good post doug! ray of sunshine on my day!
Both sides of the concealed weapons debate seem to agree that the U.S. Supreme Courtís ruling last week does not change Wisconsinís law against concealed carry. The justices said local-and-state governments cannot interfere with a personís Second Amendment right to bear arms. But the court also upheld laws that forbid weapons in ďsensitive placesĒ like schools. And it did not throw out laws that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from having guns.
Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox made waves last week when he said he would not prosecute the concealed carry ban and other gun laws, saying the courtís ruling made them unconstitutional. But Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort said the ruling is so narrow, it will have no impact at all.
At least some supporters of concealed weapons agree. Outgoing Senate Republican Alan Lasee (luh-sayí) of De Pere said it comes down to who wins this fallís state elections. He said concealed carry will pass if Republicans win the governorís office and the Legislature. GOP candidates Scott Walker and Mark Neumann both say theyíd allow permits for concealed weapons. Democrat Tom Barrett has opposed it.
good post doug! ray of sunshine on my day!
Yeah, both Walker and Nueman support a larger bureaucracy here in Wisconsin. More permits, more fees, more money being sucked out of the tax payers pockets. More control, control, control.
How about the Republican candidates man up and abide by the Republican platform as it is now written?
That platform supports constitutional carry and the funny thing is I haven't heard either one of the GOP candidates publicly say they support Constitutional Carry at all. Either they do or they don't, which is it? Neither will get my vote until they let us know.
vote for me baby, i'm your only hope; governor bender!
I hate to say it, but if we have to have a permit system to get concealed carry then is it really that big of a deal? How many of you already hold permits from other states anyway? I know I took the time to get them. So for those of you who only want Constitutional carry, will you not apply for a permit if that is the only way?
api wire service; hours after being sworn in governor bender looted the governor's mansion, selling the furnishings on ebay, and using the cash to buy and distribute guns to non-felon law abiding citizens, saying; here, wear this on your hip. when this reporter approached bender for an interview he was found stripping the governor's limmo, and said; how much you give me for this door and hood? the state ethics committee convened and found the new governor had not violated eithics rules, but also found all their seats had been removed from the chamber.
Depends on a few things:
1. Will getting a CC permit allow me to carry more places?
2. Will OC be affected? I do not want an either/or system.
3. How much?
4. What 'training' will be required?
Before anyone asks, yes, I am basically saying I'd rather have a permitted CC with additional benefits than no CC at all.
However, I am FIGHTING for Constitutional Carry with either a free or low cost permit available for reciprocity purposes.
As a side note, no I do not have any states CC permit.
What Paul said. Like Alaska. Constitutional Carry with either a free or low cost permit available for reciprocity purposes. That is what I WANT!
Yes, I will accept a permit system if it DOES NOT make CC without a permit a felony! DOES NOT remove or permit OC!
Wisconsin Carry Inc - Founders Club Member
NRA - Life Member
3rd generation US Air Force Veteran
You know as well as I do that here in Wisconsin the money mongering legislators will never let go of permit fees should they ever get their hands on them. Plain and simple. It will be their next tool to use to help balance the budget. It is all BS.
Under the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions as well as the newly re written GOP platform we are entitled to Constitutional Carry. Why shouldn't we have it? Why should we taxpayers have to go through all of these hoops and legislation that will cost millions just to have something we could have for free in the first place?
Arizona now has it, Vermont and Alaska also. They tried the other way and found it unnecessary. Why can't Wisconsin learn from their mistake and save the taxpayers a lot of money from the start? Why are so many of you stuck with the mind set that things have to go the some old way always and then you sit around and complain that things never change here in Wisconsin?
We can achieve ccw with out a fee'd permit system. Permits are fine for reciprocity only. It is possible. We simply have to fight for it instead of sitting back and saying it will never happen.
We should have the right to decide which way we want to carry and where we carry. Some people do not have the option to conceal carry because of their body shape they may not be able to do so without printing.So they shouldn't be allowed to carry at all? The only reason any of these politicians are considering ccw is because they do not like us OCing and they want it all to go away. By giving us ccw with some ridiculous fees and infringements attached then the guns will be out of sight and out of mind and it will all go away in their eyes.
I can see increasing fees every year. Mandated training with rising costs every year. Registration and the attempt of making OC no longer legal. If we compromise in anyway it only gives them leverage.
Carry On and Constitutional Carry Always!
I agree that we should not sacrifice open-carry to obtain concealed. Your comment about body shape seems irrelivant, as holsters are made for IWB, OWB, ankle, shoulder, in a purse, etc. Hopefully it doesn't come down to a system that you have described with fees, training, etc. Have you ever taken a training course to obtain a permit? I have and I can tell you that 50% of the class would give all of us a bad name.
I applaud everyone's efforts in trying to get this passed. There is an opinion letter in the La Crosse Tribune about the subject today as well. I guess we will see what happens when a new governor is elected!
I know personally some people who are so skinny that they are not able to ccw. They have tried everything and can not do it without printing. Ankle, IWB, OWB, Under the shoulder. It just doesn't work for them. It is very relevant. The only way they can carry is either in a purse or OC.
There shouldn't be any question. It should be our choice.
I would prefer the option of open or concealed as personal preference. I can not conceal my OC firearm very easily and I don't want to be forced to to carry a smaller caliber concealed weapon so I don't print. If I OC somewhere and decide that I would prefer to tuck the gun in an inside pocket for some reason, I want to be able to do that. We need to have the choice to carry either way at any time and to switch back and forth as we see fit given our own particular circumstances, really no matter where we are. The regulations we try to sort through right now are mind boggling, we don't need more rules.
The thing to remember is this. The battle for Constitutional Carry is at the state Senate and Representative level. All this attention is being give to the governors race, however, when the Republican nominee is elected, he will only be able to sign the bill as it is presented to him by the legislature. Even if Barret is elected, if we have enough pro Constitutional Carry legislators, they can override the veto.
So, make sure your potential and current legislators are aware of your stand. Send them the message that we will not be happy with anything less than Constitution Carry.
I'm not saying the Governor isn't important, but what I'm saying is that even if the Governor is pro Constitutional Carry, he can do nothing without a bill being passed 1st.
i really thought that the beating that tom barrett took at state fair awhile back would have changed his attitude about the right we all deserve to defend ourselves. but you cant fix stupid...
Under the first Amendment, you have the right to free speech, you do not need a permit for that no matter how idiotic you speech is. Under the fourth amendment, you do not have to get a permit to be secure in your persons, houses, papers or effects. Under the thirteenth amendment you do not have to get a permit that absolves you from being a slave or involuntarily servitude if you have not been convicted of a crime. Can someone please explain to me why I should have to pay a fee to exercise my second amendment to carry as how I see fit for the situation?
I believe Doug is many things, I believe his brain is not the size of a pea.
That was my argument and point too.
You people that are willing to settle for a permitting system seem to forget that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in the foundation of this once great nation.
Permits to gain permission to exercise a right? :They can all bit my shiny metal ass" (Bender, circa 2002)
well put nutczak!