WI "compromise" CC bill to be announced 6/9/11 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : WI "compromise" CC bill to be announced 6/9/11


rfb45colt
06-08-2011, 21:15
https://www.facebook.com/notes/vicki...50212623123150

This will be announced tomorrow at a WI legislature's joint committee meeting scheduled for 12 noon, according to Darren LaSorte of the NRA, the NRA lobbyist who's been working to get CC in WI since 2001. It details a "compromise" CC bill that will have bi-partisan support and will easily pass the legislature. The votes just are not there for permitless "constitutionnal" carry at this time, but there's plenty of support for this. There's also a 30 minute podcast available that has many more answers to some questions.

Some details are:

there will be permits required with same background check with WI DOJ as required to buy handgun ($13)

must be WI resident and 21 or older (no non-res permits issued)

there will be training required, but just like in FL. No specific course or time-length required. Prior training is good, hunter safety is good, ex military is good, LE training is good... any "certified" firearm safety training will suffice.

NO effect on open carry, but to carry in 1,000' school zone, permit is required, either OC or CC, per federal law (WI cannot change fed law).

OC in vehicle WITHOUT permit (handguns only... laws remain the same for long guns) but permit is still required in 1,000' school zones.

No fingerprints.

Permit cost about $50 for 5 years (less upon renewal).

Database of permit holders available to LE ONLY, NO public access.

nothing on reciprocity mentioned here, but current shall-issue bill has reciprocity provisions, I assume they'll stay the same, which was WI will accept permit from any State (both res or non-res permits) that requires background check, except that will likely now require a minimum training standard also, just like WI residents must have.

Current bill also states WI residents must have WI permit.

Current bill also does not require photo on permit, but just like MN, permit must be accompanied by another "official" ID with a photo, like a DL, to be valid.

I assume the above items in current shall-issue bill will go unchanged because they were not specifically mentioned in "compromise". We'll know for sure tomorrow.

For those who dont know... there are currently two proposed CC bills in WI. SB93 is a constitutional carry bill with optional permits. SB90/AB126 is a shall issue bill similar to what's above. Personally I don't see were there's a "compromise". The votes just are not there for SB93, and the only thing the Dem opponants are "giving" is some support for SB90/AB126... which isn't really needed as the Repubs can do what they want... they control Senate, Assembly, and Governor. :dunno: But enough Repubs won't touch "no-permits" for it to be short of the majority needed.

A6Gator
06-09-2011, 07:43
Given there is no shall-issue concealed carry in WI right now, looks like a success story from here.

HerrGlock
06-09-2011, 07:56
Personally I'd like to see both pass. Constitutional Carry for those who don't go near 1000' of a school and the Permit Carry as stated for both within school boundaries and reciprocal carry.

HerrGlock
06-09-2011, 07:57
must be WI resident and 21 or older (no non-res permits issued)

That's going to be one of the first things to change or push to change.

IndyGunFreak
06-09-2011, 08:06
This what I kinda suspected would happen... You ask for everything you want, then negotiate down to what you're willing to accept.

Great news, sounds like it's finally gonna happen in WI... The training requirement for reciprocity kinda sucks (it'll obviously rule out a few states)... but.. those are simple things that can be adjusted as time goes on.

IGF

IndyGunFreak
06-09-2011, 08:47
Found this on OpenCarry.org (A lot of them are freaking out cuz this is not a constitutional carry bill)... many of them even saying they will sign a recall petition on Walker in January (which would be 100% counterproductive)

http://www.wiba.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=upfront&selected_podcast=upfront%2520hr%25203%252006-08-11.mp3

IGF

Kriterian
06-09-2011, 09:39
My wife and step-daughter are from Wisconsin, so I'm glad to hear this. It's kind of sad that it took ten years to get that far, but better late than never.

sourdough44
06-09-2011, 15:45
It's great that this is on track. There's no reason to try to recall Walker over this, the lefty's are enough trouble as it is. What did Doyle ever do? There are a few vocal minorities complaining that if we can't jump right to constitutional carry it isn't good enough. I'll take this any day.

Another bennie is you should be able to walk out of the store with your new gun once you have a permit. The permit will be your background check. Other than CC, WI has pretty favorable gun laws.

mike from philly
06-09-2011, 16:55
Figures the largest training organization in the US is pushing a training law. The NRA pulled the same stunt here in Georgia. Somebody should demand the NRA prove training does anything, besides helping their cash flow.

The simple provable fact is that training has NO impact on safety or lawful use of a gun. Its a tax on self defense.

A reason for WI to oppose training is that it will affect reciprocity. Here's how it works. WI will only reciprocate with states that have similar requirements. That means WI won't honor a GA license. Since GA is a mutual reciprocity state (you respect ours we'll respect yours), WI won't have reciprocity with GA and a bunch other states without training.

IndyGunFreak
06-09-2011, 17:18
Figures the largest training organization in the US is pushing a training law. The NRA pulled the same stunt here in Georgia. Somebody should demand the NRA prove training does anything, besides helping their cash flow.

The simple provable fact is that training has NO impact on safety or lawful use of a gun. Its a tax on self defense.

A reason for WI to oppose training is that it will affect reciprocity. Here's how it works. WI will only reciprocate with states that have similar requirements. That means WI won't honor a GA license. Since GA is a mutual reciprocity state (you respect ours we'll respect yours), WI won't have reciprocity with GA and a bunch other states without training.

My understanding is... The Lack of training in the first bill (constitutional carry, optional permits) was a big problem that a lot of Dems had, and they just didn't have the votes for that.. so they had to make some compromises.

This should pass easily.

RottnJP
06-09-2011, 17:25
Meh. Check out the thread on the guy shooting himself while playing with his *unholstered* pocket carry.

I've seen some real dumbasses with firearms, and it really doesn't bother me to have an NRA certified training class. Why NRA? Better that than HCI.

Another perspective is that for the 95% that don't actually carry, "no training required" is hard to swallow sometimes, like when someone shoots himself and injures a kid in line at a restaurant. The backlash from something like that can do a lot of harm.

kensteele
06-09-2011, 17:27
I see training both ways. No way should you be required to go thru "training" to carry a firearm and protect yourself. However, if the state issues you a permit, the least they can do is explain the rules/laws to you. Otherwise, I can see where someone can say the state is giving you a permit but not making sure you know. I don't like it but I guess they need it if they are going to be accepted by a lot of other anal states. I like that apparently WI will accept all other permits. Congrats, WI!

IndyGunFreak
06-09-2011, 17:27
Meh. Check out the thread on the guy shooting himself while playing with his *unholstered* pocket carry.

I've seen some real dumbasses with firearms, and it really doesn't bother me to have an NRA certified training class. Why NRA? Better that than HCI.

