Wisconsin Gubernatorial candidates position on "true" right to carry

I have spoken with the staff of each of the 3 candidates for Governor regarding their willingness to make Wisconsin the 4th state to have "true" right to carry (like Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona)

I posed the following question to each candidate:

We don't know what specific legislation will be introduced regarding conceal
carry in the next session, but our organization ultimately has the goal of
moving Wisconsin to what Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont currently have, which is
the right to carry concealed without a permit so long as you are legally allowed
to posses a firearm (not a felon, no mental/psych issues,etc). We believe
permits and mandatory training are just more government bureaucracy and
effectively "taxes" which criminals will ignore and only the law abiding will be
encumbered by. We strongly advocate for voluntary training, but when states
pass mandatory training requirements for their permits, the training classes go
from around $100 per class or less before they are mandatory to around $300+ per
class once they become mandatory. We don't think a person should have to pay a
tax of $400 (mandatory training plus permit fee) to have the right to carry if
you are a law abiding adult with no criminal record.

If the legislature got a bill to (Mark's, Scott's, Tom's) desk that offered NO OTHER PROVISIONS OTHER than to repeal 941.23 (Wisconsin's conceal carry ban) which would effectively allow all law-abiding citizens who have NO criminal record and are
legally allowed to own and posses firearms, to conceal carry without any permit
or mandatory training, would (Mark, Scott, Tom) sign that and repeal 941.23?

Click to expand...

So far I have received a reply from Scott Walker:


"I would sign such a bill to finally give law abiding citizens the right to conceal carry." - Scott Walker

Let no one claim that true 'right to carry' is not possible in Wisconsin this next legislative session. The state GOP has removed the words "permit" from its party platform, so far 1 gubernatorial candidate has indicated he will sign a repeal of 941.23 Clearly true right to carry is a viable possibility.

I will post the responses from Neumann and Barrett as soon as I receive them.

Carry On!

concealed carry, concealed carry, concealed carry. i could just 'ralph' every time i hear a candidate offer that as a position! What about Open Carry? Our local sheriff's candidates here offer the same line.

McX said:

concealed carry, concealed carry, concealed carry. i could just 'ralph' every time i hear a candidate offer that as a position! What about Open Carry? Our local sheriff's candidates here offer the same line.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Nothing but sound bites.

McX said:

concealed carry, concealed carry, concealed carry. i could just 'ralph' every time i hear a candidate offer that as a position! What about Open Carry? Our local sheriff's candidates here offer the same line.

Click to expand...

From my discussion with Scott Walker, he believes that we ALREADY have the right to open carry so the first order of business is removing the statutory ban on concealed carry. For me, being able to carry concealed would primarily give me more options in how I open carry since I wouldn't have to worry as much about accidentally obscuring my sidearm. It would also simplify all that vehicle transport nonsense.

come on guys...

there are about a million ways to ask a question about carry in Wisconsin. And a million different possibilities/combinations of outcomes.

Open carry is already legal. Conceal Carry is not.

The question was asked if the candidates would support a repeal of 941.23 which was the conceal carry ban and would allow unlicensed no permit, no training conceal carry.

TRUE right to carry which everyone claims to want.

The answer from the candidate was YES, they would give you "constitutional carry" or "true right to carry" whatever you call it and you guys are going to nit-pick the word 'conceal'?

941.23 is the conceal carry ban. Open carry is already legal. Lets not be so argumentative and look at the big picture here. true right to carry in the manner of your choosing without a permit or mandatory fee IS possible if people just contact their senators and assembly-persons. I suspect Neumann will answer the same. I just haven't gotten a response from him yet so I don't want to jump the gun.

McX said:

concealed carry, concealed carry, concealed carry. i could just 'ralph' every time i hear a candidate offer that as a position! What about Open Carry? Our local sheriff's candidates here offer the same line.

Click to expand...

At least we have gotten them to move on from just using "I am a hunter."

I have spoken with Neumann and he says the same thing.

The thing everyone here is forgetting is that we need to get the vehicle restrictions lifted as well.
You can't CCW very well if you have to stop and unload and encase every time you get in and out of your vehicle. Nothing concealed about that at all. IMHO you can't repeal one without repealing the other.

The thing everyone here is forgetting

Click to expand...

No one is forgetting... Its just very difficult to ask a 15 part question to a candidate and get a yes or no answer.

No one is forgetting about school zones, vehicle carry, park carry, restaurant carry, etc,

Repeal of 941.23 is just the simplest question that is very direct to the heart of the issue.

If you really want to muddy the water, ask either candidate if a bill got to their desk that made a shall issue permit system with mandatory training for conceal carry but made open-carry unlawful. If that makes the governors desk, I got news for you... we are all screwed. There are FAR more people who want to conceal carry than open carry. I suspect both Mark and Scott would sign that bill. If they didn't, the conceal carry folks would run to madison and tar and feather either. If they do, they will have a couple thousand OC'ers upset. You do the math.

We can bicker about the petty use of the word "conceal" in a specific direct question about conceal, and we can pose dozens of permutations of different possible bills that could reach the governors desk, but the reality all boils down to 1 thing. CONTACT YOUR ASSEMBLYMEN AND SENATORS.

Aside from posting the responses from other candidates (should I receive them) I will not post anymore in this thread as it has, as usual, quickly deteriorated into nit-picking.

J.Gleason said:

I have spoken with Neumann and he says the same thing.

Click to expand...

Ditto. A month ago when several of us met with Neumann he did not even know what the term Constitutional carry was.

All of these guys will say any freaking thing to get elected. What they say now and what we end up getting will be two different things, mark my words.

Wisconsin Carry said:

No one is forgetting... Its just very difficult to ask a 15 part question to a candidate and get a yes or no answer.

No one is forgetting about school zones, vehicle carry, park carry, restaurant carry, etc,

Repeal of 941.23 is just the simplest question that is very direct to the heart of the issue.

If you really want to muddy the water, ask either candidate if a bill got to their desk that made a shall issue permit system with mandatory training for conceal carry but made open-carry unlawful. If that makes the governors desk, I got news for you... we are all screwed. There are FAR more people who want to conceal carry than open carry. I suspect both Mark and Scott would sign that bill. If they didn't, the conceal carry folks would run to madison and tar and feather either. If they do, they will have a couple thousand OC'ers upset. You do the math.

We can bicker about the petty use of the word "conceal" in a specific direct question about conceal, and we can pose dozens of permutations of different possible bills that could reach the governors desk, but the reality all boils down to 1 thing. CONTACT YOUR ASSEMBLYMEN AND SENATORS.

Aside from posting the responses from other candidates (should I receive them) I will not post anymore in this thread as it has, as usual, quickly deteriorated into nit-picking.

Click to expand...

Well I am not trying to nit pick but I am just remembering what we all agreed on in the beginning and that was repealing these unconstitutional statutes would lead us to Constitutional Carry. No Permits and fees needed as it only creates bigger government. I think we need to work on our representatives no matter who wins the election.Get them repealed and we will be on our way to making things a lot better here in Wisconsin.

Barrett's own words on concealed carry

When I asked Barrett tonight about his position on concealed carry:

Directly from the candidates mouth, "I have not been convinced that we need it."

So now we know where he stands on the issue, regardless what hi campaign put out, what is quoted and highlighted is his exact words.

Wisconsin Carry said:

Barrett's own words on concealed carry ................. "I have not been convinced that we need it."

Click to expand...

I don't know, his new add showing him in the hospital all busted up PROVES we need it. He must be a real slow learner.

First off I want to tell some of you that I am not submitting this post to start a urinating contest. I submit it only to express an observation. When we members discuss the right to keep and bear arms with candidates for election I wish we would make more mention of Wisconsin constitutioanal amendment Article I section 25. Especially when discussing the issue with those running for state offices. I don't say that to any way diminish the importance of the 2nd amendment, on the contrary. I am fully aware that had it not been for the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution our gun rights would have gone the way of Japan, England, Canada and Australia many years ago. However, I have noticed lately that it has been very easy for political candidates to jump on the 2nd amendment band wagon. They do that with little political risk from anti-gun advocates because they have the backing of the recent SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald. Just because the candidates say they support the 2nd amendment under protection of the SCOTUS rulings does not mean that they believe in it. Once in office their personal beliefs may very well influence their votes on gun rights issues. As the saying goes "Talk is cheap. It takes money to buy whiskey". Under the current political environment saying you support the 2nd amendment is like saying you support motherhood and there is a lot of "wiggle room". The 2nd amendment is rather broad in how it addresses the specifics of bearing arms. On the other hand Article I section 25 is very specific in listing those purposes for which the carry of arms is protected. It is also specific to the state of Wisconsin and it's effect on those candidates running for state positions. Whereas those candidates running for state office can jump on the "I support the 2nd amendment band wagon" knowing full well there is a lot of wiggle rooom in their comittment, their feet are held to the fire if they express full support of Article I section 25, because, they are expressing support for a right that spells out the conditions under which our state right to keep and bear arms is protected, security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Our state constitutional right to keep and bear arms is short, to the point, broad ranged and contains no words of ambiguity or doubt. We should use it to it's fullest political advantage.

JS asked the question to all three

The Milwaukee JS posted a blog where they asked the three candidates their positions on "Concealed Guns". The question and responses are as follows:

Should Wisconsin change its law to allow people to carry concealed handguns? What restrictions, if any, should be put on where those guns can be taken?

Tom Barrett: The Second Amendment clearly protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Yet the vast majority of police, law enforcement agencies and public safety groups have concerns about concealed carry. I stand with the men and women of Wisconsin law enforcement, and any concealed carry legislation must have the support of officers on the front line.

Mark Neumann: Yes. Governor (Jim) Doyle twice vetoed a concealed carry bill. I would have signed either of those bills and believe a similar measure should be the law of the land in Wisconsin.

Scott Walker: Yes. I fully support and will sign a strong "shall issue" concealed carry law that will enable law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. I am a gun owner, a proud hunter, a member of the NRA, and was an original co-sponsor of concealed carry when I was in the state Assembly. I will continue to protect our Second Amendment rights as governor.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/101977658.html

Jason in WI said:

I don't know, his new add showing him in the hospital all busted up PROVES we need it. He must be a real slow learner.

Click to expand...

Remember, any sense he had before was knocked out of him.

Captain Nemo said:

I wish we would make more mention of Wisconsin constitutioanal amendment Article I section 25.

Click to expand...

+1

You are saying what I've been saying. The other anti argument it nixes is that 2A is too old. The WI amendment was passed in 1998.

Repeating History

If you remember nothing else in these exchanges remember this - criticism of and failure to support Scott McCallum in 2002 led to 8 years of Jim Doyle. Otherwise you'd be talking about how you got concealed carry back in '04. Granted this time there is no Libertarian relative of Tommy to suck away 10% of the vote but I am beginning to see the same "He's not pure enough so I'm staying home" attitude. Be careful or you'll have Governor Bartlett until 2018. Don't forget that a CC permit has benefits to the exclusive OC'er. No NICS every time (possibly), GFSZ exemption, reciprocity in Michigan and other resident permit only states.

In the past, I had always voted my conscience and looked at who could do us the lesser of two evils, but it isn't the fact that the Demrocrats haven't fixed thing, as I think that's going to take a long time, but it's the fact that they have tried and tried again to take our rights away. I have never seen such outward attacks on our civil liberties, as we have seen in recent history.

I think we need to wake up, as some are, and take off the rose colored glasses. If the demrocrats remain in the majority, we will continue to lose our rights at an alarming rate. As far as WI goes, the only thing that has saved some of our rights thus far is the fact that we have a good AG. Can you immagine what our 2nd Ammendment rights in this state would be if he was not there and one of Doyle's cronny's were in that office?

As far as Bartlett goes, lets keep ou fingers crossed!

Lt. Gov.

Any suggestions/ideas on Lt. Gov.?

phred said:

Any suggestions/ideas on Lt. Gov.?

Click to expand...

I voted for Rebecca Kleefisch. I personally talked to her and she indicated she supports Constitutional Carry.