Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 82

Thread: ICarry to push for Constitution Carry (no permit aka Vermont style) in Wisconsin?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
    Posts
    243

    Post imported post

    DISCLAIMER BY OP: Read carefully - this has been proposed and is not yet decided yet. But it looks good. Also, this is my thread so do NOT turn it into a permit vs. no permit discussion. Please respect that.

    I've proposed to the ICarry board for ICarry to start laying the groundwork for vermont-style carry aka Constitution Carry next year for Wisconsin. Nothing will happen with the current governor in the way of legislation, but next year I think we have a real chance.

    It will be much simpler from a legal standpoint to simply remove the prohibitions on concealed carry. Wisconsin already has open carry. All we need to do is remove the prohibitions against concealed carry, and fix the vehicle and Gun Free School Zones problem. The lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Carry is already underway to take care of the GFSZ.

    It would be much more difficult to come up with a whole permit system, new paperwork, fees, red tape, bureaucrats, lots of $$$, etc to do a permit system. Wisconsin is in a very good position to go to Constitution Carry in my opinion. It's very worth the try for people to be able to carry according to their preference, what suits them best, what is most comfortable and most safe for them without having to ASK FOR PERMISSION FROM GOVERNMENT.

    It is RIGHT to carry, not PRIVILEGE to carry. I think we should treat it as such. This is why I've proposed to the ICarry board to support this initiative. I will let everyone know what is decided.


    Assuming this proposal passes and we decide to actively take this initiative for Constitution Carry in Wisconsin, who would be a volunteer to help us by doing some actual work?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I very much agree with you on this. This is the position I have taken from the very beginning.

    No Compromise OCW/CCW non-permitted system. It is the only way too go and it will take far less effort by way of legislation to get there.

    It would simply involve abolishing some of the unconstitutional laws instead of encating new ones.

    By the way what do you mean by work?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Work is what you are paid for doing regardless of anything.

    Play is what you pay to do.

    SAK, ShaunKranish From ICarry.org, wrote:
    Also, this is my thread so do NOT turn it into a permit vs. no permit discussion. Please respect that.
    deleted personal attack. ETA much later after getting an earful from SLimbaugh - "If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking." Supposedly General George Patton said it but not in print.

  4. #4
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Sounds good in theory. I think the expected SCOTUS ruling will play heavily in any future legislation or reduction there of. I think that there must be some way to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. How to do that without hampering those that are not would be the big question.



    I also would like to know what work would require volunteers?
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    Sounds good in theory.* I think the expected SCOTUS ruling will play heavily in any future legislation or reduction there of.** I think that there must be some way to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.* How to do that without hampering those that are not would be the big question.

    *

    I also would like to know what work would require volunteers?
    What laws will you pass that criminals will follow? Criminals don't follow the current laws as it is. Violent criminals should stay in prison. Guns or not they are still violent.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
    Posts
    243

    Post imported post

    Pushing for vermont-style carry would require a campaign. A unified message that can be repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated until everyone has heard it. So, we would need messengers. The campaign would start right away.

    Distributing info, posting on the Internet, putting up fliers, etc.


    If ICarry decides to go this route, which I'm hoping we do and your support will help decide that, then our work is definitely cut out for us. We will run this campaign to win. With the open carry movement so well established, I do believe we could pull it off. Just gotta get everyone on board with putting out the SAME identical message.

  7. #7
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    junkie wrote:
    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    Sounds good in theory. I think the expected SCOTUS ruling will play heavily in any future legislation or reduction there of. I think that there must be some way to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. How to do that without hampering those that are not would be the big question.



    I also would like to know what work would require volunteers?
    What laws will you pass that criminals will follow? Criminals don't follow the current laws as it is. Violent criminals should stay in prison. Guns or not they are still violent.
    Sorry that you didnt understand my post. There should be some regulations that will prevent ex-cons (of violent crimes, I dont think that a white collarcon should forfeittheir right if the crime was non-violent) andthe mentally unstable from carrying firearms.

    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  8. #8
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    SAK wrote:
    DISCLAIMER BY OP: Read carefully - this has been proposed and is not yet decided yet. But it looks good. Also, this is my thread so do NOT turn it into a permit vs. no permit discussion. Please respect that.

    I've proposed to the ICarry board for ICarry to start laying the groundwork for vermont-style carry aka Constitution Carry next year for Wisconsin. Nothing will happen with the current governor in the way of legislation, but next year I think we have a real chance.

    It will be much simpler from a legal standpoint to simply remove the prohibitions on concealed carry. Wisconsin already has open carry. All we need to do is remove the prohibitions against concealed carry, and fix the vehicle and Gun Free School Zones problem. The lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Carry is already underway to take care of the GFSZ.

    It would be much more difficult to come up with a whole permit system, new paperwork, fees, red tape, bureaucrats, lots of $$$, etc to do a permit system. Wisconsin is in a very good position to go to Constitution Carry in my opinion. It's very worth the try for people to be able to carry according to their preference, what suits them best, what is most comfortable and most safe for them without having to ASK FOR PERMISSION FROM GOVERNMENT.

    It is RIGHT to carry, not PRIVILEGE to carry. I think we should treat it as such. This is why I've proposed to the ICarry board to support this initiative. I will let everyone know what is decided.


    Assuming this proposal passes and we decide to actively take this initiative for Constitution Carry in Wisconsin, who would be a volunteer to help us by doing some actual work?
    Let me know what you come up with. I would be happy to go door-to-door around the metro Milwaukee area.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925

    Post imported post

    I can get behind this 100%. This is Constitutional carry and the law of the land, the Constitution (Law), authorizes it. We have allowed liberals and activist judges (making statutes against) to shred the Constitution but it still stands. We just have to take it back.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    were in, as individuals, and as a corp. if need be.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Your proposal sounds reasonable and I'd be behind it. Let's just think about some other rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in particular, the right to vote. We should be able to OC/CC with little restriction and no fees/test/certification.

    Who would stand for a poll test/permit? Would you stand for taking a test before voting?

    I'd be willing to volunteer depending on what is needed.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    Aye. Thee of questioned faith that would wish for a gentle wind to stir the becalmed sea, only to see it arrive in the shape of a storm that sank the ship.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Captain Nemo wrote:
    Aye. Thee of questioned faith that would wish for a gentle wind to stir the becalmed sea, only to see it arrive in the shape of a storm that sank the ship.
    WTF you talking about Doug?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    I could possibly put some time in if/when needed.

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    SAK,

    I think this would be fairly easy to push for...since your Supreme Court has stated as much, depending on where and what the person is doing. You also have a district court opinion, allowing a "Pizza" delivery driver to carry concealed.

    Without a doubt, you guys have some great info to push, from your judicial branch!
    Good luck!!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chetek, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    183

    Post imported post

    Im on board


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    p@p-f:

    I am not Doug. I am no one. It simply means "be careful what you wish for". Or if this is more to your understanding, "you can't eat a large steak in one bite".

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Denmark, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    My complements to the Captain.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    In working to liberalize South Carolina's gun laws, we spoke in terms of "eating an elephant in one bite."

  20. #20
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Captain Nemo wrote:
    p@p-f:

    I am not Doug. I am no one. It simply means "be careful what you wish for". Or if this is more to your understanding, "you can't eat a large steak in one bite".
    Sometimes when you get what you wish for, you live happily ever after....
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    Captain Nemo wrote:
    p@p-f: I am not Doug. I am no one. It simply means "be careful what you wish for". Or if this is more to your understanding, "you can't eat a large steak in one bite".
    Sometimes when you get what you wish for, you live happily ever after....
    Sometimes when you get what you wish for, others do not live happily ever after.

    Or, as noted above, deleted personal attack. "If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking."

  22. #22
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    Captain Nemo wrote:
    p@p-f: I am not Doug. I am no one. It simply means "be careful what you wish for". Or if this is more to your understanding, "you can't eat a large steak in one bite".
    Sometimes when you get what you wish for, you live happily ever after....
    Sometimes when you get what you wish for, others do not live happily ever after.

    Or, as noted above, deleted personal attack. "If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking."
    You can not make everyone happy, so why try. As long as I am happy that is all that matters to me.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    How kind and generous is the pursuit of happiness.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shawn wrote:
    SAK,

    I think this would be fairly easy to push for...since your Supreme Court has stated as much, depending on where and what the person is doing. You also have a district court opinion, allowing a "Pizza" delivery driver to carry concealed.

    Without a doubt, you guys have some great info to push, from your judicial branch!
    Good luck!!
    I agree and much like BNH has stated before it is as simple as repealing a few statutes that are unconstitutional anyway.

    We definately need to get a campaign going on this. Maybe start with a petition to repeal these statutes. Like the GFSZ and transportation petition.

    Even if it means going door to door in every town. Let's get this going.

    If the Right to bear arms was confirmed and added to our state constitution by a vote of the people then why can't the abolishment of these statutes be done they same way?

    Isn't it a matter of getting it on the ballot? Or would that be a referendum?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post imported post

    Let me try to explain. Fifth grade was the happiest three years of my life.

    In my view Wisconsin's Right to Keep and Bear Arms amendmant is the shortest, to the point, no nonsense, least ambiguous RKBA constitutional rightin all ofthe 44 states that have such an amendment. As various cases wind their way through the legal system it will eventually trump existing restrictions. Italready has weakened the concealed weapon statute via Hamdan.

    SAK is correct when he implies that the only impediments to a "Vermont" style firearm carry provision in Wisconsin are: GFSZ carry, Carry in Goverment buildings, Unauthorized carry in taverns,open carry in vehichles and the prohibiton of concealed carry. He is incorrect in one point. We don't want a Vermont style carry. We want a Wisconsin style carry. A Wisconsin style that says we have the unrestricted constitutional right to carry firearms in any manner and any place for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

    How can that happen? It can happen by prioritizing the issues and then attacking them one at a time until we accomplish our objective(s). Atacking them with all the energy and resourses we can muster. I have my idea of an order of priority. It is based on the gravity of the penalties and inconvienience to our mission. They are:

    1. GFSZ. A felony charge and the one restriction that, geographically, is most threatening to our RKBA. The GFSZ statute is by far our most daunting challenge. It has extreme criminal penalty and is geographically the most restrictive to our RKBA. Currently WCI has a pending court casechallenging the constitutionality of the GFSZ law. That case as well as the McDonald v Chicago case, awaiting opinion by SCOTUS, are pivitol to our RKBA. If both of these challenges are successful our cause is immensly benifitted. Even though the wheels of justice turn excrutinately slow we should not "stir up the waters", so to speak, until those cases are decided.

    2. Open carry in vehicles. Forfieture penalty andinconvienient. Also caught in the conflict with the concealed carry restriction. There is growing support in the state legislature that the statute restricting open carry of firearms in or on vehicles should be changed. Our campaign should be to influence the language to our benefit. Also the state court system has acknowledged that under certain circumstances a constitutional onflict between 941.23 and 167.31 does exist.

    3. Prohibition of concealed carry. A Class A misdemeanor with serious financial and criminal consequences. There is indication that even the SSC is confused as to the constitutionality of 941.23 under the breadth of Article I section 25. Even though the SSC said that the legislature made 941.23 a strict liability statute with no exception, the SSC did make an exception in state v. Hamdan. There are at least two justices on the SSC that say 941.23 is unconstitutional.Another justice is "on the fence". We only need one more on our side. There is also rumor that the State is trying to avoid another SSC opinion on CCW. Fearing that the 941.23 will be found unconstitutional. Rumor also has it that most CCW charges are being plea bargained away in order to prevent a higher court contest. I feel 941.23 is only onecourt challenge from being found unconstitutional.

    Some may question why I list this low on my priority list. I had considered listing it last. Of all the statute restrictions it is the least infringing on our RKBA. It only restricts the manner in which we carry. It does not restrict our right to carry. It is already confirmedby theWisconsin AG that we have the constitutional right to "open carry" firearms.

    4. Handguns in taverns. Misdemeanor, ambiguousand confusing. Long guns are already allowed unless posted. We can campaign to have language changed to allow handguns in taverns unless otherwise restricted by notice. The statute was enacted in interest of public safety but it is ridiculous to allow a person to walk into a tavern and place a shotgun on the bar but disallow the open carry of a handgun.

    5. Firearms in public buildings. This restriction will probably never be repealed in total. We can campaign to have it more clearly and specifically defined. i.e. which public buildings? court houses, law enforcement buildings, safe houses etc.

    In theory I don't disagree with SAK's proposal. I only think that instead of a "carte blanche"approach we should be more sytematic and have a definite "plan of action". It is apparent that momentum is now on our side. In that accord I present my 2cents worth.

    As surely as the sand flows through the hourglass. So do the growth of our objectives.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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