The school thing can be a problem for me. I live a block away from our highschool! How will this affect me? No loaded gun in my own house? Sounds like this needs work!

Well write your reps about this amendment! I just did!

John

Quoted: Quoted: ETA: if this shit gets stripped out in commitee I won't have a problem with the bill I'll accept the damn LE database thing I don't and won't like it but I'll take th bill minus this new amendment. The problem I see is without this amendment (w/ some verbage revisions) there is NO CCW.  Personally, I'll take CCW w/ these school restrictions in leiu of nothing.  Who says the WI Supreme Court is going to do anything soon, if at all.

Actually that's not true. You can CCW all you want, it's just against the law. You may get busted or not. If not, noprob. If you do, it may not get prosecuted. If it does, it may get overturned. If_may if_may if_may. You have to weight the if's against the may's.

I would rather not have to break the law

Quoted: The school thing can be a problem for me. I live a block away from our highschool! How will this affect me? No loaded gun in my own house? Sounds like this needs work!

No yer good firearms on private property are exempt. No problems there.

Quoted: Actually that's not true. You can CCW all you want, it's just against the law. You may get busted or not. If not, noprob. If you do, it may not get prosecuted. If it does, it may get overturned. If_may if_may if_may. You have to weight the if's against the may's. I would rather not have to break the law

Well I have too much to lose to risk carrying illegally.  Not to mention I don't care to spend my life in a courtroom.

Quoted: Well write your reps about this amendment! I just did! John

Not burst your bubble, but writing/emailing does little to nothing. It has been suggested by my contacts that emails almost never get read.  

Calling is the only way to go! Call and be polite.

Quoted: Quoted: Actually that's not true. You can CCW all you want, it's just against the law. You may get busted or not. If not, noprob. If you do, it may not get prosecuted. If it does, it may get overturned. If_may if_may if_may. You have to weight the if's against the may's. I would rather not have to break the law Well I have too much to lose to risk carrying illegally.  Not to mention I don't care to spend my life in a courtroom.

I have to much to lose by not carrying illegaly(J/K) But you should get my point. Sometijmes doing the right thing means you have to do the wrong thing.....

Quoted: I have to much to lose by not carrying illegaly(J/K) But you should get my point. Sometijmes doing the right thing means you have to do the wrong thing.....

Yeah, I know what you mean.  

I'm flattered!  People waiting for my opinion!   (is that a blush?)

Well, I read the whole thing and looked up the school zone stuff.  This amendment does 3 things, some of which are OK, some of which are so-so.

1)  CCW within 100' of school premises would be a class I felony.  Right now having a firearm within 1,000' of a school zone is a class I felony.  So there's a couple different ways to look at this.  One way is to say we've gained 900'+ and the ability to legally CCW at all.  The other is to play "what if", fight the entire bill, and not have it pass.

A couple things to consider.  I think "intent" is going to enter the picture here.  If someone intentionally walks into a school building while CCW, that would clearly fly in the face of the bill's intent.  On the other hand, someone walking down the street while a school bus drives past clearly never intended to violate the bill.  As a matter of fact, there was no practical way to avoid the violation.  (In domestic-abuse and restraining order situations, it would be the school bus that was in violation ).  I understand the opposition to this part of the amendment, but I think it's not as bad as the initial gut reaction makes it sound.  I would prefer to have it removed, or at least cleaned up with wording like, "whoever intentionally goes within 100' of a school premises", to prevent a "nut case cop" (TM, copyright permission sought from FMD   ) from being an idiot.  Removing it in committee would be even better.  But worst case scenario, I can dislike it but take the optimist's view that 100' and legal is better than 1000' and illegal.

2)  Alcohol at .02.  I have no problem with this.  If you read the legal FAQ at the top of the forum, I think you'll detect my bias when you get to the OWI information section .  Furthermore, if you've been drinking when you shoot someone, your civil lawyer is going to be earning his money...lots of money.  Claims that "1 drink will put you over" are inaccurate, at least if you weigh more than a feather.  Two in an hour would put most people over .02.  Play around with the BAC calculator here.  People's judgment goes to hell rapidly in my experience--far lower than .08--so I have no problem with this at all.  YMMV.

3)  Refresher training.  "Not more than 4 hours" of refresher training, including practice time firing the gun?  No problem with that, especially with the exemptions for competitive shooters, etc.  Is it stricter than other states?  Sure.  But having CCW holders hit what they aim at is a good thing.  Hell, just making them put another box of ammo through their piece once every couple years is a good thing!  At least they'll have to dust it off, with resulting complaints about lousy guns because it doesn't work after being neglected and rusting for the past couple of years.  BTW, these comments are NOT aimed at anyone reading this forum, because everyone here is an active shooter and "gun nut".  I would predict we are NOT representative of the general CCW population, though.

My thoughts, in conclusion:  I'd prefer to clean up or eliminate the school premises stuff.  I can live with it in the bill if it means the bill passes, while working to clean up or eliminate it in the future.  I think that part of the bill is less serious than the initial gut-wrench would suggest.  The rest of it is fine.

And yes, I understand the philosophical arguments against these amendments, or even requiring a CCW permit to begin with.  However, most people are law-abiding, and simply will not carry unless it is legal to do so.  My wife, for instance.  As well as most everyone else who would seek a CCW permit.  Again, I don't think people reading this forum are representative of most of the CCW population.  Most people simply will not disobey the law, and I think we do them a disservice to not give them CCW by blocking this bill.

YMMV, etc.

ETA, thanks for the link to the amendment, FMD.  Made it real easy to read--I appreciate it.

What Glenn said +1000

ETA: With a post like that of course we will wait

Very well put Glenn. Thanks for your input.
I think that you hit the nail on the head. My initial gut reaction was that amendment 15 was bad and it would be better to just torpedo the bill,
but now that I've had time during the day to read everyone's posts and digest this a little more it makes sense to pass the bill.

IMHO, the key here is, if the best we can do is get a bill that grants us extra "priveledge" without compromising any priveledges or rights that we already have, that it is worth it.
Now that it has been explained more clearly, it seems that amendment 15 doesn't take anything away at all.
If anything is taking something away, it is the part that allows CCW to be tied to vehicle registration so that LEO's supposedly will know who is carrying.
That adds an invasion of privacy that wasn't there to begin with, but amendment 15 doesn't add any new restrictions, and as you put it, in fact eases up on a restriction that we have right now.

Glenn, what is the exemption for competitive shooters?? How is one proved to be a competitive shooter?


I also take no issue with the BA rule on this one. I don't drink, therefore no problem.


EDIT
What is everyones beef with the vehicle registration part. I can see the invasion of privacy part. Is it that invasive to allow an officer to have a bigger piece of the puzzle on a traffic stop? Or, am I missing something??

Thanks for you're comments, Glenn! I feel much better on school thing now that I know that currently it is a felony to be within 1000' of a school zone!
Cheers,
Dave

Quoted: Glenn, what is the exemption for competitive shooters?? How is one proved to be a competitive shooter?

Line #16 on page 3 of the amendment--FMD posted a link to the amendment near the top of page 2.

edited to add link again

Exactly what kind or how broad that exemption is, will be subject to interpretation by WI DOJ, so I'm not sure how convenient it will be.

For what it's worth, there is an exemption to the current "1,000 feet" clause that says it does not apply if you live within 1000 feet or are traveling thru the area.

Quoted: Quoted: Glenn, what is the exemption for competitive shooters?? How is one proved to be a competitive shooter? Line #16 on page 3 of the amendment--FMD posted a link to the amendment near the top of page 2. Exactly what kind or how broad that exemption is, will be subject to interpretation by WI DOJ, so I'm not sure how convenient it will be.

I dont know why this was added to the bill, some think that a DMC shoot would cover the training requirements? Or a IPSC would cover it? I think not and I doubt the DOJ would either.

Thanks for the levelheaded comentary GlennR (as usual).  My biggest problem is with the school/school bus thing but I can live with.  (Hoping it gets cleaned up in committee.)


I just noticed this:

Quoted: ...God help you if something goes bump in the night outside if you've had a shot of Nyquil....

So......when you roll out of bed, where are you going to conceal a weapon?  In a Tactical Nightgown?  I just can't picture that.  What sort of camo pattern would that be in?

j/k!   Sorry to pick on you, dude.  But I felt a need to lighten the mood.

Assembly Passes Revised Concealed Carry Bill Senate Approved Similar Bill Last Week UPDATED: 10:49 am CST December 14, 2005 MADISON, Wis. -- The state Assembly passed a bill early Wednesday morning that would let Wisconsin residents pack concealed weapons. The Assembly passed the measure 64-32 after an all-night session. The Senate passed the bill last week. But Republicans who control the chamber changed the language to add tighter restrictions on carrying while drinking and carrying in school zones as well as set up refresher training for gun permit-holders. That means the bill has to go back to the Senate. Both houses have to pass identical versions before it can go to Gov. Jim Doyle. The Democratic governor has vowed to veto the bill. He said that it won't do anything to keep people safe. The bill's Republican authors think they can muster enough votes to override Doyle's veto. link

What I'm depressed about is this:  we can't lose even a single vote for the override to succeed.  We didn't manage that last time (Gary Sherman ).  I hope we fare better this time...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Glenn, what is the exemption for competitive shooters?? How is one proved to be a competitive shooter? Line #16 on page 3 of the amendment--FMD posted a link to the amendment near the top of page 2. Exactly what kind or how broad that exemption is, will be subject to interpretation by WI DOJ, so I'm not sure how convenient it will be.

Or a IPSC would cover it? I think not and I doubt the DOJ would either.

This is where you and I disagree. It certainly does promote safe handling of firearms, along with proper accuracy, and safe drawing from a holster.  I think it is a much better learning, and practical tool than going to a range once every 2 years to punch a few holes in a piece of paper while someone nods in approval.

Quoted: Thanks for the levelheaded comentary GlennR (as usual).  My biggest problem is with the school/school bus thing but I can live with.  (Hoping it gets cleaned up in committee.) I just noticed this: Quoted: ...God help you if something goes bump in the night outside if you've had a shot of Nyquil.... So......when you roll out of bed, where are you going to conceal a weapon?  In a Tactical Nightgown?  I just can't picture that.  What sort of camo pattern would that be in? j/k!   Sorry to pick on you, dude.  But I felt a need to lighten the mood.

Got to watch out, I hear FMD hits the Nyquil pretty hard sometimes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Glenn, what is the exemption for competitive shooters?? How is one proved to be a competitive shooter? Line #16 on page 3 of the amendment--FMD posted a link to the amendment near the top of page 2. Exactly what kind or how broad that exemption is, will be subject to interpretation by WI DOJ, so I'm not sure how convenient it will be. Or a IPSC would cover it? I think not and I doubt the DOJ would either. This is where you and I disagree. It certainly does promote safe handling of firearms, along with proper accuracy, and safe drawing from a holster.  I think it is a much better learning, and practical tool than going to a range once every 2 years to punch a few holes in a piece of paper while someone nods in approval.

Promote yes, but not teach. All shooting sports promote safety and accuracy but do not teach it. Remember, the recertify is to relearn. As Glenn_r points out, the majority of people are not as active in shooting as we here are. One has to look at deer hunting to get what I mean. Most people out dear hunting never touch a gun till a week before the season starts.

ETA for spelling

Glenn, thanks for the read, permission to use "nut case cop (TM, FMD)" granted (just as long as you don't stray into the area of acting like one).  

<digressions>
Drawcut, I sleep in M@rpat cammie jammies.  Actually, I go commando, which might as well be snow camo right now.

Flamethrower, I never hit the Nyquil (at least not the liquid stuff), but do like my Guinness.

Re: Training.  No, DMC/IPSC/IDPA will not meet the training requirements, unless the WI law on the use of deadly force is now required at competitions (see the actual PPA for details).
</digressions>

Back to your points, G:

Re: BAC.  I plugged myself into the BAC calculator.  One 12oz. beer per hour equals .015 for my body weight.  Considering I normally have a 16 oz with dinner at Applebees, and we're back to zero tolerance...   Zero tolerance is bad.  I think officers should have latitude in determining what "impaired" (within a threshold limit) is.  JMHO.

Re: 1000 feet of a school zone.  IIRC, I didn't this was part of the "Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994" (i.e. the Assault Weapons Ban), and was one of the only provisions struck down by the USSC.  I'll do a little research, but I believe that part of the Federal law was struck down, meaning that CCW within the 1000' boundry right now in WI is just a misdemeanor.

I'll hit findlaw and see if I'm correct in my recollections.

Edit:

United States v. Lopez (1995): This Supreme Court decision invalidated the Gun-Free Zones Act of 1990, as beyond congressional authority to enact, based on congressional authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution.

NOT part of the crime bill of 94, but a USSC case just the same.  Unless WI has it's own "Gun-Free School Zone" that I'm not aware of, the PPA would create a felony restriction.

Quote taken from here

Re: Training.  No real problem with this provision, except that it is totally unnecessary.  In the states that have shall-issue CCW without any training at all, there isn't a rash of octagenarians who cant see past their nose shooting folks.  Qualified is qualified.

<rant>
Bottom line: Yes, we have a chance at restricted CCW "now" (after the veto override in January, the DOJ training for instructors, the inevitable court challenge by hippies, etc. etc. ad nauseum).  I've been criticized here for not liking this and suggesting the exploration of alternatives.

Does anyone really think that, come 60 days after the override, we'll have CCW?  If you do, you have more faith in the DOJ and the Madison hippies than you do in the WISC and their ability to interpret a plainly-worded RKBA amendment.  Further, you haven't studied history:  The recent CCW laws in MN and MO, for example.

With the right defendant in the right venue, we could have virtually unrestricted open carry mandated by the court, or barring that, AK/VT CCW.

I'll go back under the rock I crawled out of on this issue just as soon as everyone else pulls their head out of the sand.  
</rant>

Edit for spelling and the Lopez info.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Glenn, what is the exemption for competitive shooters?? How is one proved to be a competitive shooter? Line #16 on page 3 of the amendment--FMD posted a link to the amendment near the top of page 2. Exactly what kind or how broad that exemption is, will be subject to interpretation by WI DOJ, so I'm not sure how convenient it will be. Or a IPSC would cover it? I think not and I doubt the DOJ would either. This is where you and I disagree. It certainly does promote safe handling of firearms, along with proper accuracy, and safe drawing from a holster.  I think it is a much better learning, and practical tool than going to a range once every 2 years to punch a few holes in a piece of paper while someone nods in approval. Promote yes, but not teach. All shooting sports promote safety and accuracy but do not teach it. Remember, the recertify is to relearn. As Glenn_r points out, the majority of people are not as active in shooting as we here are. One has to look at deer hunting to get what I mean. Most people out dear hunting never touch a gun till a week before the season starts. ETA for spelling

I think we agree with each other for the most part. This is why I asked "How is one proved to be a competitive shooter?" Someone who shoots 20+ IPSC/USPSA matches a year IMO has much better gun handling skills, AND is generally more accurate and safer than someone who shoots one or two matches a year. Or someone who gets a recert every 2 years but never handles his/her gun but to take it out of the holster at night before bed. I would also hope that national match shooting is not considered as an alternative to the 2 year recert. I am not saying there is any substute for quality training.

A few of the things I fear is 1. Every joe crack pot is going to join the USPSA to avoid the 2 year recert. 2. I fear that everyone and thier cousin will crawl out of the woodwork and try and become a CCW instructor. Now we have a bunch of hacks that are not doing anyone any good. The last thing I want is a bunch of morons running around with a CCW because they payed $50 to a guy who signed off on his paperwork after shotting 50 holes in a piece of paper in a 20 min bs session.

I for one being prior service and a competitive shooter can appreciate the exemption. HOWEVER I would most certainly opt for the 4 hour training recert with a quality instructor like Greg Sullivan instead of utilizing my exemption. If money permits my wife an I will certainly be taking his handgun 1 and 2 course again before we apply for a permit. Even if our prior course covers the requirements already. My only hope is that Sully gets his trainers creds for WI so I can cert with him. He is by far one of the best instructors I have had the pleasure to learn from.

Quoted: Glenn, thanks for the read, permission to use "nut case cop (TM, FMD)" granted (just as long as you don't stray into the area of acting like one).

Deal  

Re: 1000 feet of a school zone....I believe that part of the Federal law was struck down, meaning that CCW within the 1000' boundry right now in WI is just a misdemeanor. Unless WI has it's own "Gun-Free School Zone" that I'm not aware of, the PPA would create a felony restriction.

