Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: A no compromise ocw/ccw non-permitted system for Wisconsin

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/D...he%20Answer%3F

    Transcribed from the column "2nd Amendment" in the October, 1996, issue of Guns & Ammo Concealed-Carry Laws are Not the Answer (Some Gun Owners Believe that Permit Systems Play into the Hands of the Antis). by Ed Moats

    "The most effective means of fighting crime in the United states is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." So said Janet Reno at a 1991 B'nai B'rith meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Reno was then the chief prosecutor of Dade County, Florida. Today she is the attorney general of the United States and her doctrine of civilian disarmament is official federal crime control policy.

    For the United States government, fighting crime means rendering civilians completely defenseless. And federal constitutional doctrine is that there is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding whatever the Constitution itself might have to say on the subject.

    Why then has the United States Justice Department remained silent as state after state has passed statutes allowing concealed-carry permits (CCPs)? Today 31 states have "shall issue" concealed-carry laws, requiring the issuance of a CCP to any citizen who pays the fee and is not disqualified (felon, mental health, drug or alcohol commitment, etc.).

    We can understand this federal silence as a clever application of the technique for cooking frogs. Question: How do you cook a frog? Answer: Very slowly.

    If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water the frog will leap out. But if you gently place the frog in a pan of cool water and slowly raise the temperature, the frog will be too cooked to leap by the time he realizes he's in trouble. Question: "How do you steal the liberties of a free people?" Answer: "The same way you cook a frog: very slowly."

    This is the socialist doctrine of gradualism, employed successfully by socialists since World War II to erode the liberties of America s citizens. The feds tolerate the explosion of state concealed-carry laws because they know these concealed-carry laws are gradually creating a culture that will facilitate the confiscation of all firearms.

    "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps," says the Scripture, accurately describing the simple among us who imprudently celebrate the liberalization of concealed-carry laws. As ignorant as lambs bleating their way to slaughter is the pitiful glee of gun owners rejoicing that their state is going to allow permits for concealed carry.

    Concealed-carry permits are the deadly enemy not the friend of the right to keep and bear arms. Everyone who purchases a permit plays into the hands of the gun confiscators, who are patiently biding their time until the moment is ripe. A gun owner who buys a concealed-weapon permit steps into six traps: Confusing the distinction between "Concealed Carry" and "Carry."

    In many states the CCP is required to carry a handgun at all, concealed or not. And some require the CCP to carry any firearm, even long guns, except to the hunt or the firing range. Soon a CCP will be required to take your grandfather's .22 to the dump to shoot rats. Ultimately in my opinion, a CCP will be required to possess any firearm anywhere outside your own home.

    Paying for a Constitutional Right.

    Every gun owner who buys a CCP helps establish the principle that the government may charge a fee for constitutional rights. If a CCP is $50, what shall it be for a free speech permit, or a permit granting protection from unreasonable searches and seizures? We all long ago acquiesced to buying government permission to build a house or operate a motor vehicle. Shall we now place constitutional rights in the same category?

    Turning a Right into a Privilege.

    Similarly, everyone who obtains a CCP assents to the proposition that bearing arms is a privilege, not a right. There is an infinite gulf between these two concepts. A privilege is granted at the state s discretion, revocable at its will (or whim). A right is vested in an individual, not subject to the grace of the state. What is done by state license is a privilege, not a right. A CCP law is itself an infringement of the constitutional right to bear arms.

    Camouflaged Registration.

    Everyone buying a CCP registers himself as a gun owner. Registration is the necessary antecedent to confiscation. Confiscators don t need to have the firearms registered. What they really need is to have the owners registered. Concealed-weapon permits do exactly that.

    When the time comes, confiscators will know whose house to search. Ominously, the March 1996 issue of Guns & Ammo reports a secret federal gun registration scheme in Pittsburgh that uses a computer program to generate a map of the city with the homes of legal firearm owners circled. The data for this map will come partly from concealed-carry permits.

    Any data source that identifies gun owners will serve the confiscators purpose. On a recent visit to a gun store in Seattle, I was told by the owner that he had recently received a call from the BATF inquiring whether he kept records on his sales of gun safes. To the storekeeper's "why?" the BATFman replied "Well, we figure where there's gun safes, there's guns." This should be no surprise.

    Gun owners enthusiasm for concealed-carry laws has been misplaced from the beginning. CCP laws are camouflaged registration laws, registering owners, which is even worse than registering guns. This is the reason some states require a CCP to carry a handgun at all, even if not concealed. The purpose is not to liberalize firearms possession for the law-abiding, but rather to get owners of firearms registered for the day of confiscation. [Editor's Note: In point of fact, "registration" already exists on the federal level whenever a gun buyer completes a Form 4473.]

