SB90 and AB126 Are NOT exactly the same as LRB-2027 and LRB-2033

Just for a single example, they kept the old language in 167.31(2)(b) as "Unloaded and Encased" instead of simply "Unloaded"
LRB-2027 and 2033 had the encased part struck through. The current versions restored the part about being encased. The benefit to us in the first version is that someone hunting or Open Carrying would not have to remove the case from the vehicle before opening the case. As it now reads in SB90 and AB126 you are still subject to encased unless it is a handgun and you have a CCW permit.
We are back to the Open Carry handgun juggling which is stupid.

This is what is missing from SB90 and A126

To renumber and amend 167.31 (2) (b),

to amend 167.31 (4) (am) 2., 167.31 (4) (am) 3., 167.31 (4) (b),
167.31 (4) (d), 167.31 (4) (f),

to create 167.31 (2) (b) 2.,

Interceptor_Knight said:

Just for a single example, they kept the old language in 167.31(2)(b) as "Unloaded and Encased" instead of simply "Unloaded"
LRB-2027 and 2033 had the encased part struck through. The current versions restored the part about being encased. The benefit to us in the first version is that someone hunting or Open Carrying would not have to remove the case from the vehicle before opening the case. As it now reads in SB90 and AB126 you are still subject to encased unless it is a handgun and you have a CCW permit.
We are back to the Open Carry handgun juggling which is stupid.

Click to expand...

A not so sneaky nudge for everyone to "permit up". How crappy of them.

I found where they went. They are in SB93. The rumor that they are going to try and pass BOTH the Constitutional Carry AND the Shall Issue Permit Bills has more merit in light of this.

Well Yes..and No

Interceptor_Knight said:

Just for a single example, they kept the old language in 167.31(2)(b) as "Unloaded and Encased" instead of simply "Unloaded"
LRB-2027 and 2033 had the encased part struck through. The current versions restored the part about being encased. The benefit to us in the first version is that someone hunting or Open Carrying would not have to remove the case from the vehicle before opening the case. As it now reads in SB90 and AB126 you are still subject to encased unless it is a handgun and you have a CCW permit.
We are back to the Open Carry handgun juggling which is stupid.

Click to expand...

A highly simplified explanation: A bill has both an LRB number and an AB (or SB) number. The LRB number is a housekeeping number that is assigned first (before AB/SB) and follows the bill until it is introduced. The AB/SB doesn't change but the LRB may as drafting changes are requested. Thus LRB-2027/2 is different from LRB-2027/1. Later you may see an LRB-a2027/1 (an amendment) or LRB-s2027/1 (a substitute). You are still dealing with SB90 but the LRB number tells you which version you're dealing with. There is no conspiracy to sneak through changes. You merely compared SB90 (LRB-2027/1) to SB90 (LRB-2027/2). To say that SB90 is different than LRB-2027 doesn't make sense. Iimportant information is missing. I am no expert on this issue and will gladly accept correction from someone who is. You call always call LRB at (608) 266-0341 and ask what the latest version is. (No, I don't work for LRB and don't know anyone who does.)

What Happens to 167.31(2)(b) Under Both Approaches

Interceptor_Knight said:

I found where they went. They are in SB93. The rumor that they are going to try and pass BOTH the Constitutional Carry AND the Shall Issue Permit Bills has more merit in light of this.

Click to expand...

SB93 (LRB−2007/1) "constitutional carry" - 167.31(2)(b) is repealed
AB126 (LRB-2033/2) and SB90 (LRB-2027/2) - the shall issue twins - exempts licensees from 167.31(2)(b) - with regard to a handgun, see line 5 on page 16 (Section 37).

Yes, as Oak1971 surmises, probably an incentive to get a permit but so is concealed carry, GFSZ, NICS, reciprocity and the ability to impress chicks....of course if you believe that constitutional carry is in the bag, why worry?

apjonas said:

There is no conspiracy to sneak through changes. You merely compared SB90 (LRB-2027/1) to SB90 (LRB-2027/2). To say that SB90 is different than LRB-2027 doesn't make sense. Iimportant information is missing.

Click to expand...

No changes were publicly released prior to SB90 being proposed. Normally you can track changes on the web site but things happened very quickly here. It is a bullcrap change unless the intent is to pass both bills together with one addressing OC and CC, and the other addressing permitted carry. If SB93 gets dropped and AB126/SB90 are run through without reinstating the struck language, we are getting screwed.

apjonas said:

....of course if you believe that constitutional carry is in the bag, why worry?

Click to expand...

Obvious to the most casual observer of the proceedings, it most definitely is not which makes the proposed language important. It makes the difference between unpermitted OC remaining nearly useless and being a practical alternative to a permit.

Run Through? - You Sound Like an Democrat Hiding in Illinois

Interceptor_Knight said:

No changes were publicly released prior to SB90 being proposed. Normally you can track changes on the web site but things happened very quickly here. It is a bullcrap change unless the intent is to pass both bills together with one addressing OC and CC, and the other addressing permitted carry. If SB93 gets dropped and AB126/SB90 are run through without reinstating the struck language, we are getting screwed.

Click to expand...

But the fact is that you (and anybody else paying attention) became aware of the changes. None of the bills have passed and are still open to amendment. So get on the horn and let the legislature know what you want. There is no requirement to give you advance notice of drafting changes. It is up to you to keep tabs on the legislation. Find out why the sponsors are doing it this way. Perhaps there is a plan to deal with 167.31(2)(b) for non-permittees as a separate item in the future. It makes perfect sense that supports of a permit system will, well, support a permit system by given permittees more goodies. I don't think there is any intent to pass both since it would make a confused mess out of the statutes (e.g. attempting to amend a provision that has been repealed). My guess is the idea is to have both available, if no-permit fails, shall issue gets taken up right away. Press for no-permit if you like but input on shall issue as well, to insure that it is optimized. It appears that some folks have such an aversion to the permit plan that even discussing the possibility is taboo. End result - not only do you not get no permit but you get a less than desirable shall issue. Everybody needs to put on their big boy pants. Holding your breath until you turn purple only makes you pass out.

According to Jeff Nass of WI-FORCE (The WI State Rifle Club) the intentions of the NRA and WI-FORCE are to get both bills passed for a 2 tiered system.

the Senate Judiciary Committee met in Wausau and heard both Senate Bill 93, the "permitless carry" bill, and Senate Bill 90, the "shall-issue" license bill. The NRA testified in support of both bills. If each bill becomes law, citizens will have the option of carrying under either of the two systems,

Click to expand...

According to the nearly spam level E-mails being sent out, our dear Gov Walker and Rep Fitzgerald are out to torpedo this idea and will prevent any form of Constitutional Carry at all costs. The latest E-mail is that they are going to poison it by tacking on the handgun micro-stamping language. It was mentioned in more than one thread the rumor that Fitzgerald prevented SB93 from having a companion Assembly bill altogether.

Interceptor_Knight said:

According to Jeff Nass of WI-FORCE (The WI State Rifle Club) the intentions of the NRA and WI-FORCE are to get both bills passed for a 2 tiered system. According to the nearly spam level E-mails being sent out, our dear Gov Walker and Rep Fitzgerald are out to torpedo this idea and will prevent any form of Constitutional Carry at all costs. The latest E-mail is that they are going to poison it by tacking on the handgun micro-stamping language. It was mentioned in more than one thread the rumor that Fitzgerald prevented SB93 from having a companion Assembly bill altogether.

Click to expand...

Gov Walker??? What happened to him? I thought he was Tea Party type conservative!!!

afterimages said:

Gov Walker??? What happened to him? I thought he was Tea Party type conservative!!!

Click to expand...

not necessarily anything, as far as I can tell, he made a comment about not endorsing constitutional carry specifically. Had it been more broad, I'm guessing he wouldnt "endorse" either one. But Nik Clark talked to him in person, specifically saying if it crossed his desk because the legislature got it there, would he sign it... he said Yes.

So I'm not letting anything get me too worked up until he doesnt sign something. And think about it, do you think he wants the unions, AND the gun owners throwing a fit against him? lol, no

I wonder how the Founding fathers would feel about this.....RESET !

afterimages said:

Gov Walker??? What happened to him? I thought he was Tea Party type conservative!!!

Click to expand...

These accusations have not come from the same NRA/WI_FORCE E-Mails. They were from other sources.

Glock34 said:

.....RESET !

Click to expand...

Then what? The sky is not yet falling.....