| Author | Post |
|---|
smithman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:51 pm |
|
OK. So here is my opinion. Bottom line is that VT style carry is never coming to WI. Alaska is the exception where a shall issue became unrestricted carry. Given that this has not happened in other states yet should tell you something. It is quite rare. I have not studied what circumstances led up to the Alaska unrestricted carry, but is quite clear that Alaska is the "last frontier" with many large/dangerous game and it can get very cold. It is nearly all rural. People should not have to attempt to OC in all situations when bundled up in winter gear if they don't want to get a permit! Now obviously one could apply this logic to WI. But this type of logic won't get us anywhere with our buffoon lawmakers.
For states like Michigan and others that don't honor non-resident permits, I will remind you that people in Wisconsin are screwed. When I go to Michigan three times a year I can carry along the way in Indiana but NOT in Michigan, where I spend the majority of my time. So Wisconsin needs to offer some kind of resident permit, if only for carrying in states that honor resident permits only.
Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of people who want to carry prefer concealed. They are willing to get a permit system to carry concealed since the rest of the states in the union have gone this direction. There are alot more people who want permit CC than you think. This means they don't give a damn about getting rid of current restrictions on OC only. Get used to it.
What Gene is doing here is a good solution. It keeps unlicensed OC as it is now. If anybody has the political clout to remove the restrictions on unrestricted OC, then that would clearly enhance the unrestricted situation. However, these restrictions WILL NOT be removed prior to a permit system. Reason being is that there will be a great amount of resistance to removing our restrictions (what about the little children in the school zone? What about people who carry into bars? This is what the antis' and the news media will say) After a couple years of people with carry permits not disrupting society by carrying into these zones, it is likely that lawmakers could be persuaded to remove some of the restrictions on unlicensed OC.
|
comp45acp
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | Watertown, WI |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:59 pm |
|
smithman wrote:
OK. So here is my opinion. Bottom line is that VT style carry is never coming to WI. Alaska is the exception where a shall issue became unrestricted carry. Given that this has not happened in other states yet should tell you something. It is quite rare. I have not studied what circumstances led up to the Alaska unrestricted carry, but is quite clear that Alaska is the "last frontier" with many large/dangerous game and it can get very cold. It is nearly all rural. People should not have to attempt to OC in all situations when bundled up in winter gear if they don't want to get a permit! Now obviously one could apply this logic to WI. But this type of logic won't get us anywhere with our buffoon lawmakers.
For states like Michigan and others that don't honor non-resident permits, I will remind you that people in Wisconsin are screwed. When I go to Michigan three times a year I can carry along the way in Indiana but NOT in Michigan, where I spend the majority of my time. So Wisconsin needs to offer some kind of resident permit, if only for carrying in states that honor resident permits only.
Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of people who want to carry prefer concealed. They are willing to get a permit system to carry concealed since the rest of the states in the union have gone this direction. There are alot more people who want permit CC than you think. This means they don't give a damn about getting rid of current restrictions on OC only. Get used to it.
What Gene is doing here is a good solution. It keeps unlicensed OC as it is now. If anybody has the political clout to remove the restrictions on unrestricted OC, then that would clearly enhance the unrestricted situation. However, these restrictions WILL NOT be removed prior to a permit system. Reason being is that there will be a great amount of resistance to removing our restrictions (what about the little children in the school zone? What about people who carry into bars? This is what the antis' and the news media will say) After a couple years of people with carry permits not disrupting society by carrying into these zones, it is likely that lawmakers could be persuaded to remove some of the restrictions on unlicensed OC.
Well put smithman, my sentiments exactly and I think you right on the money in that only a very small group of posters here are in favor of "Vermont style" carry or nothing. They have no chance of making that happen in this state.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 06:48 pm |
|
Negativity breeds more of the same,
“If you want to accomplish something that demands determination and endurance, try to surround yourself with people possessing these qualities. And try to limit the time you spend with people given to pessimism and expressions of futility. Unfortunately, negative emotions exert a more powerful effect in social situations than positive ones, thanks to the phenomena of emotional contagion.”
Priya Florence Shah
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: The NRA, and its clients, profit by selling dispensations (a la the pre-Reformation Church), that are exceptions to infringements of the Second Amendment.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.
Because today is Reformation Sunday in the protestant liturgical calendar and because no one picked up on the metaphorical analogy of the NRA as the Catholic Church...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_(Catholic_Church)
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 08:55 pm |
|
Vermont/Alaska style carry is what the WI constitution would support. Everyone here should support VT carry 100%. Don’t abandon your goals but take whatever moves you forward as a compromise. The end goal does not change. Compromise with thing you want not with things you have.
