Here is an amendment I am proposing for SB93 in the House

safcrkr · Jun 16, 2011

Outdoorsman1 said:
I would much rather wait 48 hours to purchase a new handgun than 4 months to be able to legally do something that absolutley no association with the permit for concealed carry...

Outdoorsman1

If you live in an urban area, near gunshops, and two trips to buy a pistol is no big deal and just means waiting 2 days, I suppose you would. For a lot of us, the 48 hr wait is the biggest detriment to WI gun laws (besides no cc). The gun shops up here seem to know the score. They can sell handguns for MSRP and get it... because to get it cheaper means two trips of 100+ miles ONE way to get a better deal. That's driving maybe 400 miles. Buying from Cabelas is out of the question. It's 235 miles away. X 4 (there and back... twice) = driving 940 miles to take advantage of a "sale"? One round-trip... maybe. But two? NFW

Instead, you'd rather get car carry for an extra 3 months? Not me. And I'm not dumb enough to bring attention to something we want, and will have, that the Dems totally missed. There's no other explanation for their silence on loaded guns in cars without permits, other than they missed it. Go ahead, wake 'em up to the fact. Send Barca and Grigsby an e-mail while you're at it.

If any of them read this thread, they now know about it anyway. Silence used to be golden.

Outdoorsman1 · Jun 16, 2011

safcrkr said:
If you live in an urban area, near gunshops, and two trips to buy a pistol is no big deal and just means waiting 2 days, I suppose you would. For a lot of us, the 48 hr wait is the biggest detriment to WI gun laws (besides no cc). The gun shops up here seem to know the score. They can sell handguns for MSRP and get it... because to get it cheaper means two trips of 100+ miles ONE way to get a better deal. That's driving maybe 400 miles. Buying from Cabelas is out of the question. It's 235 miles away. X 4 (there and back... twice) = driving 940 miles to take advantage of a "sale"?

Instead, you'd rather get car carry for an extra 3 months? Not me. And I'm not dumb enough to bring attention to something we want, and will have, that the Dems totally missed. There's no other explanation for their silence on loaded guns in cars without permits, other than they missed it. Go ahead, wake 'em up to the fact. Send Barca and Grigsby an e-mail while you're at it.

Nobody said you were dumb and I do not appreciate the implication that anyone (myself) who requests a simple consideration of changing an effective date is dumb. It is not like we (I) am asking for a major change in the bill similar to what eliminating the waiting period to purchase a handgun would be. We all have our reasons for wanting things and I am truely sorry you have to drive 400 miles to purchase a handgun. I have a varitey of gun shops within about 10 miles from my house, the closest being about 3 miles. I would consider myself fortunate to be able to afford the purchase of a new handgun as most of my fiirearms were purchased used do to financial restaints. On the other hand I open carry daily wherever and whenever it is legal. This means I have to go throught the unload case uncase load dance mulitple time a day. I suppose I could just decide not to carry in some places to avoid the dance, but I will not compromise my principals for convenyance. I undestand your fear of taking a chance of screwing up the bill by asking for a date change, but again I am not asking for a major change in any part of the bill itself. And I for one am sick of just sitting by the wayside while our representitives give it to us in the butt. This is where I will speak my mind as to my feelings on tis issue. Believe me, if I wanted a major change in the bill itself ( and I do want a few), I would not jepordize the process by asking for them at such a late stage of the process....

Please excuse any spelling errors as it is late and I am getting kinda tired..

Outdoorsman1

Edited to add... Not to mention that the seconds it takes to do the "dance" literally puts me at a major disadvantage if I happend to be attacked at that particular moment which could also literally be a matter of life and death....mine... multilply that time many times a day.... I suppose you could also use the argument that by having to travel so far to purchase a handgun puts you at more of a risk of a deadly car crash so I guess we are kind even on that one...

Man.. I really am tired....

davegran · Jun 16, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
This will make car carry happen the day after publishing instead of 4 months later:

If you feel led, please ask your Representative to introduce/sponsor/co-author it.

....

My feeling is that that this is a bad idea, Paul. A new amendment will start the process all over again in the Senate. This just to try for instant gratification of some rights we have been patiently and successfully pursuing up to this point. Sometimes just because we have the ability to do something, it doesn't mean that we should do it. Please reconsider.

Jason in WI · Jun 16, 2011

safcrkr said:
If you live in an urban area, near gunshops, and two trips to buy a pistol is no big deal and just means waiting 2 days, I suppose you would. For a lot of us, the 48 hr wait is the biggest detriment to WI gun laws (besides no cc). The gun shops up here seem to know the score. They can sell handguns for MSRP and get it... because to get it cheaper means two trips of 100+ miles ONE way to get a better deal. That's driving maybe 400 miles. Buying from Cabelas is out of the question. It's 235 miles away. X 4 (there and back... twice) = driving 940 miles to take advantage of a "sale"?

All I know is I like to buy on the spur of the moment and having to go back to the FFL holder is a pain

. Come to think of it maybe it's a good thing I can't just walk out with the latest toy! At least with long guns I have to think where I will store them.

Instead, you'd rather get car carry for an extra 3 months? Not me. And I'm not dumb enough to bring attention to something we want, and will have, that the Dems totally missed. There's no other explanation for their silence on loaded guns in cars without permits, other than they missed it. Go ahead, wake 'em up to the fact. Send Barca and Grigsby an e-mail while you're at it.

I agree. I think it was a major oversight, they were too worried we would shoot the zoo animals to see clearly. As much as I want this stuff to take affect I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. If it just goes to conference committee I guess it's low risk (repub's in charge right?), otherwise it might come back to bit us. Open carry in a car is a big piece of the constitutional carry puzzle, if the fed GFSZ gets axed we will have mostly constitutional open carry by default. Then the permit only allows us to cover the pistol and go to other states. Our case for constitutional carry would be great, if car carry becomes a privilege under a permit we screw ourselves.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid but the benefit doesn't seem to out weigh the risk.

safcrkr · Jun 16, 2011

Outdoorsman1 said:
Nobody said you were dumb and I do not appreciate the implication that anyone (myself) who requests a simple consideration of changing an effective date is dumb. It is not like we (I) am asking for a major change in the bill similar to what eliminating the waiting period to purchase a handgun would be. We all have our reasons for wanting things and I am truely sorry you have to drive 400 miles to purchase a handgun. I have a varitey of gun shops within about 10 miles from my house, the closest being about 3 miles. I would consider myself fortunate to be able to afford the purchase of a new handgun as most of my fiirearms were purchased used do to financial restaints. On the other hand I open carry daily wherever and whenever it is legal. This means I have to go throught the unload case uncase load dance mulitple time a day. I suppose I could just decide not to carry in some places to avoid the dance, but I will not compromise my principals for convenyance. I undestand your fear of taking a chance of screwing up the bill by asking for a date change, but again I am not asking for a major change in any part of the bill itself. And I for one am sick of just sitting by the wayside while our representitives give it to us in the butt. This is where I will speak my mind as to my feelings on tis issue. Believe me, if I wanted a major change in the bill itself ( and I do want a few), I would not jepordize the process by asking for them at such a late stage of the process....

Please excuse any spelling errors as it is late and I am getting kinda tired..

Outdoorsman1

Edited to add... Not to mention that the seconds it takes to do the "dance" literally puts me at a major disadvantage if I happend to be attacked at that particular moment which could also literally be a matter of life and death....mine... multilply that time many times a day.... I suppose you could also use the argument that by having to travel so far to purchase a handgun puts you at more of a risk of a deadly car crash so I guess we are kind even on that one...

Man.. I really am tired....

I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone was dumb, but I still stand my ground and think this
IS a DUMB idea! Any change, even just the start date, requires an amendment. An amendment will be discussed, and voted on. Discussing this issue just brings attention to it. Making any changes at all, even for the better, means delaying final passage, and signage, and "publication", and implementation. And does run a risk of screwing it totally if it gets delayed past recalls and the Senate turns. Sorry you gotta "do the dance" for another 3 months, to guarentee you won't have to do it for the next 3 years. As much as I'd like to see the 48 hr wait disappear next week, I don't want to risk losing it all over that, or any other change. So I still say leave it be for now, and get this done ASAP... we can change that later. Not to be insulting, but I see this date thing as a trivial change at best anyway.

cheezhed · Jun 17, 2011

I think just it alone and don't mess with it.

xenophon · Jun 17, 2011

This is a special session for the assembly. Resolution 10. Let em pass it with no amendments so it can be over and done with.

BROKENSPROKET · Jun 17, 2011

davegran said:
A new amendment will start the process all over again in the Senate.

NO, IT WILL NOT

It already went through the Senate, so if it goes back because of any ammendments added by the House, it get a single vote on Concurrence. That is it.

I have not studied the process, but I have watched over 100 hours of Wisconsin-Eye since the the Budget Repair Bill was introduced.

apjonas · Jun 17, 2011

Do You Know For A Fact

BROKENSPROKET said:
NO, IT WILL NOT

It already went through the Senate, so if it goes back because of any ammendments added by the House, it get a single vote on Concurrence. That is it.

I have not studied the process, but I have watched over 100 hours of Wisconsin-Eye since the the Budget Repair Bill was introduced.

that if it shows up in the senate again, it won't be subject to ammmmmmmending the ammmmmmmendment or some other mischief? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Don't try to gild the lily. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Let sleeping dogs lie. These phrases did not develop arbitrarily

paul@paul-fisher.com · Jun 17, 2011

I got some offline feedback from someone in the know and they believe that the leadership has locked out ANY amendments from the Repubs.

Oh well. I can wait 4 more months if I have to.

davegran · Jun 17, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
I got some offline feedback from someone in the know and they believe that the leadership has locked out ANY amendments from the Repubs.

Oh well. I can wait 4 more months if I have to.

Thank you, Paul.

The leadership knows that when you put a finished sausage back into the sausage machine, damn near anything might come out the other end....

Outdoorsman1 · Jun 17, 2011

Quote from my earlier post....

We CHOSE to settle for permits, we CHOSE to settle for trainning...we should NOT have to settle for waiting 4 MONTHS just to (open) carry loaded in a vehilce since open carry is already legal and carrying loaded and holsterd in a vehicle has NOTHING to do with concealed carry (which IS what the permit is for)...

Fixed it myself.....

Ok... I do understand the point of "not wanting to rock the boat" for fear of the entire bill being held up until who knows when. But I "stand my ground" based on my reasons already given for on this issue (see above)...

If Paul is correct (and he usually is) then this discussion is moot as the bill is "locked" to any future amendments...

I also "suppose" I can wait the 3 or 4 month waiting period if that is how it ends up...but it will not be by choice....

Outdoorsman1

safcrkr · Jun 17, 2011

BROKENSPROKET said:
NO, IT WILL NOT

It already went through the Senate, so if it goes back because of any ammendments added by the House, it get a single vote on Concurrence. That is it.

I have not studied the process, but I have watched over 100 hours of Wisconsin-Eye since the the Budget Repair Bill was introduced.

You are correct in that all the Senate can do is vote on the Assembly change. The problem is, it does take a session of the entire Senate to do so, and calling another special session is just another delay. It must be scheduled in advance. If they concur it's done... again. But it's already done. If they don't approve, it drags on further. Impatience on car-carry start date (or any other changes) just puts the Senate back into the process when they've been taken out with a win. We had our chance last week in the finance committee, and again on Tuesday in the full Senate, to make the bill better. THAT was the time for improvements.... not now. If the Repub leaders have indeed locked out any amendments from their side it's because they see it as I do.

Touchdown · Jun 17, 2011

I called about a dozen offices of senators or representatives. I explained how the wording of "out-of-state licensee" should be changed to say that Wisconsin residents with out of state licenses should be able to carry until they get a WI permit. Most agreed with me and thought that was already in the language. A simple amendment to tweek the language and definition of what constitutes a "licensee" shouldn't be that tough. I can't believe that something this simple would put the entire bill in jeopardy.

Outdoorsman1 · Jun 17, 2011

Touchdown said:
I called about a dozen offices of senators or representatives. I explained how the wording of "out-of-state licensee" should be changed to say that Wisconsin residents with out of state licenses should be able to carry until they get a WI permit. Most agreed with me and thought that was already in the language. A simple amendment to tweek the language and definition of what constitutes a "licensee" shouldn't be that tough. I can't believe that something this simple would put the entire bill in jeopardy.

Wow..time to go fishing as a can of worms has been opened.....

As stated by some in earlier posts... ANY change or amendment could put the bill in jeopardy by having it sent to committe or back to the Senate for approval of the change.

Also as stated (by me) in a previous poat... The change to allow loaded open carry in a vheicle sooner than the 4 month wait, is asking for a change in the date it goes into effect (not really a change in the wording of the actual bill itself).

I would think your request would require a change in the actual wording of the bill itself which might cause more of a possibility of delay by having the change approved..

I am not real experianced in all this stuff so who really knows what will or could happen....

Oh yea, based on discussions here, I sent a 2nd (short) e-mail asking my Rep. to use her better judgment in not introducing a change that might delay the process (chane of effective date for the repeal of 167.31)... and if the change would significantly delay the process that I respectfully withdraw my request....

I guess I recognize a good argument (reason) when I see one and thank those that helped me see the error in my ways....:idea:...

.....

Edited to add: I guess we can only hope Paul is correct in thinking that the bill has been locked for amendments....

Outdoorsman1

safcrkr · Jun 17, 2011

Touchdown said:
I called about a dozen offices of senators or representatives. I explained how the wording of "out-of-state licensee" should be changed to say that Wisconsin residents with out of state licenses should be able to carry until they get a WI permit. Most agreed with me and thought that was already in the language. A simple amendment to tweek the language and definition of what constitutes a "licensee" shouldn't be that tough. I can't believe that something this simple would put the entire bill in jeopardy.

Anything that makes any change requires bringing the Senate back in the picture, when we've totally eliminated all potential problems that can arise there. Why is that so hard to understand???????????????

I'll put it like this... You're in a boxing match. You knock your opponant down. The referee starts the countdown to 10. He gets to 8 and you say, "Wait... give him a few more seconds, I want to hit him harder". Your opponant can get up and knock you down, and you lose. Not likely, cuz you got him reeling... but it IS a possibility he can get in a "lucky" punch and knock you out. You wait that last few seconds and it's over. Your opponant can get up after the 10 count and beat you silly, but it won't mean a thing cuz you already won. If you want to hit him harder, then schedule another bout, but put a win behind you.

Outdoorsman1 · Jun 17, 2011

Bumped Due To Added Info....

Originally Posted by Touchdown
I called about a dozen offices of senators or representatives. I explained how the wording of "out-of-state licensee" should be changed to say that Wisconsin residents with out of state licenses should be able to carry until they get a WI permit. Most agreed with me and thought that was already in the language. A simple amendment to tweek the language and definition of what constitutes a "licensee" shouldn't be that tough. I can't believe that something this simple would put the entire bill in jeopardy.

Wow..time to go fishing as a can of worms has been opened.....

As stated by some in earlier posts... ANY change or amendment could put the bill in jeopardy by having it sent to committe or back to the Senate for approval of the change.

Also as stated (by me) in a previous poat... The change to allow loaded open carry in a vheicle sooner than the 4 month wait, is asking for a change in the date it goes into effect (not really a change in the wording of the actual bill itself).

I would think your request would require a change in the actual wording of the bill itself which might cause more of a possibility of delay by having the change approved..

I am not real experianced in all this stuff so who really knows what will or could happen....

Oh yea, based on discussions here, I sent a 2nd (short) e-mail asking my Rep. to use her better judgment in not introducing a change that might delay the process (chane of effective date for the repeal of 167.31)... and if the change would significantly delay the process that I respectfully withdraw my request....

I guess I recognize a good argument (reason) when I see one and thank those that helped me see the error in my ways............

Edited to add: I guess we can only hope Paul is correct in thinking that the bill has been locked for amendments....

Outdoorsman1 Last edited by Outdoorsman1; Today at 09:48 AM. Reason: add info

safcrkr · Jun 17, 2011

Outdoorsman1 said:
Wow..time to go fishing as a can of worms has been opened.....

As stated by some in earlier posts... ANY change or amendment could put the bill in jeopardy by having it sent to committe or back to the Senate for approval of the change.

Also as stated (by me) in a previous poat... The change to allow loaded open carry in a vheicle sooner than the 4 month wait, is asking for a change in the date it goes into effect (not really a change in the wording of the actual bill itself).

I would think your request would require a change in the actual wording of the bill itself which might cause more of a possibility of delay by having the change approved..

I am not real experianced in all this stuff so who really knows what will or could happen....

Oh yea, based on discussions here, I sent a 2nd (short) e-mail asking my Rep. to use her better judgment in not introducing a change that might delay the process (chane of effective date for the repeal of 167.31)... and if the change would significantly delay the process that I respectfully withdraw my request....

I guess I recognize a good argument (reason) when I see one and thank those that helped me see the error in my ways....:idea:........

Edited to add: I guess we can only hope Paul is correct in thinking that the bill has been locked for amendments....

Outdoorsman1

Changing the start date IS a change in the wording.

As for being experienced in this stuff... This is a war. This is the 4th battle in that war, and I've been in all the previous 3 battles. I've been fully engaged in this war since 2000. I've been to "strategy" meetings with NRA reps & other pro-gun organiztions. I've been to those committee hearings in Madison. I was one of several people who met with our former Dem Senator and convinced him to be a co-sponsor in the Senate. In all the cc bills to hit WI, the only Dem Senators to sign onto a cc bill as a sponsor came from the 12th district. Check it out... no other Dem Senator has ever co-sponsored a cc bill other than Roger Breske and Jim Holperin. My district, and I have argued for cc with both of them, in person and up close. I was even once on the local TV news in an interview about cc. Call me a "veteran" if you want. I AM experienced in this stuff. Trust me when I say we'll win our 1st battle in this war, as long as WE don't beat ourselves by letting the enemy outflank us.

To finally win the war, we need to get constitutional carry, so the war isn't over... but for a change, we have the upper hand and the enemy is in retreat.

Teej · Jun 17, 2011

The Senate agreed on the current wording.

If the wording (including effective date) changes, it goes back for approval.

The problem is I believe the Senate has adjourned for the current floor period. One of the Sens who was trying to add straw purchase language to the bill said he was under the impression the Senate wasn't coming back next week.

Any changes now and we'll have to wait an F of a lot longer than 4 months.

safcrkr · Jun 17, 2011

Teej said:
The Senate agreed on the current wording.

If the wording (including effective date) changes, it goes back for approval.

The problem is I believe the Senate has adjourned for the current floor period. One of the Sens who was trying to add straw purchase language to the bill said he was under the impression the Senate wasn't coming back next week.

Any changes now and we'll have to wait an F of a lot longer than 4 months.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SJR-1.pdf

The Senate was scheduled to adjourn after budget passage (which happened yesterday). Next floor session begins Sept 13th. That's a month after recalls. They possibly could be recalled for a "special session", but don't count on it. They consider this a done deal. The antis would love any chance to delay this until after recalls, when they could kill it altogether if they win in the recalls.

Here is an amendment I am proposing for SB93 in the House

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member