• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 v No permit Reality check.

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
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.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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:

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-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:

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Using the last numbers rounded off, about 80,000 permits for about 5.3 Million people (Minnesota population) would be about 1.5% of the population has a carry permit. That means in a average demographically mixed crowd of 200 people, 3 people should be legally armed. This would not include any LE in attendance. Is that a good ratio of sheepdogs to sheep?
 
M

McX

Guest
ahem..............is this thing on?................testing, testing..................ok; we dont need no steeenkin permits............thank you, that is all.
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
ahem..............is this thing on?................testing, testing..................ok; we dont need no steeenkin permits............thank you, that is all.

McX, my friend, I think you meant to say:

We don't need no steeenkin permits, but we want an OPTIONAL permit system for people who travel - just like AK and AZ have (and CO and UT may likely get this legislative session).
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
McX, my friend, I think you meant to say:

We don't need no steeenkin permits, but we want an OPTIONAL permit system for people who travel - just like AK and AZ have (and CO and UT may likely get this legislative session).

I dunno, maybe he really did mean
we don't need no steeenkin permits
anywhere, anytime, anyhow

Maybe he meant that there should not be permits needed for the entire United States of America.

Hey McX, care to elaborate?
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
mcx, my friend, i think you meant to say:

We don't need no steeenkin permits, but we want an optional permit system for people who travel - just like ak and az have (and co and ut may likely get this legislative session).

And then we want Constitutional Carry throughout the United States of America including all territories and the District of Columbia.
 
Last edited:
M

McX

Guest
I dunno, maybe he really did mean anywhere, anytime, anyhow

Maybe he meant that there should not be permits needed for the entire United States of America.

Hey McX, care to elaborate?

i'll take whatever ground we can get, accept the gains, and strive for more, point out the other states, and their gains, and positions, and dream of a land with uniform gun laws, from sea to shining sea.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Why would a permit system necessarily be costly? I believe FL's system is self-sufficient, even to the point some politicians were trying to raid it not that long ago. Obviously CC would be the goal, but are the votes there? You gotta move the ball forward, if only by a little.
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Why would a permit system necessarily be costly? I believe FL's system is self-sufficient, even to the point some politicians were trying to raid it not that long ago. Obviously CC would be the goal, but are the votes there? You gotta move the ball forward, if only by a little.

A permit is yet another tax to an impoverished citizen for a right they should already have.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Why would a permit system necessarily be costly? I believe FL's system is self-sufficient, even to the point some politicians were trying to raid it not that long ago. Obviously CC would be the goal, but are the votes there? You gotta move the ball forward, if only by a little.

WI has a long history of politicians raising taxes. We know full well this fee to exercise a right will go up as well. Permits are a thing of the past. VT, AK, and AZ are currently Constitutional Carry states, with WY and CO passing similar legislation. Besides, our state motto is Forward. Why do we want to go backward to a shall issue permit? In addition, Article 1, Section 25 reiterates we have the right to keep and bear arms, because our right for protection is given by God. If you are going to say, no state has ever gone straight to Constitutional Carry, well, you'd be wrong. VT did this in early 20th century. Why can't WI?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Why would a permit system necessarily be costly? I believe FL's system is self-sufficient, even to the point some politicians were trying to raid it not that long ago. Obviously CC would be the goal, but are the votes there? You gotta move the ball forward, if only by a little.

Exactly. One assistant of a Representative told me that it would be self sufficient. The problem is that the state would have to hire more people to process the stuff and the government has never met a fee it didn't like raising at some point.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
Why would a permit system necessarily be costly? I believe FL's system is self-sufficient, even to the point some politicians were trying to raid it not that long ago. Obviously CC would be the goal, but are the votes there? You gotta move the ball forward, if only by a little.

FL also allows loaded carry in a vehicle with no stinking permits, this is open to all people who can legally own a firearm. The only real rule is the gun cannot be readily accessible. In other words, a loaded pistol in a center console is legal in FL with no fee's, mandatory training, or other B-S!
 
Top