What states will honor WI Resident Permits?

apjonas said:

It never ceases to amaze me what people will sell for this "mess of pottage." Quite apart from being unconstitutional, allowing the central government such power would quickly be turned in the other direction. If the Feds can say "thou shalt honor all permits," they can also say "thou shall NOT honor ANY permit" or "NOT issue ANY permit."

Be careful what you wish for.....

Click to expand...

I'm all for states rights and am loathe to expand Federal rights, however, is this not one of the FEW places where the Federal government actually has the responsibility? Does not the 2nd amendment give it that right? Does the Constitution not say 'whatever is not Federal is state?'


While it would be unconstitutional for the Fed's to say 'no permits', it would be wholly constitutional to enforce reciprocity.

apjonas said:

It never ceases to amaze me what people will sell for this "mess of pottage." Quite apart from being unconstitutional, allowing the central government such power would quickly be turned in the other direction. If the Feds can say "thou shalt honor all permits," they can also say "thou shall NOT honor ANY permit" or "NOT issue ANY permit."

Be careful what you wish for.....

Click to expand...

Sweet, Constitutional Carry for all!

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I'm all for states rights and am loathe to expand Federal rights, however, is this not one of the FEW places where the Federal government actually has the responsibility? Does not the 2nd amendment give it that right? Does the Constitution not say 'whatever is not Federal is state?'


While it would be unconstitutional for the Fed's to say 'no permits', it would be wholly constitutional to enforce reciprocity.

Click to expand...

I'm going to nit pick here...

The 2A does not give that right, it is a God given right which is reiterated by the Constitution.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

While it would be unconstitutional for the Fed's to say 'no permits', it would be wholly constitutional to enforce reciprocity.

Click to expand...

+10000

protias said:

I'm going to nit pick here...

The 2A does not give that right, it is a God given right which is reiterated by the Constitution.

Click to expand...

I believe you misread:

Does not the 2nd amendment give it that right

Click to expand...

In this case, IT is the Federal government. I was saying the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to 'deregulate' (shall not be infringed) our natural right.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I believe you misread:



In this case, IT is the Federal government. I was saying the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to 'deregulate' (shall not be infringed) our natural right.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be true if it is the government that gives rights. However, since that is not the case, it is a false statement.

This is not so much an issue of "states' rights"

jpm84092 said:

I yield to your "States Rights" argument.

Click to expand...

but a proper limitation on the power of the central government.

That's What We Have Now

MKEgal said:

I'd love to see all rights recognized in all states, no permits needed.
Failing that, what's so wrong about recognizing a carry permit just like recognizing a driving permit?
(Or a worship permit, or a permit to have a jury trial, or a permit to avoid the police searching your home without a warrant, or... oh, yeah, we don't need permits for any other right, because they're rights.)

Click to expand...

Each state is free to recognize (or not) any other state's permit - some, all or none. The recognition of a driver's license is not done by fiat from Washington, D.C. nor is it a result of a constitutional provision but rather it is result of a compact among the states. Even then, recognition is not without some restrictions - a 14 year old may obtain a license in some states (usually for a restricted purpose) but he would not be able to drive in NYC even if the license were unrestricted.

The current state of the law (I understand many disagree) does not admit of a right to carry a firearm in public, certainly not a concealed firearm. If it ever is the case that carry is determined to be a right protected by the federal constitution, then mandatory permitting and interstate validity might follow. It is not the case that a permit could never be required because all constitutional rights have some limitations (again whether you disagree or not that is the reality) and therefore a vetting process - whether or not a physical permit is provided could occur to ensure exclusion of prohibited persons. Most places you have to register to vote (to ensure majority, citizenship, etc.) and are often give a card attesting to that fact.

No

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I'm all for states rights and am loathe to expand Federal rights, however, is this not one of the FEW places where the Federal government actually has the responsibility? Does not the 2nd amendment give it that right? Does the Constitution not say 'whatever is not Federal is state?'


While it would be unconstitutional for the Fed's to say 'no permits', it would be wholly constitutional to enforce reciprocity.

Click to expand...

The carry of a firearm is not a right protected by the federal constitution. See previous post for detail. The Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, is the power to allow public carry delegated to the U.S.? No. Is it prohibited to the states? No. So, it belongs to the states (if they have such power via the state constitution and/or laws) or the people, if not.

apjonas said:

The carry of a firearm is not a right protected by the federal constitution. See previous post for detail. The Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, is the power to allow public carry delegated to the U.S.? No. Is it prohibited to the states? No. So, it belongs to the states (if they have such power via the state constitution and/or laws) or the people, if not.

Click to expand...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me the states, nor the federal government can regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

Colorado reciprocates with any state that accepts Colorado's permit, so it's up to Wisconsin. It is true -- Colorado would not accept Wisconsin non-resident permits (if they issue them).

Dynamite Rabbit said:

Colorado reciprocates with any state that accepts Colorado's permit, so it's up to Wisconsin. It is true -- Colorado would not accept Wisconsin non-resident permits (if they issue them).

Click to expand...

That is good. I checked it out and all thes states that CO accepts, accepts CO's. I am certain that Colorado will be accepted by Wisconsin.

protias said:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me the states, nor the federal government can regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

The proper debate has always been the limits of this right. There were "gun" laws before during and after the ink was wet on the original US Constitution and the founders were fine with this.

AZ, IA, ID, KY, MO, MI, OK, SD, TN, VT are the "honor all other states" states....so those are a given as of Day 1.

apjonas said:

The carry of a firearm is not a right protected by the federal constitution. See previous post for detail. The Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, is the power to allow public carry delegated to the U.S.? No. Is it prohibited to the states? No. So, it belongs to the states (if they have such power via the state constitution and/or laws) or the people, if not.

Click to expand...

No, but being arrested for doing so may certainly be a violation of your fundamental right to "possess and carry" arms "in case of confrontation".

Heller, McDonald and The 7th circuit decision in Ezell all seem to point in this direction very strongly.

The wife and I just drove across the border to MN and applied for our CCW.
$75 each and NRA Basic pistol course as training. Forms must be filed in person!
So when the time comes we will have BOTH MN and WI permits after we apply and get our WI permits.

I am very certain that MN will not allow WI permits.

MN has strict training requirments that WI doesnt even come close too.

MN also has training renewal.

MN wouldnt dare to allow WI permits because their own state holders would be "up in arms" due to the fact that it would treat WI holders better than its own people.

wiscollector said:

The wife and I just drove across the border to MN and applied for our CCW.
$75 each and NRA Basic pistol course as training. Forms must be filed in person!
So when the time comes we will have BOTH MN and WI permits after we apply and get our WI permits.

I am very certain that MN will not allow WI permits.

MN has strict training requirments that WI doesnt even come close too.

MN also has training renewal.

MN wouldnt dare to allow WI permits because their own state holders would be "up in arms" due to the fact that it would treat WI holders better than its own people.

Click to expand...

But they accept UT permits which have no training renewal.

Strangly, MN does not honor any state that borders it.

If WI is molded after FL and AZ, Note that MN does not honor FL or AZ.

Even if MN and WI try to work out a repo agrement, i bet it would take a few years and my MN permit will be good for 5 years so I think my $75 is very well spent since I travel to MN often.

MN and WI are also currently fighting over other non-gun repo agreements like college and tax agreements. If they cant work those out, i bet permit agrements will be last on their list of things to do.

WI will most likely honor MN BUT MN will most likely not honor WI. IMO

apjonas said:

The carry of a firearm is not a right protected by the federal constitution. See previous post for detail. The Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, is the power to allow public carry delegated to the U.S.? No. Is it prohibited to the states? No. So, it belongs to the states (if they have such power via the state constitution and/or laws) or the people, if not.

Click to expand...

We are fortunate to live in WI where our Right To Bear Arms for Any Lawful Purpose IS protected by out State Constitution... Unfortunately the legislature has seen fit to restrict the manner by which we may carry.

wiscollector said:

The wife and I just drove across the border to MN and applied for our CCW.
$75 each and NRA Basic pistol course as training. Forms must be filed in person!
So when the time comes we will have BOTH MN and WI permits after we apply and get our WI permits.
...

Click to expand...

If you do not travel beyond WI, MI and MN you are set with the 2 planned permits (WI/MN). If you do, the Utah and Florida along with your WI permit are the best coverage available. MN recognizes UT.

Dynamite Rabbit said:

Colorado reciprocates with any state that accepts Colorado's permit, so it's up to Wisconsin. It is true -- Colorado would not accept Wisconsin non-resident permits (if they issue them).

Click to expand...

Having lived in CO in the past, I'll 2nd what you said