Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 149

Thread: Senate panel to vote on revamped conceal-carry bill

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oak Creek
    Posts
    66

    Senate panel to vote on revamped conceal-carry bill

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...122477164.html

    The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on a revamped version of a bill to do that at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday. It would allow people to carry concealed guns without registering with the state, but would also allow them to get optional permits that would allow them to carry weapons closer to schools.

    Those optional licenses would also allow people to carry concealed weapons in other states that have reciprocity agreements.

    Sen. Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) said the new version of the bill merged ideas from two bills on concealed weapons she wrote

  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I would like to see the proposed franken-bill before I make a final decision but it sounds positive.

  3. #3
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    "This bill is just reckless," said Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association.

    He said his group had never before opposed a concealed carry bill. But he said the police officers union would oppose this bill if it didn't require safety training, licensing and access for law enforcement to a list of who has concealed carry permits.

    Nice that they quoted this Tool. He's not even a cop. He's just a talking head. I'm soooooooooooo glad we got to hear his opinion though.

    James L. Palmer, II – Executive Director

    Jim Palmer is responsible for the development, promotion, and operations of the WPPA.
    Translation - Paid weasel who must get sound bites to justify salary.

    http://wppa.com/contact/bios.htm
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 05-23-2011 at 09:03 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Try this:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/201...mendments/sb93

    I was informed of this tonight too.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Try this:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/201...mendments/sb93

    I was informed of this tonight too.
    Thanks phred!

    While I still think the offering of even an optional permit is a waste of resources and goes against the idea of smaller government, I think this amendment is something I can support.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    For anyone with a Utah permit, this new Wisconsin permit, it isn't "optional"...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    "This bill is just reckless," said Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association.

    He said his group had never before opposed a concealed carry bill. But he said the police officers union would oppose this bill if it didn't require safety training, licensing and access for law enforcement to a list of who has concealed carry permits.

    What good does a list of law abiding citizens do? Why track people who are legal to carry a firearm and use it for legal purposes. Would it not make more sense to track the people who commit criminals acts?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Thanks phred!

    While I still think the offering of even an optional permit is a waste of resources and goes against the idea of smaller government, I think this amendment is something I can support.
    A Paul does it pass my muster
    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).

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    What good does a list of law abiding citizens do? Why track people who are legal to carry a firearm and use it for legal purposes. Would it not make more sense to track the people who commit criminals acts?
    Be a whole lot cheaper as there are fewer criminals than law abiding citizens.
    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)

  10. #10
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by springfield 1911 View Post
    A Paul does it pass my muster
    I believe it does. The way I read it, it restores the right of people who don't want a permit to car carry, bar carry, carry up to the school property line (still a Federal Felony with no permit), conceal carry. I am confused as to the government building carry. Does the original SB93 include that?

    The only part I think you will dislike, I know I am not thrilled, is that the $2 million is still spent on a permitting system the 1st year, 13 more state employees are hired.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484
    2 times the dems. could of had a stricter ccw law but 2 times chose not to over ride jim doyles veto. We cried then , But who's crying now. There's a song there somewhere.
    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).

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    S.E. Wisconsin
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlutz View Post
    For anyone with a Utah permit, this new Wisconsin permit, it isn't "optional"...
    What do you mean? I have a Utah non-res. permit
    Oscar

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Rather than start a new thread...

    I was invited to speak about Constitutional Carry to the Marathon Co. Republican Party "Pints and Politics" event this evening. Things went great.
    I specifically asked the County Chairman what was their "position" on Constitutional Carry. His reply was that both the County and the State GOP (from the caucus this last weekend at the Dells) were in full support of SB93 - Constitutional Carry. They also were pointing in the direction of an optional permit. They did not know the news of this thread.

    With other news that I received tonight it looks like the Amended SB93 is really in the works. Along with this news, was a request that each and every one of you make sure that you do all that is possible to insure at least 17 votes for the Amended SB93.

    As I mentioned in other thread/post, contact your Senator in a polite and non-threatening manner and express your desires for him/her to support the Amended SB93.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    Quote Originally Posted by rimmer View Post
    What do you mean? I have a Utah non-res. permit
    Oscar
    Utah will not renew you unless you have a home state permit. That started on the 12th of may if I remember correctly. So before you renew, you would need a Wisconsin permit. It's on the Utah website. I'll try to get a link quick.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758
    I was wrong, its started on the 11th. And the link,
    http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    I am going to start a thread where people can list their senator, and if they are backing SB93 so we can see where we stand.

    I contacted Senator Holperin (D) and to my utter and complete surprise, he actually co-sponsored the bill .

    Oh, BTW, can someone please contact Spartacus and smear this in his face!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    S.E. Wisconsin
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlutz View Post
    I was wrong, its started on the 11th. And the link,
    http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html
    Thanks.
    Oscar

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252

    jsonline virus?

    Using IE here at work. When I went to the then 3rd page of comments on the JS online link, I got one of those "windows virus" trojans/virus/whatevers. Third page would have been the first comments, I think. I could not use Alt-F4 to close the window, or click on the red X.

    Ran the anti-virus, and all is good.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Reading through the amendments, whole buncha stuff....
    First is a bunch of stuff about juveniles that have nothing to do with CC.
    2nd is that the signage requirement is unaltered.
    3rd is something about section 947, which seems to prohibit westboro baptist church type protests within 500 feet of an enterance of any facility where such services are being held.
    Ominous-on page 35 there is what seems to be contridactory portions. One part makes possession IN or ON school grounds a felony, then is followed by "knowingly carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of school grounds a class B forfeiture. Maybe I don't understand the context, but this doesn't seem to go together.

    Otherwise, takes effect the day it is signed, but other portions that seem to apply to the permit part take effect 4 months later (I didn't follow up on all the numbers that take place later).

  20. #20
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    I am going to start a thread where people can list their senator, and if they are backing SB93 so we can see where we stand.

    I contacted Senator Holperin (D) and to my utter and complete surprise, he actually co-sponsored the bill .

    Oh, BTW, can someone please contact Spartacus and smear this in his face!
    That would be too much fun.

  21. #21
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    The amended bill still has flaws, but it's better than the permit-only bill.

    1) + carry in state parks (or fish hatcheries) [thanks for the catch, Jason!]
    2) + specifically exempts lawful shooting from prosecution under "no discharge" laws
    3) + specifically exempts carry from DC charges
    4) - links a carry license to a driver's license; in fact, uses the SAME #
    5) + the DOJ can't make up limitations; has to follow exactly what's in the law & issue a license
    6) + specifically states that the permit law has no effect on OC, & the right to carry concealed with or without a license is the same
    6a) + repeals 941.23
    7) - only to 21yo+ adults; 18yo - 20 364/365yo are left out
    8) + must issue or deny in 21 days
    9) + names of licensees are NOT public
    10) + good for 5 years, DOJ must remind 3mo ahead of expiration
    11) + penalties for LEO who behave badly
    12) - off-limits: courthouse, jail, LEO lair (no provision for metal detectors & free lockers)
    13) + immunity for businesses that allow carry
    14) - allows colleges to ban carry: "any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college"
    15) ? one section appears to say that gov't owned buildings can't ban carriers, then the next section says they can. (Again, no mention of metal detectors & free lockers.)
    16) - DOES NOT DO AWAY w/ THE "GF"SZ!!! It makes "in or on the grounds of a school" a felony, and "within 1000' " a forfeiture... unless you're licensed.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 05-24-2011 at 12:15 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    1) - still no carry in state parks (or fish hatcheries)
    If I read this part correctly:
    29.089 (2) Except as provided in sub. (3) and except if the firearm is a handgun as defined in s. 175.35 (1) (b), no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.
    I bolded the appropriate passage. Looks to me like a handgun is fine, don't sling your AR . I could be wrong as I don't read leagalise to well.


    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    16) - DOES NOT DO AWAY w/ THE "GF"SZ!!! It makes "in or on the grounds of a school" a felony, and "within 1000' " a forfeiture... unless you're licensed.
    Wasn't this fixed in the original bill? Maybe a poison pill for us city folks to get the not so optional; optional permit? A concession made to get more sponsors? I could foresee a deal being made like that because they know a majority of city dwellers will need the permit to go about the city. If they left the old language with the school grounds only a lot of us would chance the federal law. Even more reason we need WCI to succeed on the school zone challenge.
    Last edited by Jason in WI; 05-24-2011 at 02:06 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sheboygan
    Posts
    72
    I live near a school. If this bill passes with does it mean that I have to have a permit to conceal carry to avoid a federal GFSZ violation or can I carry to the school's property line without a permit?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Re: licensing

    From what I'm seeing, it does not have anything in common with the driver license, but allows the issuing department to contract them to the DMV. Unless there is a line I missed.

    You forgot: -too easy signage.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by cheezhed View Post
    I live near a school. If this bill passes with does it mean that I have to have a permit to conceal carry to avoid a federal GFSZ violation or can I carry to the school's property line without a permit?
    Yes, you need a permit, unless you are on private property with permission, Kinda like it is now.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •