Looks like a donkey punch gone wrong you cheese heads got going over there. (just came to that idea by reading this thread)



Some thing is better than nothing. But that does not make it suck any less.

Quoted: Quoted: Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction. I can only once again quote TJ- It is a short sighted err to accept a right as a privilege and declare it a victory.

It's a nice quote.  But I don't agree with it (in this situation).  We already have a law on the books that contradicts CCW as a right.  In my view, getting PPA passed does not mean that I've converted a right into a privilege.  It means that I am accepting a practical compromise.  Accepting an unconstitutional law since it isn't currently being widely enforced and doesn't have too bad of a penalty isn't a good idea, IMO.

I already have my constitutional rights trampled every day, in multiple ways by all levels of government.  RKBA is one of many.  I'm willing to make some compromises to get things improved.

I don't have time to write as much as I want right now (on break).  I'll try to get back and finish my thoughts either at lunch or after work.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction. I can only once again quote TJ- It is a short sighted err to accept a right as a privilege and declare it a victory. It's a nice quote.  But I don't agree with it (in this situation).  We already have a law on the books that contradicts CCW as a right.  In my view, getting PPA passed does not mean that I've converted a right into a privilege.  It means that I am accepting a practical compromise.  Accepting an unconstitutional law since it isn't currently being widely enforced and doesn't have too bad of a penalty isn't a good idea, IMO. I already have my constitutional rights trampled every day, in multiple ways by all levels of government.  RKBA is one of many.  I'm willing to make some compromises to get things improved. I don't have time to write as much as I want right now (on break).  I'll try to get back and finish my thoughts either at lunch or after work.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I believe that Artical 1 Sec. 25 of the state constitution gives an individual right to Keep and Bear arms in Wisconsin. When it was writen and passed it was not writen with language that gave the legislature the power to regulate how one may bear arms like other states have done. I believe that the most effective and resonable way to carry arms for ones security and defense when in public is to carry concealed. It keeps certain things from happening that can and do happen with open carry, such as police getting calls for a man with a gun and then the headache of having to deal with a DC charge. In Milwaukee any call for a man with a gun will result in a ride to the station and a charge of DC regardless of your intentions/reasons for open carrying. Thats PD policy as stated on this board in the past by an MPD officer. Effectivly there is no means to carry without getting into trouble. Carrying concealed makes that issue go away.

I believe that 941.23 was unconstitutional the second that the RKBA amendment was law. I also feel that anytime you must ask for the .gov premission to exercise a right, it is no longer a right, it is a privilage.  

I also don't feel that we should ompramise on our rights. The first version of the PPA, while I wasn't and am not a fan of it was beter then this version If I have to compramise on the right, I'd rather compramise and have the original version. Though in all honesty I hope and prey that the WSC gives us a better way. I'll take what we can get, so long as we start trying after the first year to change some of the aspects of the law. I'd much prefer to have an out of state permit and carry on that for instance then have my CCW linked to my vehical registration as I don't feel it's anyones business including LEOs if I have a CCW or not.

Quoted: Quoted: Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction. I can only once again quote TJ- It is a short sighted err to accept a right as a privilege and declare it a victory.

CCW is not a "right". As much as many here want to belive it is.

Av.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction. I can only once again quote TJ- It is a short sighted err to accept a right as a privilege and declare it a victory. CCW is not a "right". As much as many here want to belive it is. Av.

It is as much a right as any part of Keeping and Bearing arms, as it is one method by which to carry a firearm. Nothing at all in our states constitution says that the state may regulate how/when one may bear arms. The only restriction is a 130+ year old law that violates the individual right to carry in the manner in which is most appropriate based on the individuals choice. My right to protect myself will always outweight the states interest in keeping me from going armed with a concealed weapon period because the state and it's agents are not responcible for my protection. Till the day that officers are REQUIRED to potect the individual citizen and can be held liable for failure to protect the individual citizen(something I don't think should actually ever happen) then it is my right to carry for my security and defense in any manner that I feel is most appropriate for where I am.

The key part of of CCW is the first word, Carrying. I laready have the right to carry and the state has not right to restrict the manner in which I do that period.

Quoted: It's a nice quote.  But I don't agree with it (in this situation).  We already have a law on the books that contradicts CCW as a right.  In my view, getting PPA passed does not mean that I've converted a right into a privilege.  It means that I am accepting a practical compromise.  Accepting an unconstitutional law since it isn't currently being widely enforced and doesn't have too bad of a penalty isn't a good idea, IMO. I already have my constitutional rights trampled every day, in multiple ways by all levels of government.  RKBA is one of many.  I'm willing to make some compromises to get things improved. I don't have time to write as much as I want right now (on break).  I'll try to get back and finish my thoughts either at lunch or after work.

(Sorry to quote myself, but it makes more sense this way, since there have been more replies since my last post.)

ETA:
OK, back at it.

The problem of the existing CCW law goes farther than just being a misdemeanor with a small fine.  You also lose your firearm.  There is also the prohibitions of carrying while in a vehicle and the possibility of the DNR getting involved as well.  

If you do have to draw and defend yourself, now you have the complication that you were originally breaking the law by carrying.  There’s a legal term that I can’t remember right now, but it basically makes it easier for a prosecutor to get you convicted on related charges.  It just plain makes you look bad to a jury.