Another perspective is that for the 95% that don't actually carry, "no training required" is hard to swallow sometimes, like when someone shoots himself and injures a kid in line at a restaurant. The backlash from something like that can do a lot of harm.

EXACTLY!

I hate that training is required, but sometimes we are our own worst enemy, and thats why this sort of thing has become the norm.

rfb45colt
06-09-2011, 21:59
Figures the largest training organization in the US is pushing a training law. The NRA pulled the same stunt here in Georgia. Somebody should demand the NRA prove training does anything, besides helping their cash flow.

The simple provable fact is that training has NO impact on safety or lawful use of a gun. Its a tax on self defense.

A reason for WI to oppose training is that it will affect reciprocity. Here's how it works. WI will only reciprocate with states that have similar requirements. That means WI won't honor a GA license. Since GA is a mutual reciprocity state (you respect ours we'll respect yours), WI won't have reciprocity with GA and a bunch other states without training.

NRA was NOT pushing for a permit law with training until it came down to that or nothing. I'll take the permit/traing bill rather than nothing. There simply were not enough votes in the legislature to pass constitutional carry. We got hurt on that front real bad last week, when two "conservative" radio talk show hosts went on a tirade about no permits, and no training, They caused a big backlash amongst even the Repubs. We lost the majority due to a guy with a microphone who was supposed to be on our side.

It became clear without some training there'd be no CC. It was the NRA's guy who brought in the FL model for training and they used that. If I'm not mistaken, FL & GA have reciprocity. I have a FL permit, and the FL website lists GA as a state I can carry in. The WI training is lifted almost word for word from the FL law.... BUT, the bill does NOT say that only permits from states that have similar training will be honored. It says as long as your issuing state requires a background check, your permit is honored here.

It also states that for purposes of the federal gun free school zone law, an out-of-state licensee is considered to be licensed by WI for purposes of the GFSZ law. The fed GFSZ law does not allow out-of-state permittees to carry in GFSZ in states that do not "license" them. This bill makes your GA license just as good as a WI license in WI GFSZ. Who else does that?

Here's a link to the description of the amendment to the bill.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011-13Bills/2011_06_09_SB93_LC.pdf

edit to add: Time became a critical factor too. The legislature has been tied up with the budget battle and union protests, etc, that made national news. They break for the summer in a few weeks. Don't come back til September. Recall elections on 9 Senators (6 repubs, 3 dems) are in July. IF the Dems win 6 out of 9, they retake the Senate. If they retake the Senate, we likely get no CC, or THEY write the bill. This needs to be done and signed by June 30th or we might not have anything. Senate votes Tuesday, I wouldn't be surprised if Assembly votes Wednesday, Thursday at the latest edit: heard on the news the Assembly starts work on the budget bill on Tuesday, so it might be a few days more before they get this passed. On to Gov who has pen in hand waiting.... and FINALLY, we're #49.

IndyGunFreak
06-09-2011, 22:05
BUT, the bill does NOT say that only permits from states that have similar training will be honored. It says as long as your issuing state requires a background check, your permit is honored here.


Hmm, I must have misunderstood the NRA guy on the radio this morning discussing this... He said that in order for an out of state permit to be recognized, they would have to have similar training requirements to WI's...

I hope thats not the case, my IN permit is good in FL.. so if what you're saying is correct, it should be good in WI also.

rfb45colt
06-09-2011, 22:17
Hmm, I must have misunderstood the NRA guy on the radio this morning discussing this... He said that in order for an out of state permit to be recognized, they would have to have similar training requirements to WI's...

I hope thats not the case, my IN permit is good in FL.. so if what you're saying is correct, it should be good in WI also.

Go to the link in my previous post, scroll down to page 4, and read Out-of-State Licensees section. If you had a background search to get your permit, you're good. I see no training restrictions for reciprocity.

You'll also like the third paragraph of that section.

xenophon
06-09-2011, 22:41
rfb45colt, I remember you posting in the Doyle days on PPA. And Sherman.

Great to see a very clean bill come up for vote Tue. Here's to hoping no more amendments get tacked on to make it more restrictive.

kingclassic
06-09-2011, 23:52
Under the current proposed amendments it looks like reciprocity would be based only on background checks.



The substitute amendment requires DOJ to promulgate, by rule, a list of states that issue a permit, license, approval, or other authorization to carry a concealed weapon if the permit, license, approval, or other authorization requires, or designates that the holder chose to submit to, a background
search that is comparable to the background check required to obtain a license in Wisconsin.

IndyGunFreak
06-10-2011, 06:08
Go to the link in my previous post, scroll down to page 4, and read Out-of-State Licensees section. If you had a background search to get your permit, you're good. I see no training restrictions for reciprocity.

You'll also like the third paragraph of that section.

:)

I just read through all that, and assuming that the final bill looks like that, that is a very doable bill. They are even knocking out Media Access and being allowed to keep a firearm in your vehicle at your workplace, all in one shot.

Again, assuming that bill shows everything that is going to be in the bill, I just cannot see how people can be upset with that.

Also, one thing that the "memo" is not really clear on, is if a sign is proper notification.

IGF

eracer
06-10-2011, 06:20
The simple provable fact is that training has NO impact on safety or lawful use of a gun. Its a tax on self defense.

Please provide proof.

IndyGunFreak
06-10-2011, 07:16
Please provide proof.

Very simple (not turning this into a bashing thread)... Look at the number of ND's that happen among LE every year.

If that's not proof enough, I don't know what is.

rfb45colt
06-10-2011, 07:59
rfb45colt, I remember you posting in the Doyle days on PPA. And Sherman.

Great to see a very clean bill come up for vote Tue. Here's to hoping no more amendments get tacked on to make it more restrictive.

I remember you too. Deja Vu, eh? Here we are again in the same old fight... but we're gonna win this one!

I see at least one amendment coming, and I don't think it's a bad idea, I think it was an oversight that one of the Dems picked up on at the committee meeting (only thing they said I can agree with).

The bill requires courts to "directly and promptly" notify DOJ of all restraining orders put on permit holders. Permits are then suspended until order is lifted. Also requires courts to directly notify DOJ of all felony convictions, so permits can be revoked. But does not require courts to directly notify DOJ of misdemeanor domestic battery convictions, which would revoke permits also, if for no other reason, permittee cannot now possess a firearm under federal law. It was assumed that a domestic battery would also include a R.O., but it was pointed out that it's not "automatic", and a RO would only lead to suspension, not revocation.

I'm betting that language is changed to require courts to directly notify DOJ of any and all convictions that'd negate permit eligibility. I'd agree. It's a redundant type of situation, as a permittee with a federal disqualifier couldn't legally possess a firearm he/she was licensed to carry, but it should be in the bill anyway. All it takes is one to slip though the cracks and cause trouble, and the bill looks flawed. It can happen anyway, but the court or DOJ shoulders the blame, not the cc law.

edit: Another thing left out that I'd like to see amended in, is fed law allows permittees to be exempt from NICS. But the state must put it in their laws as well. I'd like to see that added, along with waiver of 48hr waiting period on handgun purchases. Brady law required waiting periods until NICS went into effect. No longer required, and should be removed, at the very least, for cc permittees.

AJ Dual
06-10-2011, 08:04
And, assuming it does not get amended, we get bar/tavern/restaurant carry as long as you aren't drinking yourself! And there's employer parking lot car storage too!

That's a big deal, considering how many states many people automatically assume are more pro RKBA than WI have fought repeatedly (and often failed) to get bar/tavern/restaurant carry and the employer parking lots too.

I quote Otto Von Bismarck. "Politics is the art of the possible."

WI going straight to Constitutional Carry would have been a RKBA feather in our cap with nationwide repercussions, however, this is as about a clean and simple and easy shall-issue carry bill as you're going to see.

And as it was, the Constitutional Carry bill had lots of problems, such as leaving us "stranded" like Vermonters with no optional permits for reciprocity in other states, so this bill would have to have passed as well, or things would get confusing. Lots of other questions about posting no carry etc. as well.

My one gripe right now is the signage rules. only 5x7" and I believe there's no color requirements, font size, or specific verbiage. (I'll have to see the actual bill, rather than the comittee memo though)

It needed to be bigger than 8.5x11" (no VPC/Brady spam fax signs) and blaze orange.

At least the sign must be posted at EVERY entrance, and it's only a minor civil forfeiture for refusing to obey one. Not even a misdemeanor... :cool:

I hear lots of Texans simply go into malls via the door they forgot to post. :whistling:

rfb45colt
06-10-2011, 08:20
WI going straight to Constitutional Carry would have been a RKBA feather in our cap with nationwide repercussions, however, this is as about a clean and simple and easy shall-issue carry bill as you're going to see.



Spot on. :cool: Much better than those Doyle days bills, IMO.

But look for the Dems to offer tons of amendments before the final vote that'd add more "restricted" areas. That seemed to be their big gripe yesterday. They want churches, daycares, public parks, playgrounds, sporting events, concerts, all to be no-carry areas. At least they didn't mention within 100' of a school bus.... yet. :wow:

ICARRY2
06-10-2011, 08:35
This is great news. :supergrin:

This is just another stepping stone to gaining back all the gun rights we have lost over the last 50 years.

After getting a CCW permit with training and background check passes, you can begin work on CC legislation.

Congratulations WI!

IndyGunFreak
06-10-2011, 08:40
Spot on. :cool: Much better than those Doyle days bills, IMO.

But look for the Dems to offer tons of amendments before the final vote that'd add more "restricted" areas. That seemed to be their big gripe yesterday. They want churches, daycares, public parks, playgrounds, sporting events, concerts, all to be no-carry areas. At least they didn't mention within 100' of a school bus.... yet. :wow:

What's the word on whether signs will carry legal weight that you cannot enter w/ a firearm? The "memo" you showed me says something about notification, but it doesn't say if written notification is enough.

Edit: Nevermind, I found it.. Well.. I'd say thats the first thing to get cracking on and get fixed! :)

IGF

AJ Dual
06-10-2011, 08:49
The main thing about the sign rules is the size and color. They should be really strict like TX's .30-06 law on signs.

I think 11x17" and blaze orange is fair. Right now it's only 5x7" :crying:

However the one GOOD thing is that disobeying a sign (and getting CAUGHT "concealed means concealed" and all that...) is a simple civil forfeiture. I think the consequences of disobeying a TX .30-06 sign are pretty dire IIRC.

Civil forfeiture = Same criminal weight as a parking ticket. :cool:

windplex
06-10-2011, 09:04
I'm happy and pleased with the bill as it stands without reservation.

xenophon
06-10-2011, 10:20
Training requirements look good, lots of different options. 21 days to issue, not bad (once it gets into full swing). $50 is reasonable.

I see lots of amendments from opposition coming, but the nice thing about owning senate/house/gov is we can tell them to pound sand since they are just trying to obstruct the inevitable.

Yeah, they should fix that one notification to DOJ for any disqualifying convictions.

Protecting the list of permit holders from public record requests is a big one too. And they are still publishing the list of permits issues, revoked, denied, etc, yearly. So they can't claim "YOU ARE HIDING BEHIND THAT!".

Sometimes it pays to go last. We won't have to fight to remove what a lot of other states had to (like parking lot issues, restaurant issues, etc). Just wish it didn't take THIS long, but it's nice to finally be in the final stages of a good bill.

IndyGunFreak
06-10-2011, 14:09
Sometimes it pays to go last. We won't have to fight to remove what a lot of other states had to (like parking lot issues, restaurant issues, etc). Just wish it didn't take THIS long, but it's nice to finally be in the final stages of a good bill.

This is very very true... They've learned from the fights of other states the things they want in their law from the beginning..

Only thing I'd like to see a push on, is removing the "signs" provision. All in all though, this will likely end up insignificant. After a year or so when they realize there's no serious incident involving CCW'ers, you can push to have this amended.

I was a bit surprised by that, since they modeled it after Florida's law (where signs really don't mean anything).

IGF

Agonizer
06-10-2011, 17:00
I would have liked to have constitutional carry, with no training, but if it passes as it is now, we will have excellent conditions considering this is new in Wis.

Very well thought out by the sponsors, and excellent job by all involved.

mike from philly
06-10-2011, 20:59
I re-read the summary. There are some strong points. The best part is the employer parking lot section. That one is strong. The version we have in Georgia is a toothless tiger with so many outs that it offers no protection.

The training section is pretty broad so most people should be able to obtain training. I worry about the single mom who needs a gun but doesn't have the time or money to get training. We can't leave people behind. Hopefully, in a couple of years you can get the training repealed like AZ and AK did.

eracer .... I did a bunch of research on training and its impact on gun safety and justified homicide several years ago. I'm in the process of updating it. I'm trying to get the 2009 justified homicide data from the FBI. I'll PM you when its done. In the meantime, I would say that the military does an extensive job of training its soldiers about firearms. Even with that training, they have ND's all the time and I had heard an unconfirmed stat that said 90 soldiers were killed by ND's in Iraq. Training only goes so far and most of the time it doesn't go anywhere.

rfb45colt
06-13-2011, 17:58
The WI cc bill is "officially" on the Senate's schedule for tomorrow, Tuesday June 14th. It's the 1st bill scheduled for debate.

After it passes the Senate (expected tomorrow) it goes to the Assembly. The Assembly is scheduled to begin debate on the budget bill tomorrow. This could take some time, so the cc law might not get approved there for a few days... but it's coming, and coming fast. It's even written in the bill that certain aspects are to take effect on July 1st, 2011.

WI will have a very decent shall-issue CC law, at long last, in just a few weeks. :faint:

IndyGunFreak
06-13-2011, 18:20
The WI cc bill is "officially" on the Senate's schedule for tomorrow, Tuesday June 14th. It's the 1st bill scheduled for debate.

After it passes the Senate (expected tomorrow) it goes to the Assembly. The Assembly is scheduled to begin debate on the budget bill tomorrow. This could take some time, so the cc law might not get approved there for a few days... but it's coming, and coming fast. It's even written in the bill that certain aspects are to take effect on July 1st, 2011.

WI will have a very decent shall-issue CC law, at long last, in just a few weeks. :faint:

AWESOME! That was gonna be my other question, is when would the law take effect.

pugman
06-13-2011, 18:34
https://www.facebook.com/notes/vicki...50212623123150

This will be announced tomorrow at a WI legislature's joint committee meeting scheduled for 12 noon, according to Darren LaSorte of the NRA, the NRA lobbyist who's been working to get CC in WI since 2001. It details a "compromise" CC bill that will have bi-partisan support and will easily pass the legislature. The votes just are not there for permitless "constitutionnal" carry at this time, but there's plenty of support for this. There's also a 30 minute podcast available that has many more answers to some questions.

Some details are:

there will be permits required with same background check with WI DOJ as required to buy handgun ($13)

must be WI resident and 21 or older (no non-res permits issued)

there will be training required, but just like in FL. No specific course or time-length required. Prior training is good, hunter safety is good, ex military is good, LE training is good... any "certified" firearm safety training will suffice.

NO effect on open carry, but to carry in 1,000' school zone, permit is required, either OC or CC, per federal law (WI cannot change fed law).

OC in vehicle WITHOUT permit (handguns only... laws remain the same for long guns) but permit is still required in 1,000' school zones.

No fingerprints.

Permit cost about $50 for 5 years (less upon renewal).

Database of permit holders available to LE ONLY, NO public access.

nothing on reciprocity mentioned here, but current shall-issue bill has reciprocity provisions, I assume they'll stay the same, which was WI will accept permit from any State (both res or non-res permits) that requires background check, except that will likely now require a minimum training standard also, just like WI residents must have.

Current bill also states WI residents must have WI permit.

Current bill also does not require photo on permit, but just like MN, permit must be accompanied by another "official" ID with a photo, like a DL, to be valid.

I assume the above items in current shall-issue bill will go unchanged because they were not specifically mentioned in "compromise". We'll know for sure tomorrow.

For those who dont know... there are currently two proposed CC bills in WI. SB93 is a constitutional carry bill with optional permits. SB90/AB126 is a shall issue bill similar to what's above. Personally I don't see were there's a "compromise". The votes just are not there for SB93, and the only thing the Dem opponants are "giving" is some support for SB90/AB126... which isn't really needed as the Repubs can do what they want... they control Senate, Assembly, and Governor. :dunno: But enough Repubs won't touch "no-permits" for it to be short of the majority needed.

I will stand corrected.

I posted many times we would never see a bill......I call this a win

Guess its finally time to seriously shop IWB holsters.

rfb45colt
06-13-2011, 19:01
AWESOME! That was gonna be my other question, is when would the law take effect.

Permits won't begin to be issued until about Oct 1st (bill states 1st day of 4th month after passage). DOJ will be required to issue or deny within 21 days of receiving an application, but they expect an initial "influx" (duh, we've been waiting decades), so they gave DOJ 45 days for the 1st two months... after that it's back to 21 days. The protection by statute of open carry goes into effect July 1st.

xenophon
06-13-2011, 19:50
The WI cc bill is "officially" on the Senate's schedule for tomorrow, Tuesday June 14th. It's the 1st bill scheduled for debate.

After it passes the Senate (expected tomorrow) it goes to the Assembly. The Assembly is scheduled to begin debate on the budget bill tomorrow. This could take some time, so the cc law might not get approved there for a few days... but it's coming, and coming fast. It's even written in the bill that certain aspects are to take effect on July 1st, 2011.

WI will have a very decent shall-issue CC law, at long last, in just a few weeks. :faint:

I hope the WI Supreme court rules on collective bargaining soon so that the Assembly doesn't have to mix in collective bargaining. That could/might delay it a little bit (at least more debate I bet). I hope they get to CC this week there!

rfb45colt
06-13-2011, 20:49
A big turd has been dropped in the punch bowl... by a Repub no less. Sen Van Wanngard (R-21) has an amendment ready that would change the training standards from the FL model to something much more stringent and would be a specific course that nobody in WI has taken, because it hasn't even written yet!! I certainly hope they don't adopt this expensive mandate to get a permit. I think the "training lobby" (which would lose big dollars if the FL model is used) has this guy in their pocket. He's an ex-LEO, and as such, he believes only LEO-type training will suffice. He's an elitist. :wow:

IndyGunFreak
06-13-2011, 21:05
A big turd has been dropped in the punch bowl... by a Repub no less. Sen Van Wanngard (R-21) has an amendment ready that would change the training standards from the FL model to something much more stringent and would be a specific course that nobody in WI has taken, because it hasn't even written yet!! I certainly hope they don't adopt this expensive mandate to get a permit. I think the "training lobby" (which would lose big dollars if the FL model is used) has this guy in their pocket. He's an ex-LEO, and as such, he believes only LEO-type training will suffice. He's an elitist. :wow:

What a ******...

Hopefully this gets shot down and the bill stays as is. Why people think LEO type training should set the standard for CCW'ers, I'll never understand. You should point out to him that an LEO NEGLIGENTLY shot himself this past weekend (article is on GT somewhere)..

IGF

Toorop
06-13-2011, 21:56
Found this on OpenCarry.org (A lot of them are freaking out cuz this is not a constitutional carry bill)... many of them even saying they will sign a recall petition on Walker in January (which would be 100% counterproductive)

http://www.wiba.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=upfront&selected_podcast=upfront%2520hr%25203%252006-08-11.mp3

IGF

I disagree. You should always fight for freedom and Walker is standing in the way, well then he has got to go!

IndyGunFreak
06-13-2011, 22:51
I disagree. You should always fight for freedom and Walker is standing in the way, well then he has got to go!

I take it as a badge of honor that you disagree w/ me.

