Krug for Assembly
New member
imported post
Absolutely.....
Absolutely.....
How about proof of participation in nationally organized shooting competitions? This speaks to gun handling and safety awareness.Krug for Assembly wrote:Mr. Krug, Would the hunter safety course be sufficient for a ccw permit?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
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.
What would happen while the police contact occurs that you would need your firearm?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).
Besides, unless there is a law passed that states that you must disclose to the officer that you have a firearm,
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 pointJ.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?
That is why I am also a member of OathKeepers.orgAs 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.