http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news...sh-workers-for-gun-checks-for-concealed-carry
I'm sure they really wished we went to Constitutional Carry.
I'm sure they really wished we went to Constitutional Carry.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
DOJ wants more cash, workers for gun checks
- Thread starter protias
- Start date
Trip20
Regular Member
If we do not concede to these demands, they'll strike!
oh... wait a minute... nevermind :lol:
oh... wait a minute... nevermind :lol:
AaronS
Regular Member
That is a good one.
berettabone
Banned
Actually, in Madison, I think that they wished that we went to no carry, or no ownership, or just no firearms period.......
davegran
Regular Member
This is the 24th week of the year; so at this rate, we will have well over 160,000 licensed concealed carriers in Wisconsin by the end of the year. :dude:
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
did anyone else catch this???
They're asking for nearly $800,000
and admit that the income so far from applications has been $5 million.
I think that clearly demonstrates that the application fee is much too high... by about 5 times.
If they can run the firearms division with $1 million a year, the application fee should be calculated to provide that. It's not meant to be a money-making proposition.
Or if it is turning into that, the excess should provide for free (or low-cost) public ranges & training, including training for LEA/LEO on the new laws.
They're asking for nearly $800,000
and admit that the income so far from applications has been $5 million.
I think that clearly demonstrates that the application fee is much too high... by about 5 times.
If they can run the firearms division with $1 million a year, the application fee should be calculated to provide that. It's not meant to be a money-making proposition.
Or if it is turning into that, the excess should provide for free (or low-cost) public ranges & training, including training for LEA/LEO on the new laws.
GreenCountyPete
Regular Member
sing me up for more ranges i think every county should have a range accessible to the public after all Training is very important , and live fire training is a major part of training , it isn't always easy to find a place to train.
I am blessed with membership at a private range only a 20 minute drive from the house , but i know many don't have a range within an hour or more of them that they can train at.
yellow stone , is a great example of a public range it was a hour drive one way , i was out there a few times before gaining membership at the private range , people were nice no range officer if you needed to set targets , you would ask the other people on the range and they would finish their shooting , then make safe , and everyone would go down and change out targets about every 15-20 minutes
ranges don't have to be 100 yards long , 50 yards is good for most shooting , 25 yard pistol ranges would be very easy to set up almost any were there is a good sized hill to shoot into.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
Most likely all the money they have taken in from permit fees went into the general fund.
So DOJ has to keep going back for more.
What Wis should is open it the permit process to nonresidents charge them 100.00 dollars and make some real money
So DOJ has to keep going back for more.
What Wis should is open it the permit process to nonresidents charge them 100.00 dollars and make some real money
The intent of this was never to make money and if they are, then that has to be addressed.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
Any body that can do math knew $50.00 was way more then needed to cover the cost. Shouldn't take more the 15 min. per permit if there are no hold ups.
Ten dollars would have been more in line.
Even better yet consitutional carry.
E6chevron
Regular Member
Well, it is important to remember that the $50 CCL fee is NOT for a one-time gun check. The background checks that have to be made initially before a license is approved or denied, and the review and handling of an application and it's accompanying documents, are just the start of this process.
For the next five years, the DOJ has to have systems, procedures and staff in place, to continue checking for felony convictions, mental health, domestic abuse issues and court orders that impact the licensees legal access to firearms. They have to setup, maintain, expand, relocate, test, upgrade, backup and restore their systems as needed. The staff needs to be kept trained and supervised.
They also need to support the ability of LEO to verify the existence/status of a CCL for someone they have encountered, who is carrying concealed. These requests may come from within or outside of the state.
The DOJ will probably not have accurate information about how much that five years of ongoing support will cost, until we are at least several years down the road.
For the next five years, the DOJ has to have systems, procedures and staff in place, to continue checking for felony convictions, mental health, domestic abuse issues and court orders that impact the licensees legal access to firearms. They have to setup, maintain, expand, relocate, test, upgrade, backup and restore their systems as needed. The staff needs to be kept trained and supervised.
They also need to support the ability of LEO to verify the existence/status of a CCL for someone they have encountered, who is carrying concealed. These requests may come from within or outside of the state.
The DOJ will probably not have accurate information about how much that five years of ongoing support will cost, until we are at least several years down the road.
Last edited:
davegran
Regular Member
That isn't what the proposed statute says.
There is nothing in the statute about ongoing expenses. Using a 5-year planning period is simply a method for averaging out the cost to issue a license. As far as the background check goes,