Still have not seen a reply......

imported post

Sent to both Scott Walker and Mark Neuman to hear their stand on these issues

It is time for most Wisconsin residents to begin to examine our choices for Governor and I have spent some time researching your stand on many issues. I am seriously considering voting for you in the election this fall. I spend much of my time out-of doors during the warmer time of year and am an avid hunter and a proud supporter of our 2A rights. It seems that others would like to steal these rights from us so I have a few questions in that area for you. Although I have several questions on where you may stand on these issues, I have 4 specific questionsthat I’d like to hear your intentions onif you become Governor.



1. Will you support and help strengthen the current “Open Carry” of handguns that exists today?

2. Will you help reduce or remove the 1000’ “Gun Free School Zone” for Law abiding "Open Carrying citizens" to make it so many of us are able to go for a walk in our own neighborhoods?

If you are not aware, there 100’s of miles of Wisconsin neighborhoods where several schools (and their property lines) make it impossible to “walk the dog” so-to-speak without crossing intothe 1000'GFSZ.

3. Will you support Licensed Concealed Carry handgun permitting in Wisconsin?

4. Will you work to dismantle and rebuild the DNR, to make it what it was meant to be, (Protecting our Natural Resources) instead the overbearing league ofthugs that it has become?



Thank you in advance for your reply.

Wonder if I'll even get a reply?

imported post

I spoke to Scott Walkers press secretary a few months back. Mr Walkers position is less than positive on open carry.

He did tell me the he would/will sign a CCW if it comes across his desk.


If Wisconsin Carry Inc. were to send the questions I would expect a response. I'm not so sure aboutan individual.

imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:

I spoke to Scott Walkers press secretary a few months back. Mr Walkers position is less than positive on open carry.

He did tell me the he would/will sign a CCW if it comes across his desk.


If Wisconsin Carry Inc. were to send the questions I would expect a response. I'm not so sure aboutan individual.

Click to expand...

I am getting the same "feeling" from Mr. Walker. It looks like he would pass just about any CCW bill that crosses his desk, but I fear that he will do this at the loss of our OC rights. He has sent our members (and me) a letter telling us that he supports the 2A, but never any word on OC... To make matters worse, it also looks like Neuman is holding about the same stance. I think both would be more open about this, but I bet both fear being labeled a "gun nut" (don't want to piss off all the liberals in Milwaukee and Madison)...

All this in mind, I agree. It would be a good idea for WI-Carry to send out a few letters asking about all this. If the questions were ever answered, it sure would help me with my vote...

imported post

OK, lets say that WCI poses the questions to the candidates and you get the same answers.

Then What?

Vote for them anyways?

imported post

Unless they know the issues, we cant expect them to be supportive of them.

The gubernatorial candidates need to know that um-teen thousands people support open carry, and that one should not be coveted over the other. Once they know its an issue, then we can discuss the options.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

OK, lets say that WCI poses the questions to the candidates and you get the same answers.

Then What?

Vote for them anyways?

Click to expand...

Before I get into a deep theoretical debate here It Depends on the answers...
(if I get any at all)


Barrett is not even running, as far as I'm concerned, (NOT AN OPTION)so that leaves one of these 2, as unfortunately, I don't think your preferred candidate is going to make it past the primary (nothing personal, just don't think he has enough "Name Recognition" or $$ to beat the other 2.)

So what if we don't like their answers, are you "Not going to vote? " or maybe we should all write-in someone?

It's the history of our state, hell even our nation, that the politicians that do end up running are only voted in because they are "The Lesser of 2 evils" rather than the "Best Man/Woman for the Job"

imported post

I have already personally spoken with Scott Walker's chief of staff regarding open-carry. I point blank asked him if Scott Walker would sacrifice open-carry as we have it now for concealed carry. His response (without my even suggesting it) was "that doesn't makes sense to sacrifice a right for a privilege" Our conversation continued about Wisconsin Carry, what we are doing, and what we would like to see in the future.

I suspect if I were to speak to Mark Neumann's staff, he would answer the same.

Of course as we all know, the governor doesn't write legislation, he either signs or veto's it.

What that means is that it won't be up to Scott or Mark what comes to their desk but they will have to make a decision to sign what's there.

I can tell you that there are FAR FAR more people who just want "conceal carry" than those like us who enjoy (and understand) the virtues of open-carry.

Our next governor will be in a very tough position if a CC bill gets to his desk that were to include language that would make OC illegal or something. If he veto's it, lots of pro-gun citizens who have been desperately longing for CC for years will be furious. The gun-rights crowd will be fractured down the middle. It won't be good.

So before we all get caught up in the potential thousand different hypotheticals that could possibly end up on Scott or Mark's desk and try to get carte blanche answers NOW from either of them about what they would or wouldn't sign, DO NOT lose sight of the critical importance of the state-house races. Your state senators and state reps are the ones who will be DRAFTING, INTRODUCING, DEBATING, AMENDING, and VOTING on EXACTLY what language in a CC bill ends up on our next governor's desk.

Its THOSE races that will determine what kind of CC bill we have in the next administration, not the governor's race my friends.

The governor is not a legislator, he's an executive. How are your legislators going to vote? What will your legislators introduce? If you don't know the answers to these questions, looking to the governor's office as the determining factor of what kind of CC bill we have is not your wisest move.

Trust me... The language of a CC bill will be hashed out in the legislature. If after the next election, the legislature is still controlled by the same people that controll it now, WE WILL see a CC bill LADEN with poison pills.

If we (collectively) don't take CLOSE stock in our local representative and senate races the state legislature WILL fracture the gun rights crowd right down the middle just like what happened with PPA with a heavily restrictive CC bill.

All this banter about Walker or Neumann is a distraction about where the battle will be fought... In the legislature.

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

I have already personally spoken with Scott Walker's chief of staff regarding open-carry. I point blank asked him if Scott Walker would sacrifice open-carry as we have it now for concealed carry. His response (without my even suggesting it) was "that doesn't makes sense to sacrifice a right for a privilege" Our conversation continued about Wisconsin Carry, what we are doing, and what we would like to see in the future.

I suspect if I were to speak to Mark Neumann's staff, he would answer the same.

Of course as we all know, the governor doesn't write legislation, he either signs or veto's it.

What that means is that it won't be up to Scott or Mark what comes to their desk but they will have to make a decision to sign what's there.

I can tell you that there are FAR FAR more people who just want "conceal carry" than those like us who enjoy (and understand) the virtues of open-carry.

Our next governor will be in a very tough position if a CC bill gets to his desk that were to include language that would make OC illegal or something. If he veto's it, lots of pro-gun citizens who have been desperately longing for CC for years will be furious. The gun-rights crowd will be fractured down the middle. It won't be good.

So before we all get caught up in the potential thousand different hypotheticals that could possibly end up on Scott or Mark's desk and try to get carte blanche answers NOW from either of them about what they would or wouldn't sign, DO NOT lose sight of the critical importance of the state-house races. Your state senators and state reps are the ones who will be DRAFTING, INTRODUCING, DEBATING, AMENDING, and VOTING on EXACTLY what language in a CC bill ends up on our next governor's desk.

Its THOSE races that will determine what kind of CC bill we have in the next administration, not the governor's race my friends.

The governor is not a legislator, he's an executive. How are your legislators going to vote? What will your legislators introduce? If you don't know the answers to these questions, looking to the governor's office as the determining factor of what kind of CC bill we have is not your wisest move.

Trust me... The language of a CC bill will be hashed out in the legislature. If after the next election, the legislature is still controlled by the same people that controll it now, WE WILL see a CC bill LADEN with poison pills.

If we (collectively) don't take CLOSE stock in our local representative and senate races the state legislature WILL fracture the gun rights crowd right down the middle just like what happened with PPA with a heavily restrictive CC bill.

All this banter about Walker or Neumann is a distraction about where the battle will be fought... In the legislature.

Click to expand...

Wow, that was a good post.

Thanks, it does bring me "back into the light" a bit.

imported post

AaronS wrote:

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

So before we all get caught up in the potential thousand different hypotheticals that could possibly end up on Scott or Mark's desk and try to get carte blanche answers NOW from either of them about what they would or wouldn't sign, DO NOT lose sight of the critical importance of the state-house races. Your state senators and state reps are the ones who will be DRAFTING, INTRODUCING, DEBATING, AMENDING, and VOTING on EXACTLY what language in a CC bill ends up on our next governor's desk.

Its THOSE races that will determine what kind of CC bill we have in the next administration, not the governor's race my friends.

Trust me... The language of a CC bill will be hashed out in the legislature. If after the next election, the legislature is still controlled by the same people that control it now, WE WILL see a CC bill LADEN with poison pills.

If we (collectively) don't take CLOSE stock in our local representative and senate races the state legislature WILL fracture the gun rights crowd right down the middle just like what happened with PPA with a heavily restrictive CC bill.

Click to expand...

Wow, that was a good post.

Thanks, it does bring me "back into the light" a bit.

Click to expand...

+ 1 Spend time & spend money to support legislative candidates that support our rights. A blue dogDem - a rarety in Wis - is always a good alternative toa rich Repub:quirky

imported post

"Isuspect if I were to speak to Mark Neumann's staff, he would answer the same.

Of course as we all know, the governor doesn't write legislation, he either signs or veto's it."



LOL! doyle does as he pleases and rewrites law so why not the new govenor then we would have OC and CC !:celebrate:celebrate

imported post

DBL post sorry!

imported post

so the crickets are still chirping in the answers received dept?

imported post

I'm suprissed someone hasn't challanged the inability to carry concealedin Wisconsin by submitting an action in federal court, I don't know if the carrying of a handgun concealed is a right garenteed by the US constitution and the Wisconsin constitution, but, I would think there would be a good argument with allowing open carry if there hasn't been already, by allowing open carry in Wisconsin but not concealed carry. If one would challange itI would think the below argument in federal court would have merrit.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN




John Doe

Plaintiff Civil Action No,:

COMPLAINT


VERSUS

GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN Mag. Judge
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants



Plaintiff, _____________________, by way of complaint against the Defendants, says:


INTRODUCTION

1. This action concerns the State of Wisconsin unlawful limit of the right of individuals to carry a weapon under a garment.


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This is a civil action seeking relief to defend and protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, _______________________, who resides in the state of Wisconsin


4. Defendant _______________Governor of the State of Wisconsin and __________________the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Wisconsin.

5. Defendant __________________is the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin and its Chief Law Enforcement Officer.

FACTS

6. In the State of Wisconsin, any citizen of the State may carry a handgun which is visible and not concealed without any license, permit, submission of a photograph, fingerprinting, fees, training or other impediments or prerequisites.

7. The Wisconsin Constitution in Artcle ____________states: “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”

8. Article ________________the Wisconsin Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.”

9. Article ________________ of the Wisconsin Constitution states, in part: “No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws...”

10. Article ________________of the Wisconsin Constitution states, in part: “Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy.”

11. Article ______________of the Wisconsin Constitution states: “ The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not deny or disparage other rights retained by the individual citizens of the state.”


12. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

13. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

14. Plaintiff cannot apply for a concealed carry permit, Plaintiff believes that Wisconsin’s inability to enact a law to allow concealed carry provisions violate his and the citizens of Wisconsin the rights under the Constitutions of the United States and Wisconsin, and has filed the within complaint to vindicate this position.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 14 as though they were set forth fully and at length herein.


16. The Second Amendment, made applicable to the states through selective incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of Plaintiff to bear arms on his person which includes the concealed carrying of handguns.


17. The lack of the Wisconsin Legislature to enact a statutory authority bars the plaintiff's constitutional right to carry a weapon on his person concealed represents an infringement of his and all citizens rights as well as their rights under Section ______________the Wisconsin Constitution.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:


2. Issue a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff and citizens of Wisconsin have a constitutional right to be allowed to carry a concealed gun absent changing any of the current constitutional right currently enjoyed by its citizens which currently allows the open carry of handguns. Disallowing one group to carry a gun concealed but, at the same time, allowing another group to carry openly violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution whereby all citizens should be allowed to carry a firearm either concealed or openly.



RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,



Plaintiff

imported post

After posting the last, I read this, would be nice if Wisconsin took the same stand and allowed concealed carry without requirments.



PHOENIX – The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

The legislation, approved by the House 36-19 without discussion, would make it legal for most U.S. citizens 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required. Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the measure, said last week that he added changes requested by Gov. Jan Brewer's office, an indication that she is likely to sign it. The governor can sign or veto the measure, or allow it to become law without action.

If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons. Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states — Illinois and Wisconsin — prohibit them altogether.

Supporters say gun restrictions only affect people who want to follow the rules because criminals will carry hidden guns regardless of the law. Nearly all adults can carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and they shouldn't face additional restrictions when they want to hide the weapon, supporters argue.

"What's dangerous is when they're in criminals' hands, not citizens' hands," said Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, a bill sponsor.

Opponents argue legalizing concealed weapons will make it easier for criminals to carry them, endangering police. They also worry the bill would lead to more accidental gun discharges by people not adequately trained in firearm safety.

"We wouldn't give people driver's licenses without requiring training or testing. Why would we give people the ability to carry a concealed weapon anywhere?" said Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson.

There are more than 154,000 active concealed weapon permits in Arizona.

Under the measure, Arizonans would still be subject to the background checks federal law requires when buying firearms from a store. People carrying a concealed weapon would be required to tell a police officer if asked, and the officer could temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the gun carrier.

Under the legislation, permits still could be obtained on an optional basis so Arizonans could carry concealed weapons in states with reciprocity agreements. Permits also would be required to carry weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

With the elevation of Brewer to the governor's office, Arizona gun-rights advocates have had a wave of success over the past two years.

The state in 2009 loosened its gun laws to lift a ban on guns in establishments that serve alcohol, although gun-bearers still cannot drink alcohol and establishments can ban firearms.

Brewer, a Republican who took office in January 2009, signed that measure into law. Her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, vetoed several measures pushed by gun-rights supporters before resigning to run the U.S. Homeland Security Department.

On Monday, Brewer signed two bills loosening gun restrictions. One bill broadened the state's current restrictions on local governments' ability to regulate or tax guns and ammunition.

The other bill declares that guns manufactured entirely in Arizona are exempt from federal oversight and are not subject to federal laws restricting the sale of firearms or requiring them to be registered.

imported post

Excellent post Nik. Sure wish I had said that. Substitute the word congress for legislature and president for governor and you have the same situation at the federal level. Other than knowing which side of the gun rights fence the Governor or President stand and the probability of them signing gun right legisilation, their value to us is limited. It is the membership of the legislature and congress, the bodies that make the laws, that matter most. Year after year, election after election we blame all our social woes on one person,at both the state leveland the federal level. We overhaul those top offices hoping the new so called "boss" can magically fix all that is wrong with society. We then continue to elect and re-elect, ad infinitum, the incompetents that are most responsible for the problems in the first place. It is the Legislature and Congress that needs an overhaul if we are to make significant progress in our gun rights. Remember that when you go to the polls.

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

I have already personally spoken with Scott Walker's chief of staff regarding open-carry. I point blank asked him if Scott Walker would sacrifice open-carry as we have it now for concealed carry. His response (without my even suggesting it) was "that doesn't makes sense to sacrifice a right for a privilege" Our conversation continued about Wisconsin Carry, what we are doing, and what we would like to see in the future.

I suspect if I were to speak to Mark Neumann's staff, he would answer the same.

Of course as we all know, the governor doesn't write legislation, he either signs or veto's it.

What that means is that it won't be up to Scott or Mark what comes to their desk but they will have to make a decision to sign what's there.

I can tell you that there are FAR FAR more people who just want "conceal carry" than those like us who enjoy (and understand) the virtues of open-carry.

Our next governor will be in a very tough position if a CC bill gets to his desk that were to include language that would make OC illegal or something. If he veto's it, lots of pro-gun citizens who have been desperately longing for CC for years will be furious. The gun-rights crowd will be fractured down the middle. It won't be good.

So before we all get caught up in the potential thousand different hypotheticals that could possibly end up on Scott or Mark's desk and try to get carte blanche answers NOW from either of them about what they would or wouldn't sign, DO NOT lose sight of the critical importance of the state-house races. Your state senators and state reps are the ones who will be DRAFTING, INTRODUCING, DEBATING, AMENDING, and VOTING on EXACTLY what language in a CC bill ends up on our next governor's desk.

Its THOSE races that will determine what kind of CC bill we have in the next administration, not the governor's race my friends.

The governor is not a legislator, he's an executive. How are your legislators going to vote? What will your legislators introduce? If you don't know the answers to these questions, looking to the governor's office as the determining factor of what kind of CC bill we have is not your wisest move.

Trust me... The language of a CC bill will be hashed out in the legislature. If after the next election, the legislature is still controlled by the same people that controll it now, WE WILL see a CC bill LADEN with poison pills.

If we (collectively) don't take CLOSE stock in our local representative and senate races the state legislature WILL fracture the gun rights crowd right down the middle just like what happened with PPA with a heavily restrictive CC bill.

All this banter about Walker or Neumann is a distraction about where the battle will be fought... In the legislature.

Click to expand...

Have you spoken to Walker about the GFSZ? It is my understanding that both he and Nuemann are highly in favor of the GFSZ restrictions.

Just curious as to what answers you would get on that question. If you do ask and get an answer ( Which is a big IF) Please share.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Have you spoken to Walker about the GFSZ? It is my understanding that both he and Nuemann are highly in favor of the GFSZ restrictions.

Just curious as to what answers you would get on that question. If you do ask and get an answer ( Which is a big IF) Please share.

Click to expand...

If I do get an answer, I do plan on sharing

imported post

It is my understanding as per my conversation with Mark Todd that he will be dropping out of the Gubernatorial Race.

He also stated to me that in his last conversations with Walker and Nuemann that they both are strongly supportive of the GFSZ.

It is also my understanding that there is a new candidate on the Horizon. He has a website: Paderickforgovernor.com

This guys is a self made millionaire and is not a career politician. It is my understanding that he is very supportive of our cause and is not supportive of the GFSZ. That is what I have been told and I have not had the opportunity to speak with this candidate myself.

From what it says on his website he is open to speaking with anyone on how he stands on the issues.

It is a shame that Todd did not make it through. He would have been our first real chance at changing the gun laws of this state to a No Compromise CCW/OCW non-permitted Carry system. To bad he didn't get the support from the people who claim to be the real grassroots movement in this state.

Oh well that is hindsight now and we can all sit back a year from now and say how we all wish he would have won because we would be past all of the BS by now.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

It is my understanding as per my conversation with Mark Todd that he will be dropping out of the Gubernatorial Race.

He also stated to me that in his last conversations with Walker and Nuemann that they both are strongly supportive of the GFSZ.

It is also my understanding that there is a new candidate on the Horizon. He has a website: Paderickforgovernor.com

This guys is a self made millionaire and is not a career politician. It is my understanding that he is very supportive of our cause and is not supportive of the GFSZ. That is what I have been told and I have not had the opportunity to speak with this candidate myself.

From what it says on his website he is open to speaking with anyone on how he stands on the issues.

It is a shame that Todd did not make it through. He would have been our first real chance at changing the gun laws of this state to a No Compromise CCW/OCW non-permitted Carry system. To bad he didn't get the support from the people who claim to be the real grassroots movement in this state.

Oh well that is hindsight now and we can all sit back a year from now and say how we all wish he would have won because we would be past all of the BS by now.

Click to expand...

To your knowledge, Has Mark Todd ever concidered a run for state senate or state assembly where he can gain name recognition and introduce pro-gun right bills along with voting against anti-gun bills?

imported post

Well I just sent off the same questions to Dave Westlake. Will post his reply as received.