    Misplaced Faith in Lawmakers.

    The fifth trap is thinking that lawmakers who create the concealed- carry laws are motivated by support for the constitutional right to bear arms. If they were, they would not create the complex concealed-carry machinery, complete with application forms, fees, waiting periods, record checks, required concealment, mandatory training, renewal fees, etc. That complex machinery is irrelevant to any legitimate purpose. All that is needed to support the constitutional right to bear arms and protect the public is a simple statute making it a crime for the disqualified (felons, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc.) to carry a firearm.

    Nothing further is required or helpful.

    Proponents may claim concealed-carry laws allow the law-abiding to pack heat while restricting firearms from the disqualified. No thinking person can be fooled by this patent canard. Denying criminals concealed-weapon permits does not deny them concealed weapons.

    Such laws only affect the law-abiding. Concealed-carry laws only restrict weapons from those law-abiding citizens who are unable or unwilling to pay the fee. The criminals are unaffected. No law can keep guns from gremlins.

    Hence this vital question: What is the difference between a concealed-carry statute and a statute declaring it a felony for a felon to possess a firearm?

    To the felon there is no difference at all. But the law-abiding person must register and pay a fee.

    Thus, the net practical effect of a concealed-carry statute is to 1) compile a registration list of gun owners, 2) establish that bearing arms is a privilege, not a right, and 3) extract a fee for this privilege. Solidifying Bias against Open Carry. Most concealed-carry laws permit only concealed carry. That is, they disallow open carry.

    These laws thus further cement the current cultural bias against open carry. Yet open carry is the direction we must move if we're going to actually stop the crime wave in this country. It has been noted that "An armed society is a polite society." True, but incompletely stated. An armed society will be a polite one only if everyone knows it is armed. Concealed weapons won t induce politeness.

    Someone rejoins "Under concealed-carry laws, you'll be polite to everyone, because you won't know who is armed." I reply: You don't know now who is armed! All the infamous public massacres of recent times the Long Island Railroad, the Killeen, Texas, Luby s Cafeteria are characterized by one critical fact: The killer believed that he would be the only one there armed. Concealed carry won t change that. Open carry will.

    Gun Owners Come Out of the Closet.

    Consider this: If you carry a weapon concealed, just who are you concealing it from? Not the vermin: You want them to know you're armed. Then you're less likely to have to use your weapon. You are concealing the weapon from the police and from the public who might call the police. In our unfortunate mindset, it is socially unacceptable for the peaceable to be armed. Because of this attitude armed crime is ubiquitous.

    But let the citizen carry his arms openly, and this mindset and the crime it promotes will rapidly reverse. If our lawmakers were truly interested in curbing crime they would mandate that every qualified adult man and woman carry a firearm, long or short, concealed or open.

    Instead, lawmakers are creating camouflaged registration laws, while mouthing fidelity to the Second Amendment. To counter this, gun owners should come out of the closet. In every jurisdiction where it is still legal, gun owners should carry their weapons openly. The public will at first be shocked, but will soon applaud it as violent crime skids to a halt.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I think that I agree with everything in the ripped article - except your title. What does the article have to do with "A no compromise ocw/ccw non-permitted system for Wisconsin"?

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

    Post imported post

    The fact that the people should be allowed either option at their own will.

    IMHO open carry is more effective in crime prevention.

    However there are some who would feel more comfortable at a church service while CCW and this is only one example there are many more and I am sure we all have our own as well.

    Therefore, to have a no-compromise system there would be no infringement for anyone and there would be no tyrannic paper trail for the Feds to track and stalk law abiding citizens simply because they own a fire arm.

    This article explains these traps we could fall into with a CCW permitted system or even a permitted system period whether CCW or OC.

    We should not compromise. any compromise on this issue is a loss IMHO.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellsworth, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    So I take it you are suggesting a Vermont or Alaska style permit? I like the idea a bunch but I'm not sure it could be done here any more than MN. I would be willing to settle for something similar to NH or PA for a CCW permit and no permit requirement for open carry. I could live with a training requirement for CC but would like it to focus on the legal responsibilities more than anything else as that seems the area most will err and that could have the most serious repercussions if everything went all pear shaped while carrying.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    So I take it you are suggesting a Vermont or Alaska style permit? I like the idea a bunch but I'm not sure it could be done here any more than MN.
    Lets look at it this way, There is no way in hell our current governor will ever allow us concealed-carry. He has already shown it will never happen. He leaned on some people and even got them to change their vote so his veto wouldn't be overridden

    In the art of negotiation, you shoot for the moon! you go way beyond what would make you happy. That way when the haggling begins, it makes your opponent think you are compromising and they are more willing to work with you.

