November 2010 Wisconsin State Election / Candidate Guide

[Krug for Assembly]

imported post

Absolutely.....

 

[Fireball357]

imported post

Scott Krug wrote:

As a former Law Enforcement officer I say that vehicle carry is again a difficult issue. On one hand it creates unnerving situations for police by putting them face to face with a weapon that is not under their control, but on the other hand you have the statistics that say NO person ever has taken advantage of concealed carry laws by using that weapon to hurt or kill a law enforcement agent.



If any LEO (or former LEO for that matter) thinks that mandatory disclosure will make them safer; they are foolish and naive. They should approach ALL vehicles with the same level of caution. Except maybe the ones with the WCI stickers on them, they would know we are the good guys.

It goes without saying that we all favor training. Mandatory training however can be a huge financial burden on many of the people that live in constant daily fear for their lives, the people of lower income that by no fault of their own live in the war zones of public housing. The cost of a “required” training class and a permit fee as well as renewal fees would make many people choose between breaking the law or protecting themselves.


This also adds additional clerical load to a government agency that is already too large and expensive.


Scott; I ask you to put some more thought into this.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

I agree all leo should always approach any vehicle as if there may be a firearm inside. It is very easy to become complacent.

No permits, No Mandated training.

Constitutional Carry only, the state should issue shall issue permits free of charge for out of state resiprocity. I would even accept a $5.00 fee to cover the cost of the permit but nothing more. It does not take that much time or man power to issue a permit.

 

[Fireball357]

imported post

That won’t cut it for reciprocal agreements with most other states. Almost all of them require the same or similar training, background checks, fingerprints, etc.

I wouldn’t mind a permit process for reciprocity similar to Alaska, that in itself makes the training element voluntary.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

I agree with Gleason and Fireball here. I think WI should have non-permitted concealed carry, just like we already have OC because "there is no difference" between seeing/not seeing the firearm, none.

But for those who would like to carry in other states, although a new bureaucracy sucks, that would be alright as long as it is 100% paid for by those who use it.

If I don't travel out of the state, I don't need/use it, so I don't pay. That's exactly what they have in Alaska and now Arizona

 

[davegran]

imported post

springfield 1911 wrote:

Krug for Assembly wrote:

Didn't take enough time before the fact on the wording, but after the fact and after some more thought and better research I am 90% in favor, would still like to see some sort of declaration process or documentation or permit for vehicle carry...

BUT AS I STATED I am in agreement and will vote to pass legislation allowing concealed carry in WI and vehicle carry as well as the repeal of the Gun Free School Zone, careful what you take from certain wording, as a representative I have and will always promise to vote according to constituent wants and needs and not ALWAYS on my PERSONAL views….

My only differences were requiring full disclosure of having a weapon upon contact with law enforcement and having a permit system in place upon completion of a safety course, (that’s why I said safety courses should AT LEAST be recommended) but I didn’t write any legislation and don’t intend on writing it. It’s not my bill and being 90% in agreement with something I am in favor of it….

If I had said NO, no and no, I would tell you to “primary” me myself….and as others will tell you, Marlin won’t get you any closer to your goal and will support ANTI gun laws let alone concealed carry…



Scott Krug

Krug for Assembly

Mr. Krug, Would the hunter safety course be sufficient for a ccw permit?

How about proof of participation in nationally organized shooting competitions? This speaks to gun handling and safety awareness.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

imported post

Fireball357 wrote:

If any LEO (or former LEO for that matter) thinks that mandatory disclosure will make them safer; they are foolish and naive. They should approach ALL vehicles with the same level of caution. Except maybe the ones with the WCI stickers on them, they would know we are the good guys.

+1

The problem with all these laws, the criminals won't obey them, so, if you as a LEO pull someone over and they are inherently a criminal, they will deny that they have a weapon even though they do. If I get pulled over and you ask and I say yes and you secure my weapon 'for your safety', that stops me from being able to protect myself from anything else that may happen while the contact occurs.

I guess I have changed since I joined this group. I always thought about laws and regulations from the law abiding side of life. Since then I 'realized' there are actually criminals out there (duh) who really don't give a crap about the laws and just adding laws really does little to reduce crime.

I have no problem generally with a modifier that makes the punishment more severe if a crime is committed while using a weapon but the possession and carriage of that weapon should not be criminal in itself (no felons and other classes).

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

Fireball357 wrote:

If any LEO (or former LEO for that matter) thinks that mandatory disclosure will make them safer; they are foolish and naive. They should approach ALL vehicles with the same level of caution. Except maybe the ones with the WCI stickers on them, they would know we are the good guys.

+1

The problem with all these laws, the criminals won't obey them, so, if you as a LEO pull someone over and they are inherently a criminal, they will deny that they have a weapon even though they do. If I get pulled over and you ask and I say yes and you secure my weapon 'for your safety', that stops me from being able to protect myself from anything else that may happen while the contact occurs.

I guess I have changed since I joined this group. I always thought about laws and regulations from the law abiding side of life. Since then I 'realized' there are actually criminals out there (duh) who really don't give a crap about the laws and just adding laws really does little to reduce crime.

I have no problem generally with a modifier that makes the punishment more severe if a crime is committed while using a weapon but the possession and carriage of that weapon should not be criminal in itself (no felons and other classes).

What would happen while the police contact occurs that you would need your firearm?

Besides, unless there is a law passed that states that you must disclose to the officer that you have a firearm, do what you are suppose to do and don't talk to police. If the officer is stopping you because you were speeding or not wearing your seat belt, that has nothing to do with your firearm. IMHO all you are doing by informing him that you have a firearm is opening yourself up for a vehicle search. You are giving the officer (in his own mind) probable cause to search. Even if there is no legitimate reason he will get away with it because of qualified immunity. Unless asked, don't tell.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Besides, unless there is a law passed that states that you must disclose to the officer that you have a firearm,

That was the discussion. What I was saying is I don't want a disclosure law because there is no real benefit for the LEO because the guy who will hurt him will lie.

As to why would I need my gun while I'm stopped by LEO? I know this is out there but what if I get stopped in a bad neighborhood and someone shoots the LEO? If I had to disclose and/or give him my gun, I'd now be defenseless. I know this is kinda far fetched but who would of thought an OC'er would of been held up for his gun?

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

imported post

As to why would I need my gun while I'm stopped by LEO? I know this is out there but what if I get stopped in a bad neighborhood and someone shoots the LEO? If I had to disclose and/or give him my gun, I'd now be defenseless. I know this is kinda far fetched but who would of thought an OC'er would of been held up for his gun?

Ask the people of suburban New Orleans who had their guns confiscated during Katrina by police how they feel about a law that says you have to surrender your gun to a leo when you've done NOTHING wrong and are under NO suspicion. Ask the law-abiding people who were disarmed and left defenseless during RIOTS how they feel about that.

Second, the mentality of giving up your gun during a police encounter is that you would harm the police???? If you were motivated to harm the police with your gun, you sure aren't going to turn it over to them first. (as Paul suggests) The only gun that would EVER be turned over was a gun that would have NEVER been used to harm the cop at all.

Now this is all different if the police have probably cause of course. Or perhaps even RAS.

ANY law that requires a law-abiding citizen doing nothing wrong surrender their gun to a government agent upon request or just contact is patently un-american and doesn't just fly in the face of our federal constitution and the intentions of the men who wrote it, it spits in the face of our federal constitution.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

Besides, unless there is a law passed that states that you must disclose to the officer that you have a firearm,

That was the discussion. What I was saying is I don't want a disclosure law because there is no real benefit for the LEO because the guy who will hurt him will lie.

As to why would I need my gun while I'm stopped by LEO? I know this is out there but what if I get stopped in a bad neighborhood and someone shoots the LEO? If I had to disclose and/or give him my gun, I'd now be defenseless. I know this is kinda far fetched but who would of thought an OC'er would of been held up for his gun?

Good point

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:

As to why would I need my gun while I'm stopped by LEO? I know this is out there but what if I get stopped in a bad neighborhood and someone shoots the LEO? If I had to disclose and/or give him my gun, I'd now be defenseless. I know this is kinda far fetched but who would of thought an OC'er would of been held up for his gun?

Ask the people of suburban New Orleans who had their guns confiscated during Katrina by police how they feel about a law that says you have to surrender your gun to a leo when you've done NOTHING wrong and are under NO suspicion. Ask the law-abiding people who were disarmed and left defenseless during RIOTS how they feel about that.

Second, the mentality of giving up your gun during a police encounter is that you would harm the police???? If you were motivated to harm the police with your gun, you sure aren't going to turn it over to them first. (as Paul suggests) The only gun that would EVER be turned over was a gun that would have NEVER been used to harm the cop at all.

Now this is all different if the police have probably cause of course. Or perhaps even RAS.

ANY law that requires a law-abiding citizen doing nothing wrong surrender their gun to a government agent upon request or just contact is patently un-american and doesn't just fly in the face of our federal constitution and the intentions of the men who wrote it, it spits in the face of our federal constitution.

That is why I am also a member of OathKeepers.org

 

[bnhcomputing]

bump