johnny amish
Regular Member
Really?????
-
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.
Scott walker on open and concealed carry
- Thread starter Shane28
- Start date
Really?????
Notso
Campaign Veteran
If you are serious about what it takes to get something like constitution carry, I'd contact AZCDL. They're the organization here in Arizona that got it passed. I don't know all the details other than it was a 3 or 4 year effort.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Paul is absolutely correct. Presidents and governors are given credit for much more power than they possess. When it comes to passage of law their powers are limited to that of influence, pressure, signing and veto. Even their veto is not absolute. It can be overidden by the legislature or congress. Only the state legislature and the congress can make and repeal laws. In Wisconsin neither Walker or Barrett will have a hand in the drafting of a choice of carry bill. They may attempt to influence the language but it is the legislature that will draft and pass the law. For those very reasons it is important that we put the pressure on the legislative representatives. Hold the Republican candidates to their party platform and give the Democrates that are gun-friendly a show of support.
As far as the governor race is concerned it isn't so important as to what the details of their gun carry positions are as it is that they are carry friendly. I personally support Walker as the lesser of two evils but it probably doesn't matter much which candidate wins. What matters is to get a bill sponsored and voted on by the legislatue as soon as possible, before a new governor elect can start influencing members of the legislature to his "bugle call". Even if Barrett were to get elected and vetoes carry legislation I feel the atmosphere in the legislature is much different than in 2006 when Doyle vetoed the onerous Personal Protection Act. We are pretty well assured of getting all Republican anti-veto votes by virtue of the republican platform. Even if the democrats retain control after the November elections I feel that there are enough of them that are gun friendly that I'm confident that any vetoed carry legislation would be overidden. bnh has said it and I agree, we should concentrate on the legislature and bombard the candidates with our opinions. I also agree with bnh that the most important issue is the repeal of statute 941.23. It is the most simple path to our objectives. It would only require debate and vote, could be implemented immediately, would require no draft of new legislation, has no negative financial impact, is fundamentally supported by Art I sec 25, which is carry neutral and has support of some members of the WSC. The WSC has no issue with Art I sec 25 per se. It's interest is the issue of concealment and whether or not Art I sec 25 trumps the long standing prohibition of concealed carry. If the statute that prohibits concealed carry was to be recinded the WSC is out of the ball game and contitutional choice of carry would be effected. No permits, no mandatory training, no fees and most important no new legislation that would allow the anti's to insert rules and regulations.
Here is what two members of the WSC said:
State v Hamdan
Justice Bablich
¶92. The Chief Justice's dissent, in its attempt to save the Carrying a Concealed Weapon statute, eviscerates the constitutional amendment. It renders the constitutional amendment a sham by reading into it the words "unless concealed." The inevitable and logical result of that interpretation is to create absurdities neither the legislature nor the voters could have intended.
¶99. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring/dissenting). For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully concur/dissent, since I agree with the majority's result that Hamdan's conviction should be reversed, but I dissent on the majority's action in remanding this matter.
¶100. The majority in this case improperly reads exceptions into Wis. Stat. §941.23 in order to hold that it is constitutional. Such exceptions to the statute should not be made by this court, but by the legislature. Looking at the statute itself, I conclude that Wis. Stat. §941.23 has become unconstitutional with the passage of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. I agree with Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent that the majority erroneously assigns to a court, rather than a jury, the task of determining factual issues involving whether a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon is available to a defendant.
State v Cole:
Justice Crooks
¶55 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring). While I strongly disagree with the majority's conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 is constitutional, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ____N.W.2d ___, I agree that Phillip Cole's conviction should be upheld. Because of Cole's waiver of the constitutional claim he now makes, I agree with the majority's mandate affirming Cole's conviction
51 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring). I join Justice Prosser's concurrence except that part of his concurrence in which he states that he "strongly support much of the majority opinion."[15] I have reservations about parts of the majority opinion.
¶52 For example, it does not make sense to me that the majority opinion gives a statute that predates a constitutional amendment the presumption of constitutionality under the later-enacted constitutional amendment.[16] The presumption of constitutionality is based on the reasonable belief that a legislature intends to enact laws that are valid under the Constitution at the time they are enacted, not the unreasonable assumption that a legislature can anticipate all future constitutional amendments and draft constitutionally immortal statutes.
My opinions.
As far as the governor race is concerned it isn't so important as to what the details of their gun carry positions are as it is that they are carry friendly. I personally support Walker as the lesser of two evils but it probably doesn't matter much which candidate wins. What matters is to get a bill sponsored and voted on by the legislatue as soon as possible, before a new governor elect can start influencing members of the legislature to his "bugle call". Even if Barrett were to get elected and vetoes carry legislation I feel the atmosphere in the legislature is much different than in 2006 when Doyle vetoed the onerous Personal Protection Act. We are pretty well assured of getting all Republican anti-veto votes by virtue of the republican platform. Even if the democrats retain control after the November elections I feel that there are enough of them that are gun friendly that I'm confident that any vetoed carry legislation would be overidden. bnh has said it and I agree, we should concentrate on the legislature and bombard the candidates with our opinions. I also agree with bnh that the most important issue is the repeal of statute 941.23. It is the most simple path to our objectives. It would only require debate and vote, could be implemented immediately, would require no draft of new legislation, has no negative financial impact, is fundamentally supported by Art I sec 25, which is carry neutral and has support of some members of the WSC. The WSC has no issue with Art I sec 25 per se. It's interest is the issue of concealment and whether or not Art I sec 25 trumps the long standing prohibition of concealed carry. If the statute that prohibits concealed carry was to be recinded the WSC is out of the ball game and contitutional choice of carry would be effected. No permits, no mandatory training, no fees and most important no new legislation that would allow the anti's to insert rules and regulations.
Here is what two members of the WSC said:
State v Hamdan
Justice Bablich
¶92. The Chief Justice's dissent, in its attempt to save the Carrying a Concealed Weapon statute, eviscerates the constitutional amendment. It renders the constitutional amendment a sham by reading into it the words "unless concealed." The inevitable and logical result of that interpretation is to create absurdities neither the legislature nor the voters could have intended.
¶99. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring/dissenting). For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully concur/dissent, since I agree with the majority's result that Hamdan's conviction should be reversed, but I dissent on the majority's action in remanding this matter.
¶100. The majority in this case improperly reads exceptions into Wis. Stat. §941.23 in order to hold that it is constitutional. Such exceptions to the statute should not be made by this court, but by the legislature. Looking at the statute itself, I conclude that Wis. Stat. §941.23 has become unconstitutional with the passage of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. I agree with Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent that the majority erroneously assigns to a court, rather than a jury, the task of determining factual issues involving whether a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon is available to a defendant.
State v Cole:
Justice Crooks
¶55 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring). While I strongly disagree with the majority's conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 is constitutional, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ____N.W.2d ___, I agree that Phillip Cole's conviction should be upheld. Because of Cole's waiver of the constitutional claim he now makes, I agree with the majority's mandate affirming Cole's conviction
51 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring). I join Justice Prosser's concurrence except that part of his concurrence in which he states that he "strongly support
¶52 For example, it does not make sense to me that the majority opinion gives a statute that predates a constitutional amendment the presumption of constitutionality under the later-enacted constitutional amendment.[16] The presumption of constitutionality is based on the reasonable belief that a legislature intends to enact laws that are valid under the Constitution at the time they are enacted, not the unreasonable assumption that a legislature can anticipate all future constitutional amendments and draft constitutionally immortal statutes.
My opinions.
Last edited:
Old Grump
Regular Member
Any body heard of blood running in the streets of Alaska, Arizona or Vermont. Unrestricted carry is where we want to go, period. If you are a felon and you get caught with a gun you go to jail, period. No pleading down, no reduced sentences. We need to make felons scared to even look at a gun let alone pick one up and handle it. If you are carrying concealed or open and can walk by a police station or stand next to a policeman on the street without breaking into a sweat you should be allowed to wear a gun, any way you want to wear it.
My guess, crime goes down overall, violent crime goes down a lot, especially in troubled areas like Milwaukee.
My guess, crime goes down overall, violent crime goes down a lot, especially in troubled areas like Milwaukee.
Spartacus
Banned
Well its too soon to tell about crime rates in AZ since they just recently went to Moderately Restricted Carry. Vermont and Alaska are pretty vanilla but AZ will be the true test with all the racial mixes and gangs, etc.
Spartacus
Banned
Hell it hasn't even been but a couple of months. Give it a while...
One thing I did notice during my last month of traveling all over AZ from the south in Douglas all the way through Tucson, Phoenix, Flag and Sedona is how very few people OC down there. I mean I got ALL OVER and I don't recall but maybe one or two instances where I saw a gun on a mans hip. Even when hiking the remote wilderness I never encountered ONE OCer. The Park Ranger at the Grand Canyon when we went in remarked about my sidearm and said he saw very few people carrying. Even the people on the trails that you met looked at you cross-eyed when they saw the gun.
This includes the time in downtown Tucson, Prescott, Sedona and all the other little bergs we stayed in.
Just sayin'. I thought it was odd...
One thing I did notice during my last month of traveling all over AZ from the south in Douglas all the way through Tucson, Phoenix, Flag and Sedona is how very few people OC down there. I mean I got ALL OVER and I don't recall but maybe one or two instances where I saw a gun on a mans hip. Even when hiking the remote wilderness I never encountered ONE OCer. The Park Ranger at the Grand Canyon when we went in remarked about my sidearm and said he saw very few people carrying. Even the people on the trails that you met looked at you cross-eyed when they saw the gun.
This includes the time in downtown Tucson, Prescott, Sedona and all the other little bergs we stayed in.
Just sayin'. I thought it was odd...
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
I did not research the links, but as far as I understand, the LRB drafts the legistation that the sponsors introduce. It is my opinion that the LRB has there own agenda, so when a sponsor request a bill to be drafted that contradicts the agenda, they screw it up so if it gets passed, its has holes in it.
Doug Huffman
Banned
Perhaps, but that would be the fault of the sponsor legislator uncritically accepting and introducing the LRB product. If we ever get a tame legislator then we might be able to suggest improvements to HIS bills during the drafting process.
professor gun
Regular Member
Excellent advice.
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
When the LRB attorneys draft a bill they usually copy what Minnesota has for law, modified to fit their Madison view of the world.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
One cannot suggest improvements unless the sponsoring legislator is willing to share a copy with you before it is introduced. I am certain that WCI will have a relationship with said sponsoring legislator, or atleast I hope so.