Talk:Gun laws in Wisconsin

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

article name change

With the passage of AB142, I think we should put in content here in both the table and body regarding wisconsin's knife laws. Therefore I propose that this article be renamed to either Weapon laws in Wisconsin or Gun and knife laws in Wisconsin Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this question be merged into Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state#potential rename so that the discussion is held in one place instead of two. — Mudwater^(Talk) 06:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mudwater for this article, there are concrete changes I plan on making, specificaly to deal with AB 142, and in wisconsin the exact same laws cover concealed/open carry of knives and guns, licensing of knives and guns, local pre-emption of knives and guns etc. It is the same law. So I think the case is much stronger for this article than it may be for other states, or the overview article. For example if you read the bill (that changes the laws) the actual title of the law is being changed from "local regulation of firearms" to "local regulation of weapons", the open carry ordinance reads "firearm or knife" in like 5 places, etc. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/enrolled/ab142 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the proposal, exactly? To rename this article to "Weapon laws in Wisconsin" -- presumably with a redirect from "Gun laws in Wisconsin"? And then what -- leave the other 50 plus article names the way they are, or rename them too? Any of that sounds unnecessary to me. But, how about if you update this article, as you've described -- that part certainly sounds fine -- and then we reassess this question? — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: The recent changes look good. Like I said, I think adding the knife laws is a plus, particularly so in the case of Wisconsin, as you've pointed out. But I would vote for putting the separate "Long guns" and "Handguns" columns back, mostly because all the other state gun law tables have them -- see Gun laws in the United States by state, where they're all transcluded (as you probably already know). I realize that we're now talking about long guns, handguns, and knives, but the knives can be accommodated in the Notes column (as you've already done), and in the body of the article of course. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MudwaterI thought about the columns thing, but in the case of Wisconsin, the only row that it is actually needed for is concealed carry. Everything else is all/none. That seems like a lot of additional complexity and wasted space for very little gain. In both Wisconsin, and in the other states, there are several rows where the columns don't make any sense at all (castle, constitution, preemption, magazine, the knife ones, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gun laws in Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090624034111/http://opencarry.mywowbb.com:80/forum57/27414.html to http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Carry Age Restriction

With the recent news I was poking around regarding the minimum age to carry in WI. Here (and on many law blogs and publications) a minimum age of 18 is cited to open carry - but folks either cite to inapplicable law, or don't cite at all, to this proposition. The citation here points to an old website with links to some statutes, none of which support the proposition. Does anyone have any statutory language or caselaw that would clarify this point? Outside of court opinions or statutory language, many people agreeing on the state of the law is irrelevant to the actual state of the law. I haven't been able to find anything myself. This language should be removed unless properly cited. Jacotto (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Found it, adding citation to article.Jacotto (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this too. I could not find Current* case law that specifies age... as well as differentiate between open carry of a rifle vs handgun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:BE16:167F:C8F2:A4C7:132A:FE1 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked into the current case law and it seems very specific re: 18 years of age. Younger than 18 is only allowed for gun practice or hunting. I can find NOTHING that substantiates this sentence "Open carry of loaded handguns and long guns and knives is permitted without a license for adults over 18, or for minors 16 or older when carrying a long gun that doesn't violate WS 941.28” — it appears to be factually wrong. These are the relevant laws: Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18., Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.… not making any changes, however I cannot find law that substantiates this claim. --FeloneousCat (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and [2]. These sections specifically say that someone under the age of 18 can carry a "dangerous weapon" if and only if:

The "dangerous weapon" in question is a long gun that is legal in the State of Wisconsin (i.e., a shotgun at least 26 inches long with a barrel at least 18 inches long, or a rifle at least 26 inches long with a barrel at least 16 inches long);
The person is 16 years of age or older (however, individuals younger than this may possess subject to further restrictions);
The person is not engaged in unauthorized hunting (i.e., not having taken hunter education to obtain a hunting license).

Members of the national guard and military are exempt when they are carrying in the line of duty, and the conditions above also do not apply when the individual is engaged in adult-supervised instruction or adult-supervised target practice. So in general, it is true that someone aged 16 to 18 can carry a legal shotgun or rifle in Wisconsin. But they cannot carry a handgun, an illegal short-barrelled rifle/shotgun, or any other "dangerous weapon" such as brass knuckles. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my interpretation above is close but actually incorrect. As the defense in the Rittenhouse trial pointed out, and as accepted by the judge and the prosecution, 948.60(3)(c) says: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person [possesses a short-barreled rifle or shotgun] or is not in compliance with [regulations stipulated in ss. 29.304 and 29.593.]" 29.304 only applies to individuals under the age of 16; 29.593 regards hunting with valid hunter education.

So, the only way that someone could not be in compliance with "29.304 ***and*** 29.593" is if they are under the age of 16. Therefore, the law is stated such that if you are 16 or older you are permitted to carry a long gun legally, PERIOD. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Machine guns

The legislative text says: "Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with ... the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive."

To me, this particular clause is confusing, and would seem to infer that prohibitions on machine guns do NOT apply to any machine gun that is NOT both adapted to pistol caliber (versus originally chambered) AND for a purpose not aggressive or offensive, which is pretty bizarre: one would think you would specifically allow non-aggressive/offensive arms, and that pistol caliber machine guns would be less "dangerous", regardless of any other legal argument around the right to possess machine guns in general. But without a better source than the statute (a court case, perhaps?) I don't see how the summary can be considered accurate. There is a brief related to US v Carmel, written by a magistrate judge, which specifically mentions this segment of WI law being "widdershins", a "verbal morass", and "patently ridiculous", but ultimately irrelevant to federal charges faced by Carmel. Tbessler (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]