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 09:40 pm |
|
Where did you come up with this "vermont Carry or Nothing" bullshilt? Find me anywhere in the WI thread where a current member involved in this conversation has stated that exact sentence!
All I am trying to get through a few thick skulls is that you are not asking for enough, you're selling this deal short by trying to pre-compromise before the idea is even pitched, you're leaving too much on the table and you will end up screwing us again like what happened with the veto'ed PPA bill!
I would be pleased if we did not get any concealed provisons, but they would also need to remove the vehicle carry prohibitions we currently have, and that would lead to proving how restrictive the GFSZ's are to our 2A rights.
lets look to the south for some comparisons,
Florida allows anyone that is legal toown a firearm, keep a loaded firearm in their vehicle for self-defense or any other legal purpose. When i left that state and moved back home to WI, I did not bother renewing my CCW permit. Why? Becuase I can already keep a loaded firearm in my truck to defend myself.
Imagine how ideal having the ability to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle would be for us, all this unholstering,, unloading, casing wash, rinse repeat crap would end. Wewould not be forced to rack slides, flip open cylinders, and all the other crap in parking lots anymore.
|
Gray Peterson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
J.Gleason wroteThis is nothing more than an attempt to line his pockets with cash. We already have unpermitted open carry, without training. If one can carry open without training then why not concealed as well? Will your good friend Gene instruct this training for free? I can receive free training from Doug Huffman that covers anything necessary.
This is nothing more than an attempt by an instructor to weasel his way to the legislative table in an effort to have himself crowned as the almighty instructor for the State of Wisconsin.
The only way to dissolve this issue is to take away any training requirement. According to the SCOTUS, one does not have to be trained, registered, permitted or pay a fee to exercise one's rights.
If one chooses to seek training that is their option and not a requirement to exercise their rights.
Then what is your solution to this problem? Come up with your own solution. If you yank out the training requirement and the fee, then Gene doesn't profit from it, correct? Remove it out, problem solved. What's the issue here?
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
Note that it says "person" and not citizen or whatever. It means anyone not otherwise prohibited.
Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions. [SC ST SEC 16-23-20]
It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law:
[ ...]
(9) a person in a vehicle if the handgun is:
(a) secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle; however, this item is not violated if the glove compartment, console, or trunk is opened in the presence of a law enforcement officer for the sole purpose of retrieving a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance; or
[ ...]
(16) Any person on a motorcycle when the pistol is secured in a closed saddlebag or other similar closed accessory container attached, whether permanently or temporarily, to the motorcycle.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 12:02 am |
|
Gray Peterson wrote: Then what is your solution to this problem? Come up with your own solution. If you yank out the training requirement and the fee, then Gene doesn't profit from it, correct? Remove it out, problem solved. What's the issue here?
That is my whole point exactly. Remove it!
Don't you find it ironic that anytime some one who is a fire arms instructor suggests a draft of a CCW Bill it has mandatory training in it?
Hubert's draft didn't include training.
It is a ploy and nothing more.
No Mandatory training, it only makes it about the money.
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 12:07 am by J.Gleason
|
Brad_Krause
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 01:30 am |
|
Who asked their representatives what the probability of each of the following are:
- 1) Remove all carry restrictions, and 2) create an optional, reciprocal, must-issue, "free" Wisconsin permit system requiring no training or shooting qualification for everyone not institutionalized. (OpenCarry.org members)
- 1) Maintain everyone's current carry abilities and 2) create an optional, reciprocal, shall-issue, minimal fee, unrestricted "carry" Wisconsin permit system with certain legal immunities which requires training, for everyone allowed to legally possess a handgun. (Gene German)
- 1) Create a mandatory, reciprocal, fee-based, limited "concealed carry only" Wisconsin permit system requiring NRA training , for qualified individuals. (NRA)
Disclaimer: The above are summaries and not the official positions of any individual or organization.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 03:07 pm |
|
Sorry for the long post but I wanted to keep everyone in the loop on this.
For weeks I have been sending very nice and friendly emails and letters to my State Senators and Representatives asking that they please support the Castle Doctrine legislation that should be on the table again in January.
I have also asked that they support legislation for a no compromise CCW/OCW, non permitted system in Wisconsin along with legislation to remove or amend transportation laws and the GFSZ law.
I was very polite and persistent in these contacts. ( I have copies if anyone would like to see.)
After not receiving any reply for over a month, I decided to step it up a bit and my correspondence this time around was not as friendly. ( I have copies if anyone would like to see.)
I basically stated that I was a member of several gun rights organizations and with the attitude of Gun Rights Advocates this time around, we would unite and campaign against any incumbent or candidate running for any office that was not in support of the Castle Doctrine, repealing or amending the GFSZ or Transportation laws.
With this email, I received a phone call from Senator A. Lasee's Office.
His assistant assured me that he was in favor of the castle doctrine and a CCW/OCW Bill, although she couldn't go into details.
She then referred me to Jordan Austin who is the state liaison for the NRA. I asked her when the NRA started writing the laws of this state. She really didn't have an answer for me. Needless to say Jordan Austin never called me as she said he would.
Two weeks later I again sent a follow up to all of the state senators and representatives. I again brought to their attention that I belong to several gun rights organizations and I could assure then that any incumbent or candidate that was not in support or our rights would hear our statement at election time when we campaign against them and insure their loss in the election.
With that I received a call from NRA representative Jordan Austin. We spoke for about an hour on the new Bill that will be coming forward in the near future.
This is a concealed carry/open carry Bill.
From what he told me he will be scraping the entire Bill that Doyle vetoed.
The new Bill will allow for OC or CCW and will also protect anyone who uses their fire arm for self defense against legal suit brought by the attacker.
I grilled this guy for almost the whole hour we talked. I asked about training.
He said that some training may be a requirement. Although very minimal if at all.
I brought up these guys that are instructors (Gene German of the Wisconsin Patriots) that will be trying to weasel their way up to the legislative table in an effort to make sure they have financial gain from this Bill.
He said he is already aware and is taking steps to insure these characters do not profit from this Bill.
I asked about fees. He said the fee would be minimal. Maybe $75.00 at the most and $15.00 of that would go to the county ranges for improvements and maintenance.
I asked about gun registration. He said there would be no gun registration required.
It would be as simple as filling out the application and sending it to the D.O.J. with the fee and proof of training if this ends up being a requirement.
From what I got of the conversation training could consist of the same level as a Hunters Safety Course.
He said, well we have a candidate that is running for Governor and also Mark Nuemann that said he will sign the CCW Bill with out hesitation.
I asked if he was referring to Walker. He said, "Yes."
I told him that while Walker may be the media picked front runner at this point, he is also making a lot of people pissed off down around Milwaukee right now.
I told him Walker is f$%&ing with the Police Union and the Fireman's Union and several other public service unions in the Milwaukee area. He is losing popularity fast by suggesting that these workers take wage concessions, benefit concessions, retirement concessions, furloughs, indefinite lay-offs, privatization and a whole lot more.
I then asked him if he heard of Mark Todd. He said,"No." I told him that Todd pledged that if he was elected, he would sign a Bill for a no compromise CCW/OCW non permitted system. I also told him Todd was in favor of repealing or amending the GFSZ and transportation laws.
As to the permit system the NRA guy said, "I don't think that will happen this fast."
I said, no maybe it won't not with out some concessions, but we sure have a candidate that will make it happen if he can and all we have to do is get him to Madison.
I asked, if this meant that the NRA was supporting Walker. He said, "NO."
The NRA will not endorse any candidate until after the primaries.
I threw a plug in and told him Todd was a member of the NRA and they should support their members. 
(Sorry not trying to make this about candidates, but I wanted to let everyone in on the entire conversation.)
Anyway, I know the NRA are nothing more than lobbyists but, we have to fight fire with fire, keeping our friends close and our enemies closer. I Think this Bill doesn't actually sound all that bad. He said he will let me know more as things progress. I asked him to send me a copy of this Bill once it is written.
I also talked to him about the Castle Doctrine. He said that legislation will more than likely be brought to the table again in January when session resumes. From what he said it is going to pass.
Then from the sounds of it the GFSZ and transportation laws are next, though they should not effect a person with a CCW permit, I would think.
He expressed some concern about an email that I had sent to all of the senators in this state, stating that I have sent them all numerous emails without response and that I belonged to several organizations that were advocates for gun rights and if they were not supportive of a CCW/OCW Bill and changing the GFSZ and transportation laws so the laws would stop infringing on our rights, then we would organize a campaign against them and insure they were voted out at the next election. I told him I tried the friendly route and it got me no where.
Obviously some of them must be a little nervous or they wouldn't have had this guy call me. 
Here are the last 2 email I had with Jordan Austin,
_________________________________
Hi Jordan,
One other question I had pertaining to our phone conversation is, if a person obtains a permit through this system, how long is it good for? Does it expire?
Thanks again,
Jim Gleason
_________________________________
I believe that it would be good for 5 years and then there is a renewal process that is less expensive and I believe somewhat less burdensome. Good talking with you this morning.
Jordan Austin
_______________________________________
Do you have an outline for this new Bill?
Many are concerned with any mandatory training as it could effect those of a specific socio-economic status and one should not have to be trained to exercise ones rights. As it stands now a person can open carry without training. No one is willing to compromise Open carry for Concealed carry. Therefore, if training is a requirement, then many will continue to open carry instead of Concealed carry.
Paying a modest fee for the purpose of processing a permit doesn't seem to be to much of an issue.
Many believe that the permit should be a shall issue which can be obtained any where a fire arm can be purchased with the back ground check done through the NCIS channels.
Thanks,
Jim Gleason
____________________________________
Unfortunately, we still do not have a draft for the new legislation and there is some thought that we still might not introduce it and may simply wait till next year when the new governor is here. All that changes daily based on the politics involved. If and when the bill is ready for introduction, we’ll likely pass along copies.
Allow me to address a few of your concerns. We would never compromise open carry for concealed carry, so rest assured that will not happen. The permit system will be “shall issue” of course and we will not accept any type of “may issue”. The applications would be available online and could be submitted from anywhere. The background checks are conducted by the DoJ during the processing of the application. As far as the training, I feel that there is no way around that issue in WI. While we would all like to have a permit system with no training, the politics of the state you live in would not permit that to happen. If it was feasible by any stretch of the imagination then we would not have any sort of training, but unfortunately many legislators in the statehouse would not support a bill without it. If individuals refuse to accept a permit system that requires training, then they would still be entitled to open carry if they chose to. Where there objections to the training requirements outlined in previous versions of the PPA?
Jordan Austin
_________________________________________________
So far that is all I have.
Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 03:12 pm by J.Gleason
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 03:24 pm |
|
Government 'fees' are taxes by any other name and stink as sweetly.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 05:43 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: Government 'fees' are taxes by any other name and stink as sweetly.
I agree, but unfortunately there are so many here and in other organizations that are so willing to pay a fee that it is almost inevitable.
It is unbelieveable just how eager some are to get CCW that they would concede to fees, permits and training.
Me I will just continue to OC. Maybe some day I will get a permit. Not sure when, why pay when I can carry for free.
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:22 am |
|
Article I section 25: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. How much more clear can it be. Makes no mention of open carry or concealed carry, just carry. The State Supreme Court has already made an exception to concealed carry in favor of the amendment. More will follow. In fact some in the know think that the next concealed carry case that makes it to the Supreme Court will result in the conceled carry prohibition declared unconstitutional.
Some mention has been made that the privlege to conceal will bring with it an exception to vehicle carry and the "school zone" restrictions. Under the umbrella of Article I section 25 and the SSC recognition of our gun carry rights how in hell can those exceptions only for concealed carry be considered a "reasonable" regulation.
Additionaly, who gave the NRA the authority to draft our firearm laws. During my involvement concerning the ill-gotten Personal Protection Act the NRA, Gunderson, Zien, WCCA and Gene German were so obsessed with gettting the Act passed that they "threw the baby out with the bath water". I have no doubt that the same can happen with the so-called "carry" bill.
Finally, contrary to what some other members of the forum think, I don't think a carry environment similar to AK or VT is out of reach. In fact I think it is on the horizon. Those that promote that a AK/VT style of carry is not acheivable do so only to promote their own selfish interests. I for one will not accept defeat before the battle starts.
My firearm rights are not for sale at any cost. The only compromise I will agree to is a minimal processing fee to obtain a reciprocity permit for carry in other states.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
Lammie wrote: Article I section 25: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. How much more clear can it be. Makes no mention of open carry or concealed carry, just carry. The State Supreme Court has already made an exception to concealed carry in favor of the amendment. More will follow. In fact some in the know think that the next concealed carry case that makes it to the Supreme Court will result in the conceled carry prohibition declared unconstitutional.
Some mention has been made that the privlege to conceal will bring with it an exception to vehicle carry and the "school zone" restrictions. Under the umbrella of Article I section 25 and the SSC recognition of our gun carry rights how in hell can those exceptions only for concealed carry be considered a "reasonable" regulation.
Additionaly, who gave the NRA the authority to draft our firearm laws. During my involvement concerning the ill-gotten Personal Protection Act the NRA, Gunderson, Zien, WCCA and Gene German were so obsessed with gettting the Act passed that they "threw the baby out with the bath water". I have no doubt that the same can happen with the so-called "carry" bill.
Finally, contrary to what some other members of the forum think, I don't think a carry environment similar to AK or VT is out of reach. In fact I think it is on the horizon. Those that promote that a AK/VT style of carry is not acheivable do so only to promote their own selfish interests. I for one will not accept defeat before the battle starts.
My firearm rights are not for sale at any cost. The only compromise I will agree to is a minimal processing fee to obtain a reciprocity permit for carry in other states.
+1000 Right On!
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:10 pm |
|
Let me know if you want Jordan Austins contact info.
We need to let this guy know where we stand.
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:10 pm by J.Gleason
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:31 pm |
|
Hubert's Plan,
1. Any adult, or emancipated minor may poses a firearm and/or CC permit. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be.
2. No landlord may post or restrict.
3. A CC permitting system, with reciprocity with the other states.
4. CC permits should be something we apply for at the SAME places we buy our firearms. The same background check is sufficient. If I can purchase the firearm, then I get the permit. I would accept a small processing fee payable to the state for printing/mailing the permit.
5. Voluntary inclusion on a "law enforcement" list.
6. If any individual has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
7. The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting, unlawful detainment for example) is a $5,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence. This applies to ALL individuals including LEO who are individually responsible for said forfeiture.
8. If you loose your ability to legally possess a firearm, then you loose the permit. This is the ONLY way to loose the permit.
9. The issuing authority is not liable for the acts of permit holders.
10. No mandatory or mandated training.
I think this is a great start. lets go from here and contact our state reps and senators.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:56 pm |
|
Item 4; do not use the term would, should or could. Use must, will or shall. The processing fee must be locked into your statute and not at the whim of the bureaucracy. Many states have tried to ease their deficits on the pocketbooks of special interest groups - boaters, legally armed citizens and hunters.
I suggest not interfering with contracts because you'll lose. The right to private property is fundamental.
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 05:02 pm by Master Doug Huffman
|
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 633 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 05:29 pm |
|
Hubert's Plan,
1. Any adult, or emancipated minor may poses a firearm and/or CC permit. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be.
2. No landlord may post or restrict.
3. A CC permitting system, for reciprocity with the other states. No permit required in Wisconsin.
4. Individuals shall obtain reciprocity CC permits via application from the SAME places we buy our firearms. The same background check is sufficient. If I can purchase the firearm, then I get the permit. I would accept a small processing fee payable to the state for printing/mailing the reciprocity permit.
5. Voluntary inclusion on a "law enforcement" list.
6. If any individual has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
7. The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting, unlawful detainment for example) is a $5,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence. This applies to ALL individuals including LEO who are individually responsible for said forfeiture.
8. If you loose your ability to legally possess a firearm, then you loose the permit. This is the ONLY way to loose the permit.
9. The issuing authority is not liable for the acts of permit holders.
10. No mandatory or mandated training.
I think this is a great start. lets go from here and contact our state reps and senators.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:11 pm |
|
bnhcomputing wrote: Hubert's Plan,
1. Any adult, or emancipated minor may poses a firearm and/or CC permit. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be.
2. No landlord may post or restrict.
3. A CC permitting system, for reciprocity with the other states. No permit required in Wisconsin.
4. Individuals shall obtain reciprocity CC permits via application from the SAME places we buy our firearms. The same background check is sufficient. If I can purchase the firearm, then I get the permit. I would accept a small processing fee payable to the state for printing/mailing the reciprocity permit.
5. Voluntary inclusion on a "law enforcement" list.
6. If any individual has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
7. The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting, unlawful detainment for example) is a $5,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence. This applies to ALL individuals including LEO who are individually responsible for said forfeiture.
8. If you loose your ability to legally possess a firearm, then you loose the permit. This is the ONLY way to loose the permit.
9. The issuing authority is not liable for the acts of permit holders.
10. No mandatory or mandated training.
I think this is a great start. lets go from here and contact our state reps and senators.
Now where do we go from here? Do we pass this on to a willing legislator or do we pass this on to the NRA guy who is trying to work this Bill?
|
Current time is 12:13 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|
|
|
