Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Misinformation Abounds

  1. #1
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Misinformation Abounds

    I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

    Now on the many posts I have seen about how "we have been lied to" about Constitutional Carry.... That bill would only have been good if it a a CCW permit option attached. Once again, I am from Vermont and it is a nightmare for the reasons I outlined in other posts. I have been called a troll for stating the facts. I am a realist! GFSZA is VERY real, and there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy". Unless you are a shut in you will still have to "ask permission" from Florida in the form of a non-res and pay $177 to boot to get any reciprocity! I would love to see Constitutional Carry the law of the land, but they have set this up in many states to "set you up" for harassment by the heavy hand of the police state! Thank goodness for states like AZ, WY, and MT..... OC will NEVER be accepted in states where it is LEGAL, but the libtard mentality exists!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

    I am a realist! GFSZA is VERY real, and there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy".
    Two points:
    1. In Wisconsin (and Illinois) there was NO WAY for a LAC to legally carry concealed. PERIOD!! It looks like there will be a way!!

    2. To date, how many people have been arrested, prosecuted and jailed/fined for carrying in a Vermont GFSZ (without any other criminal activity). I want the REAL numbers and a cite to those numbers, please.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

    Now on the many posts I have seen about how "we have been lied to" about Constitutional Carry.... That bill would only have been good if it a a CCW permit option attached. Once again, I am from Vermont and it is a nightmare for the reasons I outlined in other posts. I have been called a troll for stating the facts. I am a realist! GFSZA is VERY real, and there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy". Unless you are a shut in you will still have to "ask permission" from Florida in the form of a non-res and pay $177 to boot to get any reciprocity! I would love to see Constitutional Carry the law of the land, but they have set this up in many states to "set you up" for harassment by the heavy hand of the police state! Thank goodness for states like AZ, WY, and MT..... OC will NEVER be accepted in states where it is LEGAL, but the libtard mentality exists!
    Did you even look at the original bill SB93?
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member metalman383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eau Claire WI, ,
    Posts
    283
    Thanks for starting a thread to show us, that you think we are 2 states off on our argument!

  5. #5
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Arrow

    Got to love it when a user from Vermont comes over to tell us what we should do...

    Thanks for your "help", but I don't think we need it.

    In time we will follow AZ, as the fire we have started in Wisconsin is not going to just die out.
    I can't wait to join the other 48 states!

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Vermonter, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Let's talk logic.

    You say you're a realist by pointing out that a few states don't issue the permits which, in theory, they could issue. In other words you're saying that the practice of not issuing permits means in reality they're no-issue states. You're saying the practice determines the reality.

    At the same time you claim that the GFSZ is real. But if one uses your standard of proof, the fact that it is not enforced in practice ought to mean the GFSZ isn't real. Does the practice determine the reality or not?

    So which is it? If you're going to use a certain type of argument to make a point, you ought to be able to apply that type of argument elsewhere. Unfortunately for you, the logic you use in your first point turns around and contradicts the second point you are trying to make. Inconsistency is the lowest level of hell to a logician.

    In reality, the states you list do in fact issue some permits. They may only go to a few lucky or well-connected individuals, but still permits are issued by each of these states.

    If you want to get technical, currently 47 states issue permits. Vermont, Illinois and Wisconsin do not. The reality is that the consequences are different in each of these three states. In Vermont, the consequences are minimal as long as one remains in Vermont. If you want to carry in another state, you obtain a permit from another state, just as many of us in Wisconsin have done. The consequences in Wisconsin are that, until the CCW bill is passed and in effect, we're limited to open carry, and its handful of restrictions, except in our homes and places of business. The consequence in Illinois is that they're left with no practical manner in which to carry a gun for protection outside of their homes.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  7. #7
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....
    If they have concealed carry, then it's not skewing. It's not Wisconsin's fault some states have permits to issue but then suck at issuing them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341
    Just making a point that NJ, MD, and HI are NO issue to ANYONE for self defence. NJ and MD ONLY issue to security, HI as far as I know has only ever issued 2 permits. For Joe citizen that makes them no issue. My error in choosing how I worded that. But security guard or professional issue only is no issue in my book. VT is not no issue, it is no lic needed or Const Carry.

    As far as GFSZA I do not know of any arrests. Do you trust the "nice policeman" considering how the police have fought your efforts in WI? I would bet anything that if Const Carry was passed the Milwaukee Chief would issue an order to arrest anyone found carrying in a GFSZA. In fact didn't he order his officers to make OC'ers "kiss the pavement" until they were cleared or something to that effect?

  9. #9
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341
    Here - Read what Eagle2009 posted. the law is the law. Just b/c you have no cases to cite does not mean that one cannot get charged. What if you has to fire in self-defence in front of a school? Do you really thing they would let that go?

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...71#post1554171

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    Just making a point that NJ, MD, and HI are NO issue to ANYONE for self defence. NJ and MD ONLY issue to security, HI as far as I know has only ever issued 2 permits. For Joe citizen that makes them no issue. My error in choosing how I worded that. But security guard or professional issue only is no issue in my book. VT is not no issue, it is no lic needed or Const Carry.

    As far as GFSZA I do not know of any arrests. Do you trust the "nice policeman" considering how the police have fought your efforts in WI? I would bet anything that if Const Carry was passed the Milwaukee Chief would issue an order to arrest anyone found carrying in a GFSZA. In fact didn't he order his officers to make OC'ers "kiss the pavement" until they were cleared or something to that effect?
    A city officer has no jurisdiction over federal matters though.
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter
    In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do...
    It's less confusing to say "48 other states have some provision for citizens to lawfully carry concealed"

    than to say "IL prohibits it completely, 3 other states are "may issue" but never do unless the person is rich &/or well-connected, 3 other states are "may issue" but again most of the people getting permits are rich & well-connected, X many other states are may issue & are fairly liberal, and X many states are shall issue".

    The provision is in the law; the state just never follows the law, or the requirements are so strict or burdensome that the standard is impossibly high. Wonder why there aren't more suits in those states?

    That bill would only have been good if it had a CCW permit option attached.
    It did. It was a perfect Constitutional Carry bill, with even the school zone taken care of, and an optional carry permit.
    Now we're back to concealing requires a permit, carrying in a state park requires a permit, being within 3 blocks of a school property needs a permit, & the only way to get a permit is be over 21 + show proof of some training (still possible the training issue could change in the Assembly).

    there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy".
    OC will NEVER be accepted in states where it is LEGAL, but the libtard mentality exists!
    Yeah, we've had a few documented instances of improper police activity here in WI.
    The worst examples went to court for 1983 suits.
    Racine paid for it.
    West Allis paid for it.
    Brookfield paid for it.
    Madison is going to pay.

    I'd add Milwaukee, but that's more a 4A issue than a 2A issue, even though it involves a pistol.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 06-16-2011 at 10:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    It Is Important to Understand

    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    A city officer has no jurisdiction over federal matters though.
    When somebody makes this kind of statement, it's hard to resist the temptation to prove him wrong. Maybe it's a definitional issue. In the simplest form, I contend:

    1. A non-federal LEO may arrest for a violation of federal law.
    2. A federal LEO may arrest for a violation of non-federal law.
    3. A non-federal court may try a violation of federal law.
    4. A federal court may try a violation of non-federal law.

    Now, I am not saying that these statements are ALWAYS true but that they MAY be. A definitive statement like "has no jurisdiction" without any qualification must be read as "never" or "may not." Such a statement is false. One counterexample is all that is needed and I'm sure most people can come up with a few.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hardballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    Posts
    925
    Munchin' on popcorn, sippin' a coke...
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. Han Solo

    http://buffaloholstercompany.blogspot.com/ Concealment holsters IWB, SOB, and belt slide. Open Carry too. New from Buffalo Holster, Women's holsters for concealment and or belt carry.

  14. #14
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Is there a point to this thread besides starting a silly argument?
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1FASTC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tomahawk
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Is there a point to this thread besides starting a silly argument?
    I was wondering this, too. Vermonter has never had to fight for his 2nd amendment rights. He is certainly in no position to be preaching to anyone. If it smells like a ****.....

  16. #16
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    I understand where hes going in the initial post....'48' is erroneous... since some of those states set the bar so high that attaining that 'right' makes it next to impossible for the average citizen.

  17. #17
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    I understand where hes going in the initial post....'48' is erroneous... since some of those states set the bar so high that attaining that 'right' makes it next to impossible for the average citizen.
    At this time, we have none at all... What for about 150 years...?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    When somebody makes this kind of statement, it's hard to resist the temptation to prove him wrong. Maybe it's a definitional issue. In the simplest form, I contend:

    1. A non-federal LEO may arrest for a violation of federal law.
    2. A federal LEO may arrest for a violation of non-federal law.
    3. A non-federal court may try a violation of federal law.
    4. A federal court may try a violation of non-federal law.

    Now, I am not saying that these statements are ALWAYS true but that they MAY be. A definitive statement like "has no jurisdiction" without any qualification must be read as "never" or "may not." Such a statement is false. One counterexample is all that is needed and I'm sure most people can come up with a few.
    I agree with 1, 2,... but not #3 & #4. A State court goes by State statutes. Any prosecutions of fed law violations must be referred to the U. S. Attorney's office, and vica-versa. But yes they can arrest someone for violating fed law.
    Last edited by safcrkr; 06-19-2011 at 09:39 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The count of how many states actually have a reasonable concealed carry law is subject to peronal judgement. What is shocking is how so many state legislatures and law enforcement agencies totally ignore their state constitutional rights, specifically the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Something the Wisconsin legislature and law enforcement has done for 13 years. Of the fifty states only six have no specific right to keep and bear arms amendment in their constitution, California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Except for a handful of states those constitutional rights are largely ignored. The legislatures and law enforcement preferring to maintain a police state and morph the right into a state issued privilege. A glaring example is Illinois. It has what appears to be a simple black and white amendment in it's constitution yet it adds the phraise "Subject only to the police power" a phase that in reality negates the whole amendment. Another case of the politicians "pulling the wool over the public's eyes". Fortunately Wisconsin does not have scapegoat phrases in it's amendment, Art I section 25 and some politicians are finally beginning to understand it's significance and holding to their oath of office. By maintaaining power at the voting booth hopefully we can continue to turn the tide in our favor.

    What is it with politicians that forget their oath of office five minutes after they utter the words?

    The Illinois amendments is:

    Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22

    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    Just making a point that NJ, MD, and HI are NO issue to ANYONE for self defence. NJ and MD ONLY issue to security, HI as far as I know has only ever issued 2 permits. For Joe citizen that makes them no issue. My error in choosing how I worded that. But security guard or professional issue only is no issue in my book. VT is not no issue, it is no lic needed or Const Carry.

    As far as GFSZA I do not know of any arrests. Do you trust the "nice policeman" considering how the police have fought your efforts in WI? I would bet anything that if Const Carry was passed the Milwaukee Chief would issue an order to arrest anyone found carrying in a GFSZA. In fact didn't he order his officers to make OC'ers "kiss the pavement" until they were cleared or something to that effect?
    A better point to be made is that 40 something(don't have the exact #) states allow law abiding citizens to carry a firearm in public without a special showing of need. The 48 state thing is slightly misleading.

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by safcrkr View Post
    But yes they can arrest someone for violating fed law.
    Hell, they can arrest you for violating NO LAW. Just ask the guys who ate at Culvers, et al.
    Last edited by Shotgun; 06-19-2011 at 11:23 AM.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  22. #22
    McX
    Guest
    it's not the obeying, or breaking of a law that matters to some. to some 'totality of circumstances' is their only consideration, and concern.

  23. #23
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341
    Ok, I stand corrected. You are all right and I am wrong. It IS 48 states that have some provision to issue. NJ, HI, and MD NEVER issue to civilians so by us including them in the statistics of states that issue they can now gloat and say "see we issue", no need to go "shall issue" now! I think I will move to NJ where my 2A carry rights are intact in theory.....

  24. #24
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Dude, have a coffee milk. Life is short!
    "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

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by vermonter View Post
    Ok, I stand corrected. You are all right and I am wrong. It IS 48 states that have some provision to issue. NJ, HI, and MD NEVER issue to civilians so by us including them in the statistics of states that issue they can now gloat and say "see we issue", no need to go "shall issue" now! I think I will move to NJ where my 2A carry rights are intact in theory.....
    Oh come on. It would appear to most people that your 2A rights are most intact right there in Vermont-- which you described as "a nightmare."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •