Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: More FALSE propoganda from the NRA

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    More FALSE propoganda from the NRA

    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

    Illinois and Wisconsin have no permit system and prohibit carrying.
    This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. We all know this as most if not all of us carry. As long as the NRA persists in spreading this FALSE garbage, I will continue to call them out on it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18



    This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. We all know this as most if not all of us carry. As long as the NRA persists in spreading this FALSE garbage, I will continue to call them out on it.
    Good for you Sir! Agree 100%

    False garbage and backstabbing endorsements equal no membership from me.

  3. #3
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383
    The best way to call them out on it is to call them and write them. They need to understand that we do have a provision for carrying in Wisconsin and that many of us engage in it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Howey01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Raceland,Ky
    Posts
    9
    It is very clear to me that the NRA has sold out they continue to say they support all gun rights but i am not so sure about that no membership for me anymore too wishy washy

  5. #5
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I used their contact link (bottom of the page) to send them a note telling them that we're here and definitely carrying.

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    If they are listing states that have "no permit" system, then they ought to add Vermont.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    If they are listing states that have "no permit" system, then they ought to add Vermont.
    +1. Or, rather, the fact they do not list Vermont is the exception that proves their error.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18



    This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. We all know this as most if not all of us carry. As long as the NRA persists in spreading this FALSE garbage, I will continue to call them out on it.
    Instead of acting upset, have you considered contacting them with relevant statute so they may update their website?

    They DO list more accurate information at Federal and State Firearms Laws
    specifically:
    CARRYING
    It is unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go
    armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon. There is no statutory
    provision for obtaining a license or permit to carry a concealed
    weapon. State law does not prohibit the open carrying of a firearm,
    but a person should exercise caution when carrying a firearm in
    public.
    It is unlawful to go armed with a firearm in any building
    owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state.
    Last edited by wrightme; 07-31-2010 at 08:31 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    A co-worker once told me "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity or ignorance until proven otherwise"
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    A co-worker once told me "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity or ignorance until proven otherwise"
    I am of the opinion that it is none of the above. In my view, the NRA chooses to use a narrow and misleading definition of "Right to Carry" as noted in the Compendium of State firearm laws, where one section lists a column for "Right to Carry Concealed"

    At that page, they do accurately portray the firearms laws of WI, listing as Concealed is Denied, and Open Carry is not denied.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    If they are listing states that have "no permit" system, then they ought to add Vermont.
    They did mention them.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest
    COMMENT REMOVED FOR RULE VIOLATION: No bashing other gun rights groups.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18



    This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. We all know this as most if not all of us carry. As long as the NRA persists in spreading this FALSE garbage, I will continue to call them out on it.
    Have you contacted NRA regarding this issue?

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    COMMENT REMOVED FOR RULE VIOLATION: No bashing other gun rights groups.

    sorry, my mistake. i appologise for my comment, and agree fully with it's removal- McX.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by professor gun View Post
    Have you contacted NRA regarding this issue?
    I have spoken with NRA officials and lobbyists as well as writing them via the contact us contact us form from the web. We have been going back and forth on this since April.

    I understand those who say "with current restrictions, WI is a no right to carry state," but given the fact that so many of us here carry, that perception is invalid and so is the statement. An accurate statement would be, "Wisconsin is not a concealed carry state."

    I'll keep lobbying them, and hopefully they will come around.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    I understand those who say "with current restrictions, WI is a no right to carry state," but given the fact that so many of us here carry, that perception is invalid and so is the statement.
    We may only carry within the gaps of the current Statutes which makes carry impossible or impractical at many times in your daily life. The NRA is rating the States the same as it rates condidates. WI gets a low rating as we do not have a practical right to carry. WI is simply rated as not being a "right to carry" State.
    In no way is the NRA stating that you may never OC at any time in WI.
    When I can holster up in the morning and not touch my handgun until I get back home, it will be a tangible practical "right".
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 08-02-2010 at 12:47 PM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    That's NOT what the statement says

    IK: Although I agree with your understanding of the statement, but that is NOT what is says. A lay person would NEVER arrive at that same conclusion, and that's where I have the problem. Clarification IS needed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Article I section 25:
    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose".

    In State v Hamdan the WSC defined keep to mean possess and bear to mean carry(reference para. 41). The Attorney General says we have the constitutional right to open carry. The governor says we can open carry, In the prosecution of Hmdan the State said it had no issue with Hamdan if he had open carried. The State's argument was that the firearm was concealed. What do you want IK. A statute that specifically says "The people of wisconsin have the constitutional right to carry firearms, in the manner of choice, for security, defense, recreation, or any lawful purpose". The state constitution already implies that. Unfortunately the WSC must have been drinking "funny water' when it wrote the Hamdan and Cole judgements. In both judgements it ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry is constitutional because it doesn't infringe on the right to carry. It only prescribes a manner of carry. In Hamdan the WSC said this:

    ∂71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.

    ∂72. For instance, in order to keep and bear arms for the purpose of securing one's own property, a weapon must be kept somewhere and may need to be handled or moved, all within the weapon owner's property. During these times, the firearm will be either visible or concealed. The State argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the CCW statute, a person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open--holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall,32 or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view.

    The court ruled in Hamdan and Cole that the concealed carry prohibition statute is constitutional. Only a peace officer can carry a concealed weapon. In paragraph 72 above the WSC recognizes that there are two manners of carry visible (open) and concealed. In paragraph 71 above the WSC ruled that a regulation that limits a constitutional right (concealed carry) "must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise that right" (open carry).

    What part of this doesn't the NRA understand. A fifth grader would.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Article I section 25:
    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose".

    In State v Hamdan the WSC defined keep to mean possess and bear to mean carry(reference para. 41). The Attorney General says we have the constitutional right to open carry. The governor says we can open carry, In the prosecution of Hmdan the State said it had no issue with Hamdan if he had open carried. The State's argument was that the firearm was concealed. What do you want IK. A statute that specifically says "The people of wisconsin have the constitutional right to carry firearms, in the manner of choice, for security, defense, recreation, or any lawful purpose". The state constitution already implies that. Unfortunately the WSC must have been drinking "funny water' when it wrote the Hamdan and Cole judgements. In both judgements it ruled that the prohibition of concealed carry is constitutional because it doesn't infringe on the right to carry. It only prescribes a manner of carry. In Hamdan the WSC said this:

    ∂71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise the right.

    ∂72. For instance, in order to keep and bear arms for the purpose of securing one's own property, a weapon must be kept somewhere and may need to be handled or moved, all within the weapon owner's property. During these times, the firearm will be either visible or concealed. The State argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the CCW statute, a person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open--holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall,32 or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view.

    The court ruled in Hamdan and Cole that the concealed carry prohibition statute is constitutional. Only a peace officer can carry a concealed weapon. In paragraph 72 above the WSC recognizes that there are two manners of carry visible (open) and concealed. In paragraph 71 above the WSC ruled that a regulation that limits a constitutional right (concealed carry) "must leave some realistic alternative means to exercise that right" (open carry).

    What part of this doesn't the NRA understand. A fifth grader would.
    There are several posts in this thread that do address it fairly. Have you reviewed them? Even the NRA correctly states WI law; just not at the specific link mentioned, which has to do specifically with what the NRA calls "Right to Carry" (which to them, is concealed).
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Then why don't they say "right to conceal carry" instead of implying all manners of carry?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Then why don't they say "right to conceal carry" instead of implying all manners of carry?
    As I did mention in another post in this thread, at another webpage, they do. Why they choose to label it as they do at the page referenced in the OP of this thread is a good question that you could ask them.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    As I did mention in another post in this thread, at another webpage, they do. Why they choose to label it as they do at the page referenced in the OP of this thread is a good question that you could ask them.
    And I have indeed asked them. Just like I asked them WHY they want to endorse Reid. I haven't seen a reply to either yet, I'll let you know...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    And I have indeed asked them. Just like I asked them WHY they want to endorse Reid. I haven't seen a reply to either yet, I'll let you know...
    Their website clearly defined the topic. Some will agree, others will not. Besides, we already saw that you had contacted them. My response about "ask them" was to Nemo.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Wrightme:

    I have asked them. No response. My closing comment to this thread. "Say what you mean. Mean what you say".

  25. #25
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    NRA will be at the WI State Fair

    NRA-ILA Staff and Volunteers will be at the Wisconsin State Fair
    Beginning August 5 and running through the course of the fair on August 15, your NRA-ILA staff and volunteers will be manning booth #1306 in the Expo Center building. Staff will be providing free NRA-ILA materials, offering memberships, answering questions and signing up volunteers to assist with the upcoming elections. We will also have information available on current federal issues and election activity as well as state issues and legislative session summaries.
    The Wisconsin State Fair is a great opportunity for NRA to recruit new volunteers to aid our electoral and legislative efforts during this pivotal time for Wisconsin and the country. With the September 14 Primary almost a month away and the November 2 election following quickly behind, now is the time to get active and support pro-Second Amendment candidates. We are on the verge of a tremendous opportunity to elect the pro-gun legislators needed to help restore Wisconsinís rich firearm and hunting heritage.
    Our Wisconsin NRA Campaign Field Representative, Nate Nelson, will be on hand along with Election Volunteer Coordinators from throughout the state each day to answer questions and provide information about Second Amendment issues. For several days, your Wisconsin State Liaison, Jordan Austin, will also be on hand to discuss our legislative successes, as well as the challenges gun owners currently face in the state. NRA-ILA Wisconsin Grassroots Coordinator, Brent Gardner, will also be available to provide information about upcoming Grassroots workshops and electoral efforts that are occurring in Wisconsin.
    Please bring your friends, family and fellow firearm enthusiasts by the booth to learn more about our efforts. If you are unable to attend the fair but would like to learn how you can help with NRA-ILAís election efforts this November, please contact Wisconsin NRA-ILA Campaign Field Representative, Nate Nelson, at (920) 410-4004 or by e-mail at nranate@gmail.com.


    NRAILA.org

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
  •