Senate cop out?

Captain Nemo said:

http://centralwisconsinhub.wausauda...ittee-?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

Click to expand...

bnhcomputing said:

To pack...

You are 100% correct and that IS the problem.

So many people were "we need the license/permit" for reciprocity. That argument is illogical.

What you are doing is saying because some other state has FUBAR gun laws, you want WI to have FUBAR gun laws, that's insanity.

Utah/Florida I believe require finger prints, so lets add that... MN requires a shooting test, let's add that...

New York wants photos and a copy of your birth certificate, so lets add that......

You can see where I going with this. We LOST a fabulous opportunity.

No permit FREE carry was in the state GOP platform in both 2010 and 2011. The Republican RINOs (Walker included) told everybody who was supporting them because of this stance in the platform to go to hell. One legislator stated something like we are never held to the platform. THEN WHY THE HELL EVEN HAVE ONE.

With 100,000 people protesting, the RINOs rammed the union busting thing through. There wasn't anyone protesting concealed carry, they could have rammed it through also.

Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers alienated a large portion of WI gun owners, and now look, 70+ thousand people are just so happy to pay their tax and get in line. We had them, they were(?) facing recall, and we let them off the hook.

We didn't need a license/permit here in WI. We should have gotten no permit FREE carry, just like the GOP platform. Any RINO that didn't directly sign-on to Constitutional Carry should be primaried and voted out.

So, when Walker is recalled, the Senate goes left, and the left takes the Assembly in the fall (total left-wing control), they will add hundreds of places to the list of places we cannot carry. They will increase the training requirement, and they will increase the cost.

Think about it, why did the DOJ want all that info about the instructor, so they could TAX the instructor.

It's all about the money....

Click to expand...

Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, the rules committee's co-chairwoman, said the bill isn't needed because Republicans and DOJ administrators are working on permanent concealed carry regulations. She expects the final version will comply with the committee's concerns.

"This is all because we're in the process of negotiating the permanent rule," she said.

DOJ spokeswoman Dana Brueck said in an email the agency is "mindful" of the rules committee's objections but the need to show meaningful proof of training hasn't changed. She declined to elaborate.

Click to expand...

Captain Nemo said:

bnhcomputing is absolutely correct. We screwed up. We had constitutional carry in our grasp and and because of influence of a outside interest grasped defeat from the jaws of victory.

A few years ago I was on the "reciprosity" train. I thought a good compromise was constitutional carry intrastate and permit option for interstate carry sounded good. Then like a four week old puppy my eyes opened up and I said "that ain't right". Article I section 25, "The people have the right to carry arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose" Is short, concise and clear. There is no stipend [stipulation] as to manner of carry. It doesn't contain a phrase "except for concealed carry". As it is written it is manner of carry neutral.

It was the 2003 Wisconsin Supreme Court in the opinions of State v Cole and State v Hamdan that used the process of judicial construction to declare that the concealed carry prohibition statute was still constitutional and mold the amendment into a likewise prohibition of conceal carry. The court was convinced that the legislative intent was to keep sss941.23 in place. The Court gave no interest in that it may have been an oversight on the part of the LRB at the time the amendment was drafted. The Court gave no interest to the thought that the amendment had been rewritten many times before the final version was considered correct. Instead that court let it's liberal attitude use judicial construction to mold Art I sect 25 to fit the Court's ideology(my opinion).

My opinion was shared as well by a couple of dissenting justices. In it's analysis the Court completely muddied the waters. In Hamdan the Court ruled that statute 941.23 was alive and well because constitutional amendments can not over power statutes already in existence, saying that statutes in existence are presumed constitutional. It ruled that according to the Court's review the legislative intent was to keep 941.23 alive. It ruled that 941.23 was not a threat to Art I sect 25 because there was an alternate manner of carry, implying that open carry was constitutionally protected as an alternate manner of carry.

Then the Court really tripped over it's own feet. In paragraph 48 of Hamdan the Court commented that ss941.23 is a strict liability statute. No one except a peace officer can go armed with a concealed and deadly weapon. Also stating at that time that there were no exceptions. Then the Court used judicial construction to make an exception. The Court ruled that a private citizen was constitutionally protected to carry a concealed weapon in their home, business and on their property.

As a result of that confusion we now have a hybred [hybrid] condition. By court ruling and implication open carry is constitutionally protected and concealed carry is constitutionally protected in one's home, business and property but concealed carry is not allowed by private citizens in public places. In Act 35 the legislature confirms. So in order to allow private citizens the privilege of carrying concealed weapons in public the legislature enacted within Act 35 an exception that allows private citizens to apply and receive a state issued and controlled privilege and license that authorizes them to carry a concealed weapon in public.

How can that be? How can a court decree that an amendment is half a loaf? How can a legislature abide by that decree? The answer is; the legislature caved in to outside special interests, as did many of us. Both duped into the philosophy that let's go for the sure thing now and change it later. My opinion is that later will be some time in the distant future. There are too many legislators that have the attitude that we have one of the best shall issue permitting system in the country, that's good enough.

There are too many legislators that are happy that their endorsement of Act 35 gained them a higher gun right grade and don't wish to pursue the controversial issue furthur. There are too many key players fighting to keep their jobs and they aren't about to re-open a controversial issue that may jeopardize their chances to keep their job. I predict there will be no new gun legislattion introduced in 2012. All because we were duped into accepting half a loaf.

As I said earlier and bnhcomputing implied, we had many high cards on our side of the table and only ended up grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. Now we have to live under an umbrella of having a constitutionally protected right to open carry and to conceal carry in our home, business or on our property but in order to conceal carry outside those venues must have a state issued and controlled privilege by license. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying we should roll over and play dead, on the contrary. We must be more vocal than ever for constitutional carry. We have to keep pounding on the legislature. We must make those legislators that authored and co-sponsored Act 35 completly aware that on their advice we accepted Act35 as a temporary step toward constitutional carry. It's just that now our job has become more difficult.

All comments I made are my opinion.

Click to expand...

Captain Nemo said:

bnhcomputing is absolutely correct. We screwed up.

Click to expand...

Herr Heckler Koch said:

Our job is easier, now that we know which of us is the enemy...

Click to expand...