• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

NRA statement on the public hearings

Jason in WI

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
542
Location
Under your bed
If each bill becomes law, citizens will have the option of carrying under either of the two systems, as described in the bill summary here.

I know the NRA guy said in the Cabala's meeting these two bills can work hand and hand together. So if I'm reading this right and they pass both bills, I will be able to constitutionally carry open and I would need a permit to carry concealed and (arguably) bypass the federal school zone restriction? Can anybody tell me if this is how it could work?

I like that this would get us half there, constitutional carry openly would clear up a lot of problems other states have with open carry and the police getting confused weather some laws apply to open or concealed. Since I will most likely continue to always carry openly even if I have to get a permit this is important to me.


The NRA lobbyist, same guy in Madison I'll have to look up his name did say the constitutional bill would be a benefit to people in lees urban areas aka as places with less schools.


Edited to add:
I almost forgot that the language changed a bit in the constitutional carry bill and they might be trying to slip us the big one on car carry again but I figured you would need a permit anyway in a car if we had any kind of permit otherwise the police would always say we were concealing even if it was on the dash or taped to our foreheads.

Thanks Handy, it was Lasorte.
 
Last edited:
M

McX

Guest
the only things i overly liked were; the written part of cops not being able to harass open carriers.
the written part of i can run on an out of state permit- if that permit included a background check.

the rest sucks.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I know the NRA guy said in the Cabala's meeting these two bills can work hand and hand together. So if I'm reading this right and they pass both bills, I will be able to constitutionally carry open and I would need a permit to carry concealed and (arguably) bypass the federal school zone restriction? Can anybody tell me if this is how it could work?

I like that this would get us half there, constitutional carry openly would clear up a lot of problems other states have with open carry and the police getting confused weather some laws apply to open or concealed. Since I will most likely continue to always carry openly even if I have to get a permit this is important to me.


The NRA lobbyist, same guy in Madison I'll have to look up his name did say the constitutional bill would be a benefit to people in lees urban areas aka as places with less schools.


Edited to add:
I almost forgot that the language changed a bit in the constitutional carry bill and they might be trying to slip us the big one on car carry again but I figured you would need a permit anyway in a car if we had any kind of permit otherwise the police would always say we were concealing even if it was on the dash or taped to our foreheads.

Thanks Handy, it was Lasorte.

My understanding from talking to him was that it would end up like AZ, we would carry as we like without a permit but there would be an optional permit for reciprocity. I mentioned to him that the LRB versions would need modification and he said it was being worked on.
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
It is critical that you contact your state Senator AND state Representative and request that they support the PPA without any amendments that further restrict your right to self-defense or cause more difficulty in obtaining a license. Specifically, ask that they oppose a training mandate

Is something missing here? Oh, I know

"support the PPA and the Right to Carry Bill without any amendments"
 

Jason in WI

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
542
Location
Under your bed
My understanding from talking to him was that it would end up like AZ, we would carry as we like without a permit but there would be an optional permit for reciprocity. I mentioned to him that the LRB versions would need modification and he said it was being worked on.

That would be awesome! The only thing I don't get is that doesn't the permit bill prohibit concealed carry without a permit? I know we have conflicting laws but how does one get around that? Like I'm required to show my permit to an officer if I'm conceal carrying but how do I do that if I'm concealing under the constitutional bill?

Remember, I did ask him why not just use the NRA's influence to add an optional permit system for the guys worrying about travailing out of state to the constitutional bill and call it done. The answer I got after I filtered it was pretty much our law makers are a bunch of spineless wusses, I don't think I filtered it much I believe he actually said that. I guess maybe they can backdoor it in while passing a permit bill to make the lib's happy?


I really am confused. I'll admit I didn't really look at the language in the bill to see exactly how they modified the statues so maybe it is possible. Sorry I didn't get to say bye Paul at the meeting, we had to go shopping!
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Still will have the 1000 foot Fed. School zone issue. With no permit, the Fed will still have a reason to take us in.
I guess this is why I would like to see both bills pass.
Have there been any recent cases of people being charged with the federal GFSZ?
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Still will have the 1000 foot Fed. School zone issue. With no permit, the Fed will still have a reason to take us in.
I guess this is why I would like to see both bills pass.
While this is true, can anyone cite a prosecution under the Federal GFSZ where the State Statute was less stringent such as the proposal we have to make it school grounds only??
 

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
I still think the signage language needs to be changed to an odd size, like 13x13, so efforts will have to be put into no-guns signs. Having a blaze orange background isn't enough, imho
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
protias said:
Hopefully police will not harass us because we do not have a permit.
Why do you think they'd change what they're doing?
They've had a memo from the AG.
They've had lawsuits.
Still they hassle OCers.

rcav8r said:
I still think the signage language needs to be changed to an odd size, like 13x13, so efforts will have to be put into no-guns signs.
I agree; it can't be something easy to make up on the copy machine.
At least 12" square.
White background, black pistol, red circle slash (at least 8" outside diameter).
Plain block capital letters at least 1" high, black, saying "no concealed carry" (or "no firearms") & the # of the statute.
Posted on every door. (Not just 'near every entrance'.)
Posted at eye level for an average adult (bottom no less than 3' off the ground, top no more than 6' off the ground).
Sign may not be obscured or hidden by anything, even in part. (No lettering on the door, no handle or push bar.)
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I still think the signage language needs to be changed to an odd size, like 13x13, so efforts will have to be put into no-guns signs. Having a blaze orange background isn't enough, imho

Agreed. Texas type signage would be good.

Why do you think they'd change what they're doing?
They've had a memo from the AG.
They've had lawsuits.
Still they hassle OCers.
Like I said, hopefully. I never said they would or would not change.
 

Optimus Prime

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
79
Location
Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA
Have there been any recent cases of people being charged with the federal GFSZ?

At the Wausau meeting the guy was saying they couldn't tell you what the fine for it was, because no one had ever been charged with it. It seems they're afraid if they did try to prosecute, it would open it up for a constitutionality challenge.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Top