiture up to $1,000 if caught and enforced.

Also, the statutes do not per se shift liability in instances of a posted no carry violation, but they do provide protections to businesses that do not restrict.  It's kinda funky.  

Here is an article from a few years ago from Attorney Mark Hinkston with some nice overviews and points for consideration on concealed carry law in Wisconsin.  I will qualify provision of this link by saying it is a number of years old and there may have been changes to the statutes, but I believe big picture it still holds true.  Also, Mark is a very good writer and has good insights, but to the best of my knowledge he is not a firearm attorney and may not know or cover everything in this article that you might see as relevant.

Also, and my recollection may be fuzzy on this but it is perhaps of interest in this discussion, there is a story.  I do not endorse the actions taken herein, but provide it as an interest feature.

A number of years ago there was an Aldi on the west side of Milwaukee robbed at gunpoint.  Aldi was posted as no carry.  One of the customers who had a CCL, shot the robber as the robber exited.  

No charges were brought against the customer who shot the robber and (IIRC) Aldi changed store policy and removed their no carry signs.

Article
CCTV footage

If I missed something or don't have the full story, hope someone corrects me. I am interested in the business/posting aspect.

They are supposed to be, but are not necessarily.  Just keep your eyes and ears open.  You don't necessarily want to be the test case to get unjust laws off the books.

There may be arguments about what government entity falls under what category or can enforce carry restrictions and municipalities and government bodies are able to pass ordinances and regulations contrary to state law that remain in place until challenged and removed.  This is probably more of a concern in the more liberal populous areas around Madison and Milwaukee, but can in theory happen anywhere.  I believe Madison has had a number of cases since concealed carry was introduced as they pushed the limits trying to restrict carry.  

While not directly the same, somewhat analogous, I believe Glendale, Wisconsin restricts/forbids shooting ranges and the sale of guns by a retail establishment within city limits, contrary to State law. My understanding is that it goes back to a time when Badger Guns was actually in Glendale, not Milwaukee. It has not been challenged and therefore remains on the books with full force until it is challenged and removed.

I have not read this statute since the law changed, but if I recall correctly, I believe it is actually a little different than as stated above.  Rather than only being able to carry a concealed knife if you are legally able to own or purchase a firearm, my recollection is that Bill AB 142 removed all restrictions on switchblades (automatic) knives and concealed carry of all knives from the Wisconsin statutes, for everyone.   i.e. Firearm ownership, possession and carrying may have age restrictions, knife ownership and carrying does not.  The only exception for knife carrying after Bill AB 142 was that a person who is prohibited under state law from possessing a firearm (i.e. a felon or someone with domestic violations) may also not go armed with a concealed knife that is a “dangerous weapon,” which as I recall is also not defined.  Would a UTX-70 be considered dangerous just because it is an OTF automatic?

I welcome any comments or corrections.

About the pre-emption, a question.

Any law regarding firearms that is more stringent than state statutes that was "on the books" when pre-emption passed (Nov 1 1998 iirc) became invalid and unenforcible on that date. That is a state statute, and is very clear.

So my question is, wouldn't anyone arrested or cited for violation of such a totally invalid and unenforcible law be a victim of "false arrest"? I have a good friend who is now a criminal defense attorney, and is former district attorney of 2 counties, who'd be chomping at the bit to take on that type of case.

Possibly?  Rarely is anything under the law absolute.  

I remember a senior partner at the firm I first started working at out of law school laughing at me when I told him I wasn't finding a definitive answer in a case we were working on. He said, if you are looking for definitive answers, you are in the wrong profession.  

There are always nuances, caveats, different interpretations.  There could also be laws that were enacted after 1998 that may be more stringent nevertheless stand until invalidated.  

The point I was in-eloquently trying to make was that even when you think you are right, as one may be, is that you may still have to go through the legal process of showing you are right, costing you time and money.  One would like to think the officers or district attorneys just won't enforce law/ordinances/regs that should no longer have force, but not always the case.  Every case will vary depending on facts and circumstances and the knowledge of the individuals involved.  I am not saying I have one handy or am even aware of one on the books still, just that it is possible and people should stay alert.

guns are not allowed...sorry