Yes, I know the law you broke was unconstitutional anyway, but the WI SC has not ruled that (yet).  

And yes, I am aware of the recent self defense CCW shooting by an out of state man at a gas station that was not prosecuted.  The problem with hanging your hopes on that case is  the fact that the shooter would appear very sympathetic to any jury.  (A 70+ year old man who was beaten with his own cane by multiple attackers!)  Very hard to get a conviction in that case and the DA knows it.  Change that shooter to ‘healthy, young male’ and I think you have a far greater chance of being prosecuted.  

I know a lot of you have high hopes for a WI SC ruling in our favor.  I just don’t think that’s going to happen.  The court has passed up chances to strike down the CCW law, and have tended to be very ‘wishy-washy’ in their rulings.  Also their rulings have been tailored to be very narrowly defined.  I hope for a major ruling for RKBA, but I don’t think it’s likely.

A lot of you have made good points and I respect your opinions.  But by and large, my thoughts tend to parallel GlennR’s earlier posts.  Sorry I don’t pipe up with a +1 more often Glenn.

Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO.

Hello, all...

I'm a ccw instructor out here in AZ.  Lived in Wisconsin for 22 years; 18 in Milwaukee and 4 in Whitewater for school.  Here's my take...

Wisconsinites had the right to conceal weapons.  They lost that right long ago.  Later on they lost the right to take a handgun home on the same day they bought it.  Then firearms became thew popular whipping boy for all of the state's evils and "social problems."

Wisconsinites had taxes.  Then they got more taxes.  Then they got more taxes.  (Reread those two 10 times.)  Then they got the highest gas tax in the country.  Then....

Madison was a city.  Then it became "progressive."  Then it got liberal.  Then it got liberal.  (Reread those two 100 more times.)  Now it's on par with Berkeley, California.

My point is that nothing happens overnight.  Wisconsin did not start out as a firearms-unfriendly place.  Wisconsin did not start out as a tax hell.  Wisconsin's capitol did not start out as a Soviet-era Moscow.  All of these losses of rights, extreme taxation, and overall stupidity took time.  Things never happened immedately-- Wisconsinites lost rights, lost money, and gained a "liberal utopia" over a number of DECADES.  

Why does anyone here think we can reverse history overnight?

Wisconsin's ban on carrying concealed weapons runs counter to the Wisconsin and to the US Constitution.  I am in COMPLETE agreement that Wisconsinites (and all other US citizens) should have Alaska/Vermont-style carry.  Unfortunately, we're going to have to work in the same manner as our enemies-- quietly, slowly, subtley...  Do you think the liberals would have been as successful if the Wisconsin we know today was proposed in the late 1800s/early 1900s?  Hell no!  It takes time to enslave the citizenry enact progressive policies!  

It's not going to be any different for us.  This bill is NOT perfect-- but it's a start.  Work as they did and your rights will come quicker than you think.

Wishing each Wisconsinite luck,

Mike Kwiatkowski
Formerly of Milwaukee, WI

Quoted: I laready have the right to carry and the state has not right to restrict the manner in which I do that period.

That's the rub - you don't have that right. You ARE restricted on how/where you carry. If you carry and are caught you can receive fines and/or jail time. If it were unconstitutional it would have been struck down long ago. While you may feel otherwise, the law clearly states what you can and can not do. CCW in WI is out unless we pas this new law.

While I agree that we should have Vermont-style carry laws, It's not going to happen overnight.

Av.

If you truly believe that carrying a piece of paper in your wallet renders the Right to Keep and Bear Arms illusory, by all means, stick to your guns for as long as the law lets you.

I will applaud and support the integrity of anyone that refuses to obtain a permit should they become available next year.

Remember though, the second you apply for the license, your argument loses a big chunk of credibility and all of it's conviction.

Quoted: If you truly believe that carrying a piece of paper in your wallet renders the Right to Keep and Bear Arms illusory, by all means, stick to your guns for as long as the law lets you. I will applaud and support the integrity of anyone that refuses to obtain a permit should they become available next year. Remember though, the second you apply for the license, your argument loses a big chunk of credibility and all of it's conviction.

Which is why my original intent was to never get a wisconsin CCW, but stick with a Min or Fla non respermit as the original bill would have let me do. I have no choice if I want to CCW now exept to get a Wisconsin permit. But I will from the second this bill becomes law be pushing to have certain aspects of the bill changed as we all should be doing.

Av I have some interesting things for you to read, but I don't have time yto post them right now. perhaps tomarrow.

Quoted: Av I have some interesting things for you to read, but I don't have time yto post them right now. perhaps tomarrow.

Cool.  Thanks.

Quoted: Av I have some interesting things for you to read, but I don't have time yto post them right now. perhaps tomarrow.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Av.

Quoted: Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO.

Get rid of Doyle, and pass a real PPA without onerous restrictions.

Then there'll be nothing to improve.

I don't think anyone is advocating telling your reps not to vote for the current version.  I think that I (and maybe PM and TJ) are saying that there are better options out there, and it would be WELL worth our time to explore those options.

Quoted: Quoted: Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO. Get rid of Doyle, and pass a real PPA without onerous restrictions. Then there'll be nothing to improve. I don't think anyone is advocating telling your reps not to vote for the current version.   ... OK, that kinda confuses me.  Does the current PPA have too many onerous restrictions for you to support, or not? ... I think that I (and maybe PM and TJ) are saying that there are better options out there, and it would be WELL worth our time to explore those options.

So are you saying give up on the PPA now and explore those options?  Or explore those options in parallel with getting the current PPA passed?

Quoted: Quoted: Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO. Get rid of Doyle, and pass a real PPA without onerous restrictions. Then there'll be nothing to improve. I don't think anyone is advocating telling your reps not to vote for the current version.  I think that I (and maybe PM and TJ) are saying that there are better options out there, and it would be WELL worth our time to explore those options.

Let's explore then ... what's a real "better option" that's VIABLE right NOW?


You think a supreme court case is going to do it?

Here's an excerpt from dick baker's email on the WGO from sunday:

WGO has told its supporters that we have a right under the Second Amendment, as well as under the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution, to carry concealed without a permit. On this point, the WGO is right. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree. In the strongest challenge to the constitutionality of Wisconsin's prohibition on concealed carry--state vs. Munir Hamdan--the Wisconsin state supreme court issued a very narrow decision, saying that concealed carry was only legal in one's home or business. Only one justice out of the seven on the court wrote an opinion that the ban on concealed carry was entirely unconstitutional. That was in 2003, when we had a 4:3 conservative majority on the court. With Governor Doyle having appointed Louis Butler to replace Justice Dianne Sykes, the balance in the court is now 4:3 on the liberal side. In other words, anyone who's waiting for the court to give us Vermont-style carry will be waiting a long, long time.

(the rest of the article is in the first post of this thread)

Is he wrong?


How long are you willing to wait?

Quoted: So are you saying give up on the PPA now and explore those options?  Or explore those options in parallel with getting the current PPA passed?

I could go either way on the current version.  Paitience is a good thing (see below).

RedBeard, right NOW we don't have CCW, and as I pointed out in a previous post, it could be next year this time before we have it, even if we override Doyle's veto, but still have to deal with the DOJ dragging it's feet.  What's another 4 or 5 months after that without a CCW law, if by getting Doyle out we can get a good permit process?

Would it be worth it?  Possibly.  Saying it's the compromised version of the PPA or nothing (because we need it right NOW) is a bit short sighted.

The WCCA has a vested interest in giving the  opinion on the SC you quoted.  Bringing open carry to the SC without the PPA is still an option, as are future cases regarding concealed carry.  The Constitutional argument is clear, and the court can't kick both concealed and open carry in the teeth, no matter what Dick Baker wants to believe.

You should get out more and join us in the real world, bud.  We've discussed this ad nauseum several times.

ETA: I'm just as excited at the idea of Wisconsin getting CCW as anybody, I just think that we are in a position of strength, and watering the legislation down is not helpful to anyone.

Quoted: Quoted: So are you saying give up on the PPA now and explore those options?  Or explore those options in parallel with getting the current PPA passed? I could go either way on the current version.  Paitience is a good thing (see below).  OK, thanks for clarifying. RedBeard, right NOW we don't have CCW, and as I pointed out in a previous post, it could be next year this time before we have it, even if we override Doyle's veto, but still have to deal with the DOJ dragging it's feet.  What's another 4 or 5 months after that without a CCW law, if by getting Doyle out we can get a good permit process?  Here I disagree.  The current PPA bill doesn't increase the penalty for carrying without a permit from the current Class A misdomeanor.  (except in a few added areas that are prohibited even with a permit).  So to me: get it passed.  Carry without the permit just as before if you prefer.  And DOJ MIGHT drag their feet - they have the 'carrot' of the fee revenue to help them along.  Getting rid of Doyle is not a sure thing. Would it be worth it?  Possibly.  Saying it's the compromised version of the PPA or nothing (because we need it right NOW) is a bit short sighted.  Depends on how compromised the bill is.  Right now, IMO, it's well worth it. The WCCA has a vested interest in giving the  opinion on the SC you quoted.  Bringing open carry to the SC without the PPA is still an option, as are future cases regarding concealed carry.  The Constitutional argument is clear, and the court can't kick both concealed and open carry in the teeth, no matter what Dick Baker wants to believe.  Oh, I think the court could easily do exactly that.  They could have the opinion that you can only carry (open or concealed) on your own property for the purpose of self defense.  In public places: <Soup Nazi>No self defense for you!<Soup Nazi>  Not that I agree with that thought - I just think that the WI SC could easily come up with that or something even more twisted and illogical. You should get out more and join us in the real world, bud.  We've discussed this ad nauseum several times. ETA: I'm just as excited at the idea of Wisconsin getting CCW as anybody, I just think that we are in a position of strength, and watering the legislation down is not helpful to anyone.

I guess I basically disagree on how strong our position really is.  Frankly, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Quoted: I know a lot of you have high hopes for a WI SC ruling in our favor.  I just don’t think that’s going to happen.  The court has passed up chances to strike down the CCW law, and have tended to be very ‘wishy-washy’ in their rulings.  Also their rulings have been tailored to be very narrowly defined.  I hope for a major ruling for RKBA, but I don’t think it’s likely. A lot of you have made good points and I respect your opinions.  But by and large, my thoughts tend to parallel GlennR’s earlier posts.  Sorry I don’t pipe up with a +1 more often Glenn. Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO.

