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.
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
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.
Hopefully police will not harass us because we do not have a permit.
Hopefully police will not harass us because we do not have a permit.
Have there been any recent cases of people being charged with the federal GFSZ?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??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.
Why do you think they'd change what they're doing?protias said:Hopefully police will not harass us because we do not have a permit.
I agree; it can't be something easy to make up on the copy machine.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 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
Like I said, hopefully. I never said they would or would not change.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.
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.