Law abider
Regular Member
I kinds got direct with Rep Krug. Here is my e mail to him:How astounding I should have checked the blue books first. Rep Krug. How could you act like the other side? My apologies to the Democrats. Usually you pull these things off. But Rep Krug a Republican? That's why I am not yet a card carrying republican. Only when we have an Original intent minded Republican majority will, maybe, I'll carry the card.
Rep Krug. Whose side are you on?? Don't allow this bill to pass. It will make class C felony a blink of an eye.
Then he sent me two e mails: It is in NO way meant to limit your 2nd Amendment rights, simply meant to ensure that those who are to be arrested for breaking the law have more reason to comply with lawful orders from a law enforcement officer.
I've heard the arguments already that you wouldn't be able to open carry anymore along the lines of the Culvers story. Simply untrue. This bill is to punish criminals and not law abiding citizens.
Rep. Krug
Here is his second E mail:
fought harder than anyone in the Senate and the Assembly for the constitutional carry. This bill is so far off from what you are interpreting it to be. With our new privileges come responsibility. You are making the same argument that the other side made when it came to a permitless system and CCW overall. The argument you make is that legal, law abiding gun owners are somehow going to argue and fight their way into an arrest and become subject to the penalities of this proposal simply because of a law enforcement contact even if the contact is unreasonable by chance.
The odds of your scenario are small. Legal Arrest AND further Resistance from that point is the trigger point of this bill. Not simply openly carrying a weapon, which is defensable as it is LEGAL. Feel free to contact me directly in the future instead of cc'ing the entire legislature.
Rep. Krug
What do you all make of it?
Rep Krug. Whose side are you on?? Don't allow this bill to pass. It will make class C felony a blink of an eye.
Then he sent me two e mails: It is in NO way meant to limit your 2nd Amendment rights, simply meant to ensure that those who are to be arrested for breaking the law have more reason to comply with lawful orders from a law enforcement officer.
I've heard the arguments already that you wouldn't be able to open carry anymore along the lines of the Culvers story. Simply untrue. This bill is to punish criminals and not law abiding citizens.
Rep. Krug
Here is his second E mail:
fought harder than anyone in the Senate and the Assembly for the constitutional carry. This bill is so far off from what you are interpreting it to be. With our new privileges come responsibility. You are making the same argument that the other side made when it came to a permitless system and CCW overall. The argument you make is that legal, law abiding gun owners are somehow going to argue and fight their way into an arrest and become subject to the penalities of this proposal simply because of a law enforcement contact even if the contact is unreasonable by chance.
The odds of your scenario are small. Legal Arrest AND further Resistance from that point is the trigger point of this bill. Not simply openly carrying a weapon, which is defensable as it is LEGAL. Feel free to contact me directly in the future instead of cc'ing the entire legislature.
Rep. Krug
What do you all make of it?