• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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, [sub]deleted personal attack.[/sub] "If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking."
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
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, [suB]deleted personal attack.[/suB] "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.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

i'll take alaska style, hell i'll take arizona style, just give me something in my lifetime, and a small order of fries with it:)
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
How kind and generous is the pursuit of happiness.

You cant tell me that if given the choice of your own personal well being or that of a stranger you wouldchoose that of the other. It is human nature to take the larger slice of the chocolate cake. In this particular case, if we do win this battle and gain the freedom embodied in the second amendment those that want all guns outlawed will be unhappy. Should that affect my effort to gain what I want? Not in my perspective.
 

SAK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
259
Location
ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
imported post

We would actually save the legislature a lot of time and money by simply removing bad prohibitions - which are unconstitutional to boot - and allowing those carrying weapons to do so responsibly in the manner they choose in regards to visibility. Visibility changes nothing - it's just a personal preference and what works best for the person BEARING the arm.

Every state in the nation is working to expand carry rights. One by one may issue are turning shall issue, and shall issue are turning Constitution carry.

Public Message #1: Wisconsin should opt to be ahead of the curve and adopt Constitution Carry because it works great and will save the legislature, courts, and overall the state a lot of money.

Public Message #2: People can and do, and will continue to do so even more, carry openly WITHOUT A PERMIT. This has caused no problems, people have done it responsibly, and it has helped deter crime. Those people open carrying should be able to decide if it's more comfortable or suitable for them to wear under the clothes. Visibility means nothing - Constitution Carry allows those carrying to choose the best and safest method for them.

Public Message #3: The Wisconsin State Constitution guarantees the right to carry guns for all lawful and responsible purposes. This means a law-abiding people in Wisconsin can carry the way they want - open OR concealed. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon visibility.

Public Message #4: Wisconsin will not give up open carry without a permit. We will exercise this more and more and push harder and harder until Constitution Carry - allowing us to decide upon whether clothes are under or over a firearm - is respected by law. If you install a permit system, open carry will continue to grow and push for Constitution Carry. Don't waste our time, don't waste our energy, don't waste the states time and money.

Public Message #5: Adopting Constitution Carry and allowing law-abiding adults to carry concealed just like they carry openly now will have the greatest possible reduction in crime. Criminals will now have to worry who is and who is not able to defend themselves. If you want to combat crime, punish those who victimize people and keep them in prison - stop letting them out. The rights of law-abiding people are not dependent upon the actions of criminals.

I just whipped those up, but that's an example. The shorter and more concise we can make these the better. Now we need to work out some "terms." I like Right to Carry and I like Constitution Carry. We should also use the word "transition" and "visibility" as much as possible. Transition to Right to Carry or Transition to Constitution Carry.

This argument should be centered around the fact that the visibility of a pistol should not be a matter of law. Responsible people should be able to carry and choose for themselves on the visibility of their pistol.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

the problem is it always comes with a loop-hole, a trade; we'll give you no permit cc, but kiss goodbye oc. or permits are cheap, but your still permitted, the part where it says shall not be infringed. the guys that wrote that knew the problems would come, so they wrote it! now it's down to a court to decide the constitution?! it was decided when it was wrote!
this is our year, let them know from every pro-organization in america how we want it. we the people it once said.

ps; i heard it said to me the other day, how contractor's in another state all carry open, like it was just another day, and to the public it's just another day.
 

SAK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
259
Location
ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
imported post

We won't be supporting any trades, any concessions. We won't give up an inch, no matter how "small" it may seem. We are no-compromise, and our beliefs would not allow us to give up any freedom. The progress we make will have to be made the hard way - work.

Open carry litter pickups and food drives and blood drives, etc is fun work in my opinion :)
 

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
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
I'm in. It's time to unite and stand up for our rights.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
imported post

SAK wrote:
We won't be supporting any trades, any concessions.  We won't give up an inch, no matter how "small" it may seem.  We are no-compromise, and our beliefs would not allow us to give up any freedom.  The progress we make will have to be made the hard way - work.

So what does that mean when a shall issue bill comes up before the Wisconsin legislature that in no way infringes upon the current right to carry, doesn't create any new penalties for CC, but provides a permit system to expand the opportunities to carry for those who would like to CC. Do you support that bill or is that "giving up an inch" or do you come against that bill because its a "compromise" to constitution carry and you are proclaiming to be "no-compromise"

Also, this is my thread so do NOT turn it into a permit vs. no permit discussion. Please respect that.

Please don't take my question as a "disrespect to your thread" but I think its a valid question and I'm interested to hear your response.

edited to add another question.

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.

Given that so many states have a permit-system in place and for reciprocity purposes, a permit may be required to carry in other states, what would you say to a wisconsin resident who wants to be able to carry in other 'permit' states? "tough luck" we are no compromise? You'll have to get a non-resident permit from another state to carry when you travel?

I guess my point is that its easy to come on the internet and talk tough about being "no compromise" and not giving up and inch, but I think the issue is much more complex than that and once you get beyond the bravado, what then?
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

This is not my thread, not my state, and probably none of my business but I feel compelled to respond since what happens in one state tends to happen in others. That certainly includes Iowa.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
SAK wrote:
We won't be supporting any trades, any concessions.  We won't give up an inch, no matter how "small" it may seem.  We are no-compromise, and our beliefs would not allow us to give up any freedom.  The progress we make will have to be made the hard way - work.

So what does that mean when a shall issue bill comes up before the Wisconsin legislature that in no way infringes upon the current right to carry, doesn't create any new penalties for CC, but provides a permit system to expand the opportunities to carry for those who would like to CC. Do you support that bill or is that "giving up an inch" or do you come against that bill because its a "compromise" to constitution carry and you are proclaiming to be "no-compromise"

There is no such thing as a shall issue bill that does not infringe on the right to self defense. No sane adult should require the permission of any government to carry a tool of self defense whether that be openly or concealed.

A permitting system that has no penalties for noncompliance is not a permitting system. The only reason for a permit is to show proof of permission.

Also, this is my thread so do NOT turn it into a permit vs. no permit discussion. Please respect that.

Please don't take my question as a "disrespect to your thread" but I think its a valid question and I'm interested to hear your response

edited to add another question.

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.

Given that so many states have a permit-system in place and for reciprocity purposes, a permit may be required to carry in other states, what would you say to a wisconsin resident who wants to be able to carry in other 'permit' states? "tough luck" we are no compromise? You'll have to get a non-resident permit from another state to carry when you travel?

There are numerous problems with creating a permit for reciprocity in other states. One is the Wisconsin legislature will be tasked with the impossible, to please everyone everywhere. Some states require training, some require fingerprints, some do not. What is the goal of the permit? How much should it cost? Will this be treated as a revenue source or as more of a service to the public?

Another concern is mission creep. The state might just decide that this permit to carry a concealed weapon might serve a purpose within the state. Such as, oh, I don't know... perhaps the ability to carry a concealed weapon.

Until every state recognizes our right to self defense people will have to navigate the minefield of gun laws. The creation of a Wisconsin permit for concealed weapons does not simplify the minefield, it can only complicate it. It's only my opinion but it's best to not even consider a permit to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin.

I guess my point is that its easy to come on the internet and talk tough about being "no compromise" and not giving up and inch, but I think the issue is much more complex than that and once you get beyond the bravado, what then?

Once you get beyond the bravado and the tough talk it comes down to this, you have the constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm openly. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting those same protections for concealed carry in law.

Even a permit for concealed carry only for the purposes of recognition in other states is a minefield of compromises. You could get a permit that is recognized in 40 states and costs $200 to obtain, after training and fingerprints, etc. You could get a permit good in only 15 states for $50. Which do you want? It's best to not even try to please all the people, all the time.

We compromised in Iowa on our Permit to Carry reform and we now have a permit that requires retraining every five years. This was supposedly to encourage other states to recognize the Iowa permit. Now we have a very expensive permit for those that have no interest in traveling to states that require training for the exercise of the right to self defense. That is so it is convenient for the few that don't want to be bothered to get a permit from Minnesota, Utah, or Florida.
 

SAK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
259
Location
ShaunKranish from ICarry.org, ,
imported post

First off, let me say that my request to not get into a debate was only to keep discussion organized. Threads tend to go off on tangents away from the OP. I welcome discussion on this and will read it, just want to stay kinda to-the-point.

Our stance is to support new ways to exercise rights, even if that means having a stupid permit. Anything with a permit/license is a privilege, so I do not confuse that with a right. But the RIGHT to carry - how you want - is still there. If a permit system comes to allow you to avoid getting arrested for exercising that right, then it's better than where we're at. So yes, we would support a permit system.

However, we're going to push for a no-permit system so that the right can fully be recognized. We don't believe non-criminals should be punished for carrying a gun. Simple.

The tough part is next year, when a permit system appears imminent, and we're also pushing for a no-permit system. Well, that's a dance we will all join in together. The more people who open carry and the more people who unite under a shared message to push for a no-permit system, the more likely it is we'll get it.


It's going to be a fun one - I'm really looking forward to it!!!
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
How kind and generous is the pursuit of happiness.

You cant tell me that if given the choice of your own personal well being or that of a stranger you wouldchoose that of the other. It is human nature to take the larger slice of the chocolate cake. In this particular case, if we do win this battle and gain the freedom embodied in the second amendment those that want all guns outlawed will be unhappy. Should that affect my effort to gain what I want? Not in my perspective.
How ever to reach our objective we must all work together. That means standing together and not as individuals.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
imported post

So... What can we do TODAY?

In an ideal world, are the parts of the law that we want changed/repealed? If so we can start by making sensible arguments to our elected officials.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
....


I guess my point is that its easy to come on the internet and talk tough about being "no compromise" and not giving up and inch, but I think the issue is much more complex than that and once you get beyond the bravado, what then?
Gee Nick, it almost sounds like you are right on the edge of trying to sow division and dissension. I'll be plain spoken with you; this is no time to start a turf war. Sak has a good idea but the details need to be worked out. If this just morphs into one member undermining another then it will be "business as usual" on this forum.

Why not man up and get behind him? The power of both organizations could be formidable.

Dave Grandeffo
 
Top