• 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.

WI Assembly - Executive session - AB 126 - 2 June

Grant Guess

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
217
Location
Wisconsin, United States
This executive session is scheduled THIS THURSDAY at 10am. We need to have made a SUBSTANTIAL impact by that time. Please act quickly. Pass this information on to everyone you can. We have made progress in the Senate. Now we need to let the Assembly hear us loud and clear.

Time to Act Fast: Permit Bill AB 126 Likely to Pass WI Assembly Committee Thursday, but Still No Constitutional Carry Bill

An executive session of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections is scheduled for THIS THURSDAY, June 2nd. The business they'll be discussing? Advancement of AB 126 to the floor, the concealed carry bill that mandates permits.

Let's review, shall we... Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald still refuses to allow a constitutional carry bill even to be introduced...in caucus, in committee, on the floor. In fact, he was on Charlie Sykes radio program just a few short days ago stating that the Assembly was going to go for gun permitting and mandated education. Well, gee, do you think they might go for something else if you let something else be INTRODUCED, Speaker Fitzgerald? It's really easy to choose permits when that's all your handed.

This morning, I looked through the list of 30 Assembly co-sponsors of AB 126. That list is below for your convenience.
Jeff Mursau (R-36) AUTHOR
Mary Williams (R-87)
Garry Bies (R-1)
Joel Kleefisch (R-38)
Joan Ballweg (R-41)
Kathy Bernier (R-68)
Ed Brooks (R-50)
Mike Endsley (R-26)
Mark Honadel (R-21)
Andre Jacque (R-2)
Samantha Kerkman (R-66)
Steve Kestell (R-27)
Joe Knilans (R-44)
Dean Knudson (R-30)
Tom Larson (R-67)
Daniel LeMahieu (R-59)
John Murtha (R-29)
Stephen Nass (R-31)
Lee Nerison (R-96)
John Nygren (R-89)
Alvin Ott (R-3)
Kevin Petersen (R-40)
Warren Petryk (R-93)
Roger Rivard (R-75)
Erik Severson (R-28)
Richard Spanbauer (R-53)
Jim Steineke (R-5)
Pat Strachota (R-58)
Gary Tauchen (R-6)
Karl Van Roy (R-90)

Now, some of those representatives are signed on because they're hedging their bets. They actually support constitutional carry, but they don't know if they're going to see the right bill. They'd rather have something than nothing. But many of the people on that list are in the "only with permits and/or state-mandated education" camp. Because we don't always know who's who, we need to politely reach out to everyone on that list to respectfully EDUCATE and PERSUADE them. How? We need people in each of these districts to head the charge by getting others in your district to flood these legislators' phones and inboxes with respectful but firm messages. In order to ensure that all Assembly leadership is getting the full impact of the number of messages coming into the Capitol on this isssue, please also copy the following individuals on your correspondence:

Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald Speaker Pro Tempore
Bill Kramer Assembly Leader
Scott Suder Assembly Assistant Leader
Dan Knodl Caucus Chairperson
Joan Ballweg Caucus Vice Chairperson
John Murtha Caucus Secretary
Mary Williams

Jeff Mursau, author, AB 126 Concealed Carry with Mandated Permitting
Garry Bies, Chair, Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections
Andre Jacques, Vice-Chair, Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections
Steve Kestell, Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections
Ed Brooks, Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections
Scott Krug, Committee on Criminal Justice and Correction
Jeremy Thiesfeldt, Committee on Criminal Justice and Correction

A useful list of information to use as you're communicating with your representative follows. You don't have to use all of these points. Mix and match as you deem appropriate. Use your own voice. Individualized, personalized messages are always more effective. Constitutional Carry is the right of law-abiding citizens to carry open or concealed without government mandates of any kind, whether permits, registration, or training--uninfringed, as the plain language of the United States Constitution describes. As of 1998, the Wisconsin State Constitution, Article I, Section 25, similarly reads: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. "A constitutional carry bill must be introduced in the Assembly. AB 126 should be a FALLBACK option, NOT the bill the Assembly works first to advance. By NOT allowing the introduction of a constitutional carry bill, Assembly leadership is, in fact, disenfranchising the majority of conservatives, who overwhelmingly support the plain language of the constitution. Constitutional carry is uncompromisingly and fully supported in the platform of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. If you're a party member, hold your representative accountable to that platform, and tell them that you are doing so.Projected cost of a mandated permitting system: over $2 million in the first year alone, over $1 million every year thereafter, including payroll for 13 full-time staff. Money we don't have at a time when we're trying to CUT spending. Constitutional carry would allow legislators to be fiscally consistent with their support of Governor Walker's Budget Repair Bill.Constitutional carry makes NO fiscal demand on taxpayers, nor on sheriffs and local law enforcement. However, an optional permitting process, as provided for in SB 93, could be established at LOW cost for those who want to exercise their right to carry in other states. Again, it's far more fiscally responsible.Mandated permitting will disenfranchise thousands who want and need to protect themselves.. It's already expensive to buy a gun. That cost isn't going to decrease. Add the cost of a permit and perhaps mandated education---the cost of which we also know will increase over time---and you've priced the RIGHT to protect oneself and one's property out of possibility for THOUSANDS of Wisconsinites. Democrats regularly re-victimize the poor and women via their policies. Should Republicans be doing the same thing...? Taxing people for concealing a weapon amounts to taxing people for wearing a shirt, sweater, jacket or purse. Republicans are supposed to be the sane party when it comes to taxation. Combined, 8.5 million people in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming can carry without any permit or government mandates, as the constitution guarantees There have been no problems with this policy. In fact, Vermont has never restricted the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens, has never had reason to change its stance, and is a notoriously liberal state.Including Wisconsin, 28 states allow open-carry with no permit, registration, or training mandates. The revocation rate for open-carry permits in these states is well under 1%. That statistic speaks to the fact that those who possess firearms take their responsibilities seriously. Constitutional carry would not change this fact, but only enhance it.A number of states, including Utah and Texas, are now working to repeal their permitting systems in favor of constitutional carry. Why would Wisconsin not take a cue from other states that have gone well ahead of us?
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Welcome to the forum & THANK YOU for the heads up !!!


I know this for sure, as he mailed me a letter....Rep. Van Roy is Anti constitutional carry & very pro Training & permits.
 
Last edited:

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
The Assembly does NOT have to have it's own version of SB93 for it to become law. Assembly Reps can, and have done so, co-sponsor a Senate bill. If it passes in the Senate, it then goes to the Assembly (as amended & passed on the Senate floor) for their consideration. They can pass it as is, & it goes to the governor. If they further amend it, then they send it back to the Senate for approval of Assembly changes. It can go back & forth until there's a consensus.

The same holds true for SB90, the Senate version of AB126 (SB90 & AB126 are indentical). The Senate has not yet approved of SB90 in committee, and they don't have to, to enact it if SB93 fails to get enough votes. If AB126 gets approved by the Assembly committee and makes it to the floor and gets approved there, then the Senate can pass it when sent to the them by the Assembly. (They will be, in effect, passing SB90).

This appears to be the plan to insure that some form of CC gets passed. I expect the Senate to bring SB93 to the floor for a vote before the Assembly does the same with AB126. If it passes there, then I also expect the Assembly to consider SB93 before they consider AB126... after all, if SB93 passes both, SB90/AB126 becomes redundant. However, if SB93 fails anywhere in the process, the Assembly can immediately pass AB126, send it to the Senate to do the same, and we're not stuck with the status quo of no CC. AB126 makes a nice back-up plan, to get some form of CC in place before any possible disastrous results of any recall elections can kill it. Having the Assembly pass AB126 through committee ASAP, "sets up" this back-up plan. It's imperative to have CC (in the best form that can be had) approved by the Senate before recall elections. If it's not through the Senate, and recalls turn the majority over, we're done. Having the Assembly prepared to act on AB126 as written, should SB93 fail, makes perfect sense. IF constitutional carry does not make it, shall-issue permits is better than nothing.
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
The Assembly does NOT have to have it's own version of SB93 for it to become law. Assembly Reps can, and have done so, co-sponsor a Senate bill. If it passes in the Senate, it then goes to the Assembly (as amended & passed on the Senate floor) for their consideration. They can pass it as is, & it goes to the governor. If they further amend it, then they send it back to the Senate for approval of Assembly changes. It can go back & forth until there's a consensus.

The same holds true for SB90, the Senate version of AB126 (SB90 & AB126 are indentical). The Senate has not yet approved of SB90 in committee, and they don't have to, to enact it if SB93 fails to get enough votes. If AB126 gets approved by the Assembly committee and makes it to the floor and gets approved there, then the Senate can pass it when sent to the them by the Assembly. (They will be, in effect, passing SB90).

This appears to be the plan to insure that some form of CC gets passed. I expect the Senate to bring SB93 to the floor for a vote before the Assembly does the same with AB126. If it passes there, then I also expect the Assembly to consider SB93 before they consider AB126... after all, if SB93 passes both, SB90/AB126 becomes redundant. However, if SB93 fails anywhere in the process, the Assembly can immediately pass AB126, send it to the Senate to do the same, and we're not stuck with the status quo of no CC. AB126 makes a nice back-up plan, to get some form of CC in place before any possible disastrous results of any recall elections can kill it. Having the Assembly pass AB126 through committee ASAP, "sets up" this back-up plan. It's imperative to have CC (in the best form that can be had) approved by the Senate before recall elections. If it's not through the Senate, and recalls turn the majority over, we're done. Having the Assembly prepared to act on AB126 as written, should SB93 fail, makes perfect sense. IF constitutional carry does not make it, shall-issue permits is better than nothing.


I am still hoping and working towards Constitutional Carry with the optional Permit bill...

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
[/COLOR]

I am still hoping and working towards Constitutional Carry with the optional Permit bill...

Outdoorsman1

Me too. But, I do not want to come out of this empty handed. Messing around with AB126 is the wrong thing to do. Leave it alone as it is, it's our fallback position should SB93 fail. We don't want to go back to status quo of no CC. If we change AB126 to conform to SB93, then what do we have left if they both fail together? Is there time before the recalls to start over? NO. Let me be clear - WE DO NOT NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY BILL IN THE ASSEMBLY TO SUCCEED! The Assembly can pass the Senate bill just as easily. Look at SB93 and you'll see plenty of Assembly co-sponsors. By having a fallback position, we can push harder on SB93 and not worry about getting nothing for trying. If we fail on SB93, then we can pass a "differant" bill, AB126. Then next election, vote out the bastages who waffled on SB93, and work on changes then. We'll at least have something in the interim. It's called "hedging your bet".
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Me too. But, I do not want to come out of this empty handed. Messing around with AB126 is the wrong thing to do. Leave it alone as it is, it's our fallback position should SB93 fail. We don't want to go back to status quo of no CC. If we change AB126 to conform to SB93, then what do we have left if they both fail together? Is there time before the recalls to start over? NO. Let me be clear - WE DO NOT NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY BILL IN THE ASSEMBLY TO SUCCEED! The Assembly can pass the Senate bill just as easily. Look at SB93 and you'll see plenty of Assembly co-sponsors. By having a fallback position, we can push harder on SB93 and not worry about getting nothing for trying. If we fail on SB93, then we can pass a "differant" bill, AB126. Then next election, vote out the bastages who waffled on SB93, and work on changes then. We'll at least have something in the interim. It's called "hedging your bet".

Agreed.....

Outdoorsman1
 

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
The unfortunate aspect is, even if we "settle" for permit carry, and the recall elections don't go our way, how long do you think it will take for this (constitutional carry) to come up again? We've waited 10 years already.
It'll be worse if neither bill passes and the repubs lose control of the senate. We'll never even get a decent permit carry bill for years to come.
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
The unfortunate aspect is, even if we "settle" for permit carry, and the recall elections don't go our way, how long do you think it will take for this (constitutional carry) to come up again? We've waited 10 years already.
It'll be worse if neither bill passes and the repubs lose control of the senate. We'll never even get a decent permit carry bill for years to come.

We've waited longer than 10 years for concealed carry in any form. We have it within our grasp if WE don't screw it up. We've gotten screwed 3 times already. That's why we need a backup plan, and a plan to back that up wouldn't be bad either. Right now, our main goal is SB93. Our backup goal/plan should be AB126. And whatever we get, should be done before the recalls. I don't think the Dems will regain the Senate, by why take any chances?
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
WI Assembly - Executive session - AB 126 - 2 June
This executive session is scheduled THIS THURSDAY at 10am.

So is anybody following this as closely as soom followed SB-93 in the Senate Committee?

Just wondering whats happening so far...

Outdoorsman1
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,

springfield 1911

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

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
Common sense willing, lets hope that they are waiting for SB 93 to be sent to them so they can pass it and send it where it needs to go!

SB93, which is a Senate bill, does not need to go through an Assembly committee. Only Assembly bills must (or can) go through Assembly committees. The Assembly must wait for the full Senate to pass it and send it to the full Assembly before they can take any action on SB93. They can only act on an Assembly bill, and the only current Assembly CC bill is AB126. The scheduled meeting was to get AB126 through committee and available should the Assembly need or want to act on it.

Hopefully, they discovered the error of the GFSZ language being defaulted to the federal language, which would change state GFSZ law to require locked gun cases within 1,000' of school properties for anyone who does not have a WI issued CC permit.... and they are having that corrected while still in committee.

Or maybe the Dems on the committee fled to Illinois?
 

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
SB93, which is a Senate bill, does not need to go through an Assembly committee. Only Assembly bills must (or can) go through Assembly committees. The Assembly must wait for the full Senate to pass it and send it to the full Assembly before they can take any action on SB93. They can only act on an Assembly bill, and the only current Assembly CC bill is AB126. The scheduled meeting was to get AB126 through committee and available should the Assembly need or want to act on it.

Hopefully, they discovered the error of the GFSZ language being defaulted to the federal language, which would change state GFSZ law to require locked gun cases within 1,000' of school properties for anyone who does not have a WI issued CC permit.... and they are having that corrected while still in committee.

Or maybe the Dems on the committee fled to Illinois?

Exactly but not in so many words.

Originally Posted by springfield 1911
Common sense willing, lets hope that they are waiting for SB 93 to be sent to them so they can pass it and send it where it needs to go!
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Hopefully, they discovered the error of the GFSZ language being defaulted to the federal language, which would change state GFSZ law to require locked gun cases within 1,000' of school properties for anyone who does not have a WI issued CC permit.... and they are having that corrected while still in committee.

I believe that an ammendment to fix that will be introduced by Galloway before the full Senate, as SB93 has already passed committee.

I hope AB126 never see the light of day.
 

jessejmc1979

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
9
Location
Barron County, WI
Roger Rivard is my representative and is a staunch 2nd ammendment guy! I have talked to him (and emailed) he WILL vote for constitutional carry. If only our senator (Jauch) was more for constitutional rights than union thugs and vacations to Illinois.:banghead:
 
Top