Email from Sen. Wanggaard

After several email to my Senator Vanggaard I finally got a reply after I noted at the bottom that I would appreciate a return email informing me how he felt on what I had emailed him about.... I don't know if this was just a coincidence, or if I just needed to ask for a response. Something to think about for those who haven't heard back from their legislators.

Needless to say, he got an email back from me stating my disappointment....

Dear Jason,

Thank you for contacting me about concealed carry legislation.

Please know that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment rights, and state legislation that permits law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Forty-eight other states have already passed concealed carry legislation, and it is past time that Wisconsin caught up with the rest of the country when it comes to the right of personal protection.

However, among these 48 states, the laws regarding concealed carry vary considerably. There are three main types of concealed carry laws:

* May-Issue: The state sets requirements for carrying a concealed weapon, but leaves local jurisdictions (such as a county sheriff’s office), the discretion to deny a permit, even when state requirements are met.
* Shall-Issue: The state sets requirements for permits and the granting authority must issue a permit if these requirements are met.
* Unrestricted: No permit system exists. Any law-abiding citizen authorized to own a gun may carry a concealed weapon.

I have talked to constituents who have argued passionately for each of the different types of concealed carry laws in Wisconsin, and I have talked to many that argue against the right of any individual to carry a concealed weapon.

As you may know, I am a retired law enforcement officer with the Racine Police Department, and I have extensive experience dealing with firearms. Law enforcement officers are required to have training in the handling of, and show skill with firearms. This requirement is in place to ensure the safety of the public.

The Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and I will protect that right. I am still working with my colleagues and other interested parties to help craft concealed carry legislation that best serves Wisconsin citizens. However, I agree with many of my constituents that a “may-issue” concealed carry law fails to sufficiently protect an individual’s right to personal protection.

As we continue to craft a Wisconsin concealed carry law I will keep your concerns and comments in mind. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me.


Regards,

Van H. Wanggaard
State Senator
21st Senate District

Click to expand...

Constitutional rights.

It never fails to amaze me on how ignorant our state politicians and law enforcement agencies, and of many persons on the variuos gun rights forums, are of our state constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Invaribly whenever gun right conversations arise there is profound quoting and reference to the U.S. constitution's second amendment. An amendment that largely applies as a restriction to the federal goverments gun control liability. Scant reference is given to the gun rights contained in the state constitution. The constitution that has more of a direct affect on our right to keep and bear arms. An amendment that in 1998 reflected the opinion of 75% of the Wisconsin voting public concerning our right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose. An amendment that reads "'People have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". Folks it doesn't get more clear or simple than that. It is those words the politicians and law enforcement agencies are sworn first to protect when they take office. Perhaps they feel ignorance is bliss. Or that if they ignore the amendment it will go away. The second amendment is fine as far as it goes but it is article I section 25 of the Wisconsin state constitution that should receive their priorities. Of all the political and law enforcement responses posted on this forum I can't recall any that say they support Article I section 25 of the state constitution. They always cop out to the more nebulous an less obligatory second amendment.

My opinion

That would be a great response were it not for the fact that 65% (on average) of police officers either fail, or come close to failing at qualifying with their side arm. Then again what do I know, I am just a firearms instructor.

Reads like a cut and paste job made up by an aide. You should email him back note that the NRA gave him an "A" rating and the NRA is on record for Consitutional Carry without costly, bureaucratic training requirements. Ask him if he supports the NRA's position.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=5602

I wonder what his feelings are on the micro-stamping bill that keeps being introduced every session by fellow former cop Leon Young.

Captain Nemo said:

It never fails to amaze me on how ignorant our state politicians and law enforcement agencies, and of many persons on the variuos gun rights forums, are of our state constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. Invaribly whenever gun right conversations arise there is profound quoting and reference to the U.S. constitution's second amendment. An amendment that largely applies as a restriction to the federal goverments gun control liability. Scant reference is given to the gun rights contained in the state constitution. The constitution that has more of a direct affect on our right to keep and bear arms. An amendment that in 1998 reflected the opinion of 75% of the Wisconsin voting public concerning our right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose. An amendment that reads "'People have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". Folks it doesn't get more clear or simple than that. It is those words the politicians and law enforcement agencies are sworn first to protect when they take office. Perhaps they feel ignorance is bliss. Or that if they ignore the amendment it will go away. The second amendment is fine as far as it goes but it is article I section 25 of the Wisconsin state constitution that should receive their priorities. Of all the political and law enforcement responses posted on this forum I can't recall any that say they support Article I section 25 of the state constitution. They always cop out to the more nebulous an less obligatory second amendment.

My opinion

Click to expand...

Thank you, well said. My opinion too. It's nice to rely on the phrase "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not get?" But in Art 1 Sec 25, there is an unequivocal right to keep and bear arms for security and defense. There is no mention or implication of a tax, fee, or permit to "earn" that right.

What I got from reading between the lines, is that he will push for mandatory training.

People need to realize that a police officer is supposed to actively pursue criminals, and this is where the training is needed. A joe or betty sixpack like you, I and everyone else does not actively seek out criminal activity. We just want a chance to survive an attack by a criminal.

