WCI members must be united!

[McX]

one nation under a groove, getting down just for the funk of it- comes to mind.
(feet dont fail me now)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_DSZZsnrfI

 

[Gray Peterson]

I think I had made statement a few days ago that it would not be long before the NRA took over the reigns here in Wisconsin. Here comes the permits, fees and mandated training. Hang on to your hats.

I really do not have issue with them being involved with the exception that they will push aside any ideology that does not fall in line with their own.

The repeal of 941.23 is the most logical and fiscally responsible approach. It will be interesting to see if they just pass it by.

James, your own interactions with NRA staff aside, I don't think you're qualified to know exactly what they want. What you know is that in the past when you're facing needing veto override majorities.

I point out that the NRA, along with local groups like AZCDL, helped make constitutional carry in Arizona a reality.

Arizona Legislation Archive from NRA-ILA

and....

Alaska Constitutional Carry Law passes

FAIRFAX, VA - Governor Frank Murkowski of Alaska signed into law HB 102, a "Right-to-Carry" bill, which enables law-abiding citizens the Right-to-Carry a firearm without government intrusion. Vermont is the only other state in the Union to allow all eligible law-abiding gun owners the Right-to-Carry without a permit. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Vermont consistently falls near the bottom of the list in terms of crime.

Gee, sounds like an organization which only supports bills with mandatory training, fees, and permits and won't go for anything more ever. /sarcasm

Anyway, the point being is that I think you'll be surprised but what happens next year. You made the point in another thread that if a permit bill massively expanded where one could open carry and the licenses were quite inexpensive, no training required, etc. My source of inspiration is Pennsylvania 1989 reform law, which passed an concealed carry bill in 1989 with no training required at all, and the licenses were like....$19.

Legislation crafting is not a zero sum game, and neither is getting something passed.

 

[Springfielddx40]

Do you think there would be 100,000 open carriers, even casual open carriers, in Wisconsin? Doubtful.



I will decline. You don't like what I say? Tough.

Exactly, why do you keep coming in this forum and stirring up trouble when you aren't even from MY state.

 

[NakedOne]

Exactly, why do you keep coming in this forum and stirring up trouble when you aren't even from MY state.

+1

 

[McX]

Gentlemen! it doesnt cost a dime to treat someone with courtesy and respect. a guest from another state, is still a guest. everyone has a point of view, show respect for their point of view, and they will show respect for yours. this is the fault that led to my friend Sparticus being banned. he did not attack until provoked, he's NEVER attacked me, because i treat him, as my friend, with respect. remember the honor is to serve!~

 

[Doug Huffman]

Gentlemen! it doesnt cost a dime to treat some

Respect works both ways. Threats don't.

 

[McX]

threats are illogical, and payment is usually expensive- Sarek engaging a tellurite in conversation.

 

[J.Gleason]

I seem to recall an attack over the quality and price of the firearms we carry but oh well who am I to say.

 

[J.Gleason]

Anyways, I am wondering if WCI is also going to join forces with WI-Force in this battle for the legislative table.

That will bring, WCI,WCCA, USCCA, WGO?,WI-FORCE and the NRA together so far. Any others?

 

[Captain Nemo]

Why is it so hard for some people to comprehend that the carry of firearms is not an issue of concealed carry versus open carry. It is about recognition of our state constitutional amendment that "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". There is no exclusion or specification of any manner of carry. It implies all manners of carry. Therefore the people shall have the right to carry firearms for the activities listed in the amendment in the manner that best suits their personal preference. In other words constitutional protected choice of carry. What is so hard about that to understand? To qualified persons Art I sec 25 must have the same authority and respect as the other amendments in our state constitution Art I sec 3, free speech. Art I sec 4, right to assemble. Art I section 11, search and seizures. Art I sec 18, freedom of worship. etc. How many of them require such onerous things as mandatory training and/or permits in order to exercise them. I would hope the Wisconsin state constitution means what it says. If it doesn't then why do we have it? So many people seem to be so obcessed with copy-cat concealed carry they can't see the picture. End of rant.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Why is it so hard for some people to comprehend that the carry of firearms is not an issue of concealed carry versus open carry. It is about recognition of our state constitutional amendment that "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". There is no exclusion or specification of any manner of carry. It implies all manners of carry. Therefore the people shall have the right to carry firearms for the activities listed in the amendment in the manner that best suits their personal preference. In other words constitutional protected choice of carry. What is so hard about that to understand? To qualified persons Art I sec 25 must have the same authority and respect as the other amendments in our state constitution Art I sec 3, free speech. Art I sec 4, right to assemble. Art I section 11, search and seizures. Art I sec 18, freedom of worship. etc. How many of them require such onerous things as mandatory training and/or permits in order to exercise them. I would hope the Wisconsin state constitution means what it says. So many people seem to be so obcessed with copy-cat concealed carry they can't see the picture. End of rant.

Yet Heller cited with approval 4 different state supreme court cases which held that manner restrictions are OK for restricting kinds of carry. The judge in Clark County with Schultz struck down 941.23 as too overbroad. If the Legislature were to put in licensing solely for concealed carry, but remove the bans on 1000 foot school zones, the vehicle carry ban (allowing both methods in a vehicle), and the numerous restrictions currently in law, it would pass constitutional muster.

 

[Captain Nemo]

G.P.

If what you say is true then why hasn't the state of Wisconsin jumped on the opportunity to require a license for the manner of open carry?

 

[Gray Peterson]

G.P.

If what you say is true then why hasn't the state of Wisconsin jumped on the opportunity to require a license for the manner of open carry?

Manner has to do with the way it's beared, not prior restraint of licensing. Time is when one cannot carry. Place means where one cannot carry (sensitive areas). Manner means how it is carried.

If the Legislature passed a repeal of the school zones, changed 941.23 to fully exclude vehicle carry from the definition of concealed carry (as well as repeal 167.31) , change the disturbing the peace statute to exclude open carry from it's definition, change the child access prevention law to exclude carry on the person, and put in a home/place of business exemptions, a general concealed carry ban would be constitutional under the US Supreme Court's current understanding and doctrine of the Second Amendment given it's positive citations of the 4 state supreme court cases (Reid, Chandler, Nunn, and Andrews).

 

[Captain Nemo]

There is nothing in Heller to suggest the SCOTUS was making any ruling concerning licensing. Following is a quote from Heller.

." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

....Sparticus being banned. he did not attack until provoked...

McX, I consider you my friend as well, but this is just wrong. I was attacked several times by Spartacus for just voicing my opinion. I was attacked for showing my ID in Madison. He said he did it because I was a 'leader'. In my opinion, unprovoked.

Anyhow, peace!

 

[phred]

Why is it so hard for some people to comprehend that the carry of firearms is not an issue of concealed carry versus open carry. It is about recognition of our state constitutional amendment that "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose". There is no exclusion or specification of any manner of carry. It implies all manners of carry. Therefore the people shall have the right to carry firearms for the activities listed in the amendment in the manner that best suits their personal preference. In other words constitutional protected choice of carry. What is so hard about that to understand? To qualified persons Art I sec 25 must have the same authority and respect as the other amendments in our state constitution Art I sec 3, free speech. Art I sec 4, right to assemble. Art I section 11, search and seizures. Art I sec 18, freedom of worship. etc. How many of them require such onerous things as mandatory training and/or permits in order to exercise them. I would hope the Wisconsin state constitution means what it says. If it doesn't then why do we have it? So many people seem to be so obcessed with copy-cat concealed carry they can't see the picture. End of rant.

Great. These a words are being "archived" for future use when our newspaper goes on the warpath about any changes to how and when we carry our firearms to protect ourselves. Thanks

 

[LOERetired]

Common Letter everyone could send

We are coming upon a critical time in our quest for choice carry. Right now we are speaking with too many voices, going in too many different directions. We need to speak as one voice.

I would like to see us develop a common letter that all members can send to their state reps which outlines our position.

I would like to have a date set for all members to come together at the state capitol for a "lobby day" to meet with our state reps in person and get some media coverage.

We need to develop lists of which state reps are on our side and which state reps we need to convince to come to our side.

We need to find a sponsor for the bill to repeal 941.23.

Nik / Hubert you are the leaders of our organization. You should and are our main up front voices. The rest of us need to be ready to follow your lead.

Some of the people on this section of this forum are not members of WCI. They have already decided choice carry is a lost cause and have retreated to permits and taxes and fees. We need to distance ourselves from these people and stay focused on our goal. To regain our full rights which have already been fought for and overwelmingly voted on. To regain our full rights as normal law obeying citizens.

carry on

Dear legislator

In deciding a direction for Wisconsin as far as concealed carry and whether the legislation should enact a bill that requires mandated licensing or training or allow Constitutional concealed carry, the legislators should analysis the issue starting with the United States Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago No. 08-1521 (U.S. June 28, 2010). Neither of these cases stated with certainty the level of scrutiny that should be applied to laws that infringe upon a citizen’s Second Amendment rights.

Absent Wisconsin Statute § 941.23 Wisconsin residents would have already been allowed to carry concealed without any mandated licensing or training as its residents now have with open carry.

With the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago No. 08-1521 (U.S. June 28, 2010) legislator’s should securitize Wisconsin Statute § 941.23.

Strict scrutiny arises when a fundamental constitutional right, as those listed in the Bill of Rights, is infringed, and that Right has been deemed to apply to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legislators should keep in mind during the debating of the right of the people to carry concealed that § 941.23 must first be scrutinized before any Bill is proposed which means the statute in place now must:

1. Be justified by a compelling governmental interest; Wisconsin resident and nonresident alike—in other words, all United States Citizens, including those nonresidents from other States that are licensed or permitted (because their State has no prohibition) under their state laws to carry concealed functional weapons.
2. Must apply to the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. See McDonald v. City of Chicago No. 08-1521 (U.S. June 28, 2010).
3. Be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and
4. Be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

The apparent government interest in prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons is the State’s “police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.” See State v. Hamdan, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 463 (2003). Promotion of health, safety and welfare of citizens is an appropriate use of the police power.

In enacting a concealed carry Bill the legislators will have to debate whether the State’s “police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.” and the Promotion of health, safety and welfare of citizens is an appropriate use of the police power, however, the legislators must proceed in their debate to answer a question to determine if the power is appropriately used here.

Is sec. 941.23 narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest? The answer should be clearly be “No.” As stated in Hamdan, “the statute prohibits any person, except a peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I, Section 25 [of the Wisconsin Constitution].

Hamdanwent on to state that “we have described Wisconsin’s exceptionally restrictive scheme to show how it heightens the conflict between [sec. § 941.23] and the rights in Article I, Section 25 [of the Wisconsin Constitution] and, the conflict with the fundamental right set forth in the Second Amendment.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has called sec. § 941.23 an “exceptionally restrictive scheme.” Such a scheme cannot in any sense be considered as “narrowly tailored.”

Justice N. Patrick Crooks in his concurrence/dissent to Hamdan stated: “The majority in this case improperly reads exceptions into Wis. Stat. § 941.23 in order to hold that it is constitutional. 14. Looking at the statute itself, the legislators will find that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 has become unconstitutional with the passage of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution…. If the statute does not conform to the Wisconsin Constitution, as amended, then the statute is unconstitutional.

Justice Crooks did not use the phrase, but he is in essence saying that courts should not engage in judicial activism—the philosophy of judicial decision making whereby judges’ decisions are not based on the law as it is written, whether it be a regulation, statute or the Constitution itself but instead are based on personal views, political views or perceptions of desired public policy.

Judicial activism substitutes the view of the courts for the view of the people as expressed through their elected legislature. “Policy decisions affecting the statute’s constitutionality should be made in typical legislative fashion.” When this legislation debates concealed carry, they should examine Wis. Stat. § 941.23 in view of Hamdan as affected by Heller and McDonald, Justice Crooks’ analysis prevails—leading to the conclusion that sec. § 941.23 in not narrowly tailored and therefore is unconstitutional. “A statute which under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional.” Heller, p. 56, n. 27.

The breadth of [sec. § 941.23] is incompatible with the broad constitutional right to bear arms. Its prohibition extends to anyone at any time and, therefore, improperly an unnecessarily impinges on a person’s right to bear arms ‘for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. The statute logically extends to such a wide variety of scenarios that it leaves no ‘open ample alternative channels by which the citizen may exercise the right to carry concealed.

In Heller and McDonald, they recognized the fundamental and personal right written, in plain English, in the Second Amendment.
These two decisions reinforce the need for the sec. § 941.23 to be narrowly tailored and, in addition, the least restrictive means of the State achieving its goal.
The statute is neither. As written, sec. § 941.23:

1. Prohibits a gun or knife owner from storing his weapons out of plain sight, such as in a gun cabinet, closet or drawer in his own home.
2. Prohibits a store owner from storing his weapons out of plain sight at his place of business, a store in a “rough” neighborhood.
3. Prohibits the logger, hiker, cross country skier and other outdoors person from keeping his weapon out of plain sight, but available, in the event of a wolf, bear or other wild animal attack.
4. It prohibits judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court staff and child support agency workers (and many others) that have received legitimate death threats from carrying a concealed weapon for personal safety.

This list could go on ad infinitum, the point of the list is that it shows the over breadth and over reach of sec. § 941.23. The statute applies a leaden blanket to when silk would suffice. Persons on the list, and many others, are faced with a Hobson’s choice—go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law (and risk jail/fines) or (as some would argue) carry openly.

An enactment of a Bill that would require mandated licensing or training would do the same as Wisconsin Statute § 941.23 is doing now, limit Wisconsin residents and non-residents to defend themselves by adding a mandated qualification requirement on who can be issued a concealed carry permit or not, every Wisconsin citizen who can legally possess a firearm should be afforded the opportunity to carry concealed.

The argument the store owner would be faced with carrying/displaying his weapon in plain view, alerting criminals to the weapons presence and causing legitimate customers to have undue concern that one could carry or display the weapon openly (holding it in the open, in a visible holster, or on the wall in plain sight) is not a realistic alternative.

For fatal cougar attacks, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America.
For fatal Bear attacks, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America.
Recent bear attack in our neighbor state of Michigan, see http://www.petoskeynews.com/news/pnr-hunterfortunate-to-survive-be-101210,0,5853596.story.

Even the Hamdan majority said: “Such practices would alert criminals to the presence of the weapon and frighten friends and customers. Likewise, requiring the gun owner to leave a handgun in plain view in his or her store so that he or she avoids a CCW charge fails the litmus test of common sense. We do not think it is necessary to spell out the dangers created by making firearms more accessible to children, to assailants, to strangers, and to guests. In fact, leaving a firearm in the open could expose a gun owner to other liability, both criminal and civil. See Wis. Stat. § 948.55 (prohibiting the leaving of a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child) and § 947.01 (prohibiting disorderly conduct).

There is no dispute that most storeowners have the right to possess a firearm. As a practical matter, the storeowner who keeps a firearm for security must have the gun within easy reach. Requiring a storeowner to openly display weapons as the only available means of exercising the right to keep and bear arms for security is impractical, unsettling, and possibly dangerous. If the State prosecutes a storeowner for having a concealed weapon within easy reach, it is strongly discouraging the use of firearms for security and is practically nullifying the right to do so. Such a prosecution is very likely to impair the constitutional right to bear arms for security.

Thus, the Hamdan majority recognized that open carry or open display was not and is not a feasible alternative to concealed carry. Open carry or display could result in the gun owner violating other laws regarding access of minors to guns or result in overzealous police and/or prosecutors charging disorderly conduct under sec. § 947.01, Wis. Stats., for the lawful open carrying and display of handguns.

The argument that this will not happen with reasonable prosecutors has already been proven wrong. See the Wisconsin State Journal article, at the following citation:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_26e20b12-c6b4-11df-9b03-001cc4c002e0.html

This article details how five men were issued disorderly conduct citations for eating at a Culver’s restaurant while having firearms in holsters in plain view. The Hamdan court, apparently, was prophetic on this issue. The Hamdan decision also shows that an absolute ban on concealed carry is not least restrictive.

At the time Hamdan was written, Wisconsin was “one of only six states that generally disallow any class of ordinary citizens to lawfully carry concealed weapons.” As of now, Wisconsin is one of only two States that do not permit the carrying of concealed weapons under any circumstances. Halbrook,Firearms Law Deskbook, 2009-2010 Edition, Appendix A. Thus when Hamdan was written there were 44 States, and now there are 48 States, that have an alternative that is less restrictive than Wisconsin’s absolute prohibition. Despite the varying concealed carry laws allowing “ordinary” citizens to carry concealed weapons in 48States, there have been no shootouts in town squares, no mass vigilante shootings or other violent outbreaks attributable to allowed concealed carry.

There is a strong argument that guns, and concealed carry of them, makes citizens safer. See JohnLott, More Guns, Less Crime, Third Edition, 2010, The University of Chicago Press. In 48 States, less restrictive possession, conceal or permit statutes allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Many of those statutes were analyzed in Hamdan itself. See Hamdan, p. 466, n. 22. This clearly demonstrates the feasibility and functionality of less restrictive alternatives.

While the State has an interest in public safety, sec. § 941.23 is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest nor is it the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. This legislators should agree with Justice Clarence Thomas’s McDonald concurrence and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to considering sec. § 941.23 unconstitutional and repeal the statute.

In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

As Justice Thomas demonstrates, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it.

The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not to be abridged.

In sum, sec. § 941.23 is unconstitutional on its face as overly broad in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, repealing § 941.23 is a much simpler solution than enacting a costly mandated government regulated concealed carry Bill, and in doing so, it would immediately allow Wisconsin citizens Constitution concealed carry.

Repeal Wisconsin Statute § 941.23



Don Marso

 

[Peacekeeper]

Great letter Don!

Thanks!

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Don your letter is accurate and comprehensive.

That said, its too long, would never be read in its entirety. Lucky if they read the first paragraph.

A couple thoughts.

Speaking with a Sr. staffer from a state senators office last week I can share the following suggestions. (some of the information was downright depressing and I'll share that as well)

ANY contact with your legislator has "some" effect. In terms of "how much" effect things people do have, here is an analysis

First, he told me that ANYTHING that comes through in any kind of form letter/for email/fax etc gets quickly discarded and has minimal impact. (again, not to say none, but minimal) at best they record your name/address and send you their generic form response letter about the rep's position.

Ex they get 50 pink post cards, they might read the first one and the rest go in the trash. They get a letter and the first sentence is identical to another they have received, they know its a form letter and they don't read the rest, in the trash it goes. At best you may get a form letter back from your rep with generic information on a particular issue that the staffer sends back. This staffer shared they DON'T EVEN KEEP A COUNT of how many contacts they have on a particular issue "for" or "against" and he wasn't aware of ANY legislators that document those kinds of things.

Overall, with letter, email, fax, etc, there is a minimal impact, but short personal custom written letters have the most impact. anything copied/form and long has the least. IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE/EMAIL/ETC, make it short and personal. Do not copy/paste.

Second, a phone call or a personal contact with your legislator has the most impact. Anything that allows YOU to speak with your rep. However, you'll find that staffers take most of the calls, the odds of getting to speak with your rep are minimal. That is why townhall meetings, going to events the reps go to is the BEST way to make personal contact and share your thoughts/ ideas.

Newly elected legislators are the least jaded and may be the most accessible. Especially those who have not yet taken office (won't happen til Jan 3) who are in and around your district. As I said in an earlier post, you can likely find them from their campaign website/facebook campaign site as they don't yet have an office or staff.

Lastly, there are LOTS of things WCI has in the works. Possible rally's, and MANY other tactics. Honestly, YOU guys are going to love some of them, but for most effectiveness until we pull the trigger, its best to keep them confidential so they can't be derailed by the "pro-permit business interest lobby" Our participation on the online forums is now minimal, so just because we aren't posting in every thread doesn't mean things are not in the works.

Of course we never discourage anyone from taking action individually as well. I have been making contact with legislators who support constitution carry. WCI members who have made contact with their legislators who support constitution carry have passed along those names to me. Its important that I get those so I can share between them, which of their colleagues support constitution carry.

if YOU make contact with a legislator in your district (assemblymen/women, OR senator) who supports constitution carry, please email me and let me know who.

nik@wisconsincarry.org

 

[LOERetired]

Don your letter is accurate and comprehensive.

That said, its too long, would never be read in its entirety. Lucky if they read the first paragraph.

A couple thoughts.

Speaking with a Sr. staffer from a state senators office last week I can share the following suggestions. (some of the information was downright depressing and I'll share that as well)

ANY contact with your legislator has "some" effect. In terms of "how much" effect things people do have, here is an analysis

First, he told me that ANYTHING that comes through in any kind of form letter/for email/fax etc gets quickly discarded and has minimal impact. (again, not to say none, but minimal) at best they record your name/address and send you their generic form response letter about the rep's position.

Ex they get 50 pink post cards, they might read the first one and the rest go in the trash. They get a letter and the first sentence is identical to another they have received, they know its a form letter and they don't read the rest, in the trash it goes. At best you may get a form letter back from your rep with generic information on a particular issue that the staffer sends back. This staffer shared they DON'T EVEN KEEP A COUNT of how many contacts they have on a particular issue "for" or "against" and he wasn't aware of ANY legislators that document those kinds of things.

Overall, with letter, email, fax, etc, there is a minimal impact, but short personal custom written letters have the most impact. anything copied/form and long has the least. IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE/EMAIL/ETC, make it short and personal. Do not copy/paste.

Second, a phone call or a personal contact with your legislator has the most impact. Anything that allows YOU to speak with your rep. However, you'll find that staffers take most of the calls, the odds of getting to speak with your rep are minimal. That is why townhall meetings, going to events the reps go to is the BEST way to make personal contact and share your thoughts/ ideas.

Newly elected legislators are the least jaded and may be the most accessible. Especially those who have not yet taken office (won't happen til Jan 3) who are in and around your district. As I said in an earlier post, you can likely find them from their campaign website/facebook campaign site as they don't yet have an office or staff.

Lastly, there are LOTS of things WCI has in the works. Possible rally's, and MANY other tactics. Honestly, YOU guys are going to love some of them, but for most effectiveness until we pull the trigger, its best to keep them confidential so they can't be derailed by the "pro-permit business interest lobby" Our participation on the online forums is now minimal, so just because we aren't posting in every thread doesn't mean things are not in the works.

Of course we never discourage anyone from taking action individually as well. I have been making contact with legislators who support constitution carry. WCI members who have made contact with their legislators who support constitution carry have passed along those names to me. Its important that I get those so I can share between them, which of their colleagues support constitution carry.

if YOU make contact with a legislator in your district (assemblymen/women, OR senator) who supports constitution carry, please email me and let me know who.

nik@wisconsincarry.org

I have to agree, it was a good write up, but, too comprehensive, looking at it from your point of view, if I was a representative and received the letter like this from everyone, I probably wouldn’t give it much weight either, makes sense. I enjoy putting together letters based sometimes on court cases and my own views and I get carried away sometimes. At the very least it was informative. Constructive criticism always accepted no problem here. When I speak to my representative, and discover he or she is for Constitutional carry, I will definitely pass it on.
Carry On
Cowboyridn