What he said.    I think the WSC is going out of their way to avoid striking down the CCW law as unconstitutional.  I think their narrowly-tailored rulings prove this, when they could have just struck down 941.23.

Quoted: Av I have some interesting things for you to read, but I don't have time yto post them right now. perhaps tomarrow.

I also await the reading

From Dick Baker:

Assembly vote on Personal Protection Act set for Tuesday, 12/13

Dear fellow gun owner: With the state Senate now having passed the Personal Protection Act shall-issue concealed carry bill, and by a veto-proof margin, the vote now moves to the Assembly. The Assembly is scheduled to vote on the bill next Tuesday, December 13th. The Assembly vote is even more critical than the Senate vote, because the numbers are tighter. We need six Democrats to join the Assembly Republicans in order to have enough votes to override Governor Doyle's promised veto. We are within one or perhaps two votes of having the numbers we need. All along, we've been telling you that there are good reasons to believe that we have a better chance of an override this year than last year. One is that Governor Doyle will not be in a position to help legislators from his party during the election, as he did with Representative Gary Sherman. Mr. Doyle will be too busy with his own campaign to deliver that kind of support. We also now have the active support of rank-and-file law enforcement groups, and diminished criticism of the bill by county sheriffs. But, perhaps the best reason to believe our chances have been improved is the recent election of Democratic representatives who are more open to the idea of trained, licensed law-abiding citizens being able to have a means for self defense. Representative Tom Nelson of Kaukauna has proven himself to be an independent and thoughtful advocate for his constituents. He has also been willing to look beyond partisan politics and view the Personal Protection Act for what it is: a bill that addresses the right to self defense, an issue that transcends political parties. Because he is keeping an open mind on the issue, it's important that he hears from his constituents. So, please let him know that you would appreciate his support on this very important bill. Similarly, Representative Louis J. Molepske, Jr of Stevens Point has shown himself willing to look at the Personal Protection Act in a fair and objective manner. As a former special prosecutor for the Portage County district attorney's office, he has dealt firsthand with violent criminals. It's vitally important that Representative Molepske hear from those in his district who would like to have the means to defend themselves from the very types of criminals that he has put behind bars. Representative Mike Sheridan of Janesville is another Democratic legislator who is very ably working for his constituents on important issues such as jobs and taxes. Mr. Sheridan won election to the seat after former Democratic Representative Wayne Wood retired last year. Wayne Wood always backed gun owners, 100%. Representative Sheridan, just like the two aforementioned representatives, is giving careful consideration to the Personal Protection Act, and to the fact that gun owners make up a large part of his constituency. Your calls and emails to Representative Sheridan can assure him that he will enjoy the same strong support from Janesville gun owners that Wayne Wood did for many years in the Assembly. No matter who your Assembly representative is, though, it is critical that you both email them and call them. Your calls and emails to state senators gave us the victory we had last evening. This is no time to be complacent, or to believe that we cannot win. We can. So, please, beginning on Friday, email your state representative, and then follow up that email with a phone call. Once again, we don't want to irritate our friends on both sides of the aisle by overwhelming them with calls and emails all at once. So, we ask that those of you whose last names begin with the letters A through M send your emails and then make your follow-up calls on Friday. Those of you whose last names begin with the letters N through Z should make your phone calls and send your emails on Monday. You can find your representative's email address and phone number by going to http://165.189.139.210/waml/ and entering your address. As always, we ask that you be polite and to the point in your contacts with your representatives. And please forward this email to every gun owner you know, as well as to any person you know who values the God-given right to self defense. Thank you, The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association

Quoted: Quoted: I know a lot of you have high hopes for a WI SC ruling in our favor.  I just don’t think that’s going to happen.  The court has passed up chances to strike down the CCW law, and have tended to be very ‘wishy-washy’ in their rulings.  Also their rulings have been tailored to be very narrowly defined.  I hope for a major ruling for RKBA, but I don’t think it’s likely. A lot of you have made good points and I respect your opinions.  But by and large, my thoughts tend to parallel GlennR’s earlier posts.  Sorry I don’t pipe up with a +1 more often Glenn. Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO. What he said.    I think the WSC is going out of their way to avoid striking down the CCW law as unconstitutional.  I think their narrowly-tailored rulings prove this, when they could have just struck down 941.23. Quoted: Av I have some interesting things for you to read, but I don't have time yto post them right now. perhaps tomarrow. I also await the reading

Interesting, the stuff I was going to post up (and I'll get to it a little later this morning) deals with just that Glenn, how they have been avoiding striking down that statute.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know a lot of you have high hopes for a WI SC ruling in our favor.  I just don’t think that’s going to happen.  The court has passed up chances to strike down the CCW law, and have tended to be very ‘wishy-washy’ in their rulings.  Also their rulings have been tailored to be very narrowly defined.  I hope for a major ruling for RKBA, but I don’t think it’s likely. A lot of you have made good points and I respect your opinions.  But by and large, my thoughts tend to parallel GlennR’s earlier posts.  Sorry I don’t pipe up with a +1 more often Glenn. Get the PPA passed, get rid of Doyle, and work on improving the law.  JMO. What he said.    I think the WSC is going out of their way to avoid striking down the CCW law as unconstitutional.  I think their narrowly-tailored rulings prove this, when they could have just struck down 941.23. Quoted: Av I have some interesting things for you to read, but I don't have time yto post them right now. perhaps tomarrow. I also await the reading Interesting, the stuff I was going to post up (and I'll get to it a little later this morning) deals with just that Glenn, how they have been avoiding striking down that statute.