FMD, you're mistaken on this.  From the Legal FAQ at the top of the forum:

It is a class I felony to possess a firearm on school grounds or within 1000' of a school zone. Statute 948.605. This statute does not apply to:
* private property not part of school grounds
* individuals licensed by the local government body to possess the firearm
* unloaded and encased firearms
* individuals with firearms for use in a school-approved program
* individuals with school contract to possess firearm
* law enforcement acting in official capacity
* unloaded firearms when traversing school grounds to gain access to hunting land, if the entry is approved by the school.
It is a class G felony to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm in a school zone. Limited exceptions for private property not part of school grounds, school programs, and law enforcement.

[hijack]And as we discussed in another thread, I'm all up for a WSC strike-down of Wisconsin's CCW law.  But I don't think that will happen.  I'd enjoy being wrong.[/hijack]

Quoted: FMD, you're mistaken on this.  From the Legal FAQ at the top of the forum...

Should have read the Legal FAQ before talking laws with a LEO.  I really did think you were refering to the Federal GFSZ.  

Of course, this just gives me another reason to dislike WI's gun laws.

Glad to have the info, although it may effect how I drive to the convinience store in the future.

Glenn this is my issue and my worry with this amendment.

2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is guilty of a Class I felony. (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm: 1. On private property not part of school grounds; 2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that, before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

I hope thats not to confusing or anything.....

By definition a political subdivision of the state is a county/city/village/town etc. A state agency/department is not a political subdivison of the state by defifnition. The way this reads if the county/city/ town etc did not issue the permit, then one would still be in violation of this law. Since the WDOJ is the issueing agency and not the county sherrifs then even with a Wisconsin CCW yer not exepmt. Thats the way this reads to me. I think eventually someone is going to get shfted by this because some asshat DA is going to take the same inturpretation of it and charge someone.

Does that make sence?

Photo,

I think I get what you're saying.  I'm not concerned about it, because either it'll get cleaned up, or it just won't matter.  It reminds me of the current situation regarding cased/unloaded weapons in the passenger compartment.  Since they're not easily visible, they're concealed...but when's the last time someone was arrested for CCW for having an unloaded, encased pistol under the back seat?  Technically it's CCW, but since the owner is trying to comply with the statutes not even Nut Case Cops (TM, FMD) arrest for it.

If CCW becomes legal >100' from school premises, I don't see anyone trying to enforce the Gun Free School Zone on a CCW permit holder 300' away.  It's similar to HR218.  The language of the law will need to be cleaned up, but it shouldn't be a practical issue.

Quoted: Photo, I think I get what you're saying.  I'm not concerned about it, because either it'll get cleaned up, or it just won't matter.  It reminds me of the current situation regarding cased/unloaded weapons in the passenger compartment.  Since they're not easily visible, they're concealed...but when's the last time someone was arrested for CCW for having an unloaded, encased pistol under the back seat?  Technically it's CCW, but since the owner is trying to comply with the statutes not even Nut Case Cops (TM, FMD) arrest for it. If CCW becomes legal >100' from school premises, I don't see anyone trying to enforce the Gun Free School Zone on a CCW permit holder 300' away.  It's similar to HR218.  The language of the law will need to be cleaned up, but it shouldn't be a practical issue.

Thanks Glenn. Makes me feel a little better, but I still don't like it one bit.

Maybe I haven't read it enough times, but I don't find a reciprocity provision.

Quoted: Maybe I haven't read it enough times, but I don't find a reciprocity provision.

Read it again it's full of referances to resident CCW holders and out of state CCW holders. From my understanding Wisconsin bill will recognise any CCW permit thats valid be it a Wisconsin permit or out of state permit.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I haven't read it enough times, but I don't find a reciprocity provision. Read it again it's full of referances to resident CCW holders and out of state CCW holders. From my understanding Wisconsin bill will recognise any CCW permit thats valid be it a Wisconsin permit or out of state permit.

Maybe i'm stupid but as a WI resident will my PA non-resident permit be honored?

Quoted: Maybe i'm stupid but as a WI resident will my PA non-resident permit be honored?

Not in this year's version.  It would have been the last time around.

If you were to move to IL and keep your PA non-res, however, it would be recognized.  

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe i'm stupid but as a WI resident will my PA non-resident permit be honored? Not in this year's version.  It would have been the last time around. If you were to move to IL and keep your PA non-res, however, it would be recognized.

Seeing as I live pretty much on the IL border that could fairly easily be arranged, but i'd just go through the hassle of getting the WI permit.