The time for action is NOW!

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Agreed wholehearted. Watch out from your right flank, though. Corey Graff at Wisconsin Gun Owners will accuse you of selling out if you settle for anything less than constitutional carry.

I believe you are 100% correct on that point.

Would be good, if he does, to point out that your organization filed several lawsuits against bad OC stops and the gun free school zones act whereas WiGO did....what again?

ah... I'll have to bite my tongue on this one.

 

[Doug Huffman]

That is correct, and that is solely the message that needs to get to the legislature. Let Nik and the rest of the leadership deal with the nitty gritty details of other gun laws, such as gun free school zones and the rest of the wierd laws.

That would be Jim Fendry, Dick Baker, Gene German, Corey Graf? Anyone else that I missed? Oh, yeah, J.Gleason mentioned some functionary recently. The stink of lucre will bring the 'leaders' out from under their rocks.

 

[Gray Peterson]

That would be Jim Fendry, Dick Baker, Gene German, Corey Graf? Anyone else that I missed? Oh, yeah, J.Gleason mentioned some functionary recently. The stink of lucre will bring the 'leaders' out from under their rocks.

Nik and the rest of the WCI leadership. When I talk about Nik and our efforts here, I am talking about WCI's efforts. Did you think I was talking about someone elses?

 

[apjonas]

A No Permit Solution

does not get you past the federal GFSZ restriction. Now a couple of things that might work - change the state GFSZ to school property only (1000' to 0'). Gives cover to supporters and is virtually indistinguishable from a repeal. Get a statute that says a WI resident who possesses a CCW/CPL/etc. from another state is thereby licensed by WI (no physical WI permit needed) for purposes of the federal GFSZ. This would require some imaginative legislating but
(1) solves the fGFSZ problem for most (2) doesn't give rise to a state permitting apparatus.

 

[protias]

does not get you past the federal GFSZ restriction. Now a couple of things that might work - change the state GFSZ to school property only (1000' to 0'). Gives cover to supporters and is virtually indistinguishable from a repeal. Get a statute that says a WI resident who possesses a CCW/CPL/etc. from another state is thereby licensed by WI (no physical WI permit needed) for purposes of the federal GFSZ. This would require some imaginative legislating but
(1) solves the fGFSZ problem for most (2) doesn't give rise to a state permitting apparatus.

Or we could just do away with it all together instead of having more restrictions.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

does not get you past the federal GFSZ restriction.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...d-THink-Again&highlight=gfsz+federal+resident

The law clearly provides that in order to qualify as an
exception to the general prohibitions of the Gun-Free
School Zones Act, the license must be issued by the State
in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of that State. A concealed weapons license or
permit from any otper State would not satisfy the criteria
set forth in the law.

 

[oak1971]

NO!!!!!

If we let the state setup a bureaucracy 'for reciprocity', future legislatures (or even current ones) will find a way to expand it's power and increase the fees.

Let's ASSuME the best and bet that more and more states are going to move towards Constitutional Carry as opposed to the other way.

Amen.

 

[oak1971]

Why would a legislature raise the fees for an optional license that is not needed to carry in state? Given your assumption, Arizona and Alaska should be on track to raise the fees significantly, but there's no indication of them doing so.

The current legislative trends is against raising fees, it is in fact lowering them. Legislatures raise fees when they have a captive audience and they have nowhere else to go. That would not be the case here.

Regardless, any such legislation should be seperate and in fact should be done post repeal of 941.23. Repeal all of the problem criminal law first (which will happen with this Governor and the Legislature) and then consider setting it up?

In a day where Wisconsin is 2.8 billion in the red, you can bet your sweet arse that fees will increase. Don't be naive.

 

[Doug Huffman]

In a day where Wisconsin is 2.8 billion in the red, you can bet your sweet arse that fees will increase. Don't be naive.

LOL! QFT and for the event it's yanked as a personal attack against the sooo sensitive.

 

[Gray Peterson]

In a day where Wisconsin is 2.8 billion in the red, you can bet your sweet arse that fees will increase. Don't be naive.

Naive? What is your proof that an a reciprocal license for the purpose of travel by Wisconsin residents out of state will occur with fee increases in the future? Fees increase when the state has a monopoly on something (such as driving). In light of the absence of 941.23 and the state GFSZA (either via court or legislature), why would the legislature raise the fee when it'll only be taken advantage of by maybe a few thousand of us (whereas people who mostly stay in state won't really care to get it?).

Alaska went to a permit optional system. Their fees haven't increased in nearly a decade. The only states you can cite for a fee increase for permits is Connecticut, and that state requires a license for OC or CC or you can be convicted of a felony, and NYC (who is lowering their fees in response to an expected lawsuit), where one cannot open carry and concealed carry is still being treated as privilege not a right. Not exactly a similar situation in Wisconsin post-941.23 repeal.

If it's about fees, fine, let's make it $0 cost to the end user. Sheriff's have to issue it as part of their normal clerical duties throughout the day. They run background checks all day. What's an NCIC/WICIC take? 2 minutes. Done.

Regardless, it should not be the "forward legislation". That should be 941.23/167.31/948.635 repeal, of course.

Also, one more thing: Treating your allies, who support constitutional carry when they offer additive suggestions to make things better for Wisconsin residents who travel out of state, is not a very good way to represent yourself as part of the forward front.

 

[oak1971]

What is your proof that an a reciprocal license for the purpose of travel by Wisconsin residents out of state will occur with fee increases in the future. Fees increase when the state has a monopoly on something (such as driving). In light of the absence of 941.23 and the state GFSZA (either via court or legislature), why would the legislature raise the fee when it'll only be taken advantage of by maybe a few thousand of us (whereas people who mostly stay in state won't really care to get it).

Fine, let's make it $0 cost to the end user. Sheriff's have to issue it as part of their normal clerical duties throughout the day. They run background checks all day. What's an NCIC/WICIC take? 2 minutes. Done.

Regardless, it should not be the "forward legislation". That should be 941.23/167.31/948.635 repeal, of course.

Because every fee and tax has been raised each year here for years. Pretty simple.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Because every fee and tax has been raised each year here for years. Pretty simple.

Exactly! License plate fees go up every year and the roads aren't any better.

 

[oak1971]

Plate fees
Hunting license fees
Fishing license fees
Garbage removal fees
Snow removal fees.......................

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

If it's about fees, fine, let's make it $0 cost to the end user. Sheriff's have to issue it as part of their normal clerical duties throughout the day. They run background checks all day. What's an NCIC/WICIC take? 2 minutes. Done

Great! Another reason for the Sheriff to dislike the bill. I talked to the Sheriff of Walworth County and he said he had no problem with cc, he just didn't support the previous 2 bills because it would of required additional staff and zero revenue for his department. He figured it would take one Deputy off of the street.

 

[oak1971]

Why would we even want a permit system? I know, we haven't been oppressed enough yet, right?

:banghead:

 

[Doug Huffman]

Hey, a good use - abuse - for some Obaminable stimulating money.

I remember a Cliton era federal grant, to put cops on the street, while I was associated with the MPPD. When the grant ran out so did the $100K for their salaries and guess who didn't pick up the tab?

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Going through http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php There is NO current state license that is honored by every other state. So, if you believe that WI can design a permit that meets all other state requirements and still only charge $5 for it, I believe you might be smoking something.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Nawp. He just bought his foundering membership and is an authoritaay now on WI and WA!

Awright, I'll stop talkin down. Besides I gotta go to my AmLegion meeting.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Because every fee and tax has been raised each year here for years. Pretty simple.

Fees go up every year here too, but is a problem in any state government right now. See below:

Exactly! License plate fees go up every year and the roads aren't any better.

Except you need a license plate on your car to drive a car on public roads. Assuming 941.23/other bad gun law repeal, what license would you need to carry on public roads and streets and sidewalks in Wisconsin? The answer would be none.

Plate fees
Hunting license fees
Fishing license fees
Garbage removal fees
Snow removal fees.......................

I annihilated the fee and reduced it down to 0.

Great! Another reason for the Sheriff to dislike the bill. I talked to the Sheriff of Walworth County and he said he had no problem with cc, he just didn't support the previous 2 bills because it would of required additional staff and zero revenue for his department. He figured it would take one Deputy off of the street.

Read below what I actually stated:

Regardless, it should not be the "forward legislation". That should be 941.23/167.31/948.635 repeal, of course.

Did I even remotely suggest that a reciprocity purpose license bill should be attached in ANY way to the repealer bill, or even done next year?

Why would we even want a permit system? I know, we haven't been oppressed enough yet, right?

Wow, an optional reciprocal license which costs $0 and you don't even need to have it to carry in the state of Wisconsin, passed a year after a repealer bill, is oppression?

Try living in California, New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, or Illinois for a few years...that'll give you a real taste of oppression.

Going through http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php There is NO current state license that is honored by every other state. So, if you believe that WI can design a permit that meets all other state requirements and still only charge $5 for it, I believe you might be smoking something.

Alabama, New Hampshire, Colorado, Michigan, Florida (hey look, no more need to spend $117 for a license from them), Georgia. Also, I reduced the cost to $0. Oh, and look, it's not even attached to a repealer bill and it would happen a year post-repeal of the bad gun laws.

But no, that's oppression. Is it common in the Wisconsin forum to be completely discourteously and being tacitly accused of supporting oppression?

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Is it common in the Wisconsin forum to be completely discourteously and being tacitly accused of supporting oppression?

Short answer is we know Wisconsin and how it's government works. Give them an inch, they will take a mile.

Call me paranoid but let's just assume the best case scenario that you outlined.

1. 941.23 get repealed in 2011.
2. Your 'free', no training license bill gets passed either later in 2011 or 2012.

Here's what will happen because this is WI.

The legislature will get pestered by liberals and local communities because of an unfunded mandate. The legislature will raise the rate and then discover that there aren't enough people getting the permit to actually pay for the bureaucracy, so, they will make it mandatory so that they have a mass of permits that will.