    If we simply said, "We want Concealed carry privileges, we are willing to pay to get a permit, pay for mandatory training, and pay to renew this permit every few years" Where does that leave us for having a bargaining chip, they say no, what can we offer at that point to get them to compromise? Nothing!

    There is a commercial for dairy queen right now, it is about girl scout cookies and some conglomeration of them in a shake, The DQ lips says he wants 2 boxes of cookies, the little girls says "2Million?" and the lips answers "no, only 1-million" and the girl says "Ok, 1-million boxes and runs off to get them".
    She shot for the moon, the other side compromised and she stillmet her originalgoal.The above analogyis an over-simplified way of explaining,but I am sure you get my idea.

    Using that analogy, My/Our goal is for us carry any way you can without needingpermits or training as long as you are legal to own a firearm.
    I'll let you figure out the rest



  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    So I take it you are suggesting a Vermont or Alaska style permit? I like the idea a bunch but I'm not sure it could be done here any more than MN.
    Lets look at it this way, There is no way in hell our current governor will ever allow us concealed-carry. He has already shown it will never happen. He leaned on some people and even got them to change their vote so his veto wouldn't be overridden
    Our Current Governor isn't running in 2010. Therefore, those that supported his ideologies may no longer support them.

    When I say no compromise, I mean no compromise, It is our right and we should not bargain away our rights for any reason.

    No offense but, Don't feed the sheeple! VT/AK is possible! Never say never!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    No Compromise!! I completely agree. I see our current situation as an opportunity to get things right.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason, All,

    Please see this post. This solution (a COT "Certificate of Training") may be the "no compromise" you're looking for, while not giving the opposition an opportunity to form a legitimate argument against the proposal.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/30445.html

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

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    J.Gleason, All,

    Please see this post. This solution (a COT "Certificate of Training") may be the "no compromise" you're looking for, while not giving the opposition an opportunity to form a legitimate argument against the proposal.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/30445.html
    I am not sure this is the answer Statesman. This would seem to support gun owner registration. That is why I argue for a no compromise ccw/ocw non-permitted system.

    The SCOTUS has already remarked that the citizens should not have to be permitted, registered, trained or licensed to exercise their rights.



  10. #10
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    J.Gleason, All,

    Please see this post. This solution (a COT "Certificate of Training") may be the "no compromise" you're looking for, while not giving the opposition an opportunity to form a legitimate argument against the proposal.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/30445.html
    I am not sure this is the answer Statesman. This would seem to support gun owner registration. That is why I argue for a no compromise ccw/ocw non-permitted system.

    The SCOTUS has already remarked that the citizens should not have to be permitted, registered, trained or licensed to exercise their rights.

    Perhaps it is still compromising.

    As far as registration goes, I believe that would depend on the legislation you guys work to create. My idea only addresses the use of a state official signing an affidavit, a statement of fact (not a license), that you have passed a competency test, and are in compliance with the law.

    It's important to get away from the use of licenses, and move the burden to the state court system, to keep someone from carrying concealed. Licenses can be revoked by an administrator, possibly on an arbitrary basis.

    The SCOTUS has already remarked that the citizens should not have to be permitted, registered, trained or licensed to exercise their rights.
    If this is true, shouldn't I be able to conceal carry, unlicensed, get arrested, and have the supreme court argue in my favor, overturning all CCWs in every state?

    In my state (Commonwealth), the regulation of CCW is granted by the KY Constitution. Not sure if this "remark" applies here or not.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Perhaps it is still compromising.

    As far as registration goes, I believe that would depend on the legislation you guys work to create. My idea only addresses the use of a state official signing an affidavit, a statement of fact (not a license), that you have passed a competency test, and are in compliance with the law.

    It's important to get away from the use of licenses, and move the burden to the state court system, to keep someone from carrying concealed. Licenses can be revoked by an administrator, possibly on an arbitrary basis.
    When a person legally purchases a fire arm a back ground check is performed. this should ( In Theory) prove that you are legally eligible to carry a fire arm. Therefore, you would be in compliance with the law.

    Although it is still a form of registration there is no way around that short of a private sale.

    It has already been determined that police can stop and ask for identification with RAS. With that, there is a manner of checks and balances that still allows police to recover fire arms carried illegally by persons not qualified to carry.

    As any police officer or should I say any smart police officer should treat any contacts as though the person they are contacting may be armed, this should be a great tool to keep fire arms out of the hands of felons and others who can not legally carry.

    It is a simple matter of the police doing their jobs properly.

    Just as we are not required to give any information to an officer, why should we have to register or be certified to carry?

    Besides the bureaucratic tyrants will make the conditions of becoming certified so ridiculous that half the people will be denied their rights.

    There really is no other option, other then "no compromise".......ever!

    Molon Labe!

    Carry On!



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Statesman, I understand your point. But I believe the "Certificate of Training" you are speaking of, is in fact the U.S.constitution and my choice to not have been deemed a mentally defective person or a felon.

    I have already met every requirementneeded to keep and bear a firearm by being a US citizen, What difference does it make if you wear it on the outside of your clothing, or hidden from view? What could training possibly cover, maybe not getting your shirt caught on the rear sights?

    The "COT" avenue still has too many ways where our RKBA could be infringed upon. things as "who would do the training?" "how much would this training cost?" I have the ability to defend myself against a criminal if I am wealthy or poor, butRequiring a training course at whatever cost willobviously deny some people their RKBA due to theirfinancial status. It can still be considered an elitist measure in my opinion.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    Perhaps it is still compromising.

    As far as registration goes, I believe that would depend on the legislation you guys work to create. My idea only addresses the use of a state official signing an affidavit, a statement of fact (not a license), that you have passed a competency test, and are in compliance with the law.

    It's important to get away from the use of licenses, and move the burden to the state court system, to keep someone from carrying concealed. Licenses can be revoked by an administrator, possibly on an arbitrary basis.
    When a person legally purchases a fire arm a back ground check is performed. this should ( In Theory) prove that you are legally eligible to carry a fire arm. Therefore, you would be in compliance with the law.

    Although it is still a form of registration there is no way around that short of a private sale.

    It has already been determined that police can stop and ask for identification with RAS. With that, there is a manner of checks and balances that still allows police to recover fire arms carried illegally by persons not qualified to carry.

    As any police officer or should I say any smart police officer should treat any contacts as though the person they are contacting may be armed, this should be a great tool to keep fire arms out of the hands of felons and others who can not legally carry.

    It is a simple matter of the police doing their jobs properly.

    Just as we are not required to give any information to an officer, why should we have to register or be certified to carry?

    Besides the bureaucratic tyrants will make the conditions of becoming certified so ridiculous that half the people will be denied their rights.

    There really is no other option, other then "no compromise".......ever!

    Molon Labe!

    Carry On!

    Good points sir. But what is the plan to win over the masses of people to our side in the mean time? I support "no compromise", but how do we get legislation like that passed?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Statesman, I understand your point. But I believe the "Certificate of Training" you are speaking of, is in fact the U.S.constitution and my choice to not have been deemed a mentally defective person or a felon.

    I have already met every requirementneeded to keep and bear a firearm by being a US citizen, What difference does it make if you wear it on the outside of your clothing, or hidden from view? What could training possibly cover, maybe not getting your shirt caught on the rear sights?

    The "COT" avenue still has too many ways where our RKBA could be infringed upon. things as "who would do the training?" "how much would this training cost?" I have the ability to defend myself against a criminal if I am wealthy or poor, butRequiring a training course at whatever cost willobviously deny some people their RKBA due to theirfinancial status. It can still be considered an elitist measure in my opinion.
    I agree with your assessment. However I think it's a "step" in the right direction, unless you guys can come up with a plan to secure concealed right to carry.

    I concede that my idea of a COT is indeed a compromise. The training issue is the main premise behind CCW licensing, which is really just a reflection of the status of how people view gun ownership (with limits) today. I agree that we shouldn't need government mandated training to bear arms concealed, but a large percentage of the population disagrees.

    I see that Wisconsin has an opportunity to:

    1) Go to a CCW licensing system
    2) Go to a different CCW system
    3) Educate others and bring those with dissenting opinions to our side till we get the legislature to recognize right to carry.
    4) Continue open carrying

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Jim/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/img]This says it all!

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

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Good points sir. But what is the plan to win over the masses of people to our side in the mean time? I support "no compromise", but how do we get legislation like that passed?
    By doing exactly what we are doing. Only in greater numbers!
    We need to show up at city council meetings and argue our point and prove these ridiculous ordinances and statutes are pre-empted.

    We need to open carry at every opportunity, even if it is inconvenient to arm and dis arm because of transportation laws.

    We need to hound the hell out of our representatives and congressional members and let them know that we are not going away.

    We need to get behind a Candidate for Governor and get him into the Governor's Mansion so we can get these laws changed permanently.

    We need to fight as if we are defending our families, because we are!

    We need to never ever compromise and never ever give up!

    We can win if we all fight together. There are probably more people in this state that are in favor of the 2nd Amendment rights then you realize.

    Our strength is our numbers and we out number the tyrants!

    Molon Labe!

    Carry On!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Haha!!I like that t-shirt...where can I get one?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Keep up the fight!

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    It will be interesting to see after the 2010 elections just how many will be willing to compromise.

Posting Permissions

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