Eagerly awaiting it also. I'm still undecided about the PPA, you guys are making some really good arguments both ways.

Ideally, I'd like the WI SC to finally get their act together and give us the AK/VT style CCW that our state and federal constitution affirms we have the right to.

Quoted: Interesting, the stuff I was going to post up (and I'll get to it a little later this morning) deals with just that Glenn, how they have been avoiding striking down that statute.

...Yet if someone were to get a DC charge while open carrying, and bring it to the SC, it would force everyone's hand on 941.23

Hear me out (for those of you who haven't already heard my rant on CCW in WI):

If open carry is upheld as a DC worthy charge; then Art. 1 Sec. 25 MUST supercede 941.23, and  even a 4-3 lib majority in the SC couldn't weasel their way out of it.  It is logically impossible to do the contortions neccessary to outlaw both in light of the 98 Amendment.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Now if open carry is ruled as a right due to Art. 1 Sec. 25, but 941.23 (with the Hamdan exception) stays on the books, then you'd have every Dem clamoring for "resonable restrictions": i.e. we could get a good PPA-type bill fast-tracked due to the sheeple mentality in WI (after all, we can't have folks running around like the "wild west" with six-shooters on their hips, now can we? ).

We could be in a position of strength, but for some odd reason, we (WI gun owners in general) seem to have a hard-on to capitulate for a half-assed solution that gets us a limited priviledge right now...which in reality will take damn near as long to implement as the options above.

JMO, FWIW, YMMV, IANAL (but the wife works for one ), etc. etc.




Edited for grammar and clarity.

Quoted: If open carry is upheld as a DC worthy charge; then Art. 1 Sec. 25 MUST supercede 941.23, and  even a 4-3 lib majority in the SC couldn't weasel their way out of it.  It is logically impossible to do the contortions neccessary to outlaw both in light of the 98 Amendment.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.

You're more optimistic than me. I'd see the court ruling something like "the keep and bear arms amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions ..." and then they're off making up whatever they want. Open carry? Sure, but only in your own home, or on your own property, outside of any city, etc. Whatever it takes. Logic doesn't matter to these people.

They're the top court in WI. Who are you going to appeal to if they send down a complete BS ruling?

FMD, allow me to play devil's advocate  

If I understand it correctly, your argument boils down to, "Logically, they can't have it both ways.  If open carry is illegal, concealed must be legal.  If concealed is illegal, open must be legal."

What I fear is this:  logic has nothing to do with it, and they can have it both ways.

The state's constitutional amendment reads this:

The people have a right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

The problem is, the courts do not recognize any right as unlimited or unrestricted.  Once the courts start interpreting your rights, they start "balancing" these rights against other considerations.  This means the courts can balance your "right to bear arms for security" against "public safety" or whatever exception they decide to carve out--and there's no legal recourse because the Supreme Court is almighty.

Take a look at the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.  I get to play with that one a lot.  I don't need a warrant to search a car if I arrest someone inside it ("search incident to arrest").  Where's that exception in the Constitution?  I don't need a warrant to draw blood against the driver's will for OWI-2nd and up ("exigent circumstances").  Where's that exception?  The courts examined what they believe are legitimate concerns that simply weren't enumerated by the founding fathers, and made the Constitution a living, breathing document for our timesTM.

Look at the disorderly conduct statute you refer to, 947.01.  I can arrest people for engaging in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance".  So when somone exercises their First Amendment right to free speech by yelling "Fire!  Fire!" in a movie theater, I can take them to jail for Disorderly Conduct.  A strict interpretation of the Constitution would agree that I'm limiting their free speech (and every first-year law student is eager to tell me how they'll have my job and own the city).  Yet here I am.

Here's the problem--I support the courts' ability to "interpret" the consitution.  The fleshing-out must happen to have a complete understanding of how it applies in specific circumstances.  But legislating from the bench also happens, and I can't figure out how to allow the first while prohibiting the second.  I'm open for ideas on this--seriously.

Your argument makes complete, logical sense, and I agree that the courts shouldn't be able to have it both ways.  But if they want to, they can.  They have in the distant past, they have in the recent past, and they'll do it again in the future.  They're clearly trying to not overturn 941.23.  If push comes to shove, I am skeptical 941.23 would be overturned.  If they had to, they might carve out an exception for business owners forced to carry large amounts of cash from their business to the bank (and not for people concerned with protecting their LIVES, or even for the business owners when NOT carrying a large amount of cash).

I hope I'm wrong.

ETA Red_Beard beat me to it, and put it a lot more succinctly.  I agree with him.  You could appeal the WSC ruling to the USSC, but they've been avoiding the 2nd amendment since early last century.  They just decide not to hear the case.

And there it is. glenn has it. Just ask any MMM or BBer and they'll tell you what public saftey is. It's a cop for each and every one of the people. To do what? A. to keep us safe from crime and B. to stop criminals from commiting crime.

Has anyone here ever had to sign away their Constitutional rights? I have when I worked at a nucular plant. It's scary when the guard follows you every where you go. It's not to protect me but to protect the public from me!

Quoted: Quoted: If open carry is upheld as a DC worthy charge; then Art. 1 Sec. 25 MUST supercede 941.23, and  even a 4-3 lib majority in the SC couldn't weasel their way out of it.  It is logically impossible to do the contortions neccessary to outlaw both in light of the 98 Amendment.  They can't have their cake and eat it too. You're more optimistic than me. I'd see the court ruling something like "the keep and bear arms amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions ..." and then they're off making up whatever they want. Open carry? Sure, but only in your own home, or on your own property, outside of any city, etc. Whatever it takes. Logic doesn't matter to these people. They're the top court in WI. Who are you going to appeal to if they send down a complete BS ruling?

I knew the "L" word was going to raise an objection.

I'm not optimistic, I just know enough about the law to be dangerous.  

I was at the orals during Hamdan.  Even without Sykes, the SC was quite incredulous about the State's arguments (the rediculousness of their position was laughable...to the point where jokes and sarcastic comments were getting made from the bench, IIRC).  They ruled in such a way as to punt the issue to the Legislature because they KNEW there were problems with the 941.23 restriction.  Even Abrahmson in her dissent recognized that the writing was on the wall for an anti-carry position.

If that doesn't cause you to be "optimistic", I don't know what will.

IF the Legislature were not to act (after all, they've already attempted one override) and they put the issue back in front of the SC (allowing for the convinient arrest for OC via DC of a willing, qualified, and otherwise law-abiding citizen volunteer ), it would be exceedingly hard for them to rule in a way other than what I posited.  If they did, they'd damn near have to risk impeachment at the hands of a Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly.

That nuclear option I don't have a lot of faith in, but just the threat should be enough to get the libs on the bench to rule the way that they'd already said they would if a Hamdan situation came to them again without the legislature acting.  Unintended consequences are a bitch, and the SC saw it coming two years ago.

Again, if the goal is the right to protect oneself with a fiream with as little restrictions as possible, what's to lose in pursuing parallel options?

Quoted: Again, if the goal is the right to protect oneself with a fiream with as little restrictions as possible, what's to lose in pursuing parallel options?

Not a thing--I'm all in favor of that.  I just keep (mis)-interpreting everyone's problems with this bill as votes against passage.  I think not working all-out to pass this bill in its current form would be a serious mistake when we're this close to finally getting CCW.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If open carry is upheld as a DC worthy charge; then Art. 1 Sec. 25 MUST supercede 941.23, and  even a 4-3 lib majority in the SC couldn't weasel their way out of it.  It is logically impossible to do the contortions neccessary to outlaw both in light of the 98 Amendment.  They can't have their cake and eat it too. You're more optimistic than me. I'd see the court ruling something like "the keep and bear arms amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions ..." and then they're off making up whatever they want. Open carry? Sure, but only in your own home, or on your own property, outside of any city, etc. Whatever it takes. Logic doesn't matter to these people. They're the top court in WI. Who are you going to appeal to if they send down a complete BS ruling? I knew the "L" word was going to raise an objection. h I was at the orals during Hamdan.  Even without Sykes, the SC was quite incredulous about the State's arguments (the rediculousness of their position was laughable...to the point where jokes and sarcastic comments were getting made from the bench, IIRC).  They ruled in such a way as to punt the issue to the Legislature because they KNEW there were problems with the 941.23 restriction.  Even Abrahmson in her dissent recognized that the writing was on the wall for an anti-carry position. If that doesn't cause you to be "optimistic", I don't know what will. IF the Legislature were not to act (after all, they've already attempted one override) and they put the issue back in front of the SC (allowing for the convinient arrest for OC via DC of a willing, qualified, and otherwise law-abiding citizen volunteer hard That nuclear option I don't have a lot of faith in, but just the threat should be enough to get the libs on the bench to rule the way that they'd already said they would if a Hamdan situation came to them again without the legislature acting.  Unintended consequences are a bitch, and the SC saw it coming two years ago. Again, if the goal is the right to protect oneself with a fiream with as little restrictions as possible, what's to lose in pursuing parallel options?

Please quantify what is qualified.

Had this as an ETA on my last post, but you two replyed before I had hit "submit":

The only thing "lost" in my scenario is that money would go to lawyers, instead of politicians.  Is it then any wonder that Zien et. al. isn't willing to explore the options?  Food for thought.

On to quantifiying "qualified":

MGL: I have two non-resident CCW permits (FL and VA) that qualify me to carry concealed in roughly 3/5ths of these United States (two more to be added shortly).  I am versed in the use of deadly force in all of those sates (gotta be, or I have no business carrying there).  I have training certs from at least two different pistol classes that I've taken (both of which would qualify under the last version of the PPA). I'm also willing to risk a Disorderly Conduct charge for open carrying (although I can't afford the fight run up to the SC - see above).

Equally important: I am not an LEO or Military, just a regular Joe citizen that can't carry past his front door, despite the fact that 30 some odd states say I can carry on their turf.

Can you say "equal protection clause" class?  I knew you could!  


ETA: Glenn, "All out" I don't have a problem with.  "All out to get this bill passed" I have issues with, especially when God only knows what it is costing us, the NRA and the WCCA to put two Dems in our pocket for the possibility of overriding Doyle's veto.  Some of that money would be much better spent, in my opinion going through the courts.

The WSC does'nt care what you can do in 30 odd other states, only what you can do here in the great state of Wiskonsin.

And lets not forget that not even LEO's from other states may CCW in Wiskonsin unless on duty!

Quoted: The WSC does'nt care what you can do in 30 odd other states, only what you can do here in the great state of Wiskonsin. And lets not forget that not even LEO's from other states may CCW in Wiskonsin unless on duty!

Here's where you're (slightly) wrong.

LEO's can carry here off duty due to Federal law.  Period.  End of sentence.  It doesn't matter what Wisconsin law says (until the USSC says differently).

I mentioned the "equal protection" clause on purpose, when you asked about "qualified". You are absolutely correct that Wisconsin could care less because it hasn't come up, yet, however:  What was the next legislation that the Senate passed after the PPA?  The marriage bill.  Why?  To head off an equal protection argument on gay marriage that would make headway in Federal court.

United States Constitution, Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Both Florida and Virginia have provisions in their respective Constitutions that are substantially similar to our own 1998 RKBA amendment.  The US Constitution says that rights and priviledges protected in one state are valid in another state.  Ever drive across state lines?  Is your DL good in other states?

Will the argument stand up in Federal court? Maybe, maybe not.  Will it put the fear of God (or the Founding Fathers) into the Wisconsin SC?  Well, do you want to be told what to do by the Fed?  I'd bet that they wouldn't want to explore the possibility...especially when they've already admitted that their reasoning in keeping the prohibition on CCW is weak at best.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

Quoted: And lets not forget that not even LEO's from other states may CCW in Wiskonsin unless on duty!

HR218 effectively changed this.  The Wisconsin legislature is using this CCW bill to revise state law to bring it in line with the now-in-effect Federal law that allows nationwide CCW by LE, on or off-duty.

Quoted: Quoted: And lets not forget that not even LEO's from other states may CCW in Wiskonsin unless on duty! HR218 effectively changed this.  The Wisconsin legislature is using this CCW bill to revise state law to bring it in line with the now-in-effect Federal law that allows nationwide CCW by LE, on or off-duty.

Any out of state LEO ready to challange it? Problem is the AG wont charge any one to prevent it going to the WSC.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And lets not forget that not even LEO's from other states may CCW in Wiskonsin unless on duty! HR218 effectively changed this.  The Wisconsin legislature is using this CCW bill to revise state law to bring it in line with the now-in-effect Federal law that allows nationwide CCW by LE, on or off-duty. Any out of state LEO ready to challange it? Problem is the AG wont charge any one to prevent it going to the WSC.

Louie, I'm positive that an OOS LEO wouldn't get arrested for CCW off-duty.  You'd be a nut case cop to even try to make an arrest of a cop based on 921. It's FEDERAL LAW that they are allowed to carry until the United States Supreme Court says it's not.  Wisconsin or New York City, it doesn't matter.

Glenn, is there an WI AG memo stating the same?

Edit to highlight the important part of Glenn's statement.

Try this www.doj.state.wi.us/news/nr052005_PL.asp

Or this wilenet.org/html/hr218/agmsg1204.htm

Quoted: Louie, I'm positive that an OOS LEO wouldn't get arrested for CCW off-duty.  You'd be a nut case cop to even try to make an arrest of a cop based on 921. It's FEDERAL LAW that they are allowed to carry until the United States Supreme Court says it's not.  Wisconsin or New York City, it doesn't matter. Glenn, is there an WI AG memo stating the same? Edit to highlight the important part of Glenn's statement.

Haven't seen anything from --she's been too busy trying to get more funding for the DOJ by requiring state-level implementation of HR218 instead of local department implementation as its written.  But I can't believe any WI LE (except a "nut case cop" ) is going to arrest an out-of-state LE for CCW with HR218 on the books.

Quoted: Try this www.doj.state.wi.us/news/nr052005_PL.asp

Louie, re-read the memorandum.  It's talking about state-issued credentials and a qualification program for Wisconsin LEOs/retired LEOs so that they may carry in other states and meet the requirements HR 218.

That memo has absolutely nothing to do with a properly credentialed OOS LEO/retired LEO carrying in Wisconsin.

ETA (Important parts highlighted in red)

...Since the passage of HR218 (Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act) the Attorney General has been trying to assist in effective implementation of the Act in Wisconsin. From the time of passage, it has been clear that if a local agency chooses to issue photo identification and certify that a retired officer has fulfilled the training requirements of that agency they may issue permits. In a memo to the Legislature in November of 2004 addressing whether or not the act currently authorizes active and retired law enforcement officers--both from Wisconsin and from other states--to carry a concealed weapon the Attorney General stated: "In my opinion, the answer to these questions is that the Act's preemption of state and local concealed carry prohibitions is self-executing and can take effect without any action by state or local officials, as long as the individual police officer or retiree in question meets all the requirements of the Act, including possession of the required credentials". Most local agencies however have said they will not issue the necessary credentials and attest that a given retired officer has fulfilled that agency's training requirement.  Their major concern is potential liability that may result from the use of a concealed weapon directed toward the agency that issued the credentials.

</hijack> (hopefully)

Very true FMD. But they will use the same reasoning for an OOS. Does he have the proper credentials?

Quoted: Very true FMD. But they will use the same reasoning for an OOS. Does he have the proper credentials?

If he's got a badge and a department I.D. he does.  Retirees are a little more problematic, but if they meet the requirements (an I.D. issued by an agency identifying them as qualified to carry under 218) then they can carry as well, again, despite what 921.23 prohibits.

Currently, an OOS LEO could pretty much carry where when they want, just as if they were a WI LEO...specifically because we have no "resonable restrictions" on CCW, just a prohibition.  The added language in this version of the PPA adds the credentialing requirements on a local level, AFAICT, and qualifes (actually codifies) that ability to carry under 218 to bring it in line with "regular" CCW practices (i.e. no carry in bars, courthouses, police dept's, etc.).

Put it to you this way:  NJ has a prohibition on carrying hollow points for the 3 (being sarcastic - the number's actually closer to 50 ) CCW permit holders they have.  Out-Of-State LEO's must abide by that law, despite the fact that they can carry without a NJ permit, which us "regular" folks could never dream of.  HR 218 functions as a blanket reciprocity for LEOs, but they still have to obey the State CCW laws...with 5 exceptions...those states with no provisions for lawful CCW (like WI).

Clear as mud now?



Edit:

Originally Posted By glenn_r on page 3: FMD, allow me to play devil's advocate  ...

Sorry I missed this one on the last page, G.  I wasn't ignoring you, honestly!  I think I answered adequately, but if I need to explain a salient point, feel free to repost or request at your lesiure.  It'll be a while, as I've got to do some work now (the time-hole of Arfcom has struck again!).

As clear as all the other Wisconsin laws, statutes and provisions head151Back to the original topic or have we rode this horse to a lather?

Quoted: specifically because we have no "resonable restrictions" on CCW, just a prohibition.

And thereis the biggest problem, out right banning or prohibition is not a resonable restriction. Resonable restrictions are things like not being able to carry in a courtroom.

driving a car is a privalige  cable tv is a privalige.   health insurance= privalige.  RTKBA  = constitutional right.  which was trampled on over the years by libs.  once again it is a right to carry and protect yourself as written in constitution.  people beliving it is a privalige makes the problem worse for those who know our rights as tax paying citizens.  keep that in mind if this was a free speach issue taking part of it away it would be taking away a rights.  but when it's the 2nd ammendment people start talking privealge not rights.  not sure why  mabey been that way so long people think it's how it should be.  don't worry PM i'm with ya on this.

That is all I have to say for now.   sorry for spelling and grammer mistakes.  but I am only public school educatedBTH   out

Quoted: The US Constitution says that rights and priviledges protected in one state are valid in another state.  Ever drive across state lines?  Is your DL good in other states?

not sure if this is knit picking - but from what I understand, the "full faith and credit" portion of the constitution has been reduced to protecting judgements from one state to another, but that laws are not (i.e. we would all pay no state income tax because FLA says that its residents don't have to).  DL's are good from one state to another because of compacts established between states.

just my .02....please correct/clarify if I'm off base.

Quoted: Quoted: The US Constitution says that rights and priviledges protected in one state are valid in another state.  Ever drive across state lines?  Is your DL good in other states? not sure if this is knit picking - but from what I understand, the "full faith and credit" portion of the constitution has been reduced to protecting judgements from one state to another, but that laws are not (i.e. we would all pay no state income tax because FLA says that its residents don't have to).  DL's are good from one state to another because of compacts established between states. just my .02....please correct/clarify if I'm off base.

You're not far off base, but as far as I can tell (again IANAL) because the language of both Constitutions is substantially similar, an argument based on on the equal protection clause could be made.  I understand the DL compact thing, but the right to drive a car isn't a protected act, where the RKBA is.

Quoted: So I was thinking this morning, will "tasers"(electric device) be legal to carry? During the LTLethal discusson at pistol class I was surprised to learn that it was a felony to possess.  Hypothetic question,as it stands now,---If you get caught carrying a concealed "taser" can you get stacked with one charge of possesson and one charge of carrying concealed?(ETA: 2 felony strikes) TNX bulletcatchR

I believe that the last time I read the PPA it was legalizing 'electric devices' both for a CCW permit holder and for anyone on thier own property.  

As you probably heard this morning, two Democrats are saying they likely will vote against PPA even though they had voted in favor.

Betcha Doyle got on the phone and told them you either vote supporting my veto or I'm gonna make your life miserable. Then he probably promised them some fat-ass high paying, lifetime bureaucrat's job in Madison after they lose their next district's election.

...never believed we would have a CCW as long as Doyle's here. It's become his personal pissing contest with the Republicans and it's a matter of his ego.  

Quoted: As you probably heard this morning, two Democrats are saying they likely will vote against PPA even though they had voted in favor. Betcha Doyle got on the phone and told them you either vote supporting my veto or I'm gonna make your life miserable. Then he probably promised them some fat-ass high paying, lifetime bureaucrat's job in Madison after they lose their next district's election. ...never believed we would have a CCW as long as Doyle's here. It's become his personal pissing contest with the Republicans and it's a matter of his ego.

Same shit different year. Can anyone really say the are suprised.

Get redy for another year at least of no CCW folks cuz thats probably whats going to happen.

This is what happens when you don't have enough solid votes behind a bill. Which the PPA never had in the assembly to begin with.

Quoted: As you probably heard this morning, two Democrats are saying they likely will vote against PPA even though they had voted in favor.

Here's a constructive question:

Which two Democrats?