Spartacus
Banned
I'm not "advocating" for anything. You have and still are misunderstanding me.
You enjoy misunderstanding me to try and bait me into ridiculous arguments.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Permit Required?
- Thread starter Flash Gordon
- Start date
I'm not "advocating" for anything. You have and still are misunderstanding me.
You enjoy misunderstanding me to try and bait me into ridiculous arguments.
Spartacus
Banned
Oh you want me to read the whole forum?
Like I said I had no problem with CT permitting for the 5 or so years I lived out there. None whatsoever.
Will there be problems in WI's permitting system, sure but we will have to deal with it as it comes up and work to remove onerous restrictions.
Rich B
Regular Member
If you would like. Otherwise, you can read the relevant threads. Your choice.
Or you can just not concede to a permit system and avoid all of the problems that come with it.
johnny amish
Regular Member
You are absolutly correct, all the anti-gunners will unite against our cause with the suport of the media. One tactic politicians use to gain votes is to not be to specific. We need to do the same thing. What I mean is we should be contacting ALL sportsmen, ALL hunters not just gun rights people. We should have conversations with The Wisconsin Waterfowlers, The Buck and Bear club, Ducks Unlimited, The Wisconsin Whitetailers, any group that is interested in hunting or shooting sports. I think we could find alot of suport lurking in the shadows of these groups. I think most people who belong to these groups would suport us. If we can unite the pro-gun groups with the pro-hunting groups all in the end would win. I believe if we can unite and suport the foundation, the 2nd. amendment, then all groups, gun rights and sportsmen would win.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
If Scott Walker is elected we are assured at a MINIMUM to get a shall issue permit system. That is a virtual guarantee.
If anyone thinks a permit system will prevent crime/affect criminals, they have another think coming.
Thus it appears a permit system is either to:
-acquiesce to the anti-gunners
-provide a guaranteed revenue stream for firearms instructors, increasing cost of training/decreasing quality
-provide another taxable income generator for big-government
-provide government with a means to effectively limit right-to-carry in the future when anti-gun politicians get elected and hike up fee's and restrictions for permit renewals. (we may not always have a pro-gun Wisconsin legislature, and it will be VERY easy to just start jacking up fee's and restrictions)
-be a feel-good symbolism over substance measure to pacify the news media.
One could argue all day about semantics. Is a shall issue permit a "right" or a "privilege"??? Its a moot point. Some think as long as its "shall" issue, not "may" issue, its a right. We can play word games all day. The bigger picture is a permit system doesn't make sense. It doesn't provide a benefit.
Knowing a shall-issue permit system is a virtual guarantee if Scott Walker is elected, why would anyone who has the ultimate goal of the smallest government most sensible right to carry set a shall-issue permit system as their goal? Anyone skilled in negotiation will tell you that you don't go to the table and use what you would accept as a starting point. You go to the table with your ideal outcome as your starting point. It always possible to settle for less, but never possible to get more than you begin asking for.
Repeal of 941.23 is possible. In some parts of the state that isn't being enforced NOW. (jackson county)
In other parts of the state (Waukesha County) the DA is not charging vehicle carry because he questions if THAT would be upheld constitutionally in light of McDonald V. Chicago and Heller.
The WI GOP party changed their platform to eliminate "permit" from their right to carry position.
Beyond gun-rights specific issues, people ALL over the state are fed up with big government. Tea Party participation is phenomenal. Even non-gun owners would jump on board with repeal of 941.23 simply because its smaller government, less bureaucracy.
If this isn't the perfect storm to just repeal 941.23, what is?
Find ONE state assemblyman to introduce a repeal of 941.23 and lets see which republicans will buck the party platform and vote AGAINST that.
If we don't get a repeal of 941.23 its not because it wasn't possible but because we didn't try.
Carry On
If anyone thinks a permit system will prevent crime/affect criminals, they have another think coming.
Thus it appears a permit system is either to:
-acquiesce to the anti-gunners
-provide a guaranteed revenue stream for firearms instructors, increasing cost of training/decreasing quality
-provide another taxable income generator for big-government
-provide government with a means to effectively limit right-to-carry in the future when anti-gun politicians get elected and hike up fee's and restrictions for permit renewals. (we may not always have a pro-gun Wisconsin legislature, and it will be VERY easy to just start jacking up fee's and restrictions)
-be a feel-good symbolism over substance measure to pacify the news media.
One could argue all day about semantics. Is a shall issue permit a "right" or a "privilege"??? Its a moot point. Some think as long as its "shall" issue, not "may" issue, its a right. We can play word games all day. The bigger picture is a permit system doesn't make sense. It doesn't provide a benefit.
Knowing a shall-issue permit system is a virtual guarantee if Scott Walker is elected, why would anyone who has the ultimate goal of the smallest government most sensible right to carry set a shall-issue permit system as their goal? Anyone skilled in negotiation will tell you that you don't go to the table and use what you would accept as a starting point. You go to the table with your ideal outcome as your starting point. It always possible to settle for less, but never possible to get more than you begin asking for.
Repeal of 941.23 is possible. In some parts of the state that isn't being enforced NOW. (jackson county)
In other parts of the state (Waukesha County) the DA is not charging vehicle carry because he questions if THAT would be upheld constitutionally in light of McDonald V. Chicago and Heller.
The WI GOP party changed their platform to eliminate "permit" from their right to carry position.
Beyond gun-rights specific issues, people ALL over the state are fed up with big government. Tea Party participation is phenomenal. Even non-gun owners would jump on board with repeal of 941.23 simply because its smaller government, less bureaucracy.
If this isn't the perfect storm to just repeal 941.23, what is?
Find ONE state assemblyman to introduce a repeal of 941.23 and lets see which republicans will buck the party platform and vote AGAINST that.
If we don't get a repeal of 941.23 its not because it wasn't possible but because we didn't try.
Carry On
Last edited:
Lurchiron
Regular Member
Doug Huffman
Banned
Is there a virtual penalty clause in the virtual guarantee for non-performance?
Springfielddx40
Guest
See, prime example of why you aren't well liked on this forum. How full of yourself are you?
Doug Huffman
Banned
It Makes his Blue Eyes Brown, with slight apologies to Crystal Gayle for abusing "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue".
johnny amish
Regular Member
Well said!!!!
Now is the time to set a side our differences and unite around this one cause, repeal 941.23. If we can band together and get as many other groups to unite with us we can make this happen. This is not a battle that will be won by the efforts of one, this will take all of us contrubuting as much as we can. UNTIED WE WILL STAND.
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
The Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association always seems to show up at the Capitol to testify against Brady (Joyce Foundation) firearm control efforts. The other hunting groups, not so much. Remember, if they support us, they will expect our support.
http://www.wbha.us.com/
Krusty
Regular Member
I have to agree with McX. It's not a right, as is called for in the Constitution, if you have to PAY cash for it. And as far as appeasing the gun grabbers, let them appease us for a change. The last thing we need is more government regulation. We have to pay $8 for a background check when purchasing a handgun. That should be permit enough.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Yes, I will eat my virtual words
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Nik's point is a good one, and one we all talked about with Hubert in Baraboo.
Shoot for what you want and in the end and then if you have to compromise you won't end up with something you can't live with.
Repeal CCW. Repeal Vehicle carry statute. Repeal GFSZ.
Repeal any and all restrictions on how or when we carry.
That's how we start. That's what we come to the table with. In the end we will probably come up with something that neither we nor the anti's think is perfect but that's how the game is played and we'll be better off than we would be if we just came to the table with a permitted CCW bill.
Whatever you believe we need to set our goal high.
Shoot for what you want and in the end and then if you have to compromise you won't end up with something you can't live with.
Repeal CCW. Repeal Vehicle carry statute. Repeal GFSZ.
Repeal any and all restrictions on how or when we carry.
That's how we start. That's what we come to the table with. In the end we will probably come up with something that neither we nor the anti's think is perfect but that's how the game is played and we'll be better off than we would be if we just came to the table with a permitted CCW bill.
Whatever you believe we need to set our goal high.
Us Constitution
A well regulated militia,
What does this mean?
Armed and trained people.
being necessary to the security of a free state,
What does this mean?
The people protect the state/county.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
What does this mean?
People are allowed and not hindered from owning or carrying arms.
shall not be infringed.
What does this mean?
People can carry how and where they please
Article 1, Section 25 of the WI Constitution:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Being able to protect oneself according to the WI Constitution seems to be pretty strong since they mentioned it three times!
A well regulated militia,
What does this mean?
Armed and trained people.
being necessary to the security of a free state,
What does this mean?
The people protect the state/county.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
What does this mean?
People are allowed and not hindered from owning or carrying arms.
shall not be infringed.
What does this mean?
People can carry how and where they please
Article 1, Section 25 of the WI Constitution:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Being able to protect oneself according to the WI Constitution seems to be pretty strong since they mentioned it three times!
I did not know that but that fantastic news! I would love to carry in my car and not to continually load and unload my sidearm.
apierce918
Regular Member
who is still only charging you $8 ?!
Last edited:
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
To clarify, in MKEgal's case he chose NOT to charge vehicle carry. That is what I was referring to.
I'll go look for the letter, but I believe he gave the illegal search AND McDonald decisions as his reasons for doing so.
I don't know if in a different circumstance he'd choose to charge it or not.
He did give both reasons for not charging (iirc) I'll need to find the letter.
Last edited:
Awesome, thanks Nik!
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
To add to my last post.......
We can also use the fear of what the McDonald decision will ultimately mean against those who oppose gun rights.
Many anti's would rather not let things get to the high court. They are affraid of the "conservative" justices. They would rather give us more now and bide their time for the court to turn more to their liking before they press their luck again.
Just look at how many communities that were first named in that suit who got rid of their laws to avoid it going to court. I have a feeling the Madison PD will do the same thing with their policy but we'll see. There are probably anti's out there trying to talk Madison into changing their policy just so it doesn't get to court.
Has anyone heard of someone going to court recently for a CCW charge? I'd like to see it if you have. I think a lot of these aren't prosecuted for the same reasons.
We can also use the fear of what the McDonald decision will ultimately mean against those who oppose gun rights.
Many anti's would rather not let things get to the high court. They are affraid of the "conservative" justices. They would rather give us more now and bide their time for the court to turn more to their liking before they press their luck again.
Just look at how many communities that were first named in that suit who got rid of their laws to avoid it going to court. I have a feeling the Madison PD will do the same thing with their policy but we'll see. There are probably anti's out there trying to talk Madison into changing their policy just so it doesn't get to court.
Has anyone heard of someone going to court recently for a CCW charge? I'd like to see it if you have. I think a lot of these aren't prosecuted for the same reasons.
Last edited:
Nutczak
Regular Member
Vehicle Carry
Lets take a look at the state of Florida, it is a state that prohibits open-carry with or without a permit, but you can carry a loaded handgun in your vehicle as long as it is enclosed within any container. And a center console or glove compartment is considered a legal container.
Basically the gun cannot be floating around in the passenger compartment in a ready to fire condition. So a holstered gun on the seat, dashboard, etc is legal down there.
I would like to see vehicle carry be the first thing to be repealed, Decker (Wausau?) introduced a bill recently to allow a similar transport but he geared it for deer hunters going on a drive.
Would he be the proper route to go to introduce the repeal process?
A "Castle Doctrine" is high on my list of wants and needs, and it needs to be extended to anyplace that you are legal to be suchg as your vehicle.
My .357 saved my bacon in Florida during an attempted carjacking, I would like to have the legal ability to defend myself while in my vehicle while in my home state too.
Lets take a look at the state of Florida, it is a state that prohibits open-carry with or without a permit, but you can carry a loaded handgun in your vehicle as long as it is enclosed within any container. And a center console or glove compartment is considered a legal container.
Basically the gun cannot be floating around in the passenger compartment in a ready to fire condition. So a holstered gun on the seat, dashboard, etc is legal down there.
I would like to see vehicle carry be the first thing to be repealed, Decker (Wausau?) introduced a bill recently to allow a similar transport but he geared it for deer hunters going on a drive.
Would he be the proper route to go to introduce the repeal process?
A "Castle Doctrine" is high on my list of wants and needs, and it needs to be extended to anyplace that you are legal to be suchg as your vehicle.
My .357 saved my bacon in Florida during an attempted carjacking, I would like to have the legal ability to defend myself while in my vehicle while in my home state too.