We have had reassurance from the AG that open-carry is legal how many years ago? Can anyone recall a single situation where training was/is mandated to exercise any other constitutionally guaranteed right?
What dynamic changes so radically between carrying a firearm openly where training is not being pushed, and concealed where they are pushing for training? Does the difference of a few millimeters of cloth covering a firearm change things this much?

canned response

Dear Frank,

Thank you for contacting me about concealed carry legislation.

Please know that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment rights, and state legislation that permits law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Forty-eight other states have already passed concealed carry legislation, and it is past time that Wisconsin caught up with the rest of the country when it comes to the right of personal protection.

However, among these 48 states, the laws regarding concealed carry vary considerably. There are three main types of concealed carry laws:

•May-Issue: The state sets requirements for carrying a concealed weapon, but leaves local jurisdictions (such as a county sheriff’s office), the discretion to deny a permit, even when state requirements are met.
•Shall-Issue: The state sets requirements for permits and the granting authority must issue a permit if these requirements are met.
•Unrestricted: No permit system exists. Any law-abiding citizen authorized to own a gun may carry a concealed weapon.

I have talked to constituents who have argued passionately for each of the different types of concealed carry laws in Wisconsin, and I have talked to many that argue against the right of any individual to carry a concealed weapon.

As you may know, I am a retired law enforcement officer with the Racine Police Department, and I have extensive experience dealing with firearms. Law enforcement officers are required to have training in the handling of, and show skill with firearms. This requirement is in place to ensure the safety of the public.

The Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and I will protect that right. I am still working with my colleagues and other interested parties to help craft concealed carry legislation that best serves Wisconsin citizens. However, I agree with many of my constituents that a “may-issue” concealed carry law fails to sufficiently protect an individual’s right to personal protection.

As we continue to craft a Wisconsin concealed carry law I will keep your concerns and comments in mind. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Van H. Wanggaard

State Senator

21st Senate District



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nutczak said:

What I got from reading between the lines, is that he will push for mandatory training.

People need to realize that a police officer is supposed to actively pursue criminals, and this is where the training is needed. A joe or betty sixpack like you, I and everyone else does not actively seek out criminal activity. We just want a chance to survive an attack by a criminal.

We have had reassurance from the AG that open-carry is legal how many years ago? Can anyone recall a single situation where training was/is mandated to exercise any other constitutionally guaranteed right?
What dynamic changes so radically between carrying a firearm openly where training is not being pushed, and concealed where they are pushing for training? Does the difference of a few millimeters of cloth covering a firearm change things this much?

Click to expand...

out of sight, out of mind. ignorance is bliss. whatever we get will at least put us on par with the criminals, who have utilized permit free concealed carry for years.

Nutczak: BINGO!!!

How can the legislature demand mandatory training and permits for concealed carried when both the state AG and Supreme Court have decided that open carry is a right that doesn't require them. Both manners are protected by the words "keep and bear arms" contained in Art 1 sec25 which makes no exception of concealed carry.

I like how he didn't even answer your question...haha

As you may know, I am a retired law enforcement officer with the Racine Police Department, and I have extensive experience dealing with firearms. Law enforcement officers are required to have training in the handling of, and show skill with firearms. This requirement is in place to ensure the safety of the public.

The Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and I will protect that right. [...]


Regards,

Van H. Wanggaard
State Senator
21st Senate District

Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Wanggaard,

Law enforcement officers are required to go through training because we are paying them to a job for us. We are asking them to go into harms way to provide a service. Of course they need to be trained. Fortunately, free men do not work for their elected officials, and therefore the same "requirement" shall not apply to free citizens. We are not asking you for permission to go armed, nor are you paying us for a service in return.

When it come to the 2nd ammendment you are waaaaay off. Being a veteran, who also served his country, I believe it is my duty to educate the powerful when they are completly lacking the fundamental and basic understanding of our very existance as free men. The second amendment to the US Constitution does not GRANT any rights. It reminds the ferel government which natrual rights we are NOT delegating to their scrutiny or control. Get it right if you are going to quote it.

You might be a really nice guy, but you come off as a tool when you completely miss the mark on constitutionally protected rights. I sincerely hope that you choose to find another line of work.

perhaps another email is in order?

Reminding him of the State Constitution,
reminding him of the NRA position,
(if he's Republican) reminding him of the WI Repub. platform of Constitutional Carry,
and trying to explain the difference between what a LEO does and what citizens do.

I've said elsewhere that if someone is attacking me, I have no doubt about exactly who is threatening me.
If a LEO arrives on a scene s/he has to interview people to find something resembling the truth, since s/he didn't witness anything.

I won't be chasing anyone. LEOs do fairly regularly.
I won't be trying to clear a building. LEOs do fairly regularly.

If, heaven forbid, I ever have to shoot someone to save my life, it's likely to be someone physically close to me (and getting closer).
LEOs take long shots.

Ask an NRA instructor about what's required to earn that rank (or the various marksmanship ranks),
then ask a local LEO - or heck, ask an FBI agent - what they have to do, shooting-wise.
Then try to reconcile those facts with the opinion that LEOs are so well trained, better trained than civilians.