Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Legislative support for open and concealed carry grows after memo

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.kenoshanews.com/scripts/e...;topicid=15187

    SNIP

    Sen. Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie, criticized the timing of Van Hollen’s opinion, but he was not about to argue with the content.

    “I think the timing was poor, bringing it out right when the 10th anniversary of Columbine was out there,” Wirch said. “But I think that he’s on pretty solid legal grounds with this.” . . .

    Wisconsin and Illinois are presently the only two states in the nation that do not allow for some sort of concealed carrying of firearms. The Legislature has twice passed concealed carry bills in recent years, only to see them fall to Gov. Jim Doyle’s vetoes.

    I’m hopeful that perhaps this advisory note will be a catalyst to move the Legislature back to the table to debate this issue and to consider finalizing some laws, in regard to concealed carry,” Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, said Thursday.. . . he said he believes it is inevitable that Wisconsin will one day adopt concealed carry.

    In the meantime, Wirch said he is comfortable with the current law that Van Hollen believes allows for open carry.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Had the CCW passed a few years ago, we would be used to that and it is likely that we would not be able to exercise our open carry rights as freely as we now are able to. What I am saying is that there would be less support for OC as a means to carry regularly since most people prefer to conceal anyways. With CCW already on the books, there would be no need for most people to push for AG memos or other resolutions to recognize the open carry of firearms.

    By delaying the passage of CCW, governor Doyle has helped us secure our right to OC as part of our daily routine! And yes, the Wisconsin Patriots predicted this would happen and it is the backbone behind what they are doing. Once enough people take to the streets lawfully armed and carrying openly, then there will be legislation drafted to allow people to conceal after legislators are badgered about people carrying guns openly. And then we will have BOTH methods available to us...one a right (OC) and one a priveledge (CC), with the CC having reciprocity with other states. Then we will be like Ohio or Michigan with one right and one priveledge, based on how the person chooses to carry. People should have both methods available to them anyways, its person preference.

    In my early days as a gun owner, I was a pro-CCW only person. This is partly due to the NRA's influence on my thinking that the ony way to carry was concealing. However I have become more fond of OC as a regular means of carry so that even when travelling to states with licenced OC/CC I choose to carry openly. It is also a statement of expression, showing people and law enforcement that those with guns are not a threat. In the old days, CCW laws were passed to FORCE people to carry onpenly!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    I agree with you smithman. I would like to see CC as an addition to our gun rights no as a replacement. One a right, on a privilege. I feel confident they will try to replace OC with CC though.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    In the old days, CCW laws were passed to FORCE people to carry onpenly!
    Can you provide more information (sources) about this? I would like to read up on this.

    Thanks.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    In the old days, CCW laws were passed to FORCE people to carry onpenly!
    Can you provide more information (sources) about this? I would like to read up on this.

    Thanks.
    It's common knowledge.

    Concealed weapons laws started out of fear of attacks by newly-freed slaves. Open carrying was never made illegal (at least in WI) - concealed carry was, and not just of firearms.




    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    The story goes that conceal carry was banned in Wisconsin 135 years ago because it was thought that carrying a concealed weapon was dubious behavior and it gave a conceal carrier an unknown advantage over an unarmed person. If you carried a weapon, you should let everyone know you are armed, was the philosophy of the time.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    about the timing:

    i think it was PERFECT timing. and here is why. columbine was allowed to happen because the teachers are all disarmed ( a reason to drop the "school zone" law).
    if any of those teachers at that school were armed (openly or concealed) it would NEVER have gotten as bad as it did.. the second those guys walked into a classroom with guns out.. they would have been put down.. and instead of headlines for umpteen people killed.. it would have been teacher is a hero..

    just my $0.02



  8. #8
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    skamp wrote:
    about the timing:

    i think it was PERFECT timing. and here is why. columbine was allowed to happen because the teachers are all disarmed ( a reason to drop the "school zone" law).
    if any of those teachers at that school were armed (openly or concealed) it would NEVER have gotten as bad as it did.. the second those guys walked into a classroom with guns out.. they would have been put down.. and instead of headlines for umpteen people killed.. it would have been teacher is a hero..

    just my $0.02

    I do not think that I can argue with logic such as this.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Be careful that if and when legislation is passed, that OC is prohibited in the law.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    How those 18-20 going to be able to carry? IF they pass a bill it will most likely read 21+ so do we just get left out...? We need to DEFINATELY watch out for that!



  11. #11
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    Be careful that if and when legislation is passed, that OC is NOT prohibited in the law.
    I hope that I fixed this correctly for you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    Max wrote:
    I agree with you smithman. I would like to see CC as an addition to our gun rights no as a replacement. One a right, on a privilege. I feel confident they will try to replace OC with CC though.
    What!!!????!?!? How can you think that one mode of carry is a privilege? It annoys me when proponents of one mode of carry (open vs. concealed) feel that the other mode is just a privilege.

    I'd wonder if anyone making such a statement could point out just which part of the second amendment addresses which mode of carry is a right and which is a privilege.

    The right to carry a firearm is not dependent on the carry mode. Both modes of carry have pros and cons and each has its time and place. I do both andknow that it is my right to do so.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    Max wrote:
    I agree with you smithman. I would like to see CC as an addition to our gun rights no as a replacement. One a right, on a privilege. I feel confident they will try to replace OC with CC though.
    What!!!????!?!? How can you think that one mode of carry is a privilege? It annoys me when proponents of one mode of carry (open vs. concealed) feel that the other mode is just a privilege.
    Except the case law across the US, as noted by Heller, generally says exactly this - that concealing your gun is not constitutionally protected.

    However, the state courts of Vermont and Wisconsin have construed the state constitutional more strongly to protect even concealed carry for lawful purposes, see e.g., Hamdan; Vegas.

    So, you have a point too, of course. But I think a lot of people want to emphacise OC as protected in order to make a statement to defend it so it is not banned - they have a strategic point as well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    Be careful that if and when legislation is passed, that OC is prohibited in the law.
    Then all hunters will be in violation? Not gonna happen.

  15. #15
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    If you doubt the state of hunting in jeopardy, just watch the DNR. Their laws become more strict, just as their active denial of animal population problems are becoming more and more prevalent.

    We have had herd increases in deer, turkeys, wolves, bears, etc... that are not only reported as the opposite, but which are out of control and the lack of food and space is causing disease issues and many winter and vehicle kills. But the DNR claims they are actually low in number and are changing laws to raise the numbers while in urban areas the presence of these animals are causing municipalities to hire "sharp shooters" to take out some of the deer. Their lack of kills notwithstanding.

    Add to it the rise in license fees by our buddy Doyle, and the deterrence to go hunting is increased even more.

    Then there is the Hunter Education instructor who was fired because he informed his students of their legal rights hunting...

    What does all this ranting mean as a response? That in Wisconsin we can't think that any of our rights are safe no matter how much of a common sense matter we think it is.
    I aim to misbehave

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Max wrote:
    The story goes that conceal carry was banned in Wisconsin 135 years ago because it was thought that carrying a concealed weapon was dubious behavior and it gave a conceal carrier an unknown advantage over an unarmed person. If you carried a weapon, you should let everyone know you are armed, was the philosophy of the time.
    Not sure when CC became 'legal' in AZ... but it was for the exact same reason. A person openly bearing arms was obviously 'heeled' to the awareness of all. Carrying concealed was considered'sneaky'. Of course the weather (here) is still the driving dictator of open carry, whereas Wisconson wouldbe the near opposite for the same reason for a good percentage of the year.

