Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Permit v No permit Reality check.

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

    Permit v No permit Reality check.

    http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/...ith-carry.html

    The web site address I posted above contains statistics on the number of adults in shall-issue states that have concealed carry permits. The figures are percentages based on total state population. The chart is posted below. The figures are alittle old in that they are bases on the 2004 population. However I doubt that the numbers have fluctuated enough to significantly affect the percentages. Note that in no case does the percentage approach 10%.

    The Minnesota figures are .45% of a 2009 population of 5,266,214. The population figure is from the U.S. Census Bureau web site. I picked Minnesota as a comparion to Wisconsin because the populations are nearly identical. The 2009 population of Wisconsin is 5,654,774.

    Using those figures Minnesota has 23,697 concealed carry permit holders. Based on those figures Wisconsin could probably expect 25,446. There most probably be an initial spike but I think the numbers will probably stabilize close to the Minnesota numbers. Even if the figure ws as high as 1.7% (as in Michigan) the number would only be 96,131. I expect the actual figure for Wisconsin would be somewhere between the two. The prcise number would be tempered by the fact that because Wisconsin has a state recognized constitutional right to open carry, a number of persons will refuse to obtain a concealed carry permit and opt to continue with open carry.

    It hardly appears that those numbers would be a golden goose for either the State or permit instructors. If a state issued permit would cost $100, which is excessive, it could expect $2,500,000 first time dollars in revenue. Hardly enough to establish a department to organize and permanently maintain a permit issuing capability,especially when recurring revenue would be much less requireing the state to dip into other public funds to maintain the service. On the same order if a training course was to average $100 and there are 500 qualified instructors throughout the state that figures to $5000 dollars first time gross income per instructor.

    What I calculate is simple arithmatic based on published and public values. There is no smoke and mirrors. A permit system in Wisconsin is hardly the mecca of additional revenue for the State or of financial independence to firearm instuctors. It is simply an infringement on Article I section 25 of our state constitution.

    Folks the numbers are just not there to support a costly permit system.

    This post reflects my opinion.



    Percent of Adults with a License to Carry in each Shall Issue State

    7.45% South Dakota
    6.79% Indiana
    6.76% Pennsylvania
    5.23% Connecticut
    5.12% Washington
    4.34% Idaho
    4.10% Utah
    3.86% Oregon
    3.45% Tennessee
    3.15% Alabama
    2.72% Florida
    2.71% Kentucky
    2.67% Wyoming
    2.41% Maine
    2.18% Arkansas
    2.11% Virginia
    1.94% West Virginia
    1.76% Arizona
    1.75% Oklahoma
    1.70% Montana
    1.70% Michigan
    1.62% Texas
    1.39% South Carolina
    1.34% North Dakota
    1.00% North Carolina
    0.86% Mississippi
    0.62% Louisiana
    0.58% Nevada
    0.45% Minnesota
    0.36% Missouri
    0.33% Ohio
    0.20% Colorado
    0.17% New Mexico <-- Slight correction 12/22/04, per Ken Grubb

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    This also refutes the idea that EVERYBODY will be a gun totin' cowboy.

    Given 50 people in a business or in a crowd someplace, the odds are that one, or two on the average, will be legally armed.

    Thanks for the stats. I was looking for such data as well
    Last edited by phred; 01-27-2011 at 05:51 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Another thought just occurred to me. Only a few people out of hundred, on the average, think their life is worth defending to the point of carrying a firearm to protect themselves. Now that is scary as well as sad.

    Wouldn't it be nice to have similar statistics for criminals? Of course, we'll never know, will we!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    criminals using firearms

    phred:

    There is no way to determine the number of criminals that carry firearms but the following is interesting.

    Violent Offenders Increasingly Likely to be Armed


    U.S. Department of Justice

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BJS
    SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1994 202-307-0784

    VIOLENT OFFENDERS INCREASINGLY LIKELY TO BE ARMED


    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Violent offenders are increasingly
    likely to be armed, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
    said today. While the overall violent crime rate decreased
    during the last decade, the rate of offenses committed with
    pistols and revolvers rose from 9.2 percent in 1979 to 12.7
    percent in 1992.

    From 1987 through 1992 there was an annual average of
    858,000 rapes, robberies and assaults with firearms of all
    types, according to BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey.
    The FBI reported 16,000 firearm murders during 1992, and
    the number of all violent crimes with firearms reported to the
    FBI grew 55 percent from 1987 through 1992--from 365,709 to
    565,575.

    Young people from 16 through 19 years old were the most
    frequent victims of firearm violence. During 1992 this age
    group had a per capita firearm victimization rate 21 percent
    higher than those 20 through 24 years old, three times the
    rate for those aged 35-49, almost eight times higher than
    those aged 50-64 and 15 times higher than those 65 years old
    or older.

    --In a nationally representative sample of state prison
    inmates, 16 percent said they were carrying a firearm during
    the commission of the offense for which they were serving
    time, and one-half of those said they fired the weapon during
    the crime.

    Source:
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/FACOV.PR
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .45% with permits to protect themselves versus 16% of crimnals admitting to using a firearm to commit a violent crime. Looks like we are significantly outnumbered. The report is dated 1994 but the trend line shows that each year the numbers increase so we do know the precentage today is at least 16%.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    .45% with permits to protect themselves versus 16% of crimnals admitting to using a firearm to commit a violent crime. Looks like we are significantly outnumbered. The report is dated 1994 but the trend line shows that each year the numbers increase so we do know the precentage today is at least 16%.

    Thanks Captain,

    Now, that IS scary 16:.45 is 35:1 or, it is 35 times more likely that a criminal is armed versus a law-abiding citizen being armed.

    Do I have to rethink my 1911's single stack magazine?

  6. #6
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo
    There is no way to determine the number of criminals that carry firearms.
    .45% with permits to protect themselves versus 16% of criminals admitting to using a firearm to commit a violent crime. Looks like we are significantly outnumbered.
    Quote Originally Posted by phred
    it is 35 times more likely that a criminal is armed versus a law-abiding citizen being armed
    ACK!
    16% sounds like a lot, but there are many times more law-abiding citizens than there are criminals. I'm going to bet that the "citizens with guns" number is higher.

    If you look at just the prison population (which is smaller than the criminal population, but we can measure it), then take 16%, you'll get a rough estimate of criminals carrying guns.

    Maybe double it to make up for the ones that didn't get caught, or are still in office, or... well... still have jobs where they're supposed to be the good guys.
    (According to wikipedia: "As of June 2009, 2,297,400 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails..." That comes from US DOJ stats.)

    So double that to 4,600,000 criminals x 16% using guns = 736,000 criminals using guns

    Then take the population of the USA, minus the criminal population, times .45%, and you'll have a rough estimate of citizens carrying guns.
    (According to the US Census page, our population is almost 312,000,000.)
    312,000,000 in the US - 4,600,000 criminals = 307,400,000 non-criminals
    307,400,000 x .45% = 1,383,300 armed non-criminals

    (736,000 criminals / 1,383,300 armed non-criminals) x 100 = 53%

    So even doubling the estimated criminal population, the criminals with guns are only slightly over half of the population of armed Americans.
    Not a great ratio, but far far less bleak than what you thought!
    And they're only counting permits. That ignores all of us in WI, AK, AZ, VT, & other states where open carry is a right, not a priviledge.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 01-28-2011 at 09:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    ACK!
    16% sounds like a lot, but there are many times more law-abiding citizens than there are criminals. I'm going to bet that the "citizens with guns" number is higher.

    If you look at just the prison population (which is smaller than the criminal population, but we can measure it), then take 16%, you'll get a rough estimate of criminals carrying guns.

    Maybe double it to make up for the ones that didn't get caught, or are still in office, or... well... still have jobs where they're supposed to be the good guys.
    (According to wikipedia: "As of June 2009, 2,297,400 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails..." That comes from US DOJ stats.)

    So double that to 4,600,000 criminals x 16% using guns = 736,000 criminals using guns

    Then take the population of the USA, minus the prison population, times .45%, and you'll have a rough estimate of citizens carrying guns.
    (According to the US Census page, our population is almost 312,000,000.)
    312,000,000 in the US - 4,600,000 criminals = 307,400,000 non-criminals
    307,400,000 x .45% = 1,383,300 armed non-criminals

    (736,000 criminals / 1,383,300 armed non-criminals) x 100 = 53%

    So even doubling the estimated criminal population, the criminals with guns are only slightly over half of the population of armed Americans.
    Not a great ratio, but far far less bleak than what you thought!
    And they're only counting permits. That ignores all of us in WI, AK, AZ, VT, & other states where open carry is a right, not a priviledge.
    I follow your analysis and your math looks good. I think we are looking at two different things.

    You are looking at the ratio of firearms of criminals to law-abiding citizens. We have more firearms. But the criminal is 35 times more likely to possess the firearm.

    Another way of looking at it is that if a criminal attacked another criminal, the odds of the second criminal being armed is 35% higher than if non-criminal was attacked. So it behooves a criminal to attack a non-criminal, especially a non-criminal in state with a very low probability of the non-criminal being armed -like Wisconsin.

    Maybe my brain is fried.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Thank you for this information!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Analysis

    Mkegal:

    What is flawed in your analisys is that you use the 16% only as applied to those criminals incarcerated. The 16% in the study was considered representative of the total criminal population (similar to the conclusions compiled by nationwide polls on other subjects). The study results were compiled from 100 questions given to 10,000 inmates nationwide. The final result from the answer to this question was that in the event of a crime there is a 16% peobability the criminal will be armed.

    Your analysis did prove one thing. Statistics can be used to justify any position on an issue. That is why it is so difficult to use them against the anti's. Just as your analisys would imply that there are more armed citizens than criminals, or that the playing field is nearly equal, so there is little risk of encountering an armed criminal. I know that isn't your intent but the anti's could use it to that end.

    I repeat: the conclusion of the study I referenced was that there is a 16% probability that during a criminal encounter the criminal will be armed. The other information on permit holders implies that there is only about a 1% chance the victim will be armed.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Did the analyzer determine and adjust for the population that are 21 years and older. Most don't and that increases the numbers significantly. Generally the likelihood that someone 21 and over has a CPL increases when you look at it that way.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    adult gun carries

    Read the post. It says number of adults in shall-issue states. Now before someone jumps on that statement let me say that the Minnesota/ Wisconsin figures are still relevent because they are contiguous states with a similar population and culture mix. Under those conditions it is reasonable to presume that because the total populations of the states are so similar that the ratio of adults to sub-adults is also similar.

  12. #12
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Heres my .02.

    I don't believe in theoretical mathematics, too many variables to compensate for. For instance, of those who do not have a CC permit, are ineligible (mentally infirm, felons etc)? Of those adults how many are over 80 years old? My assumption is many of those elderly people are hospitalized (nursing homes, etc) and will not have a CC permit. While some tried to work in the criminal elements, those numbers would be too inaccurate to count. Undoubtedly there would be many other factors that would nullify most of the figures the article listed.

    I would be interested in what Arizona's current numbers are however.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  13. #13
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by phred
    I think we are looking at two different things.
    You're right.

    But the criminal is 35 times more likely to possess the firearm.
    Another way of looking at it is that if a criminal attacked another criminal, the odds of the second criminal being armed is 35% higher than if non-criminal was attacked.
    You're right again. I didn't look at it that way. Thanks for pointing it out.

    IOW: within a population (criminal or citizen) the odds of picking at random someone who's carrying a gun are 35x higher in the criminal group.

    And your brain must be fried, 'cause you made a silly mistake there...
    35 times more likely to be armed = 3500%
    35% more likely to be armed = 1.35x
    Or am I misunderstanding you?

    Nemo said:
    What is flawed in your analisys is that you use the 16% only as applied to those criminals incarcerated.
    No, I applied it to the entire estimated criminal population, which I guessed at by doubling the prison population. Probably there are more criminals than that, but it's a starting point.
    Heck, even if we quadrupled the known prison population to estimate 1 crook in jail for every 3 still on the streets, we'd have even numbers of armed criminals & citizens.
    But yes, phred is right, the chances of encountering an armed criminal are much higher than the chances of meeting an armed citizen. (At least, using only permit holder numbers, which is all they can really measure, right)?
    Last edited by MKEgal; 01-28-2011 at 09:36 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    You're right.


    You're right again. I didn't look at it that way. Thanks for pointing it out.

    IOW: within a population (criminal or citizen) the odds of picking at random someone who's carrying a gun are 35x higher in the criminal group.

    And your brain must be fried, 'cause you made a silly mistake there...
    35 times more likely to be armed = 3500%
    35% more likely to be armed = 1.35x
    Or am I misunderstanding you?
    What I originally said was the ratio of armed criminal to armed LAC was 35 to 1. I meant to say

    Another way of looking at it is that if a criminal attacked another criminal, the odds of the second criminal being armed is 35 times higher than if non-criminal was attacked. So it behooves a criminal to attack a non-criminal, especially a non-criminal in state with a very low probability of the non-criminal being armed -like Wisconsin.
    I should have know better. I guess my brains were fried - in trans fats!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    crooks and guns

    Mkegal:

    According to your calculations I can now sell my personal protection firearms. If just as many law-abiding citizens have firearms as crooks then I should feel pretty safe because there is a level playing field. Of ccourse I am being facetious. One thing youe calculations fail to take into account is location. Many people carry firearms in locations where they are unlikely to experience a robbery. In Western Wisconsin where I live I am much more likely to encounter a rabid skunk than I am an armed criminal. Inter-city Milwaukee is a different situation altogether. Trying to calculate all the what-ifs is probably beyond the mathmatic skills of both of us. phred made a good conclusion from the posts I made. In the event of a robbery of person the odds of the criminal being armed with a firearm is 35 times greater than the odds the victim is armed. That's all the reports I posted represent. You just can't use raw numbers to reach a credible conclusion without considering location. The reports take into consideration that an armed robbery is likely to occur within the criminals environment.

    Let me try another scenario:

    If you are not another doctor(permit carrier) and walk into a doctor's office(environment) the chances of the doctor you are visiting is wearing a stetoscope(firearm) is 35 times greater than you wearing a stethoscope.

    That's all the reports are trying to convey. Whay are you trying to bend them to say something else. Implying by your conclusion that the carry of firearms for personal protection is probably not worth what we are making of it.

    I'm done with this thread.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Captain,

    Thank you for finding and posting this information. It was a great help today at the gun show. In fact it was just .......priceless!

  17. #17
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Captain,

    Thank you for finding and posting this information. It was a great help today at the gun show. In fact it was just .......priceless!
    +1000 Thanks Cap!

  18. #18
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    So what is your point Captain? Free permits? Cheap permits? No permits? Training? No training?
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    My Point

    Oak:

    I will say it in terms you should be able to understand.

    My point was, is, and will always be that Article I Section 25 of our state constitution "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose" says nothing about manner of carry. It presumes all manners of carry. If it had been intended to restrict concealed carry it would have been so worded. As worded it was ratified by 75% of the voters of Wisconsin on the presumption that it meant all legal types of firearms by all manners. If the legislators now say they didn't really mean concealed carry, then they lied to us voters in 1998. My position is that concealed carry shall have no more restrictions placed on it than visible carry, period. The problem is not with Art I section 25. The problem is with the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23 that is an infringement on Art. I sect 25 and the precise wording of the amendment. And as such should be disabled.

    I hope that answers your question and any one else that questions my actions and dedication.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    What is the forfeiture amount if someone is charged with carrying a concealed firearm in Wisconsin?

    Why do I ask this? I am sick of disarming when I leave my place of business and go into the bank to make my deposits. At My most vulnerable, current laws prohibit me from being able to protect myself and my interests (money)
    I find myslef wondering;
    how would they even know that I am carrying concealed? Only if I am forced to remove it from its holster would it be known, and then the law states I can legally conceal if my need to do so is greater than the states want to prohibit that manner of carry.
    In Milwaukee, a pizza delivery driver was found his need trumped the law, and he is handling smaller amount of cash than I typically am. The only problem I see is if I end up in court, the Vilas County judge is nowhere near unbiased. I am willing to go as far as saying if a blind police officer stated he saw someone jaywalking, he would find the defendant guilty, even if the defendant had affidavits from the entire WI legislature that stated the defendant was with them at the time so it could not have happened. I work in Oneida county, and that could be a crapshoot on a judges ruling, but maybe I would get lucky and the judge would go the way of Clark County and find the prohibition unconstitutional on its face.
    I think I'll start carrying the GF's Hi-Point and see what happens, she'll enjoy having the XDm anyways. I think it is close to 15 pounds lighter anyways. I'll find the fine amount and decide if I can afford it to make my point.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    What is the forfeiture amount if someone is charged with carrying a concealed firearm in Wisconsin?
    Nutczak -- if I'm not mistaken carrying concealed is a Class A Misdemeanor:

    Class A Misdemeanor

    The penalty for a Class A misdemeanor may include a fine up to $10,000, or imprisonment for up to 9 months, or both; however, for a repeat offender, the term of imprisonment may increase up to 2 years.

  22. #22
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Oak:

    I will say it in terms you should be able to understand.

    My point was, is, and will always be that Article I Section 25 of our state constitution "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose" says nothing about manner of carry. It presumes all manners of carry. If it had been intended to restrict concealed carry it would have been so worded. As worded it was ratified by 75% of the voters of Wisconsin on the presumption that it meant all legal types of firearms by all manners. If the legislators now say they didn't really mean concealed carry, then they lied to us voters in 1998. My position is that concealed carry shall have no more restrictions placed on it than visible carry, period. The problem is not with Art I section 25. The problem is with the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23 that is an infringement on Art. I sect 25 and the precise wording of the amendment. And as such should be disabled.

    I hope that answers your question and any one else that questions my actions and dedication.
    Thanks for the clarity. No need to get your shorts in wad or be condescending. Bloviating doesn't help either.
    Last edited by oak1971; 01-31-2011 at 05:48 PM.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Oak:

    I will say it in terms you should be able to understand.

    My point was, is, and will always be that Article I Section 25 of our state constitution "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose" says nothing about manner of carry. It presumes all manners of carry. If it had been intended to restrict concealed carry it would have been so worded. As worded it was ratified by 75% of the voters of Wisconsin on the presumption that it meant all legal types of firearms by all manners. If the legislators now say they didn't really mean concealed carry, then they lied to us voters in 1998. My position is that concealed carry shall have no more restrictions placed on it than visible carry, period. The problem is not with Art I section 25. The problem is with the concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23 that is an infringement on Art. I sect 25 and the precise wording of the amendment. And as such should be disabled.

    I hope that answers your question and any one else that questions my actions and dedication.
    As highlighted, I agree with Captain Nemo, I'll even go further and say that the statutes should only apply if commiting a crime.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323
    I am with the Captain as well. If the constitutional amendment remains silent on the method of carry, so should the legislature. What some are proposing is we will have the "privilege" of carrying concealed provided we submit to a background check, mandatory training, permitting, fees and tuition and the ability for the state to yank your license should you step out of line AND we will still have the "right" to carry openly with all of the insane statutory restrictions that pretty much negate the right, accompanied by harassment bylaw enforcement for lawfully exercising that right.

    YAHOOOO we won. The reality is we are not anywhere near being able to exercise the rights enumerated in our state constitution. I mean really, what is the upside to all of this? I guess we will be able to chant, "We're better then Illinois". I guess we could also chant when it comes to gun rights among the 50 states, "We're number 49".

    I do not want the buttinski legislature to "grant" us any privileges. All I want them to do is to align the state statutes with the state constitution. They took an oath to do this. It's not complicated.

