Unrestricted carry of guns may be coming to Wisconsin soon

[raiven]

here is something new to look at!



Unrestricted carry of guns may be coming to Wisconsin soon
April 24, 7:57 PM · 2 comments ShareThis Feed From the time the first settlers arrived in Wisconsin until 1871, people were allowed to carry guns any way that they wanted to, either openly or concealed. There was no law prohibiting people from arming themselves and it was common to carry a weapon.

However, by 1873 the legislature had determined the public was safer if people did not hide their guns so in 1872, a law was passed prohibiting people from carrying them concealed which forced folks who were armed to openly carry their guns. Other than revising the penalty for breaking this law a time or two, it has remained on the books pretty much as it was originally written 137 years ago. Then, in the 1990’s local firearms ordinances were being considered that would make Wisconsin a weird patchwork of different firearms laws and ordinances, depending where you were physically located. What was perfectly legal a mile away was not allowed where you happened to be now. This made no sense to anyone, except those who liked to micro-manage people’s lives. The following state statute was adopted that overturned about two dozen different local ordinances and made all of Wisconsin follow the same laws, no matter where you were. State Statute (66.092) 1995 Wisconsin Act 75, section 2: …no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute. The people of Wisconsin recognized the gun grabbers were still looking for some way to take away or restrict their gun rights, so a constitutional amendment was wisely ratified by about 79% of the voters that said; The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998) One effect of this important amendment was to protect Wis. Stat. § 941.23, which was enacted by the legislature 126 years earlier to force citizens to openly carry their firearms. So the open carry law and the states constitution actually work in perfect harmony with each other. The law provides the “operating” authority and method to carry and the constitution protects it from ever being taken away from citizens. Last year, the US Supreme Court decided the Heller case, and what the court ruled is that a ban on a protected right is not “reasonable regulation” of that right, and therefore such a law is unconstitutional. The Governors reaction to last Monday’s memo by Attorney General VanHollen was to suggest that the state should return to the days when local jurisdictions could enact their own set of ordinances – implying Milwaukee for example could ban open carry if it wanted to. What the Governor (who is also a former Wisconsin attorney general) seems to have ignored is a local ban on open carry would also be an unconstitutional infringement on a citizens protected right. Rep Leon Young, a former Milwaukee cop is telling everyone that he is “fast tracking” a new state law to ban open carry statewide. Of course, that law would be unconstitutional also for the same reasons. Fortunately, we already have a pretty good idea what the Wisconsin Supreme Court will say about any such law. Chief Justice Shirley Abramson said in her dissent in Hamdan; Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. So, what we don’t know yet is would the Wisconsin Supreme Court only overturn Rep. Young’s new law banning open carry or would the court overturn both the new law and the old ban on concealed carry too? Why force the court to choose? The court could just overturn them both. The sooner Rep. Young can “fast track” his new law banning open carry to the Governor’s desk for his signature, the sooner we will be able to get the Supreme Courts answer to which law or laws will have to fall. With the help of Governor Doyle and Rep. Young all Wisconsin citizens may soon be able to carry guns totally unrestricted like they did before 1872 - again. What a great gift to the state and all the citizens that they hate.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisconsin-G...Rights-Examiner

 

[antsi]

With the help of Governor Doyle and Rep. Young all Wisconsin citizens may soon be able to carry guns totally unrestricted like they did before 1872 - again.

Or the WI Supreme Court could uphold both carry bans, by coming up with a "creative" interpretation of Wisconsin's RKBA.

If Doyle really thinks the WI Court would uphold a strong RKBA (overturn the anti-carry laws), I would not put it past him to veto the carry ban just to avoid what he would consider an adverse court decision.

 

[finity]

Or the police will just ignore the law & impose their own "justice".

Kenosha News | Open-carry ruling triggers gun debate

Open-carry ruling triggers gun debate
Kenosha sheriff, police chief weigh in
BY BILL GUIDA
bguida@kenoshanews.com

While the state’s top attorney says it is legal for residents to carry unconcealed firearms in public, Milwaukee authorities say they won’t stand for it.

“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said.

“Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.”

Meanwhile, Kenosha County’s top cops said how their officers and deputies will respond to openly armed citizens won’t be automatic and aggressive, depending on a number of factors, including the setting and behavior of the citizen involved.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a memo saying the law allows carrying unconcealed weapons without a permit, as long as it’s done peacefully and within specified restrictions, such as not taking guns into schools.

Van Hollen’s memo concluded that citizens have a constitutional right to openly carry firearms and doing so cannot alone warrant arrests for disorderly conduct.

Morrissey and Beth said they agree with Van Hollen’s interpretation of the law but said how their personnel will respond on scene will be dictated by circumstances.

Morrissey said his main hope is that those who exercise their right to carry a weapon openly understand fellow citizens might react adversely, triggering calls to police.
“And we are going to respond to those calls,” Morrissey said. “I don’t know that we’re going to take them down.

“If it’s an individual just walking down the street carrying a gun, we may just stop them and talk to them. Someone cutting their grass with a push mower, openly wearing a gun — for whatever reason somebody might want to do that — we’re not going to take him down.”

Like Morrissey, Beth cited nuanced police responses based on what deputies observe. He noted the difference between, for example, spotting someone toting a shotgun in a farm field in a rural area where hunting is common versus carrying the same weapon on a city street or in downtown Paddock Lake.

“If I’m in the city, I’ll probably react just like Chief Flynn says in Milwaukee,” Beth said. “In an urban area, that isn’t the norm.

“What creates a disturbance is someone’s perception of what’s going on,” Beth added. “If our officers see someone walking with a shotgun in the city of Kenosha, we’re going to order him down, take it away from him and ask questions afterward.”

Morrissey cited a recent situation at a Kenosha grocery store where a customer entered the store wearing a holstered sidearm outside his jacket. “That created a terrible stir. Other customers and the store manager wanted him to leave the store,” Morrissey said. When police arrived, the man willingly gave up his handgun, and police returned it to him after he exited the store. Morrissey said the man never acted aggressively and obeyed all police orders. Had he done otherwise, he could have faced disorderly conduct charges or more serious charges, Morrissey said.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, however, echoed Flynn’s response.
“How we approach a person with a gun, I can tell you right now, isn’t going to change. As far as a law enforcement person is concerned, you just don’t walk up to a person with a gun and say ‘Excuse me, sir,”’ Clarke said. “On the ground, give up. Get that gun under control and then we’ll figure out what we got here.”

Wisconsin is one of 29 states that allow people to openly carry a firearm without a permit. It’s one of two states that bans concealed weapons.

Flynn’s comments came as gun control advocates and state lawmakers derided Van Hollen’s ruling.

“The idea of people ... openly carrying guns strikes me as somewhere between bonkers and totally ridiculous and stupid,” said state Rep. Josh Zepnick, D-Milwaukee.
OpenCarry.org, a gun advocacy Web site, issued a statement saying the finding was “spot on.” The Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association said the memo clearly finds people can bear arms in an orderly manner.

 

[Hotdoger]

“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said.

No wonder there is so much dislike for LEOs.
If they were honest this idiot would be out of a job in a second.

 

[msmith103]

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not ILLEGAL for felonies to own, posses or in most cases live with someone who would allow them access to firearms? This guy makes it sound like everyone is guilty until proven innocent... and your right, this is exactly why some people do not like LEO's. It is hard to respect someone when they have no respect for you.