    Concealed carry is not Constitutionally protected... therefore 'permit' under 10A is issued by individualstates. AK and VT being exceptions, but again... it's a 10A thing.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Open Carry, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    :what:I will vote republican for governor, so we will have the right person in office. Therefore we will be treated fairly, and have our rights to be re-stored.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Y2K wrote:
    :what:I will vote republican for governor, so we will have the right person in office. Therefore we will be treated fairly, and have our rights to be re-stored.
    That didn't get us too far with J.B. Just becuase they are a republican, does not in any way that they will respect firearms owners rights.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Open Carry, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    You are absolutely right on this matter. We have to find the right person to help the law abiding citizens such us. Thanks.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Y2K wrote:
    :what:I will vote republican for governor, so we will have the right person in office. Therefore we will be treated fairly, and have our rights to be re-stored.
    That didn't get us too far with J.B. Just becuase they are a republican, does not in any way that they will respect firearms owners rights.
    Although I think Y2K was making fun.(.... the tipped me off....)

    In a perfect world Constitutionalist (my favorite http://www.constitution.org/pol/us/consplat.htm), Libertarian, or Republican Liberty Caucus members would get my vote.

    In reality I haven't looked at the candidates yet, but I'm guessing I'll have to settle forthe one that best exemplifies the ideals of those platforms...... Uh.... in other words....I hate it that my only choice is usually to just vote for the lesser of two evils.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Open Carry, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    I sincerely apologize for the blue icon. I didn't mean to tip anyone off. Thanks.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    You know what I always wonder about? How come, if they wanna pass some new bs law to screw people over they like somehow give it a clever title like "The Patriot Act" or tack it on to the "book-bags for school kids" bill, but if it is some GOOD legislature to HELP the people, you have to go through a whole lot of nonsense and make compromises with the enemy to get it passed.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Max wrote:
    The story goes that conceal carry was banned in Wisconsin 135 years ago because it was thought that carrying a concealed weapon was dubious behavior and it gave a conceal carrier an unknown advantage over an unarmed person. If you carried a weapon, you should let everyone know you are armed, was the philosophy of the time.
    Not sure when CC became 'legal' in AZ... but it was for the exact same reason. A person openly bearing arms was obviously 'heeled' to the awareness of all. Carrying concealed was considered'sneaky'. Of course the weather (here) is still the driving dictator of open carry, whereas Wisconson wouldbe the near opposite for the same reason for a good percentage of the year.

    Concealed carry is not Constitutionally protected... therefore 'permit' under 10A is issued by individualstates. AK and VT being exceptions, but again... it's a 10A thing.
    I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?


  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Notso wrote:
    I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?
    Maybe my thinking isn't correct but I guess one could argue that the constitution requires that you are allowed to carry. Allowing you to legally open carry means that restricting the right to concealed carry (albeit a bitsuspect) could be construed as constitutional.

    From constitution.org:

    (7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms -- on their own property or property they control -- but not on someone else's property without his permission.

    11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public easements, such as sidewalks or the walkway from the street to the front door. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements, and using their own or a public means of transportation.

    Anyway, the Libertairian/Constitutionalist view is all about rights and property, and how your rights balance against another persons rights and property.

    One could argue that CC violates ones right to ones own property since the owner is unaware of the weapon.

    So, in this way you could probably define Open carry as the right and Concealed Carry as a privilege.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Notso wrote:
    I think CC became legal in Az around 94 or 95, not exactly sure though. But why is concealed carry not constitutionally protected? I've always heard exactly what you're saying, but I don't see any reference to the method of carry in the 2A or in Arizona's constitution. When AZ came into the Union, if CC was to be a privilege regulated or denied by the state because it was considered sneaky, why didn't they specify that in the constitution instead of just leaving it wide open?
    Maybe my thinking isn't correct but I guess one could argue that the constitution requires that you are allowed to carry. Allowing you to legally open carry means that restricting the right to concealed carry (albeit a bitsuspect) could be construed as constitutional.

    [snip]

    So, in this way you could probably define Open carry as the right and Concealed Carry as a privilege.
    That's exactly how it is in Colorado. This is what the state Bill of Rights says:

    "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •