Difference between the 3 bills?

paul@paul-fisher.com · May 8, 2011

Sometimes I wish Doug was around.

I am having some difficulty understanding the 3 suggested bills. I know that 2007-1 is basically Constitutional Carry with cut back WI GFSZ but no Fed GFSZ exemption.

What I am not quite understanding is the difference between the other 2.

I know they issue permits, the permits are $52 plus $13 for a background check, does either require training?

Do all three put into law AG Van Hollen's memo that carrying a weapon, absent some other crime is not DC?

Thanks!

safcrkr · May 8, 2011

First off, there's only two pieces of proposed legislation. The two permit bills are actually the same bill. The reason there's two bills listed by the LRB is one is Assembly sponsored, the other is Senate sponsored. It's just a "numbering" formality, LRB numbers every piece of legislation differantly even though they're the same bill submitted in two differant houses of the legislature. Just like the current castle doctrine... in the house it's AB69, but the exact same bill in the Senate is named SB79. Here we have LRB2027 & LRB2033.

LRB stands for Legislative Referance Bureau. They're the ones who actually do all the bill writing transferred into "legalese".

No training, and yes they all stipulate in a statute, that either open carry or concealed carry are NOT to be considered as DC. In fact, the permit bill goes so far as to punish any LEO with a class C misdemeanor who does otherwise.

paul@paul-fisher.com · May 8, 2011

safcrkr said:
First off, there's only two pieces of proposed legislation. The two permit bills are actually the same bill. The reason there's two bills listed by the LRB is one is Assembly sponsored, the other is Senate sponsored. It's just a "numbering" formality, LRB numbers every piece of legislation differantly even though they're the same bill submitted in two differant houses of the legislature. Just like the current castle doctrine... in the house it's AB69, but the exact same bill in the Senate is named SB79. Here we have LRB2027 & LRB2033.

LRB stands for Legislative Referance Bureau. They're the ones who actually do all the bill writing transferred into "legalese".

No training, and yes they all stipulate in a statute, that either open carry or concealed carry are NOT to be considered as DC. In fact, the permit bill goes so far as to punish any LEO with a class C misdemeanor who does otherwise.

OK, cool. I knew about the LRB and such.

So.... there is no House version of Constitutional Carry. That sucks! Assembly members can sign on as co-sponsors onto Senate bills, however.

safcrkr · May 8, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
OK, cool. I knew about the LRB and such.

So.... there is no House version of Constitutional Carry. That sucks! Assembly members can sign on as co-sponsors onto Senate bills, however.

That's why only the permit bill will be discussed in Madison on the 12th. The Madison hearing is the Assembly committee's hearing, and as they have no constitutional carry bill proposed, they can't have a hearing on it.

The Senate has both bills proposed. The constitutional carry bill (LRB2007) is a Senate bill. One of the two permit bills is also a Senate version, so the Wausau hearing, which is Senate sponsored, will hear both versions because they have both bills.

edit to add: As the lead author in both Senate bills is from the Wausau district, she/they wanted a hearing held "up north", and I agree. I drove from Eagle River to Madison for the hearings on the last two CC bills, and I'll never do that again. Both hearings lasted 10+ hours, plus 9 hours of driving, makes a long long day.

Outdoorsman1 · May 9, 2011

These answers = EXCELLENT information....

Thanks.

Outdoorsman1

Difference between the 3 bills?

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member

safcrkr

Regular Member

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member

safcrkr

Regular Member

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member