Exercising Constitutional Carry?

BROKENSPROKET said:

Anyone else without malicious intent should not be in question by Admintstration. You can question all you want.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what your definition of malicious is. Lying about being someone else is enough for me. Dougie was banned for puppeteering and then let back on for whatever reason.

We will see what John says about it as I have a PM in to him.

Another thing that is troublesome about the Nevada firearm laws and something we must take heed of, is that apparently they were drafted and campaigned by the special interest group Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association. Which special interst group in Wisconsin will declare themselves the protector of our liberties when our expected new firearm laws are drafted? WCI, WGO, ODCO, Packing dot org, NRA, The High Road, The Sierra Club, Sisters of the Second amendment, Wisconsin Concealed Carry Asociation etc. etc. etc. What Wisconsin needs is a consortiunm of gun rights organizations so the most stringent scrutiny of the propsed laws can be made in the best interest of gun owners throughout the state. As an organization, be it ODCO or WCI we can't even keep a civil tongue between our selves or debate a subect without argument. I'm afraid expecting different gun rights organizations to come to a majority agreement let alone a consensus is akin to trying to whistle with a mouth full of crakers. As a result we will probably again throw ourselves to the mercy of the anti-gun legislature.

Spartacus said:

^^^ In a perfect world we could just get the restrictive statutes removed or amended and WI would indeed have constitutional carry.

However this is Wisconsin the Land of 100,000 laws, and even though some may be optimistic about Constitutional Carry right off the bat, I'm thinking it will be an uphill battle all the way.

Click to expand...

It might be a battle but it is one we can win if we fight hard enough. We already have open carry without any permit, so remove the stupid vehicle part and school zone garbage, then allow is to conceal if we want. Seriously what is the big difference? Why should people need a permit to conceal a weapon when they dont need a permit to open carry one? How about just repeal the law totally, nothing could be easier. I think we need to get it right off the bat and try hard not to accept anything less, they sure hate to repeal or change laws, even unconstitutional/illegal ones.

The state supreme court mostly agreed that the law prohibiting concealed carry is too vague and unconstitutional. Their opinions in the Hamdan case made that very obvious. To me unconstitutional means null and void from the date we added a right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution. The rights enumerated in our Constitution trump any statutes that conflict with them.

But as advocates of the right to carry I think we all must not violate any laws what so ever, even ones that are clearly unconstitutional, not until the law is repealed or amended. I will admit that it often must be challenged to be repealed, and at this point they have made it clear that someone can conceal a weapon in their home or business. Even though you would be technically breaking the law as written, that is clearly an exception right now.

Lets get something straight. Constitutional Carry is this--- You carry what you want, how you want and where you want. No permits, fees or restrictions........PERIOD............There isn't a state in the country that has it, not even close. What part of "shall not be infringed" do any of you not understand? Please quit perverting the term. Thank you and have a Blessed day. CARRY ON

Woodchuck:

Read the new Arizona laws that took effect July 29, 2010.

Captain Nemo,

I think you need to reread it, while I agree its probably the least regulated state in the country, its still has restrictions, or as I call them, infringements. Therefore, NOT Constitutional.


from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another



ANY law that restricts when, where or how I can keep and bear arms is an infringement.

Woodchuck is of coarse 100% correct.

AZ, AK , VT all have the closest that will ever come to it.

But even these 3 have restrictions. Grant you not many, but they do have them.


I would not mind these few restrictions here in CA.

Woodchuck:
What part of infringed do you not understand. Infringed as used in the second amendment simply means that because the second amendment guarantees the people the fundamental right to keep and bear arms congress shall pass no laws that eviserates that right. It does not mean that the right is not subject to regulation. In fact in both Heller and McDonald SCOTUS stated that very fact. In Hamdan the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms as contained in constitutional amendment Art I section 25 is also a fundamental right but is subject to reasonable regulation. Sorry, but neither the federal constitution or the Wisconsin constitution allows a person to carry any firearm in any manner and in any location they wish. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.

Captain Nemo said:

Woodchuck:
Infringed as used in the second amendment simply means that because the second amendment guarantees the people the fundamental right to keep and bear arms congress shall pass no laws that eviserates that right. It does not mean that the right is not subject to regulation. In fact in both Heller and McDonald SCOTUS stated that very fact. In Hamdan the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms as contained in constitutional amendment Art I section 25 is also a fundamental right but is subject to reasonable regulation. Sorry, but neither the federal constitution or the Wisconsin constitution allows a person to carry any firearm in any manner and in any location they wish. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.

Click to expand...

WOW.......Liberal spin in full affect. We were 1 SC Justice away from the SCOTUS saying the 2nd does not apply to the people or the states. Have you thought about that? What would you be saying then? "The court says I don't have the right so I guess I don't have the right.?" Or would you be protesting in the streets standing firm on the constitution and joining the revolution that would be coming?

Just what do you think regulation does if it doesn't infringe? That's the purpose of regulation. The Constitution doesn't say, "the people right to keep and bear arms, shall be regulated reasonably", or "..keep and bear arms in certain places,..., or "the people have the right to keep and bear only 1 functioning firearm and you must keep it in your residence,..." If they meant that they would have put it that way, but they didn't, they specifically said, "shall NOT be infringed". Could you give a few examples of "reasonable regulation" that doesn't infringe my right to keep and bear arms?

I gotta go with Woodchuck here. We do indeed abuse the term Constitutional Carry. True CC would be without restrictions, but sadly it will doubtfully happen anywhere.

Yea, true CC is a pipe dream that we will never see, but it is something we should strive for.

Can I make an observation?

Greetings to my friends in Wisconsin.

From time to time I note well meaning people providing website links to websites that contain multiple errors.

There has been a great deal of discussion of Nevada Law. This discussion is not particularly relevant to Wisconsin Open or Concealed Carry, but the referenced websites provided contained multiple errors. I point this out only because any discussion geared toward how to shape a law in Wisconsin, as discussed in relation to the laws of other States, has to be based on accurate information.

Nevada Law does indeed allow open carry, but the right is not absolute; there are restrictions, particularly in the immediate vicinity of a school or Casino. Somewhat less repressive allowances are made for concealed carry permit holders, but only to the extent that they drop off students, faculty, or school employees into a school zone or casino and do not actually exit a vehicle themselves. Concealed carry with a permit is allowed in Casinos - open carry is not (trespassing violation), unless by a member of a security company registered with Nevada and hired by that Casino.

What Wisconsin needs is a Castle Doctrine Law with extension to personal vehicle and a "Make My Day" clause that allows a WI resident to "stand his/her ground" in any location that he/she has a legal right to be. (Examples: FL and UT). Then, I would love to see my home State adopt a "Constitutional Carry" statute that also included a permit system that allowed for reciprocity with the maximum number of States. For instance, Michigan will honor almost any other State's permit, but only if the permit holder has a resident permit. Thus, for my friends in Northern WI to cross the border of the UP while being law abiding Citizens concerned for the protection of self and family, they would need a Wisconsin residential permit. (Same for folks visiting New Hampshire, Colorado, Florida, Maine, and South Carolina.) Absent a Federal Law that makes all permits equal in all States, this is just an unpleasant fact that we must deal with. No amount of complaining will change this fact. (The irony here is that I, as a former Wisconsin Resident with a Utah resident permit, can carry concealed in Michigan while the family members I am traveling with cannot.)

We can bemoan the fact that Wisconsin remains a "black State" (right denied) when it comes to concealed carry, but as the States as a whole become more gun friendly, and particularly in light of McDonald v City of Chicago, my friends in Wisconsin are in a unique position - if you can be patient and then apply a "full court press" when a new legislature convenes with a new Governor - you may be delighted with the outcome.

For those of you old enough to remember the Helmet Law (all persons must wear a helmet on a motorcycle), you will also remember that it was the political pressure of THE PEOPLE who forced the legislators to reconsider. Now, if you can organize, or at least do a letter writing campaign, the time is RIPE to turn Wisconsin away from its' reputation as the People's Socialist and Liberal State of Wisconsin - into something that more accurately reflects the vision held my the Founding Fathers. There are a lot more hunters, sportsmen, and NRA members in Wisconsin than there were motorcycle riders in 1976 (WI Helmet law defeated).

While I support the rights of my friends in Wisconsin to Open Carry, I believe WI needs concealed carry as well. Bad guys may avoid Open Carry individuals because they want to commit robbery and avoid a gunfight. With concealed carry, more citizens benefit because the bad guys do now know who is carrying.

Thanks for allowing me to post.

Jim

Wow

How did this thread turn into some BS spam - thanks to all who kept it on topic.

Captain Nemo said:

Woodchuck:
What part of infringed do you not understand. Infringed as used in the second amendment simply means that because the second amendment guarantees the people the fundamental right to keep and bear arms congress shall pass no laws that eviserates that right. It does not mean that the right is not subject to regulation. In fact in both Heller and McDonald SCOTUS stated that very fact. In Hamdan the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms as contained in constitutional amendment Art I section 25 is also a fundamental right but is subject to reasonable regulation. Sorry, but neither the federal constitution or the Wisconsin constitution allows a person to carry any firearm in any manner and in any location they wish. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.

Click to expand...

Well I agree the courts have ruled that keeping and bearing arms can be heavily regulated and restricted or even banned at times. I do not agree that this was the intention of the founders of this country, the meaning of the word infringed is clear. The Constitution exists to limit the governments power. Think about it for a moment, things the government cannot do, shall not be infringed.

They obviously cannot totally do away with it, and if that was the only intention they would have just said the people have the right to keep and bear arms. They knew full well that the government would try to regulate everything and infringe upon that right if they could, and they still have. They have at times been very wrong and I think still are, like the handgun ban in DC, and like our concealed carry law here. So your right that currently we have a government that has perverted our Constitution, it certainly does not make it right.

jpm84092 said:

We can bemoan the fact that Wisconsin remains a "black State" (right denied) when it comes to concealed carry, but as the States as a whole become more gun friendly, and particularly in light of McDonald v City of Chicago, my friends in Wisconsin are in a unique position - if you can be patient and then apply a "full court press" when a new legislature convenes with a new Governor - you may be delighted with the outcome.

Click to expand...

A very cogent post Jim. Thanks for that.

That 'begs the question' (modus ponens, the antecedent is affirmed) of the meaning of "cogent".

Some definitions of "cogent" require persuasiveness based on evidence. I've never heard of Wisconsin referred to as a "black State" nor seen evidence of it, but then neither do I hang around the interwebz as much as others.

A defense of an assertion (an "argument") that takes many words, hundreds of words, is probably in error. A principled argument for concealed carry needs to be conducted using the KISS principle, Keep It Short, Sweet (and Simple and Sure and Statutory and Statistical and ...)

Now that I've finished pouring used beer in his wheaties...

Isn't the very act of setting up regulations to prohibit felons from purchasing and owning firearms in itself an infringement upon the 2A?

If the Constitutional Carry that Woodchuck is talking about DOES happen, I sure wouldn't want to be living in a country that allows know, convicts, felons, murderers and serial killers to legally poses firearms.

If a felon (criminal, convict, murderer, serial killer) may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, as has been done to alleged domestic abusers and stressed veterans.

Compare and contrast disarming with prior restraint of speech.

Doug Huffman said:

If a felon (criminal, convict, murderer, serial killer) may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, as has been done to alleged domestic abusers and stressed veterans.

Compare and contrast disarming with prior restraint of speech.

Click to expand...

You are right on Doug. If we are willing to allow the supression of one groups rights then we should not be surprized when another group wants to supress ours. If we want the most freedom in this country then we have to be willing to give it to others even if we don't like what they do with it.

Isn't the very act of setting up regulations to prohibit felons from purchasing and owning firearms in itself an infringement upon the 2A?

Click to expand...

Our constitution provides that rights my be deprived of individuals through due process.