Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Concealed carry debate continues at state level - River Falls Journal

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Concealed carry debate continues at state level - River Falls Journal

    http://www.riverfallsjournal.com/eve...icle/id/95613/

    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.

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest
    good post doug! ray of sunshine on my day!

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

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest
    vote for me baby, i'm your only hope; governor bender!

  5. #5
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194
    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?

  6. #6
    McX
    Guest
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by CUOfficer View Post
    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?

    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member goforlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    201
    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

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by CUOfficer View Post
    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?
    Do you want more government or less?
    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.

    Stand Strong!

    Carry On and Constitutional Carry Always!

  10. #10
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Do you want more government or less?
    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?

    I didn't say that we shouldn't have it. I was questioning the feasibility and whether or not people would apply for a permit if that was the only way it was passed.

    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.

    Stand Strong!

    Carry On and Constitutional Carry Always!
    Gleanson, I didn't say that we shouldn't have it. I was questioning the feasibility and whether or not people would apply for a permit if that was the only way it was passed. I support the Constitutional carry but I am realistic. To think that Wisconsin will go from not allowing concealed carry to allowing it without a permit is a bit of a stretch for me. Lucky for me, we are allowed to have different opinions on the situation.

    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!

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

  12. #12
    Regular Member CUOfficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    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 agree that it should be our choice. If my 100lb girlfriend can conceal a Ruger LCP I am sure that they can find a way to make it happen. If they are trying to conceal a full-size 1911 then maybe it's time for a weapon change. Just my .02. Appreciate the spirited argument that didn't result in name-calling!!

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by CUOfficer View Post
    I agree that it should be our choice. If my 100lb girlfriend can conceal a Ruger LCP I am sure that they can find a way to make it happen. If they are trying to conceal a full-size 1911 then maybe it's time for a weapon change. Just my .02. Appreciate the spirited argument that didn't result in name-calling!!
    No need for name calling. In fact this is something many people should think about. Should you have to trade in your firearm in order to have one you can conceal? Not so sure that wouldn't be an infringement.

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    No need for name calling. In fact this is something many people should think about. Should you have to trade in your firearm in order to have one you can conceal? Not so sure that wouldn't be an infringement.
    In a beautiful, perfect world, I would buy a XD Subcompact 9mm for my CC gun and then have a big ol' .45 on my hip OC. This would allow for a surprise to a 'gentleman' like the guy that 'borrowed' a fellow oc'ers gun in Milwaukee the other week.

  15. #15
    bhancock
    Guest
    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dousman, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    101
    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...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2
    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?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by chauktaw View Post
    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?
    Why? Its called government and they need their pound of flesh before we can exercise our rights. In a perfect world we would have small government and low taxes but as you know we are trending toward a European-style socialism in the USA.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Why? Its called government and they need their pound of flesh before we can exercise our rights.
    Don't forget the NRA, WI-FARCE, AAFCI, WI-Pat 'til ya puke, all standing around this forum with their hands out.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Don't forget the NRA, WI-FARCE, AAFCI, WI-Pat 'til ya puke, all standing around this forum with their hands out.
    Only a pea-brain would compare the needs of legitimate organizations receiving voluntary contributions with burdensome taxation and permit/license fees.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Beat Down

    Quote Originally Posted by OCglock1988 View Post
    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...
    Actually it has changed his way of thinking. he now rides in an armored car, has 50 bodyguards armed with SAW weapons and that is good for him. For us lowly peons.. well you get the picture We do not deserve to have preservation of life only the elite are allowed such an item....

  23. #23
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Only a pea-brain would compare the needs of legitimate organizations receiving voluntary contributions with burdensome taxation and permit/license fees.
    I believe 'pea brain' was implying that if there is mandatory training, some states use phrases such as 'NRA approved training' so these 'volunteer' groups benefit by not having Constitutional Carry.

    I believe Doug is many things, I believe his brain is not the size of a pea.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by chauktaw View Post
    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?
    Thank you Chauktaw!

    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)

  25. #25
    McX
    Guest
    well put nutczak!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •