-
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.
-
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.
DNR, Hunter Safety and Permit Requirements
- Thread starter phred
- Start date
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
Doesn't matter what DNR spokesman Edward Culhane says...the law is the law plain and simple.
phred
Regular Member
Yup, I totally agree. snicker snicker
anmut
Regular Member
Well if the a55hats at the DNR are sooo concerned, why don't they change the Hunters Safety course to include pistol training? MORONS.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Well for one thing it's a hunting course, and while some people hunt using a pistol it's probably no more than 1 or 2 out of every 100 hunters who do so. Plus kids can't hunt with a handgun and the course is designed in large part to teach young kids about hunting. And even if they did change the curriculum to include pistols, the relevance to defensive shooting would be, as it is now, no greater than the NRA Firearms Safety course or Pistol course--- neither of which is presented as a defensive shooting course, but are equally acceptable training for the WI CCW license.
I see no reason to change a thing about the hunters safety program. It is what it is, and what it is designed to be. Obviously the legislature didn't think it's necessary to be a trained gunslinger to carry a gun for security and defense. But at a minimum they want people to be indoctrinated with the basic rules of gun safety, something that applies equally to every sort of firearm. One doesn't need familiarity with a handgun to apply those safe gun handling rules to one.
oak1971
Regular Member
Ding! Winner! His opinion changes nothing.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
memories tend to get clouded with time. The original intent of SB93 was for constitutional carry it became apparent during debate that enough votes to pass was questionable and Governor approval was not assured without some type of licensing and training. Of special concern was the element of training. The training requirements put into the bill were the very minimum needed to get enough votes for passage and the governor's signature. There was no intent that the training requirements of Act 35 be the epitome of defensive and tactical use of firearms. They were put into the bill with Sen Galloway's pledge that she would take up the issue of constitutional carry during next session. That remains to be seen. We'll see which hand fills up first.
I makethe prediction that after everybody has their brand new shiny concealed carry permit that there will be many exclamations of "why do we need constitutional carry"? We have one of the better shall issue systems in the country so why bother"? Unless we keep the pressure on the legislature constitutional carry will die on the vine.
I makethe prediction that after everybody has their brand new shiny concealed carry permit that there will be many exclamations of "why do we need constitutional carry"? We have one of the better shall issue systems in the country so why bother"? Unless we keep the pressure on the legislature constitutional carry will die on the vine.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Right. It will be Constitutional Carry with an optional permit system for those who want reciprocity.
Right. It will be Constitutional Carry with an optional permit system for those who want reciprocity.
You mean Constitutional Carry across the US?
oak1971
Regular Member
Constitutional Carry will come. Party Poopers need not apply.
oak1971
Regular Member
Also, I challenge the Negative Nancy's to put up or shut up. I will be attending a conference on how to move forward in our fight for 2A rights. Go there, learn and get involved. Do something or ****.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Yes, but do you really want young future hunters to be crowded out of classes. Now, IF WCI had FREE or Cost-of-Membership training($15), then we could make sure the Hunters Safety stays available to the youngesters.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Cite?
oak1971
Regular Member
If the training lobby had not weaseled their way into the bill, WCI would be doing free training. Now someone needs to pay $200 per Instructor Certification to the NRA.
I plan on doing so ASAP. That's one guy. We'll need more than that obviously.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
For what? A concern?
oak1971
Regular Member
No for the bullcrap. Thats a leftist ploy, "Oh its for the children! Why do you hate children so much?" Blah, Blah, Blah.
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
How many young future hunters have thus far been displaced from classes by those seeking to meet the CC permit requirement for training prey tell?
Last edited:
oak1971
Regular Member
But if we can save just one child from the horror of waiting in line....:banghead:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Do CC permit seekers go to the front of the line and head of the class? If so put me down for that one too.
Don't shoot at blaze orange deer.
Don't shoot at blaze orange deer.
Last edited: