| Author | Post |
|---|
Pointman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:08 pm |
|
Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner Gene German discusses the new talk in Milwaukee about a concealed carry law and proposes something way, way different.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-Proposed-Wisconsin-carry-law
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 03:43 am by Pointman
|
Hillmann
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
Why is everyone so willing to get a permit? Lets just fix the laws and say the hell with any type of permit system! Once the second is incorporated to the states we will be able to argue on constitutional grounds almost every single gun law on the books and be able to weed them out one at a time starting with vehicle carry and GFSZ's.
We don't need permits to exercise our rights.
|
Hillmann
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:45 pm |
|
I propose not to change Wisconsin Statute 941.23, the open carry law. Any law abiding citizen should be able to exercise their right to openly carry a weapon as they may do today (some restrictions apply). No one is forced to obtain a permit to openly carry now and that should not change.
There is now open carry law. 941.23 bans concealed carry of a weapon.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
The author of that piece is Gene German that goes/went by the user name here of CCWtrainer user=4120 He is an open advocate of permitted carry. He has impeached any credibility here.
|
logan
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 12:43 am |
|
Hillmann wrote:
I propose not to change Wisconsin Statute 941.23, the open carry law. Any law abiding citizen should be able to exercise their right to openly carry a weapon as they may do today (some restrictions apply). No one is forced to obtain a permit to openly carry now and that should not change.
There is now open carry law. 941.23 bans concealed carry of a weapon.
I think what he means is more that the law should say something along the lines of "No person shall carry a concealed firearm without a permit." Because I'm sure if this does go through, it will probably be changed to "No person shall carry a firearm without a permit." Or there will be some law added that the only way to carry will be concealed with a permit.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:33 am |
|
Hillmann wrote: Why is everyone so willing to get a permit? The elite wannabes have to find some way to think themselves somehow superior to those that don't have a permit or can't get a permit.
Notice the big silence on the issue of permitting (ex)felons their rights? I don't believe that there is a foundation if the United States Constitution for disbarring an EX-felon his rights.
To massively confuse the issue, does an ex-felon have the right to abort?
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:38 am |
|
I refuse to have the author of this article represent me, or my wishes, wants, needs or grievances in any way whatsoever!
Gene German, feel free to negotiate your rights down to a privilege, but please keep your hands & mouth away from my rights.
|
Yooper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 01:39 am |
|
Don't bite the hook if a new law would restrict what you already have.
Here in MI, our CPL law didn't affect open carry at all. But as you know, some states require a permit to both open and conceal carry....you definately don't want that to happen.
Where you have to make a decision, is whether you accept a permitted CCW system (if it doesn't affect your right to OC in any way), and work towards getting that system eliminated, or optional (like Alaska), so there is no permit required to carry either openly or concealed.
It would be extremely tough, though not impossible, to go from a complete ban on CC to free CC. It's much easier to convince a legislature after a permit system has been in place for a while to allow CC w/o a permit. Alaska has done this, and laws similar have come close to passing in I believe AZ and VA.
If the courts have declared that OC is a right, then it should stand up in court if the legislature passed a permit required for OC as well, as far as getting that over turned.
Many states have had courts rule that the state can regulate CC, since OC is a right, and therefore a CC permit system doesn't infringe on the RKBA.
I'm not favoring one over the other, just laying out some "devils' advocate" style thoughts.
However, if next election, you guys elect a strong pro-gun legislature with a very pro-gun governor, then you'd have a much better chance at permit free CC.
Also, who knows what the USSC case will provide us.......
|
ShooterReady
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:56 am |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong Doug, but I don't believe there is any such things as an 'EX-' felon. If a person is convicted of a felony that person is a felon for life, unless pardoned.
Personally, I don't have a problem with felons being denied certain things. Not necessarily because of a particular felony conviction but rather the profoundly poor judgment that resulted in said conviction. Owning guns is a right, but how many of us would sell a firearm to a known gang banger/drug dealer who has (or has not) been convicted of a felony? Why not? Because the person has shown a pattern of behavior. But you say, "I know he's a drug dealer therefore I'm not going to help arm him." Good enough, but legally he is not a drug dealer until convicted of that in a court of law. If you make the decision based upon that judgment you are violating his 2nd Amendment rights. So do you help keep the streets safe or abide by the Constitution and supply him with a gun?
In the end it's about judgment. How many of us shoot when under the influence of alcohol? Why not? Impaired judgment. There are consequences for actions, felons have shown they do not think through their actions.
We could each find certain cases that fly in the face of logic. I have no doubt, however that the vast majority of felons aren't folks we would like to see show up on the front doorstep looking for our daughters.
But if we are to ease up on a felon's limitations after release from prison why not expunge the record of said conviction? If the debt has been paid then take it off the books.
How many of us here would hire a person with a felony conviction for embezzlement to manage our retirement savings? Again, a pattern of behavior.
Why don't we believe the Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and District Attorney John Chisholm when they suddenly come out 'supporting' CCW? A pattern of behavior.
FWIW, I think they are supporting that measure because they know they will lose the CCW after the 2010 election and would rather have CCW earlier if they can get at least part of their agenda put in with it. Why else would they be willing to 'negotiate' all of sudden?
|
comp45acp
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | Watertown, WI |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 10:41 am |
|
Pointman wrote:
Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner Gene German discusses the new talk in Milwaukee about a concealed carry law and proposes something way, way different.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-Proposed-Wisconsin-carry-law
Excellent article and great idea. I am behind it 100%. As Gene states his proposal leaves the current right to open carry without a permit as it is. You just have to abide by the restrictions. For those who are willing to go through the permitting process those restrictions are removed. Sounds like common sense to me and apparently made sense in a lot of other states. Vermont style carry is not coming to Wisconsin folks, you have to realize that. Personally, I think that non-violent felons should have all of their rights restored after some period of time has lapsed.
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:41 pm |
|
comp45acp wrote: Pointman wrote:
Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner Gene German discusses the new talk in Milwaukee about a concealed carry law and proposes something way, way different.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-Proposed-Wisconsin-carry-law
Vermont style carry is not coming to Wisconsin folks, you have to realize that.
Giving up already because of some bull5hit compromise written by some crusty old fart that may not live long enough to ever see it ever happen.
I refuse to compromise, I will not negotiate my rights away with hopes of getting some small pittance in return.
Did the people in VT & AK say "it ain't gonna happen!" and give in to compromise?
There is absolutely no reason we cannot see what the citizens of VT & AK have seen.
Sorry, I am wrong! With an attitude like your's, of course we will not get it, because too many people are willing to compromise so they can be like residents of 46 other states.
|
Hillmann
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:01 pm |
|
I know not all of them are up for election, but in 2010 what spots are up for election? State Senate?
State Assembly?
US House of Representatives?
US Senate?
Govinner?
County Positions?
Mayors?
If we replace enough of them we can get what we want. I think most people on both sides of the isle are sick of the current government and will vote for change,any change, in the next couple elections. And the people who take there places don't necessarly have to have our beliefs because they will see that if they don't do the job we elected them to do we will kick them out too.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:49 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: The author of that piece is Gene German that goes/went by the user name here of CCWtrainer user=4120 He is an open advocate of permitted carry. He has impeached any credibility here.
+1000
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 05:51 pm |
|
Nutczak wrote: comp45acp wrote: Pointman wrote:
Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner Gene German discusses the new talk in Milwaukee about a concealed carry law and proposes something way, way different.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-Proposed-Wisconsin-carry-law
Vermont style carry is not coming to Wisconsin folks, you have to realize that.
Giving up already because of some bull5hit compromise written by some crusty old fart that may not live long enough to ever see it ever happen.
I refuse to compromise, I will not negotiate my rights away with hopes of getting some small pittance in return.
Did the people in VT & AK say "it ain't gonna happen!" and give in to compromise?
There is absolutely no reason we cannot see what the citizens of VT & AK have seen.
Sorry, I am wrong! With an attitude like your's, of course we will not get it, because too many people are willing to compromise so they can be like residents of 46 other states.
Exactly, there are to many here that are willing to give in just so they can say, "I got my Permit!"
The only ones profiting from the idea of training are the so called instructors. before you get a permit, when you renew your permit, when? on a yearly basis? every 5 years? What gives these so called instructors the right to set the requirements? Other then their financial needs.
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 06:19 pm by J.Gleason
|
Mugenlude
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Racine |
| Posts: | 171 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 09:25 pm |
|
From what I found on Wikipedia, it's not like Alaska just got unrestricted carry in one shot. In 1994, Alaska got Shall-Issue CC permits, then in 2003 it changed to unrestricted CC.
Here is a map that shows the history of concealed carry law across the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
I understand the thinking of people not wanting to have permits at all (not giving up anything, but have nothing until we get it all). However, there are people on the opposite side of the issue who are say, lets not allow any type of carry now or they will slowly get all types of carry... I think this is part of way it's so hard to get any type of concealed carry passed. People on both sides aren't willing to less a little water over the damn because they fear a flood!
No state that has gotten shall-issue has ever repelled CC, however, Alaska has moved to a less restrictive carry. Several states have gone from a restrictive May-Issue to Shall-Issue. The progression has been to less restrictive, so I don't see why Wisconsin would be any different. I wouldn't have a problem with the legislation Gene proposed.
I know that I have the right to bear arms for security, yes, we are open carrying, but I don't have the right to protect myself or my family concealed. So concealed carry is not an exercisable right, it's not an option at this point... so I would rather exercise a privilege to conceal carry that not have the "right" to. I already pay for my concealed carry permit in other states so paying for my permit in WI wouldn't effect me financially anyways (and until all states are unrestricted that won't change for me).
I don't want criminals to be able to carry guns (although I know they will), but what I really want is for them to be prosecuted when caught with a firearm. This is where unrestricted carry doesn't help. If a permit system is put in place it allow permit holders concealed carry, and still restricts it from criminals. I don't have anything to back this up, but I assume that Alaska doesn't have the crime rates of cities in Wisconsin, which might have something to do with my they have the laws they do.
[flame suit on]
|
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 633 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
I would prefer to avoid bashing any member, but I must point out that Mr. German suggested the novel idea of the county resolutions for Wisconsin. He put a great deal of time into them, gathering signature, etc. It was at the point where the resolutions/petitions were submitted that Mr. German veered from his stated course.
My concern for his suggestion is that it does indeed come from an "instructor" who stands to gain financially from what was suggested. In addition, I thought he (German) was a Minnesota resident. I would hope that our legislature would take input from state residents rather than non-residents.
Having said that, there is merit to SOME of what he suggests.
Here is my 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.
We use this as a start then repeal the tavern, and school zone laws.
|
logan
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 02:39 am |
|
bnhcomputing wrote:
I would prefer to avoid bashing any member, but I must point out that Mr. German suggested the novel idea of the county resolutions for Wisconsin. He put a great deal of time into them, gathering signature, etc. It was at the point where the resolutions/petitions were submitted that Mr. German veered from his stated course.
My concern for his suggestion is that it does indeed come from an "instructor" who stands to gain financially from what was suggested. In addition, I thought he (German) was a Minnesota resident. I would hope that our legislature would take input from state residents rather than non-residents.
Having said that, there is merit to SOME of what he suggests.
Here is my 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.
We use this as a start then repeal the tavern, and school zone laws.
That would be pretty nice.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 05:16 am |
|
bnhcomputing wrote:
I would prefer to avoid bashing any member, but I must point out that Mr. German suggested the novel idea of the county resolutions for Wisconsin. He put a great deal of time into them, gathering signature, etc. It was at the point where the resolutions/petitions were submitted that Mr. German veered from his stated course.
My concern for his suggestion is that it does indeed come from an "instructor" who stands to gain financially from what was suggested. In addition, I thought he (German) was a Minnesota resident. I would hope that our legislature would take input from state residents rather than non-residents.
Having said that, there is merit to SOME of what he suggests.
Here is my 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.
We use this as a start then repeal the tavern, and school zone laws.
And no mandatory training?
|
Brendon .45
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:25 pm |
|
BNH's plan is something I could get behind as a compromise if VT/AK style cannot get through initially. Push for everything up front, then fall back if necessary. As mentioned earlier, Alaska did it in multiple steps.
Whatever we do, the transport law, I think, should be the first to go. What good is OC or CC if we have to unload/encase every time we get in and out of the vehicle. I always think of some BG watching me unload in a parking lot, put it in the case, and THEN come over with his gun drawn and take mine (since it has now been rendered useless) and possibly worse... Maybe I'm just paranoid.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
Excellent point Brendon, hopefully that will be inclusive of the CCW bill. In every other state a CCW permit holder doesn't have to unload and encase. That would hopefully be the same here as well.
|
Current time is 01:09 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
