Captain Nemo
Regular Member
When SB93 first hit the street it was directed toward constitutional carry. For reasons that are still not perfectly clear it was morphed into a hybred law. Part shall issue and part constitutional carry. One part that general public carry will uthorized by shall issue privilege and second that carry on one's property, in the home and in owned business to be constitutionally protected.
A few influential external forces convinced the legislature to make that modification. Make it based on statements such as "We want to put something up for vote that is certain to pass" "We'll change it later" and of course influenced by Governor Walkers public message that he would be reluctant to sign any carry bill that did not have training requirements. The authors of what was to become Act 35, Senator Galloway and Representative Mursau attempted to placate us to this mutiny by pledging that they will introduce pure constitutional carry during the next legislative session.
What bothers me most by those events is that I have an uneasy feeling that the mood of this forum has mellowed to a ambivalent conduct. Something like "Well we didn't get constitutional carry but we did get a darn good shall issue law. It only has minimal training requirements and it only costs fifty bucks for the permit. It's probably the best we can expect". Even MCX is no longer saying "No stinkin' permits".
I know there are still some staunch supporters of constitutional carry on the forum that are presently concentrating on getting the "wrinkles" out of Act35 but I detect a softening toward constitutional carry even from them. We can not give up our pursuit for constitutional carry. We can not let the tyranny of the state legislature turn our constitutional right into a state controlled privilege. We must insist on making Act 35 totally constitutional so that we don't have to live with a hybred law that makes us need to determine when and under what conditions we are state privileged or constitutionally protected to carry a firearm for personal protection. Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than my personal situation. I live in a rural area. My mailbox is across the road. I can lawfully carry a concealed firearm all over my 75 acre farm but the second I step on the road to cross it to check for mail I must have a state licensed privilege to do so. How stupid is that? Even if I have no concern for the GFSZ, reciprocity or vehicle carry I legally need a CC permit to carry a concealed weapon to cross the road to check my mail. I suppose what I could do is put on an empty holster then carry concealed while on my land and then when I want to check themail take the firearm out and place it in the holster. When i return to my side of the road take the firearm out of the visible holster and conceal it again. That's a thought, NOT.
When it gets near time for the next annual session of the legislature we must put unrelenting pressure on the authors and sponsors of Act 35 to live up to their pledge.
End of my rant.
A few influential external forces convinced the legislature to make that modification. Make it based on statements such as "We want to put something up for vote that is certain to pass" "We'll change it later" and of course influenced by Governor Walkers public message that he would be reluctant to sign any carry bill that did not have training requirements. The authors of what was to become Act 35, Senator Galloway and Representative Mursau attempted to placate us to this mutiny by pledging that they will introduce pure constitutional carry during the next legislative session.
What bothers me most by those events is that I have an uneasy feeling that the mood of this forum has mellowed to a ambivalent conduct. Something like "Well we didn't get constitutional carry but we did get a darn good shall issue law. It only has minimal training requirements and it only costs fifty bucks for the permit. It's probably the best we can expect". Even MCX is no longer saying "No stinkin' permits".
I know there are still some staunch supporters of constitutional carry on the forum that are presently concentrating on getting the "wrinkles" out of Act35 but I detect a softening toward constitutional carry even from them. We can not give up our pursuit for constitutional carry. We can not let the tyranny of the state legislature turn our constitutional right into a state controlled privilege. We must insist on making Act 35 totally constitutional so that we don't have to live with a hybred law that makes us need to determine when and under what conditions we are state privileged or constitutionally protected to carry a firearm for personal protection. Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than my personal situation. I live in a rural area. My mailbox is across the road. I can lawfully carry a concealed firearm all over my 75 acre farm but the second I step on the road to cross it to check for mail I must have a state licensed privilege to do so. How stupid is that? Even if I have no concern for the GFSZ, reciprocity or vehicle carry I legally need a CC permit to carry a concealed weapon to cross the road to check my mail. I suppose what I could do is put on an empty holster then carry concealed while on my land and then when I want to check themail take the firearm out and place it in the holster. When i return to my side of the road take the firearm out of the visible holster and conceal it again. That's a thought, NOT.
When it gets near time for the next annual session of the legislature we must put unrelenting pressure on the authors and sponsors of Act 35 to live up to their pledge.
End of my rant.
Last edited: