The NRA "misstates" that [the "shall issue" ] bill has the additional benefit of eliminating Wisconsin's 1,000 ft. School Zone nonsense. Both bills bring it down to just the school property. (See the last sentence of page 2 onto page 3 of the Constitutional Carry legislative bureau's summary.)See:
- www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/bills/LRB-11-2007-1.pdf: "Constitutional Carry"
- www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/bills/LRB-11-2027-1.pdf: "Shall Issue"
I haven't really been following Wisconsin, so I'm putting this out there for discussion. This would appear to be another instance of "pragmatists" vs. "absolutists," and there will be no shortage of arguments backing each approach that won't be resolved here.
What I would like to see discussed here is the disagreement on the school zone claim.
Thoughts?
2 comments:
This is part of the text of an email sent out this morning by Constitutional Carry advocates at Wisconsin Carry. (They're the leaders defending the well-known "Madison Culvers incident.)
****
In this email [from the NRA] the group suggests that the shall-issue permit bill offers "some additional benefits". That is partially true, but it also offers some substantial drawbacks. In addition to the shall-issue permit bills requiring government registration, permit taxes, etc, it does NOT address the Federal Gun Free School Zone law when you carry in other states with a Wisconsin permit.
If Wisconsin institutes a shall-issue permit system, your WISCONSIN CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO CARRY IN THE GFSZ's in other states.
To restate: A concealed carry permit from Wisconsin DOES NOT protect you from the Federal GFSZ law in Michigan, Florida, Minnesota, or ANY OTHER STATE that would honor reciprocity with Wisconsin's permit.
See this letter from the BATF to verify:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Batfe2002letter_gfsza1995_ccw.pdf
Correspondingly, IF YOU HAVE A UTAH OR FLORIDA non-resident permit already, YOU ARE NOT exempted from the Federal GFSZ law when you use that permit in ANY other state besides the state it was issued. YOU ARE COMMITTING A FELONY when you carry in a school zone in other states with a reciprocity permit.
A handful of members email me every time I talk about constitutional carry because they want to be able to carry in Michigan and Michigan ONLY recognizes permits from your HOME STATE. Its important that you know that a permit from your HOME STATE does not protect you from being charged with a FEDERAL FELONY if you carry in a school zone in another state. This is the dirty little secret that those who are pushing for shall-issue permits don't want you to know.
The only way to address this is for states to include language in a CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY bill that codifies that anyone who meets the requirements to own/possess a firearm is "duly licensed and permitted" to carry concealed in that state.
IMO, the concern about "GF"SZ reciprocity is a red herring.
It's a separate issue, not germaine to the discussion of Constitutional Carry v. permits for Wisconsin residents.
Yes, the federal law needs to be changed. Just like every other law, it doesn't stop criminals, has never been prosecuted against anyone, yet restrains good law-abiding citizens.
And yes, including language in WI law to the effect of "anyone who's legal to posess a gun is considered licensed" would solve the problem for anyone in WI. I don't think our legislators are smart / bold enough to follow the example of other states in this.
Getting clean Constitutional Carry, then going after language to satisfy the fed law, would be the best for citizens. Meanwhile, instruct WI LEOs not to arrest for the federal law _unless_ the intrusion happened in conjunction with another crime, then it can be an added bonus.
Post a Comment