Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: What if Wisconsin didn't need a CCDW "license" ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Guys,

    Since your state will be considering concealed carry in the near future, I saw an opportunity to bring up my idea of a COT (Certificate of Training). There's a better way to regulate concealed carry that doesn't involve a license/permit system. I wrote about it extensively on the post below, but i've included an excerpt in this post so you get the idea. The premise of the post, is that, IMHO, a license/permit system does not serve a legitimate function. You'll see why.

    In summary, I believe my idea would be less burdensome for the state government to maintain. CCDW carriers would have due process in court if the state wanted to revoke your right to carry concealed, so the anti's have no basis to argue against it, other than the cost of having someone's rights denied in court. Once you pass the educational part of the requirement, written in the law, you receive a Certificate of Training, and you are therefore competent to carry concealed for life. No license is needed. There is no need for a renewal of licenses, ever, because you have passed the minimum qualifications already.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...ht=unlicensing

    The ideal CCDW? The COT.

    I would support an objective skills/competency "test", which we have in KY. IMHO, a license is not needed, however. In my ideal scenario, if you pass the state minimum test, defined by legislators, you get a COT (Certificate of Training), showing you are in compliance with the law, when concealing. Instead of a license, which is permission from the King, your name is put in a database of people who passed the COT, and the state has a duty to send it to you (but the state may charge a fee for the service). The COT will be the same size as a license is today, along with a mug shot. If you do not pass the test, you have not proven yourself competent, and therefore in violation of the law if you conceal. Those not declared competent could not conceal. I think this COT is a good compromise, since the burden of proof is somewhat shifted to the state, to show someone incompetent, mentally unstable, or criminal.

    In summary, licenses (permission), should be shifted to Certificates of Training, which is a state issued affidavit, swearing upon oath that you have passed the state minimum competency test for CCDW. COTs cannot be revoked by an administrator, but a judge can issue a cease and desist order, demanding that you stop concealing your weapon. Hence, the state has to go to court to deny you your freedoms. Due process prevails.


    For those of you who may not understand, in other words:

    A COT supports your right to carry concealed.

    A license is permission (a revokable privilege) from the state to carry concealed.

    This is a rights versus a privilege issue! A COT is about rights!

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

    Post imported post

    This would work for me. Very good idea.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


    Since your state will be considering concealed carry in the near future,

    a better way to regulate concealed carry
    if you pass the state minimum test, defined by legislators,
    your name is put in a database of people who passed
    a good compromise

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will with wits and guns and the truth.


  4. #4
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Since your state will be considering concealed carry in the near future,

    a better way to regulate concealed carry
    if you pass the state minimum test, defined by legislators,
    your name is put in a database of people who passed
    a good compromise

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will with wits and guns and the truth.
    What did I imply to make us unequal ?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    You mistook my political dot.sig for criticism of a particular point.

    I doubt your initial premise. Please give us a reason to believe 'considering' or 'near'.

    Only a willing tyrant will regulate an enumerated God given Right that "shall not be infringed."

    Your favorite legislator will create a class of his friends and peers and another of everyone else. This is the NRA way, divide and conquer.

    Yet another database.

    Compromise is failure on the installment plan and especially when dealing with intractable opponents.

    This is Open Carry Dot Org.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    You mistook my political dot.sig for criticism of a particular point.

    I doubt your initial premise. Please give us a reason to believe 'considering' or 'near'.

    Only a willing tyrant will regulate an enumerated God given Right that "shall not be infringed."

    Your favorite legislator will create a class of his friends and peers and another of everyone else. This is the NRA way, divide and conquer.

    Yet another database.

    Compromise is failure on the installment plan and especially when dealing with intractable opponents.

    This is Open Carry Dot Org.
    I can give you no good reason. I can only tell you that "I believe" the issue of CCW will be raised at some point, because the people of Wisconsin are taking to OC, which many legislative members would rather not be harassed about by their constituents.

    Unfortunately, our legislatures are full of tryants. While we're working to secure the goal of "shall not be infringed", there are steps along the way we can take to get there. Going from one end of the political spectrum (tyranny) to the other end (liberty) in one fell swoop, is unlikely in the current environment, although I feel as you do.

    Also, it's my understanding that the supreme court has determined that the 2nd Amendment right is not an absolute right, in the sense that we don't allow the mentally insane and the criminal element to have firearms. I'm not arguing against your points, I am asking for your advice.

    Feel free to suggest a database to your legislators, or not. I am only making suggestions. It's your call.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thank you for your suggestions. I am sure that they were made with the best of intentions.

    Unfortunately there is a struggle for gun rights leadership in Wisconsin and your pro-regulated-CCW-training will hearten the NRA like salesmen of our rights.

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

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Thank you for your suggestions. I am sure that they were made with the best of intentions.

    Unfortunately there is a struggle for gun rights leadership in Wisconsin and your pro-regulated-CCW-training will hearten the NRA like salesmen of our rights.
    As far as I am concerned, if the NRA won't support the full right to carry CCW, they should take my idea, and run with it. It needs to be done in all 50 states, to remove the idea of "licensing" rights. I think it's a step in the right direction.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Hmmmm... Isn't what you are speaking of really a license anyway? Whatever you call it, license or certificate of training, it's still permission from the state. I guess I fail to see the difference. Your idea seems to have a better "ring" to it but it seems to me, it's the same old thing with a different spin.

    I've been thinking along these lines for a while too, especially since I wonder how hard a "no compromise" type deal would be for the legislator to swallow.

    When I get into it, I believe that a no compromise system wouldn't necessarily have to mean that there shouldn't be any training or permits. I believe that no compromise means no prior restraint on my rights. After all, we all know that with each right comes a responsibility and it's our responsibility to know how to safely exercise our rights.

    How about this?

    Let's first say that the Certificate of training is not attached to a government database. Let's also say that you could get a COT through a number of means. Showing a permit from another state, showing a completion certificate from another firearms training program, or going through a state training program.

    Anyone can CC without any permit, license or certificate whatsoever but they would be availlable for those who want them.We all know they can be usefull for those states that won't honor you if you don't have one.

    When an LEO finds someone in possession of a CCW he/she asks for the papers. If you don't have a Certificate of Training, in the very least; as long as you are otherwise allowed to have a firearm,the LEO gives you the equivilent of a "fix it" ticket stating you have a grace period within which you should take the training course. If you choose to take the course all is well. You bring your COT to the nearest police station and show it along with your "fix it" ticket to get it expunged. In the alternative, you are fined $50 or other small amount but don't have anything revoked. The $50 goes to pay for the states COT courses.

    I think that what I stated above would be a worthwhile compromise. No prior restraint and tempered with the responsibility that comes with the right. You can choose not to ever get a COT and only risk a small fine, you can choose to get some training and never need to worry about the fine, or you can choose to get a permit and be able to go to other states that require them.

    Anyway, just an idea to float around.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    From a PM,
    I am a training advocate!

    LOADED MUZZLE TRIGGER & TARGET

    There are four elements of common law self-defense. 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in fear of harm. 3) Use sufficient force only to deliver us from evil. 4) Try to withdraw.

    There. You are trained.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Hmmmm... Isn't what you are speaking of really a license anyway? Whatever you call it, license or certificate of training, it's still permission from the state. I guess I fail to see the difference. Your idea seems to have a better "ring" to it but it seems to me, it's the same old thing with a different spin.
    I think it is different, because legally, it would not be a license. Licenses can be revoked. In this case, it's an affidavit, a sworn statement of fact, that you did something to become compliant with the law. You cannot revoke a sworn written statement. Carry would be recognized as legal, as long as you have simply taken a test to meet competency skills.

    If you look at my referenced post, legislators everywhere are creating unrelated restrictions on CCDW licenses, or driving licenses, that say if you do not pay child support, you lose your CCDW "privilege", or if you steal gasoline, you lose your driving "privilege". The inherent problem with the legal framework here, is that we're dealing with a license, which is a revocable privilege. We have to get away from using licenses to dispense actions that used to be freedoms. People begin to learn that every freedom they have is a "privilege" granted to them by the King.

    An affidavit is a sworn statement of fact. If someone (or the state) wants to deny you from carrying concealed, they'll have to take you to court to do so to prove you somehow damaged them. There are prohibitive costs and limited resources involved with this process. I believe this is part of the protection of due process provides, in that it is not arbitrary, and takes some effort to accomplish. They also can't barr you from carrying concealed because you didn't pay child support, like they do in KY.

    As far as being "permission from the state", the restrictions on who may carry concealed it is written into law. Rights are guaranteed by "law", if I remember correctly, but there are still the "reasonable restrictions" on rights. It would be better if such a law were a (state) constitutional amendment.

    As previously mentioned, this is still putting restrictions on what should be a right to carry, at least in our view. You guys have changed my view on that. But, in reality, we have a representative republic, and we do have to compromise with those who wish to limit our rights, but I think it's a compromise in the right direction, towards rights. We can't easily jump towards having a full restoration of rights. Just as our loss of rights took many years, getting them back is a process that will take many years to get back.

    Repealing licensing is a good start, IMHO.

    ----

    Affidavit: a sworn statement in writing made esp. under oath or on affirmation before an authorized magistrate or officer

    Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    License: 1 a : a right or permission granted by a competent authority (as of a government or a business) to engage in some business or occupation, do some act, or engage in some transaction which would be unlawful without such right or permission.

    Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    As far as being "permission from the state", the restrictions on who may carry concealed it is written into law. Rights are guaranteed by "law", if I remember correctly, but there are still the "reasonable restrictions" on rights. It would be better if such a law were a (state) constitutional amendment.

    As previously mentioned, this is still putting restrictions on what should be a right to carry, at least in our view. You guys have changed my view on that. But, in reality, we have a representative republic, and we do have to compromise with those who wish to limit our rights, but I think it's a compromise in the right direction, towards rights. We can't easily jump towards having a full restoration of rights. Just as our loss of rights took many years, getting them back is a process that will take many years to get back.
    IMO, there is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on a right. Substantive due process should be the only way to limit or disable a right. Equally, one should be able to petition to have that right restored. As has been quoted before "What part of 'shall not be infringed'" is so hard to understand? (I'm applying that statement to the government, not you.)

    That being said, there are already consequences for trampling others rights, you have a responsibility not to do that. If you do,in comes due process to save the day. The problem is prior restraint. The Bill of Rights specifically tells the goverment which preexisting rights that they can't touch. "Reasonable restrictions' is a term made up by the courts so that they would deny us our unalienable rights. You can't set limitiations on something that you didn't create (that you didn't turn into a privillege). Since rights predate the government, they have no right to restrict them. Furthermore, who's going to define "reasonable"?

    That's why, in the system I outlined above (using some of your ideas), there is no prior restraint. Let's face it, most of us have training anyway and would qualify right away for a "Certificate of Training" in that example.




    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

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

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    As far as being "permission from the state", the restrictions on who may carry concealed it is written into law. Rights are guaranteed by "law", if I remember correctly, but there are still the "reasonable restrictions" on rights. It would be better if such a law were a (state) constitutional amendment.

    As previously mentioned, this is still putting restrictions on what should be a right to carry, at least in our view. You guys have changed my view on that. But, in reality, we have a representative republic, and we do have to compromise with those who wish to limit our rights, but I think it's a compromise in the right direction, towards rights. We can't easily jump towards having a full restoration of rights. Just as our loss of rights took many years, getting them back is a process that will take many years to get back.
    IMO, there is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on a right. Substantive due process should be the only way to limit or disable a right. Equally, one should be able to petition to have that right restored. As has been quoted before "What part of 'shall not be infringed'" is so hard to understand? (I'm applying that statement to the government, not you.)

    That being said, there are already consequences for trampling others rights, you have a responsibility not to do that. If you do,in comes due process to save the day. The problem is prior restraint. The Bill of Rights specifically tells the goverment which preexisting rights that they can't touch. "Reasonable restrictions' is a term made up by the courts so that they would deny us our unalienable rights. You can't set limitiations on something that you didn't create (that you didn't turn into a privillege). Since rights predate the government, they have no right to restrict them. Furthermore, who's going to define "reasonable"?

    That's why, in the system I outlined above (using some of your ideas), there is no prior restraint. Let's face it, most of us have training anyway and would qualify right away for a "Certificate of Training" in that example.



    Interesting. I read it the first time and it did not make sense to me (over my head I think, I'm slow at times). If there is no prior restraint, what authorizes them to fine you $50? Maybe I am misunderstanding "prior restraint".

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Greetings Everyone. This is my first posting. I have been reading a lot regarding WI open carry. I live in WI and would like a link that takes me to the WI statutes that address "open carry" law.

    If anyone can help on this please do.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    P.A.269 wrote:
    Greetings Everyone. This is my first posting. I have been reading a lot regarding WI open carry. I live in WI and would like a link that takes me to the WI statutes that address "open carry" law.

    If anyone can help on this please do.
    Welcome to the board.


    That would be right next to the purple shirt law (the one which allows you to wear a purple shirt on Wednesdays).

    Open Carry is legal because there simply is no statute which prohibits it.....

    It would be better to start a fresh thread with questions instead of jumping in the middle of a discussion regarding a specific subject which is already in progress. Expecially one which is heated...


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

    Post imported post

    P.A.269 wrote:
    Greetings Everyone. This is my first posting. I have been reading a lot regarding WI open carry. I live in WI and would like a link that takes me to the WI statutes that address "open carry" law.

    If anyone can help on this please do.
    Here is the information I believe you are looking for.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/26774.html

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    * It needs to be done in all 50 states, to remove the idea of "licensing" rights.* I think it's a step in the right direction.
    [/quote]

    Why do you think that those of us in a state that neither requires training or a license should have to go through that process? No thanks, I like things the way they are in Alaska.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    What would stop the government from making it increasingly difficult to pass the test?

    If OC is legal w/o any training, how does a piece of cloth that covers it (shirt) turn me into an individual that needs REQUIRED training?

    What would the training requirements be? Shoot 70% at 15ft? or Shoot good enough to be in the running for an IDPA win?

    I wish EVERY state was "no-issue" (VT style no issue, not IL/WI style no issue).

    But, you guys need to push for VT or AK style. But DON'T reject a permit system.

    Alaska went from NO ISSUE (Concealed ban) in 1993 to NO ISSUE (Concealed allowed) in 2003.

    Get the least amount of restrictions possible, even if a permit is needed, then work on getting the restrictions, and ultimately the permit removed, as they did in Alaska.

    Rand Paul 2016

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    P.A.269 wrote:
    Greetings Everyone. This is my first posting. I have been reading a lot regarding WI open carry. I live in WI and would like a link that takes me to the WI statutes that address "open carry" law.

    If anyone can help on this please do.
    Welcome to the board.


    That would be right next to the purple shirt law (the one which allows you to wear a purple shirt on Wednesdays).

    Open Carry is legal because there simply is no statute which prohibits it.....

    It would be better to start a fresh thread with questions instead of jumping in the middle of a discussion regarding a specific subject which is already in progress. Expecially one which is heated...
    Thank you Interceptor_Knight for the welcome. I apologize for jumping in the way I did but this thread seemed, after review of some others, the right place to ask for the link I need since your discussion is WI focused. That said...I believe that pushing for a law that supports our right to carry (open or concealed) in WI is the first step to carrying unrestricted. I was actively involved in the pursuit of the "Shall issue" laws in MN several years ago when permits to carry were at the sole discrestion of City or Town Chiefs ofPolice and required a "proven need to carry."Such a law gave the City Chiefs outlandish power in deciding who would be able to carry and defend themselves or others. The "proven need" version of the permit to carry system issomething we need to avoid with fervor in the pursuit to write law in this State that assures our right to carry. The "shall issue" law we achieved in MN was a step in the right direction compared to what was there before, but it does fall short of being able to exersise our full rights and responsibility to bear arms as stated in the Constitution of the U.S.

    I do believe that getting legislation passed that demands a "shall issue" permit to carry is better than "ommission of existing law" governing such rights because itgives the citizens of a State the opportunity to prove that a large number of citizens carrying, openly or concealed,does not increase the crime rate, or the danger factor in owning our right to bear arms. Over the course of time, proving same leads us to a better or more obvious place and position to write laws that demand no governance regarding the right to carry.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Thanks J. Gleason for the link...I will check it out.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Interesting. I read it the first time and it did not make sense to me (over my head I think, I'm slow at times). If there is no prior restraint, what authorizes them to fine you $50? Maybe I am misunderstanding "prior restraint".

    Prior restraint generally means that you must get the goverments permission before doing something. For example, we have to have background checks when purchasing a firearm. We don't need to have a background check to exercise free speech, or to be able to exercise our 4th or 5th amendment rights. In the example of the 1st amendment,we don't wear gags and can only speak after getting permission. One certainly can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but there will be later consequences to that action.

    In my example, one can carry without any training whatsoever, with only a small consequence. At that time the person can still choose whether or not to get the training.

    I don't see why something so simple asa hunters safety card couldn't qualify you for the Certificate of training.

    Not ideal, but better than some permit options.

    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    What would stop the government from making it increasingly difficult to pass the test?
    Nothing. However, if they continue making it more difficult to pass the training, they will have lawsuits on their hands to the effect of denying 2nd amendment rights beyond a reasonable amount of testing.

    If OC is legal w/o any training, how does a piece of cloth that covers it (shirt) turn me into an individual that needs REQUIRED training?
    That's been my question all along!

    What would the training requirements be? Shoot 70% at 15ft? or Shoot good enough to be in the running for an IDPA win?
    That's up to the people who propose the bill. If you guys don't start with the right to carry in the first place, which is preferred, I'd suggest everyone get involved and set some reasonable standards. Look around at other state requirements.

    Get the least amount of restrictions possible, even if a permit is needed, then work on getting the restrictions, and ultimately the permit removed, as they did in Alaska.
    Agreed

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    I would accept a training certificate for CC. I don't see what the big deal is. IMHO, any kind of CC is better than our current situation...
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    I would accept a training certificate for CC.
    I don't expect that it will be given away because that is not the NRA way that the AAFCI practices.

Posting Permissions

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