Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: FOR ALL YOU PRIVILEGE SEEKERS

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I also want both! Open carry as a right and concealed carry as a privilege.
    WHAT?
    Are you kidding me? Since when should my right to carry whether it be OCor CC become a @#$%ing privilege?

    Let me be perfectly clear here... This Forum is about OC! If you want to promote your rights becoming a privilege so you can CC then go somewhere else! Do not come here promoting any type of carry as a privilege. That is ridiculous! Whether I choose to OC or even unlawfully CC it is my GOD given RIGHT! If any of you are going to try to push CC as a privilege and interfere with my right to OC you are in for a fight you will not win! Why don't you start a new web site called CCasaprivilege.org and lets see how many members you get. Until then stop coming on here and giving these lame anti gunners any ammunition. The USSC said that I do not need a permit or license and neither do I have to register to exercise my rights. Let's keep it that way!

  2. #2
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    I do have to agree. The right to self protection is a right. In no way should it become a card, that can be taken away. I would be happy with laws that let me pick how I can carry (OC or CC), but none should be given, just to take away the right.

    So I would love to see CCW in Wisconsin, but I do not want to pay for it, with the loss of a right. If the loss of the right is the only way to get CCW in Wisconsin, I am happy to keep my right, to open carry.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Greenfield, WI / Grand Forks, ND, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    While I may disagree on principle, I would be satisfied if a permit CCW/OC system would be set up.

    Carrying without a permit is well and good, but seeing as only one state allows you to CCW without a permit (Not sure what the number of states that allow OC without a permit is, but I know it's numerous), permit-less OC/CCW is nearly a pipe dream.

    Besides, I don't necessarily see a background check as a barrier making a license a "privilege" (I suppose the argument could be made for the money required to be paid, but I digress). As long as it's a shall-issue rule, making them give you a permit if you're not a criminal, I see no problem with it. Shall-Issue works the same as a Brady check, and I don't see the same people who rally for non-licensed OC/CCW on the frontlines trying to eliminate FFL transfer requirements.


  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I also want both! Open carry as a right and concealed carry as a privilege.
    WHAT?
    Are you kidding me? Since when should my right to carry whether it be OCor CC become a @#$%ing privilege?

    Let me be perfectly clear here... This Forum is about OC! If you want to promote your rights becoming a privilege so you can CC then go somewhere else! Do not come here promoting any type of carry as a privilege. That is ridiculous! Whether I choose to OC or even unlawfully CC it is my GOD given RIGHT! If any of you are going to try to push CC as a privilege and interfere with my right to OC you are in for a fight you will not win! Why don't you start a new web site called CCasaprivilege.org and lets see how many members you get. Until then stop coming on here and giving these lame anti gunners any ammunition. The USSC said that I do not need a permit or license and neither do I have to register to exercise my rights. Let's keep it that way!
    Go post in the thread this came from and actually use an intelligent argument instead of sticking this into a new thread. You're posting something that is totally out of context if you don't read the other thread first. Go try to make someone else look bad like Mcarthy or Feinstein and stop wasting your time trying to polarize people that need to stick together.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    Absolutely agreed. The second amendment doesn't cover open carry or concealed carry. It covers carry, by stating the right to keep and bear arms.

    As far as I'm concerned, what we're attempting to do is overturn unconstitutional state laws.

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I also want both! Open carry as a right and concealed carry as a privilege.
    WHAT?
    Are you kidding me? Since when should my right to carry whether it be OCor CC become a @#$%ing privilege?

    Let me be perfectly clear here... This Forum is about OC! If you want to promote your rights becoming a privilege so you can CC then go somewhere else! Do not come here promoting any type of carry as a privilege. That is ridiculous! Whether I choose to OC or even unlawfully CC it is my GOD given RIGHT! If any of you are going to try to push CC as a privilege and interfere with my right to OC you are in for a fight you will not win! Why don't you start a new web site called CCasaprivilege.org and lets see how many members you get. Until then stop coming on here and giving these lame anti gunners any ammunition. The USSC said that I do not need a permit or license and neither do I have to register to exercise my rights. Let's keep it that way!
    I agree the right to bear arms is not a privilege. All of us here understand that. Maybe Brass Magnet just misspoke.

    But reasonable regulation of CC (and OC) is not barred by 2A. So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.

    Seems to me that would give the lame anti gunners some ammunition. Gun guys talking about breakinglaws they don't like is kind of, uhm, imprudent.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I agree the right to bear arms is not a privilege. All of us here understand that. Maybe Brass Magnet just misspoke.

    But reasonable regulation of CC (and OC) is not barred by 2A. So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.

    Seems to me that would give the lame anti gunners some ammunition. Gun guys talking about breakinglaws they don't like is kind of, uhm, imprudent.
    Yes Hank! But I didn't mispeak, he misreplied. Which is why this post is totally out of context and down right rude. Now go to read the other thread that he took my quote out of. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27100.html


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I also want both! Open carry as a right and concealed carry as a privilege.
    WHAT?
    Are you kidding me? Since when should my right to carry whether it be OCor CC become a @#$%ing privilege?

    Let me be perfectly clear here... This Forum is about OC! If you want to promote your rights becoming a privilege so you can CC then go somewhere else! Do not come here promoting any type of carry as a privilege. That is ridiculous! Whether I choose to OC or even unlawfully CC it is my GOD given RIGHT! If any of you are going to try to push CC as a privilege and interfere with my right to OC you are in for a fight you will not win! Why don't you start a new web site called CCasaprivilege.org and lets see how many members you get. Until then stop coming on here and giving these lame anti gunners any ammunition. The USSC said that I do not need a permit or license and neither do I have to register to exercise my rights. Let's keep it that way!
    I agree the right to bear arms is not a privilege. All of us here understand that. Maybe Brass Magnet just misspoke.

    But reasonable regulation of CC (and OC) is not barred by 2A. So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.

    Seems to me that would give the lame anti gunners some ammunition. Gun guys talking about breakinglaws they don't like is kind of, uhm, imprudent.
    Unfortunately, that word "reasonable" is a canard. It's subject to the machinations of the judge at hand. There is nothing in the second amendment about reasonable regulation. It says the right shall NOT be infringed. The amendment was set up first and foremost as an insurance policy to keep the populace able to resist the government if it became as oppressive as it was in the 18th century. The notion of having anti-tank weapons, or even tanks, in the possession of the populace may seem ludicrous to some, but that is the level of government power that currently exists. If the populace were to do as Thomas Jefferson suggested, and revolt every 20 years, they might need such means. Now, from a purely strategic view, I think the weaponry we currently suggest could easily facilitate a revolution with little blood. However, the Founders wanted to be sure that never again would we have farmers with scythes fighting Hessians with muskets.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.
    I am not advocating carrying concealed. It is unlawful in the State of Wisconsin. The point I was trying to make is that "Carrying" a fire arm is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE.

    In no way should we have to be permitted, licensed, trained or registered to exercise our rights. Nor should we have to pay a fee or give up another right for a new one (I.E. give up OC for CC.)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Greenfield, WI / Grand Forks, ND, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote
    In no way should we be permitted, licensed, trained or registered to exercise our rights. Nor should we have to pay a fee or give up another right for a new one (I.E. give up OC for CC.)
    Are you against paying a FFL for a gun transfer?

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.
    I am not advocating carrying concealed. It is unlawful in the State of Wisconsin. The point I was trying to make is that "Carrying" a fire arm is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE.

    In no way should we be permitted, licensed, trained or registered to exercise our rights. Nor should we have to pay a fee or give up another right for a new one (I.E. give up OC for CC.)
    And THIS I totally agree with.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27100.html


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    What does a FFL transfer have to do with the difference between Rights and Privilege?

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    Mr. Greg wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote
    In no way should we be permitted, licensed, trained or registered to exercise our rights. Nor should we have to pay a fee or give up another right for a new one (I.E. give up OC for CC.)
    Are you against paying a FFL for a gun transfer?
    I'm against the requirement of an FFL in order to sell firearms. Not the gun seller's fault that the government is registering anyone who sells firearms. We got through most of two centuries in this country without such licenses.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Your right. Registration is registration.

  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.
    I am not advocating carrying concealed. It is unlawful in the State of Wisconsin. The point I was trying to make is that "Carrying" a fire arm is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE.

    In no way should we be permitted, licensed, trained or registered to exercise our rights. Nor should we have to pay a fee or give up another right for a new one (I.E. give up OC for CC.)
    Sorry, seems to me like you are advocating any kind of carry anytime, including "unlawfully CC." Since you see no validity to permitting or licensing of any kind, that's the impression I get from you.

    I don't know what fees have to do with your possession on the matter, but I and most others here would agree--it makes no sense to charge someone a fee to get a permit/license to carry. But that's tangential.

    The right to bear arms and 2A both do not preclude reasonable regulation of gun ownership, purchase, use and carry. Get used to it. There will be more regulation now that the antis have lost the war.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Well Hank you have a right to your own opinion. I do not agree that we should have to register our fire arms...for obvious reasons. I do not believe we should have to receive some training before we can lawfully carry our fire arms. I do not believe we should have to pay any permit fee or license fee in order to lawfully carry our fire arms either. Obviously the application fee you pay when you purchase a fire arm is the only way you can obtain possession of said fire arm after purchase.
    I do not advocate breaking the law as I have stated earlier.
    Again the original debate was the difference between Rights and Privilege.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    So, you lose me with your advocacy of "unlawfully" carrying concealed.
    I am not advocating carrying concealed. It is unlawful in the State of Wisconsin. The point I was trying to make is that "Carrying" a fire arm is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE.

    In no way should we be permitted, licensed, trained or registered to exercise our rights. Nor should we have to pay a fee or give up another right for a new one (I.E. give up OC for CC.)

    Sorry, seems to me like you are advocating any kind of carry anytime, including "unlawfully CC." Since you see no validity to permitting or licensing of any kind, that's the impression I get from you.
    Agree
    I don't know what fees have to do with your possession on the matter, but I and most others here would agree--it makes no sense to charge someone a fee to get a permit/license to carry. But that's tangential.
    Agree

    The right to bear arms and 2A both do not preclude reasonable regulation of gun ownership, purchase, use and carry. Get used to it. There will be more regulation now that the antis have lost the war.
    Disagree
    I beleive it does preclude reasonable regulation. Resonable regulation was a term invented by the courts to apply to the 2A. However; even if restrictions on the mode of carry is infringement it doesn't matter. It's about balancing your rights against someone elses. It works with all the rights, even the famous "yelling FIRE" in the theatre. You have the right to free speach but as soon as you use it to infringe on others rights, you get trumped. RKBA can also be trumped by someone elses rights in the same way but never by "reasonable regulation" IMO, at least not legally.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Well Hank you have a right to your own opinion.
    Yeah, and I don't? I guess not since you had to start this borderline libel thread instead of confronting me with an honest and intelligent argument.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  19. #19
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Perhaps PRIVATE MESSAGES would be a more appropriate venue for your agreement.


    While we are all concerned about the 2nd amendment, lets not forget the 1st.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    All people on this forum want to retain our right to OC in Wisconsin. Most want to have a legal means to conceal as well. The amount of jumping through hoops to be able to conceal varies among members, and it will ALWAYS be a contentious issue.

    People, Vermont-style carry will NEVER come to Wisconsin, period. If you want to conceal in this state in the future, you will have to concede and get a permit and pay a fee at some point once such a system is set up. This is the way the government and the NRA want it. The NRA calls CC "right-to-carry laws" but when you have to meet the states requirement for training and pay a fee for them to confirm that you aren't a felon (as if felons ever apply for such permits), it IS NO LONGER a right.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post



    J.Gleason:

    Smithman is correct. We will never have a Vermont style right to keep and bear arms. The reason: The state supreme court rulings in Hamdan. I have included pertinent paragraphs below. In short the Courtsays that Article I section 25 of the State Constitution is not an unfettered right. It is subject to reasonable state regulation. Regulation that will be judged by the courts as applied.

    Paragraph 45 the Court says that even under Article I section 25 the state has the authority to regulate the manner of carry.

    Paragraph 71 implies that the State only has to provide a manner of carry not all manners of carry.

    It could very well mean that at some point in time we will have to make a decision as to which manner of carry we wish to have shielded by the contitution. I personally would prefer a Vermont style but the perponderance of "police power" in this state will never let that happen.

    ¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms.
    Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on
    weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons.
    However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that
    functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I,
    Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a
    person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies
    reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and
    bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the
    exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the
    right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be
    sustained.

    ¶45. In analyzing reasonableness, one must balance the conflicting rights of an
    individual to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes against the authority of
    the State to exercise its police power to protect the health, safety, and
    welfare of its citizens. See Dano v. Collins, 802 P.2d1021, 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App.
    1990); People v. Blue, 544 P.2d 385, 390-91 (Colo. 1975); Rawlings v. Ill. Dep't
    of Law Enforcement, 391 N.E.2d758, 763 (Ill. Ct. App. 1979) (balancing the
    sufficiency of the individual's interest in possessing arms with the legislation
    restricting exercise of that interest); City of Seattle v. Montana, 919 P.2d
    1218, 1224 (Wash. 1996); Buckner, 377 S.E.2d at 148-49; see also Michael D.
    Ridberg, The Impact of State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms Provisions on
    State Gun Control Legislation, 38 U. Chic. L. Rev. 185, 202-03 (1970) ("The
    scope of permissible regulation in states with arms provisions is dependent upon
    a balancing of the public benefit to be derived from the regulation against the
    degree to which it frustrates the purposes of the provision."). In State v.
    McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236 (Wyo. 1986), the Wyoming Supreme Court explained this
    need for balance as follows:
    [A] balance must be struck between the individual's right to exercise each
    constitutional guarantee and society's right to enact laws which will ensure
    some semblance of order. As these interests will necessarily conflict, the
    question then becomes which party should accept the encroachment of its right.
    The solution to the conflict is judicial in nature. Courts must be and are,
    whether willingly or not, the ultimate arbiters as to whether or not there is,
    in a particular case, an unwarranted invasion of constitutionally guaranteed
    rights.
    Id. at 1237-38. We agree with this characterization of the constitutional
    inquiry, including the indispensable role of courts in determining whether
    enforcement of the CCW statute has unreasonably impaired the constitutional
    right.


    ¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may
    regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used.
    The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms
    are possessed and used. See State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, 244 Wis.2d582, 628
    N.W.2d820. It is constitutional. We hold that only if the public benefit in this
    exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need
    to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise
    valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional as applied.

    ¶71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to
    keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right
    is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without
    violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a
    constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative
    means to exercise the right.

    Also: I held a FFL for 30 years. The federal goverment does not register firearms. It is prohibited from doing so by federal law. The National Instant Check System and the multi-page 4473 form, that must be complied with and filled out when purchasing a firearm from a FFL dealer, is frequently considered by some as a firearm registration process. Unless a firearm has been used in a crime within 18 months of purchase all record of it's purchase must be destroyed by law.




  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I realize that this is a OC board but the on thing that I have never understood is why so many people fight so hard for OC, most states allow unrestricted OC and so many are satisfied with OC yet when CC is mentioned it is almost like you have committed a mortal sin. The BOR says to Bear Arms, it doesn't say only openly. That is a Macho deal much like the British accusing Francis Marion of dirty warfare when he didn't make his men stand up in a line to be slaughtered.

    If you are truly a 2A proponent then you will not be satisfied with only being able to OC and quit condemning those that would rather CC. That is one thing I will say good about SC, if you are on private property it doesn't matter if you OC or CC, especially unlike some places where it is illegal to CC inside your own home.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    How does this sound,
    I would be willing to pay a fee to be able to carry my firearm, Bot onlyif everyone else in this country was required to pay a fee, or pass an intelligence test to exercise their right to vote!

    We wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in if passing a training course to be able to vote was the law of the land!That would have weeded out several classes of people! And I think our 2A rights would not even be a debatable issues if that were the case!

    Imagine if people were forced to pay to vote!!

  24. #24
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Unfortunatly we ALL pay for their right to vote
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    PT111 and J. Gleason:

    In my previous post I tried to get the point across that under Article I section 25 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that we do not have a constitutional right to conceal carry. We only have the constitutionally protected right to open carry. In the cases of State v. Cole and State v. Hamdan, both decided in 2003, the Court said that even with the enactment of Article I section 25statute 941.23,which prohibits concealed carry of weapons, is constitutional. The Court says it is constitutional because it is aregulation on the time, place and manner of carry and not the right to carry. I don't agree with that, but that is now case law. Therefore any action by the legislature to provide a privilege to conceal carry has no impact on our right to keep and bear arms because the Court says we don't have a constitutional right to conceal weapons in the first place. If you had done your homework and read previous posts on this issue you would have learned that nobody on this forum would support replacing our right to open carry. with a privilege to conceal carry. A conceal carry privilege has always been discussed in terms as an individual elected option, providing it leaves our open carry right intact.

    From Hamdan:

    ¶5. We are asked to determine what effect, if any, a new amendment to the
    Wisconsin Constitution has on the State's ability to prosecute and punish the
    carrying of concealed weapons. The new amendment, Article I, Section 25,
    declares that the people have the right to keep and bear arms for lawful
    purposes. While Wis.Stat.§941.23 (the CCW statute) withstands a facial challenge
    to its constitutionality under the amendment, see State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112,

    ¶48. Wisconsin's current CCW statute is very broad. It is essentially a strict
    liability offense.20 The legislature has not authorized any statutory defenses
    or exceptions (other than peace officers) to the broad prohibition found in the
    statute. As presently construed, the statute prohibits any person, except a
    peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the
    circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in
    Article I, Section 25.
    In addition, the statute reaches unloaded firearms as
    well as loaded ones, see Wis.Stat.§939.22(10) (defining a "dangerous weapon"
    under the CCW statute), and applies to any weapon within a individual's reach,
    see Asfoor, 75 Wis.2dat 433-34, if the person knows the weapon is present.


    From Cole:

    ¶28 Having laid out the appropriate standards for our analysis, we move now to application of the test. We face the same task many other state courts have already taken on——to determine whether, in balancing the authority of the state to enact legislation for the health, safety and welfare of the public as implemented here through the CCW statute against the right to bear arms, the legislature has gone too far and unreasonably impinged the constitutional right to bear arms. See, e.g., Dano v. Collins, 802 P.2d 1021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (concluding that the prohibition of concealed weapons does not frustrate that state's constitutional right to bear arms). We conclude that the CCW statute is a reasonable regulation on the time, place, and manner in which the right to bear arms may be exercised. It does not unreasonably infringe upon a citizen's ability to exercise the right.


Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •