• 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

vermonter

vermonter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
Training

Quote: "Actually, no bill (AB or SB) has included training".
So then you will get no reciprocity with states that require training. You will have to get Utah and find an expensive Utah instructor and be forced to get the training anyway otherwise you cannot exercise you rights in many states. PA is like that - No training - very little reciprocity.
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
vermonter said:
Quote: "Actually, no bill (AB or SB) has included training".
So then you will get no reciprocity with states that require training. You will have to get Utah and find an expensive Utah instructor and be forced to get the training anyway otherwise you cannot exercise you rights in many states. PA is like that - No training - very little reciprocity.
Click to expand...

Got my UT training for $20.

Anyhow, I don't want any kind of permit, don't care. Last I heard, however, 13 or 18 states would recognize a no training permit.
 
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
The June 2 meeting on AB 126 was cancelled. It appears bothe the senate and assembly will vote on SB 93. Galloway says all amendments are done and the bill is ready for a floor vote. There will probably be some additional amendments presented on the floor, especially when it gets to Assembly. What they will be and if they survive a vote is anyones guess. I don't have a feel on how many republican representatives would support SB 93 as it now stands. I hear there are some republicans that are uneasy about there being no requirement for training so I suspect there may be some amendments presented to inject training requirements. There are a handful of democrats that are gun friendly so maybe a yes vote from them will offset potential republican no votes. Right now I think it is a crap shoot.
 
W

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
vermonter said:
Quote: "Actually, no bill (AB or SB) has included training".
So then you will get no reciprocity with states that require training. You will have to get Utah and find an expensive Utah instructor and be forced to get the training anyway otherwise you cannot exercise you rights in many states. PA is like that - No training - very little reciprocity.
Click to expand...

You don't necessarily need reciprocity if the state (like Tennessee) recognizes any facial valid permit issued by another state {TCA 39-17-1351 (r)}.

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpe...lates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_39-17-1351
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Captain Nemo said:
The June 2 meeting on AB 126 was cancelled. It appears bothe the senate and assembly will vote on SB 93. Galloway says all amendments are done and the bill is ready for a floor vote. There will probably be some additional amendments presented on the floor, especially when it gets to Assembly. What they will be and if they survive a vote is anyones guess. I don't have a feel on how many republican representatives would support SB 93 as it now stands. I hear there are some republicans that are uneasy about there being no requirement for training so I suspect there may be some amendments presented to inject training requirements. There are a handful of democrats that are gun friendly so maybe a yes vote from them will offset potential republican no votes. Right now I think it is a crap shoot.
Click to expand...

I hate to keep beating the drum but, if they are assuming SB93 will be acted on by the Assembly, they are also assuming it will PASS the Senate. A Senate bill CANNOT be acted on by the Assembly unless it is passed by the Senate.
 
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Paul:
Yup that is correct. I was presumming that SB93 has the senate votes needed to pass in the Senate. Not so sure of the Assembly. There doesn't seem to be as much nervousness in the Senate concerning lack of training and permits. It may be a bit of wishful thinking but I base my opinion on the quickness Amendment 1 and amendment 2 were voteoed in committee.
 
davegran

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
SB93 - Amendment vote explanation

Captain Nemo said:
Paul:
Yup that is correct. I was presumming that SB93 has the senate votes needed to pass in the Senate. Not so sure of the Assembly. There doesn't seem to be as much nervousness in the Senate concerning lack of training and permits. It may be a bit of wishful thinking but I base my opinion on the quickness Amendment 1 and amendment 2 were vetoed in committee.
Click to expand...
Just remember that the Ayes on the amendments were from the two Democratic members of the committee and the Nays were from three Republicans who were part of the original nine who introduced the bill.... Introduced by Senators Galloway, Grothman, Kedzie, Lazich, Leibham, Moulton, Holperin, Vukmir and Zipperer;
 
S

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
davegran said:
Just remember that the Ayes on the amendments were from the two Democratic members of the committee and the Nays were from three Republicans who were part of the original nine who introduced the bill.... Introduced by Senators Galloway, Grothman, Kedzie, Lazich, Leibham, Moulton, Holperin, Vukmir and Zipperer;
Click to expand...

The very instant that Senate committee was formed, after swearing in ceremonies after the last election, I would've bet my life that the results of that committee's vote on ANY CC bill would've been exactly what they were.... Risser & Erpenbach - NO, any 3 Republicans (except Olsen) - AYE. Now had one of the Dems been Holperin, Lassa, or Wirch, I'd have to think about it for more than a micro-second. Holperin's a co-sponsor of ALL the current CC bills, and Lassa & Wirch voted to override both the Doyle vetoes.
 
BROKENSPROKET

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
davegran said:
Just remember that the Ayes on the amendments were from the two Democratic members of the committee and the Nays were from three Republicans who were part of the original nine who introduced the bill.... Introduced by Senators Galloway, Grothman, Kedzie, Lazich, Leibham, Moulton, Holperin, Vukmir and Zipperer;
Click to expand...

Don't forget Kapanke. He is not on the header page, but in the notes on bill history.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top