Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: NRA Propaganda

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I just read this article on Opposing Views. The NRA does it again. Completely ignoring Wisconsin's right to carry constitutional amendment and our right to open carry firearms. Instead the NRA is going on National news claiming that Wisconsin like Illinois has no right to carry provision what so ever. Again, as I have said before, the NRA's only interest is concealed carry. It wants to getsome type of concealed weapon provision in all 50 states so it can say to the Brady Bunch "We got'er done". Even though we people, the Governor, the Attorney General and the State Supreme Court says we have the constitutional right to carry visible firearms the NRA refuses to agree.

    The emphasis below is mine.

    NRA: Final 2 States Without Right-to-Carry Gun Laws Will Fall
    Opinion by NRA
    (3 Hours Ago) in Society / Guns
    By Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice-President

    There are only two states in this entire country that don't have some sort of law on the books to allow people to carry handguns for self-defense: Illinois and Wisconsin. Wisconsin's legislature has approved "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry not once but twice, only to have the legislation vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle. But with Governor Doyle term-limited, and Right-to-Carry getting increasing support in Illinois, some anti-gun politicians seem to be concerned that Right-to-Carry is inevitable. That's why they're doing their best to sound reasonable, while instead asking gun owners to accept a poison pill agreement.

    The D.A. and police chief in Milwaukee have stated publicly that they'd support some type of Right-to-Carry law (with details to be ironed out later) as long as other changes to the state's gun laws are made, including making it a felony to engage in a straw purchase, and new restrictions on gun shows in the state.

    The NRA is second to no one in wanting to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, but the NRA can't support new restrictions on lawful firearms owners and retailers at gun shows across the state. Anti-gun politicians trying to save face by offering a "compromise" won't find a receptive audience among NRA members. The gun-banners were wrong to block Right-to-Carry in the legislature, and they're wrong to say their lukewarm support for Right-to-Carry is contingent on new gun-control laws being passed as well.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Be assured that I WILL be bringing this up with the NRA officials this weekend.

    Link to story here: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/nra-f...laws-will-fall


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    Be assured that I WILL be bringing this up with the NRA officials this weekend.

    Link to story here: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/nra-f...laws-will-fall
    Take this to the nra it is the original SB if you like.





  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The first go at the Personal Protection Plan was SB-214.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The first go at the Personal Protection Plan was SB-214.
    yes Sb 214 was but it was not the one that had passed twice and vetoed twice by diamond jim. the 214 was a may issue by county sherriff bill

    ""5. Provides that a person whose application for a license is denied or whose

    license is suspended or revoked by the sheriff may appeal the sheriff’s action to

    circuit court for review by a judge"

    whereas the later bill changed to Shall issue. too bad they want money and we know that is the reasoning for CCW whereas i has originally proposed open carry and changes in the laws for vehicle etc. but they want money so ccw is on the way. i havebeen working to somehow get the fees reduced or at least the training by an nra or approved instructor eliminated as that could potentially cost a couple hundreddollars unless they legislate a very basic course to show we know how to handle a weapon. complicated to say the least. as the nra and other instructors want the tuition money ah well

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2003/data/sb-214.pdf

    Sb-403 was not voted on and vetoed twice. It wasn't even in existance before 2005.

    The first bill SB-214 was passed by the legislature and vetoed by Doyle. The veto override failed by one vote because Rep. Sherman changed his allegiance.

    SB-403 was passed by the legislature in 2006. It too was vetoed by Doyle. The override on Feb 1 2006 failed because two democrat representatives, John Steinbrink and Terry VanAkkeren, changed their comittment to approve.

    It is correct that SB-214 put the responsibility of license approval on the county sheriffs. It required that the sheriffs must issue if the applicant passed all requirements.

    Because the Sheriffs complained that they did not have the resources to administer the shall issue of permits a compromise was made and the responsibility of licensing was assigned to the Department of Justice in SB-403.

    SB-214 was a must issue bill. The following paragraph is from page 2 of the bill.

    "Under the bill, a county sheriff must issue a license to carry a concealed weapon

    to a person who meets the qualifications established in the bill for the license unless

    the county board of the sheriff’s county decides by a two–thirds vote, taken before the

    fourth month after the bill becomes law, to authorize the sheriff not to issue concealed

    weapons licenses. The county board’s vote does not prohibit the sheriff from issuing

    licenses; he or she may still choose to do so. The bill also allows two or more sheriffs

    to enter into cooperative agreements under which the sheriffs may jointly issue"

    The only way the bill would become a may issue is if a county board voted by a two thirds majority, within four months of the bill's signing, to not allow the sheriff to issue concealed weapons licenses.

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    glad i joined wisconsin carry instead of the nra. better bang for my buck, so to speak.

  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    glad i joined wisconsin carry instead of the nra. better bang for my buck, so to speak.
    HOOOORAH!!!!

    I am putting all my energy behind Wisconsin Carry. By the end of this coming summer, Wisconsin Carry will have over 500 Founders Club Members. Combine that with winning the GFSZ lawsuit, Wisconsin Carry will be more than a force to reckon with.

  9. #9
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    how many members total does wisconsincarry have now? were realy going to have to keep the pressure up on our elected officials; they speak of support, but do little else. they whisper of plans in milwaukee, but offer nothing substancial, or what we do hear isn't the idea(s) we hope for. i've got a bad feeling it will come down to a soft win, riddled with rules and exceptions, or the office seekers will ride into power on our support, only to go quiet once they get in there, citing other more pressing burdens than rights, like the economy, that draw all their attention and efforts.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    November 2003 Doyle Vetoed SB 214

    http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journa...9&prid=305

    Jan 06 2006 Doyle vetoed SB 403

    http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=5853



    am i missing something here? looks like he vetoed both bills? i was not focusing on the old SB 214 asthat is history. i AM focused on SB 403 which will be slightly changed and after the election ( if we get a good guy in) a new revamped SB --- will be voted on. I can only hope milwaukee media does not get to strengthen the wording as they want. Personally i would prefer Alaska carry but we all know the state of Wisconsin wants to nickle and dime us into poverty..



    also a response from Herb Kohl to my email on the UN TREATY highlited area is mine...

    Dear Mr. my name here:


    Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA). I appreciate hearing from you.


    CIFTA was adopted by the Organization of the American States in 1997 to prevent and stop the illegal traffic of firearms at the international level and entered into force on July 1, 1998. The treaty established that the parties must establish criminal offences under their domestic law against illicit manufacturing and trafficking if they had not already done so. Treaties must be agreed to in the Senate before they are ratified. President Obama has stated he will seek the ratification of CIFTA but has not yet submitted the treaty to the Foreign Relations Committee.


    I agree that the right of law abiding Americans to own a gun should be protected. However, laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns are reasonable and effective ways to reduce violent crime in our communities. In the past, the Senate has considered a variety of gun safety measures. I carefully evaluate each of these proposals, and I only support gun control legislation that corresponds to two important principles. First, I do not believe we should deprive law abiding gun owners, particularly hunters and target shooters, of their Second Amendment rights. Second, I only support proposals that I believe will unquestionably make our communities safer.



    Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this treaty. Again, thank you for contacting me.




    Sincerely,


    Herb Kohl
    United States Senator




    so when i read this hunters and target shooters are ok so he is on the anti-gun for normal carry and protection ?






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

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    November 2003 Doyle Vetoed SB 214

    http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journa...9&prid=305

    Jan 06 2006 Doyle vetoed SB 403

    http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=5853



    am i missing something here? looks like he vetoed both bills? i was not focusing on the old SB 214 asthat is history. i AM focused on SB 403 which will be slightly changed and after the election ( if we get a good guy in) a new revamped SB --- will be voted on. I can only hope milwaukee media does not get to strengthen the wording as they want. Personally i would prefer Alaska carry but we all know the state of Wisconsin wants to nickle and dime us into poverty..



    also a response from Herb Kohl to my email on the UN TREATY highlited area is mine...

    Dear Mr. my name here:


    Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA). I appreciate hearing from you.


    CIFTA was adopted by the Organization of the American States in 1997 to prevent and stop the illegal traffic of firearms at the international level and entered into force on July 1, 1998. The treaty established that the parties must establish criminal offences under their domestic law against illicit manufacturing and trafficking if they had not already done so. Treaties must be agreed to in the Senate before they are ratified. President Obama has stated he will seek the ratification of CIFTA but has not yet submitted the treaty to the Foreign Relations Committee.


    I agree that the right of law abiding Americans to own a gun should be protected. However, laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns are reasonable and effective ways to reduce violent crime in our communities. In the past, the Senate has considered a variety of gun safety measures. I carefully evaluate each of these proposals, and I only support gun control legislation that corresponds to two important principles. First, I do not believe we should deprive law abiding gun owners, particularly hunters and target shooters, of their Second Amendment rights. Second, I only support proposals that I believe will unquestionably make our communities safer.



    Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this treaty. Again, thank you for contacting me.




    Sincerely,


    Herb Kohl
    United States Senator




    so when i read this hunters and target shooters are ok so he is on the anti-gun for normal carry and protection ?




    That's the way I read it as well. He is as bad as Walker when it comes to talking around corners. He doesn't want to come out and say how he really feels but will only say enough to possibly get your support at election time. It really pisses me off!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    There are only two states in this entire country that don't have some sort of law on the books to allow people to carry handguns for self-defense: Illinois and Wisconsin.
    There is nothing factually wrong with the NRA's statement. In Wisconsin, as in many other states, there are no laws addressing the open carry of firearms. Laws only prohibit, they don't allow - exceptions to the prohibitions allow.

    Since open carry in Wisconsin is not illegal, it is, by default, legal. The law is silent on such.

  13. #13
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    November 2003 Doyle Vetoed SB 214

    http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journa...9&prid=305

    Jan 06 2006 Doyle vetoed SB 403

    http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=5853



    am i missing something here? looks like he vetoed both bills?
    Yes he vetoed twice. If my memory is correct, the first veto override was stifled by unscrupulous actions from Senator and soon to be convicted felon Chuck Chvala. The second veto withstood an override due to a couple democrats who had initially voted for the bill changing their support during the override--- undoubtedly due to arm-twisting by Gov. Jim Doyle, a/k/a "Rod Blagojevich's character witness." Both truly dark and dirty moments in Wisconsin politics.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    There is nothing factually wrong with the NRA's statement. In Wisconsin, as in many other states, there are no laws addressing the open carry of firearms. Laws only prohibit, they don't allow - exceptions to the prohibitions allow.

    Since open carry in Wisconsin is not illegal, it is, by default, legal. The law is silent on such.
    Only if you overlook Article I, Section 25 which IS the highest law of the state:

    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

    It seems the law is not so silent after all.


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    so when i read this hunters and target shooters are ok so he is on the anti-gun for normal carry and protection ?
    Why not write to Kohl for an explanation of where he stands on people carrying for their own personal security and defense?

    The last time I wrote to Sen. Kohl, his staff replied with the wrong boiler plate letter on a topic that was completely irrelevant to the issue I had written to him about--- and after I pointed out their error I received no further reply.
    Great followup to a constituent, eh?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

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

    Post imported post

    Personally, I am glad he vetoed the bills. He did us a favor. They were both compromises.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Only if you overlook Article I, Section 25 which IS the highest law of the state: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." It seems the law is not so silent after all.
    I understand where you're coming from, but the State Constitution is not a published law - it is a mandate for published laws. Many laws passed by State Legislatures ignore this mandate, hence no concealed carry permitted in Wisconsin (for now). When charged with an offense, a specific statute is cited, not some constitutional Article or Section.

    As written, their statement is correct. It's misleading, but it's correct.

    Here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (we're not a State), the law is silent on open carry. But, we have the benefit of at least two Supreme Court rulings clearly stating that open carry is legal statewide, plus, due to a massive letter-writing campaign (reinforced by two federal lawsuits pending), annual training for police officers statewide now includes specific mention that open carry is legal.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post



    The following excerpts are from State v. Hamdan (2003). There is no numbered statute that says you maycarry firearms for personal defense but there is constitutional law that says you may. If push comes to shove constitutional law trumps state statutes. The following paragraphs from Hamdan stongly support the state Supreme Court and the Department of Justice opinion that people carrying open firearms for peronal protection is protected by law. The NRA be damned.

    ¶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.

    p72 ------The State argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the CCW statute, a person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open--holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall,32 or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view

    ¶84. Because we determine that Hamdan prevails on both of these issues, we
    conclude that he had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the lawful
    purpose of security at the time he carried-----



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post


    Shotgun. "Why not write to Kohl for an explanation of where he stands on people carrying for their own personal security and defense?"

    The last time I wrote to Sen. Kohl, his staff replied with the wrong boiler plate letter on a topic that was completely irrelevant to the issue I had written to him about--- and after I pointed out their error I received no further reply.
    Great followup to a constituent, eh?
    .



    You got that right, i had one ofthose and i persisted all the way including calling his aids abd it was a clerical oversight. I stated i wanted a real response from him not aflunkya week later i got the vorrect boilerplate letter. I am absolutley going to write for clarification on his hunting and target comments as that is exavtly how it strated in Canada. All are crooks just have to guess who is the lesser of the two

    i am always emailing them not only on 2A rights but also on many other items.

    This particular treay with the UN if signed .. passed.. or shoved up our (_|_) will absolutley SHRED our Constitution and the associated rights. I am suprised that there is not a lot of outrage on this treaty. Problem is that the sheep are being taken to the slaughterhouse and have not clue. Mainstream media will not even talk about this.

    This Treaty is real. The UN wants a unified world. sheesh

  20. #20
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    BerettaFS92Custom wrote:
    This particular treay with the UN if signed .. passed.. or shoved up our (_|_) will absolutley SHRED our Constitution and the associated rights. I am suprised that there is not a lot of outrage on this treaty. Problem is that the sheep are being taken to the slaughterhouse and have not clue. Mainstream media will not even talk about this.

    This Treaty is real. The UN wants a unified world. sheesh
    It's not so bad when you think about it in a Sci-Fi perspective where New World Order/One World Government gets trasnlated into Federation Earth.

    If sheep knew they were going to slaughter will still be going to slaughter going BAHHH BAHHHH the whole way. There is no way to stop it. EXCEPT to bring the cooperate elite giants to their knees with EVERYONEliving on what they can sow and harvest for themselves. Every time we spend a dollar, we feed the machine that enslaves us.

    Now this kind of talk detracts away from the accomplishable agenda of OCDO.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    BrokenSprocket, i agree i am at peace now. but i will still ask herbie kohl his true feelings on his semi anti gun statemnet he emailed





Posting Permissions

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