  25. #25
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/...ith-carry.html

    The web site address I posted above contains statistics on the number of adults in shall-issue states that have concealed carry permits. The figures are percentages based on total state population. The chart is posted below. The figures are alittle old in that they are bases on the 2004 population. However I doubt that the numbers have fluctuated enough to significantly affect the percentages. Note that in no case does the percentage approach 10%.

    The Minnesota figures are .45% of a 2009 population of 5,266,214. The population figure is from the U.S. Census Bureau web site. I picked Minnesota as a comparion to Wisconsin because the populations are nearly identical. The 2009 population of Wisconsin is 5,654,774.

    Using those figures Minnesota has 23,697 concealed carry permit holders. Based on those figures Wisconsin could probably expect 25,446. There most probably be an initial spike but I think the numbers will probably stabilize close to the Minnesota numbers. Even if the figure ws as high as 1.7% (as in Michigan) the number would only be 96,131. I expect the actual figure for Wisconsin would be somewhere between the two. The prcise number would be tempered by the fact that because Wisconsin has a state recognized constitutional right to open carry, a number of persons will refuse to obtain a concealed carry permit and opt to continue with open carry.

    It hardly appears that those numbers would be a golden goose for either the State or permit instructors. If a state issued permit would cost $100, which is excessive, it could expect $2,500,000 first time dollars in revenue. Hardly enough to establish a department to organize and permanently maintain a permit issuing capability,especially when recurring revenue would be much less requireing the state to dip into other public funds to maintain the service. On the same order if a training course was to average $100 and there are 500 qualified instructors throughout the state that figures to $5000 dollars first time gross income per instructor.

    What I calculate is simple arithmatic based on published and public values. There is no smoke and mirrors. A permit system in Wisconsin is hardly the mecca of additional revenue for the State or of financial independence to firearm instuctors. It is simply an infringement on Article I section 25 of our state constitution.

    Folks the numbers are just not there to support a costly permit system.

    This post reflects my opinion.



    Percent of Adults with a License to Carry in each Shall Issue State

    7.45% South Dakota
    6.79% Indiana
    6.76% Pennsylvania
    5.23% Connecticut
    5.12% Washington
    4.34% Idaho
    4.10% Utah
    3.86% Oregon
    3.45% Tennessee
    3.15% Alabama
    2.72% Florida
    2.71% Kentucky
    2.67% Wyoming
    2.41% Maine
    2.18% Arkansas
    2.11% Virginia
    1.94% West Virginia
    1.76% Arizona
    1.75% Oklahoma
    1.70% Montana
    1.70% Michigan
    1.62% Texas
    1.39% South Carolina
    1.34% North Dakota
    1.00% North Carolina
    0.86% Mississippi
    0.62% Louisiana
    0.58% Nevada
    0.45% Minnesota
    0.36% Missouri
    0.33% Ohio
    0.20% Colorado
    0.17% New Mexico <-- Slight correction 12/22/04, per Ken Grubb
    Your calculations reflect reality quite well. When we started the shall issue program, a number of people tried to cash in with class prices of $150 or more for a two day class. I offered an excellent two day class for $79, and the prices came down and stabilized at about $60 to $100 for the two day class. When we went to the one day class, I brought the price down to $70. I have to make expenses, and the biggest cost is advertising the class.

    Most years, I officially lose money, but the IRS allows for generous milage deductions. I am pretty frugal and do a lot of my own maintenance, so I do not have to worry about out of pocket expenses.

    I believe that if it is worth doing, you can usually make a profit at it. If someone is not willing to pay for it, they don't want it bad enough. I have given away a number of courses, and have given steeply discounted group rates to peace officers and church groups.

    In some urban areas, where you can reliably have 20 people to the class for every class, it can be a good moneymaker. My average class is closer to six, and I do it because I believe in it. I also get to meet wonderful people. The people who take CCW classes are at the top of the most responsible people in society. I have never had a bad check from these people.

    I have taught the CCW classes in Arizona for the past 16 years.
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 02-04-2011 at 07:03 PM. Reason: Inform readers of the state I taught in.

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
  •