IGF

Toorop
06-13-2011, 23:48
This is very very true... They've learned from the fights of other states the things they want in their law from the beginning..

Only thing I'd like to see a push on, is removing the "signs" provision. All in all though, this will likely end up insignificant. After a year or so when they realize there's no serious incident involving CCW'ers, you can push to have this amended.

I was a bit surprised by that, since they modeled it after Florida's law (where signs really don't mean anything).

IGF
Why would the signs provision bother you. In my opinion all states should have a signs provision. Many gun owners ignore the signs barring carry because they don't have legal weight and their is no penalty to do so. By giving signs legal weight we are strengthening property rights. And property rights need to be strengthened in comparison to gun laws as many people simply do not respect a property owners right to keep guns off of their property because there is no penalty for ignoring it.

mike from philly
06-14-2011, 06:01
Why would the signs provision bother you. In my opinion all states should have a signs provision. Many gun owners ignore the signs barring carry because they don't have legal weight and their is no penalty to do so. By giving signs legal weight we are strengthening property rights. And property rights need to be strengthened in comparison to gun laws as many people simply do not respect a property owners right to keep guns off of their property because there is no penalty for ignoring it.

Not true, not all states have signage rules. You need to be careful when agreeing to signage since it creates a special class of criminal trespass ... gun owner trespass. When trespass is separate and distinct from normal trespass, the courts can create special rules for gun owners which usually are much more onerous.

Whenever a Legislator asks about signage, a advocate should refer them to the criminal trespass law and say "leave it up to the property owner to determine how he wants to enforce his ban on guns, don't set up a system that traps otherwise law abiding citizens. Some property owners would want more flexibility. This is a property rights issue best left to the property owner to enforce and he has ample protection with the criminal trespass law".

A big turd has been dropped in the punch bowl... by a Repub no less. Sen Van Wanngard (R-21) has an amendment ready that would change the training standards from the FL model to something much more stringent and would be a specific course that nobody in WI has taken, because it hasn't even written yet!! I certainly hope they don't adopt this expensive mandate to get a permit. I think the "training lobby" (which would lose big dollars if the FL model is used) has this guy in their pocket. He's an ex-LEO, and as such, he believes only LEO-type training will suffice. He's an elitist.

In Georgia, the NRA and its reps pushed for training during a committee hearing and behind closed doors. They are relentless. You need to watch them and call out those who are pushing training. If you end up with strict training, you increase the costs of getting a license, which reduces the number of Licensees. With a smaller number of Licensees, you won't get the political power that comes with numbers. MARK MY WORDS ... if you get stricter training requirements, eventually they will be required of out-of-state licensees, and there goes your reciprocity.

A response to the training requirement by the ex-LEO is that people who carry are not LE, are not asked to go into dangerous situations, and are not covered by immunity. Then roll to ... "if we are trained to these levels, then we can carry in every place a LEO can carry, everywhere. Right?" He'll hem and haw and it will become apparent that he's a fraud. Remember his name and publicize what he is doing.

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 07:14
Why would the signs provision bother you. In my opinion all states should have a signs provision. Many gun owners ignore the signs barring carry because they don't have legal weight and their is no penalty to do so. By giving signs legal weight we are strengthening property rights. And property rights need to be strengthened in comparison to gun laws as many people simply do not respect a property owners right to keep guns off of their property because there is no penalty for ignoring it.

That's not true at all...

If a property owner/manager came up and asked me to leave and I refused (as is required for a trespassing charge in most states) then I would leave w/o hesitation.


A response to the training requirement by the ex-LEO is that people who carry are not LE, are not asked to go into dangerous situations, and are not covered by immunity. Then roll to ... "if we are trained to these levels, then we can carry in every place a LEO can carry, everywhere. Right?" He'll hem and haw and it will become apparent that he's a fraud. Remember his name and publicize what he is doing.

Exactly.

windplex
06-14-2011, 12:00
I disagree. You should always fight for freedom and Walker is standing in the way, well then he has got to go!

walker said he would sign a constitutional carry. perhaps you missed that/ perhaps you merely want us to loose a strong conservative governor who is a good future presidential candidate.

seems you like to support unelectable "republicans" for president and now you want to throw out a damn good CONSERVATIVE governor!

to say your motives are questionable is an understatement.

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 14:06
Well, after 3hrs of bickering..lol they just got to the Concealed carry bill... should be interesting.

Riflemanz
06-14-2011, 14:09
If we get a pile of crap from these republicans i have no problem voting democrat! :tongueout:

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 14:21
If we get a pile of crap from these republicans i have no problem voting democrat! :tongueout:

The guy who was just talking is hilarious... but he makes a good point... If concealed carry is safe, then why have any restrictions at all in place (ie, constitutional carry)... granted he was trying to paint the pro-gunners as not knowing which side they were on...

IGF

Riflemanz
06-14-2011, 14:23
That was Cullen!

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 14:43
OK, now.. they've spent 20min arguing about straw purchases, and wanting to make them illegal... and not one person has noted, STRAW PURCHASES ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!

Riflemanz
06-14-2011, 14:46
They want to make it a felony which the BG will just plea bargain down in court.

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 14:52
They want to make it a felony which the BG will just plea bargain down in court.

Isn't it already a Federal Felony? If that doesn't stop them, why would a State felony? But yeah, I caught that it's currently a misdemeanor.

IGF

mike from philly
06-14-2011, 17:00
Is the hearing still going on and is it on the Intertubes? I'd love to watch.

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 17:05
Is the hearing still going on and is it on the Intertubes? I'd love to watch.

It's just now coming to a vote, they've spent the last 4 hours killing amendments (19 in all)... by the libs. They did approve 2, which were simply language changes.

http://www.wiseye.org/

Video doesn't work, but the audio is good... Click on the "Senate"... and listen.. they're still hearing some debates from liberals on the bill.. vote should be any minute.

Riflemanz
06-14-2011, 17:07
www.wiseye.com

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 17:11
Passed, 25-8, on to the Assembly.

mike from philly
06-14-2011, 17:16
Congrats .... onto the next step of many steps.

tysercom
06-14-2011, 17:16
Passed, 25-8, on to the Assembly.

Finally, did any of the amendments pass?

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 17:22
Finally, did any of the amendments pass?

I believe 1 and 4 passed (I think these are just legalese.. but I'm sure rfb45colt will have more later).. Hearing 'Motion is tabled' was getting so redundant, I wish the Republicans had just stopped the debate and called for a vote, but it was kinda fun listening to the craziness coming from the left.

IGF

kensteele
06-14-2011, 17:23
Why would the signs provision bother you. In my opinion all states should have a signs provision. Many gun owners ignore the signs barring carry because they don't have legal weight and their is no penalty to do so. By giving signs legal weight we are strengthening property rights. And property rights need to be strengthened in comparison to gun laws as many people simply do not respect a property owners right to keep guns off of their property because there is no penalty for ignoring it.

OMG do we have to go thru this again?

If I choose to ignore a sign, it is primarily because I am more concerned and interested in my own safety as opposed to what a sign might be trying to tell me or what a sign can do for me. Having no legal weight or penalty is secondary.

IndyGunFreak
06-14-2011, 17:23
Congrats .... onto the next step of many steps.

Naa.. I think this bill has wide support in the Assembly as well.. and Walker has indicated he will sign it...

All this voting, really is just a foregone conclusion, WI will have concealed carry this year. I love the fact that for the first two months after the bill is approved, they will have 45 days to approve and issue/deny the permit. After that, 21 days. That means WI residents should have a really quick turnaround on getting their CCW's.

IGF

kensteele
06-14-2011, 17:25
I would be more excited when I used to live in the Twin Cities when a road trip to Chicago basically meant leave your guns at home. Hopefully IL is right around the corner as well.

rfb45colt
06-14-2011, 17:35
Billed passed 25 -8. 19 Repubs and 6 Dems voted AYE, 8 Dems voted NAY.

Amendment 1 passed by unanimous voice vote, it was just housecleaning about language in the DOJ's fiscal stuff.

Amendment 4, offered by 3 Repubs, removes "participated in organized shooting sports" from list of training qualifications.

NO OTHER CHANGES WERE MADE!!!

I'm surprised at some of the Dem amendments that were NOT offered. They made absolutely no attempt to repeal "car carry" without a permit. I honestly believe they just totally missed it!!

FL model of training remains intact. Reciprocity requirement remains background check (no mention of training).

All in all, it was a great day for WI. Now on to the Assembly, were the Repubs hold a 60-39 majority, and there's pro-cc Dems there too. And the Governor has his pen in his hand... waiting. Not that it matters this time, but the vote was 3 more than needed to override a veto. IOW, WE KICKED BUTT!!!!!

:dancingbanana:

kensteele
06-14-2011, 17:47
Well, it certainly "feels" like a civil rights moment, doesn't it? :)

Riflemanz
06-14-2011, 17:51
Can you believe my rep lena Taylor? :wow:

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-14-2011, 18:07
Interesting says I.

rfb45colt
06-14-2011, 18:08
Can you believe my rep lena Taylor? :wow:

This was the biggest surprise of the day, bar none!!! Holy crap!! She gave a great speech in support of the bill, for a Dem... she actually said "What is really to be feared is not the machine itself but really the one holding the machine." And talked about all the law abiding people in her district who are good people but are forced to carry illegally for their protection, and this bill will finally make them legal. She actually "gets it". She said her "mama carried a pretty little pearl-handled pistola" to keep her and her siblings from harm. Betcha she'll be carrying it now. I never thought I'd say this, but... good for her, and welcome aboard the common sense side, Senator Lena Taylor.

xenophon
06-14-2011, 20:49
This was the biggest surprise of the day, bar none!!! Holy crap!! She gave a great speech in support of the bill, for a Dem... she actually said "What is really to be feared is not the machine itself but really the one holding the machine." And talked about all the law abiding people in her district who are good people but are forced to carry illegally for their protection, and this bill will finally make them legal. She actually "gets it". She said her "mama carried a pretty little pearl-handled pistola" to keep her and her siblings from harm. Betcha she'll be carrying it now. I never thought I'd say this, but... good for her, and welcome aboard the common sense side, Senator Lena Taylor.

I was very surprised by this one too. I'm in her district, and that was a huge curve ball. Glad to have her support though.

vista461
06-14-2011, 21:18
Could Risser have sounded like any more of a rambling old fool? What a maroon. [/bugs bunny]

kgjl
06-15-2011, 02:37
Approximately, when will this go into effect?

mike from philly
06-15-2011, 05:32
IGF ... that's good news. In Georgia, we had to keep a very close eye on the bills since they magically get modified in Conference Committee. Conference Committee occurs when the House and Senate bills don't match exactly. Its a time when the antis can play havoc on a bill, especially if the members of the Committee don't understand the legal elements.

I'm not sure of the process in WI though so they may not have that issue.

Once again, Congrats.

Mike

PS even though I'm a Georgian, I belong and contributed to WI Carry. I joined after the arrest of the 5 guys in Madison for carrying.

Clay1
06-15-2011, 06:02
If you want to read it yourself go here: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb93

All of the Amendments are listed if you wish to read them. Looking forward to finalizing this and moving forward.

Rick

lightsareout
06-15-2011, 06:05
will this bill give us reciprocity in Michigan and Minnesota?

IndyGunFreak
06-15-2011, 06:11
will this bill give us reciprocity in Michigan and Minnesota?

I've not read the entire bill (You'd think I lived in WI as much as I'm into this, but I love the political process).... but I didn't hear any changes in this regard yesterday and from what I previously read.. as long as a state does a background check as part of their permitting process, then they will have reciprocity..

So basically.. WI is gonna recognize everyone, as I'm not aware of any state that doesn't do a background check when issuing a CCW..

IGF

Bren
06-15-2011, 06:11
That's going to be one of the first things to change or push to change.

I haven't seen much needx for non-resident permits. KY has none, but only people from Illinois would be interested in it. It wouldn't benefit Kentuckians.

will this bill give us reciprocity in Michigan and Minnesota?
That is up to Michigan and Minnesota - Wisconsin doesn't have the power to allow it or prevent it.

lightsareout
06-15-2011, 06:21
I've not read the entire bill (You'd think I lived in WI as much as I'm into this, but I love the political process).... but I didn't hear any changes in this regard yesterday and from what I previously read.. as long as a state does a background check as part of their permitting process, then they will have reciprocity..

So basically.. WI is gonna recognize everyone, as I'm not aware of any state that doesn't do a background check when issuing a CCW..

IGF

That is very good to know, I still need to read through the bill, hopefully I will have a chance to do that today.

IndyGunFreak
06-15-2011, 06:35
Something else I just thought of...

I wonder if this will have any effect on the Jesus Gonzalez case (the WI open carrier who shot/killed a guy)... Will it hurt or help him? Will it be totally irrelevant? His trial is supposed to start the 20th..

For those not familiar... http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/116871873.html

Clay1
06-15-2011, 06:37
will this bill give us reciprocity in Michigan and Minnesota?

You could look at what other states MI and MN recognize. Some states only recognize non-resident permits from states that have a "live fire" component to their training requirements. My understanding is that is one of the reasons that New Mexico no longer recognizes non resident permits from Utah as an example since Utah doesn't have a live fire component.

Do MI and MN recognize Utah? If so there is a good chance that Wis will be recognized, if not, that's another story.

The Non-resident, no live fire training and recognition by other states have other influences as well. It's also about the $$$$, but this is just one of their reasons for justifying why they need your $$$$.

Here is a link for MI http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf, where it says: Michigan honors all Resident Permit/Licenses. No Non-Resident Permits/Licenses are honored.

My guess and this is just a total guess, is that since MN recognized Utah and their training requirement does not include a live fire component that WI will be recognized there. I'm not sure if that will happen right away, but I see no reason for them not to recognize an permit from WI.

Keep in mind that these are just my opinions and nothing is set yet since our permit system isn't even passed yet. I am all for more states and reciprocity though.

It will be an interesting process to see how this all shakes out.

Rick

IndyGunFreak
06-15-2011, 06:40
Nevermind, missed part of your post..

Just padding my post count here.. :)

Edit: Hmm.. WI's law was heavily modeled after FL's, and for whatever reason, MN does not recognize a FL permit... so MN might be an issue.

IGF

windplex
06-15-2011, 08:28
If we get a pile of crap from these republicans i have no problem voting democrat! :tongueout:

And perhaps your past votes are the reason WI is such a hell whole. Let's not be stupid going forward.

madcitycop
06-15-2011, 10:23
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Bills_Would_Legalize_Concealed_Carry_in_Wisconsin_121265394.html

wallytoo
06-15-2011, 10:33
The last I read, this would be effective October 1, of this year, I assume.

Louisville Glocker
06-15-2011, 17:01
The last I read, this would be effective October 1, of this year, I assume.

And not a day too soon. My mom is undergoing chemo the next few months, so I'm going to be up there a lot. Including in Milwaukee (her cancer center is there), so it'd be nice to legally carry.

I'm glad they're finally coming around. Now we just need to crack Illinois! (getting closer there, hopefully next year!)

Yay!

Riflemanz
06-15-2011, 17:07
I guess the bill is delayed now and won't get appoval on thursday as thought.Hopefully next week it can move on.

rfb45colt
06-15-2011, 17:29
will this bill give us reciprocity in Michigan and Minnesota?

Michigan, definately yes. MI honors permits from all States (must be resident of issuing State)

MN, probably not. MN requires more stringent training. That's why they don't honor a FL permit, and the WI training standard is virtually the same as FL.

rfb45colt
06-15-2011, 17:45
The last I read, this would be effective October 1, of this year, I assume.

More likely Nov. 1st. The bill states it is to take effect on the 1st day of the 4th month after publication. After a bill passes the legislature, and the governor signs it, it must be published in the official state newspaper. This is done by the Sec. of State... who has 10 business days to do so. He's a Dem... he'll take the entire 10 days. To "require" him to publish it before July 1st, it'd have to passed by the Assembly AND signed by the Governor, by no later than June 16th (tomorrow). Not gonna happen that fast.

kensteele
06-15-2011, 20:03
MN and WI are practically the same states, there are a bunch of "border towns." Would be ashamed if MN didn't recognise a WI permit.

windplex
06-16-2011, 08:48
More likely Nov. 1st. The bill states it is to take effect on the 1st day of the 4th month after publication. After a bill passes the legislature, and the governor signs it, it must be published in the official state newspaper. This is done by the Sec. of State... who has 10 business days to do so. He's a Dem... he'll take the entire 10 days. To "require" him to publish it before July 1st, it'd have to passed by the Assembly AND signed by the Governor, by no later than June 16th (tomorrow). Not gonna happen that fast.

high time to eliminate the sec of state position from next budget. no longer needed in modern age of "publishing". and this fellow is as corrupt as they come and abusing the system at harm of citizens for benefit of unions. i'm sure unions promised him a job in exchange for his treachery.

xenophon
06-16-2011, 11:19
The WI Assembly has scheduled SB93 for Tue, 6/21/11. 10:00am CT.

Almost there!

rfb45colt
06-16-2011, 18:13
The WI Assembly has scheduled SB93 for Tue, 6/21/11. 10:00am CT.

Almost there!

Yup, it's been made a "special order of business" by Assembly rules committee Assembly Resolution 10. The Assembly was scheduled to adjoirn until fall after the budget passed last night. But they want this done, and done now! So they have a called a "special session" for just this bill! That rocks!! It shows it's a priority. Also indicates there's not likely to be any changes. Changes would send it back to the Senate.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/docs/AR-10.pdf

The WI Assembly has voted on 3 prior CC bills. They passed them all: 58-40 in '02, 66-33 in '04, 66-32 in '06. The bill of '02 didn't make it through the Senate (Dems killed a vote), the bills of '04 & '06 were passed in Senate, vetoed by Doyle. Senate overrode both vetoes, but 3 Dems reversed their votes in the Assembly overrides. We lost those by 65 -34 & 64-34 (66 is needed to override a veto). This time there'll be NO veto, and a simple majority on Tuesday will do it... 50 AYES and we're #49.

The Assembly currently has 60 Repubs, 38 Dems, and 1 independant. In the Senate vote this week, 8 Dems voted no... but 6 Dems, and all 19 Repubs, voted AYE. I'd say we're in pretty good shape right now... but "knock on wood"... this is WI, and this is politics, so anything can happen.

xenophon
06-16-2011, 21:48
Yup, it's been made a "special order of business" by Assembly rules committee Assembly Resolution 10. The Assembly was scheduled to adjoirn until fall after the budget passed last night. But they want this done, and done now! So they have a called a "special session" for just this bill! That rocks!! It shows it's a priority. Also indicates there's not likely to be any changes. Changes would send it back to the Senate.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/docs/AR-10.pdf

The WI Assembly has voted on 3 prior CC bills. They passed them all: 58-40 in '02, 66-33 in '04, 66-32 in '06. The bill of '02 didn't make it through the Senate (Dems killed a vote), the bills of '04 & '06 were passed in Senate, vetoed by Doyle. Senate overrode both vetoes, but 3 Dems reversed their votes in the Assembly overrides. We lost those by 65 -34 & 64-34 (66 is needed to override a veto). This time there'll be NO veto, and a simple majority on Tuesday will do it... 50 AYES and we're #49.

The Assembly currently has 60 Repubs, 38 Dems, and 1 independant. In the Senate vote this week, 8 Dems voted no... but 6 Dems, and all 19 Repubs, voted AYE. I'd say we're in pretty good shape right now... but "knock on wood"... this is WI, and this is politics, so anything can happen.

I was worried about the budget making it through the Assembly. I figured if they drug that on for too long, it might push this back more. Glad they hashed that budget out without TOO much trouble.

I don't forsee too much trouble in the Assembly on this one. Seems like all the uproar is on budget and fiscal related matters this year.

I agree there will most likely be no amendments passed at this point.

Cue the final countdown music.

windplex
06-17-2011, 10:54
I can't wait until the budget and CC laws are enforce and residents see that the sky has not fallen. Crime has not risen; it has fallen. That the state services have not gone to the dogs.

Give it a year from nov 1. Should make for a very satisfying Christmas gift for conservatives and 2A lovers alike.

Louisville Glocker
06-17-2011, 12:52
Cool. So they'll probably vote on Tues. Still a chance of law going into effect on Oct. 1....at least we know it is a done deal at this point!

IndyGunFreak
06-17-2011, 13:55
Cool. So they'll probably vote on Tues. Still a chance of law going into effect on Oct. 1....at least we know it is a done deal at this point!

Possible... but if she takes the full 10 days to publish it (which she'll likely be pressured by her party to do).. If they pass it on June 21, there's only 30 days in June, so she would have to publish it by Jul 1... thus making it take effect on Nov. 1.

IGF

wallytoo
06-17-2011, 16:18
I can't wait until the budget and CC laws are enforce and residents see that the sky has not fallen. Crime has not risen; it has fallen. That the state services have not gone to the dogs.

Give it a year from nov 1. Should make for a very satisfying Christmas gift for conservatives and 2A lovers alike.

Those are good to see passed. However, the one that I think will make the most difference, was the voter ID bill. I'm looking forward to seeing how our elections shake out, without all the dems from Illinois voting in our elections, as well as some 'vote early vote often' types from north of the border. I don't see my state senator, Wirch, getting elected without his usual support from south of the border.

wallytoo
06-17-2011, 16:19
Possible... but if she takes the full 10 days to publish it (which she'll likely be pressured by her party to do).. If they pass it on June 21, there's only 30 days in June, so she would have to publish it by Jul 1... thus making it take effect on Nov. 1.

IGF

Our Secretary of State is Doug LaFollette who, while having no 'nads, is technically male.

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-18-2011, 08:58
Our Secretary of State is Doug LaFollette who, while having no 'nads, is technically male.
:rofl::rofl:

windplex
06-20-2011, 08:35
Those are good to see passed. However, the one that I think will make the most difference, was the voter ID bill. I'm looking forward to seeing how our elections shake out, without all the dems from Illinois voting in our elections, as well as some 'vote early vote often' types from north of the border. I don't see my state senator, Wirch, getting elected without his usual support from south of the border.

Good point. Vote fraud is rampant in Milwaukee.

IndyGunFreak
06-20-2011, 09:13
Good point. Vote fraud is rampant in Milwaukee.

That's why they passed a Voter ID law here in Indy. All the Indpls Liberals were crazy about it.

I always vote, and I always thought it was required to show ID to vote (it only made sense to me).. and when I'd walk up to the table to register and sign my name before getting my ballot, I always had my ID out to hand to poll personnel.

I was stunned when I found out this wasn't a law already, as I'd done it since I was 18.

windplex
06-20-2011, 13:38
That's why they passed a Voter ID law here in Indy. All the Indpls Liberals were crazy about it.

I always vote, and I always thought it was required to show ID to vote (it only made sense to me).. and when I'd walk up to the table to register and sign my name before getting my ballot, I always had my ID out to hand to poll personnel.

I was stunned when I found out this wasn't a law already, as I'd done it since I was 18.

we had same day registration. all you needed was a person in line to vouch for you. no photo id. hideous levels of fraud.

however libs had no issue with requiring photo id for hay fever meds and to let people into town hall meetings -- i guess "disenfranchisement" is ok when they do it;)

kensteele
06-20-2011, 17:37
That's why they passed a Voter ID law here in Indy. All the Indpls Liberals were crazy about it.

I always vote, and I always thought it was required to show ID to vote (it only made sense to me).. and when I'd walk up to the table to register and sign my name before getting my ballot, I always had my ID out to hand to poll personnel.

I was stunned when I found out this wasn't a law already, as I'd done it since I was 18.

we had same day registration. all you needed was a person in line to vouch for you. no photo id. hideous levels of fraud.

however libs had no issue with requiring photo id for hay fever meds and to let people into town hall meetings -- i guess "disenfranchisement" is ok when they do it;)

Not familiar with the voting process I see? :dunno:

IndyGunFreak
06-20-2011, 18:08
Not familiar with the voting process I see? :dunno:

Sure I am... Explain to me how proving my identity, infringes upon my right to vote.

IGF

windplex
06-21-2011, 08:51
Not familiar with the voting process I see? :dunno:

apparently YOU are not familiar with the voting process in WI.

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 10:11
Well, it's pucker time.. .They're calling the role now... Wouldn't it be great if Republicans voted to table the bill and call for a vote.. :rofl: This could end in about 5min.

Edit: You gotta love Politicians... They come to work, get shown they are there, They pray, they say the pledge, then they ask that certain people be recognized, then they ask for a break.. :rofl:

IGF

Filhar
06-21-2011, 10:30
Can't listen in on my Android phone and can't find it on the radio. Please post any news.

vista461
06-21-2011, 11:11
Can't listen in on my Android phone and can't find it on the radio. Please post any news.
They are still in recess for partisan caucus as of now .

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 14:00
They are still in recess for partisan caucus as of now .

Apparently they took a 4hr lunch... It's a good thing these folks aren't in the private sector...

Just now coming back into session.

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 14:01
It's amazing they ever get anything done!

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 15:08
Barca wants us to adopt minn style carry.

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 15:11
There voting to table it now!

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 15:22
http://www.wiseye.org/Home/AirVideoStream.aspx



Live coverage.

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 15:28
Why are (or were) these legislators so concerned about WI residents being able to carry in MI? There's a couple of Non-Res options if MN is that important.

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 15:31
Why are (or were) these legislators so concerned about WI residents being able to carry in MI? There's a couple of Non-Res options if MN is that important.


Would it have anything to do with "Firearms Instructors" from MN bending the Democratic ear in WI, in order for them to be able to come here and set up shop for the almighty dollar? :whistling:

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 15:33
Now we have to hear about treating each other nicely.Bla Bla Bla!

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 15:37
Now we have to hear about treating each other nicely.Bla Bla Bla!

He had a point though.

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 15:48
If this bimbo would sit down and shut up we could get this bill passed today!

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 15:51
If this bimbo would sit down and shut up we could get this bill passed today!

Which one? :supergrin:

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 15:54
The one before this one.

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 15:55
The one before this one.
Roger that. :wavey:



http://www.wiseye.org/Home/AirVideoStream.aspx

Live WI feed.

(D)Christine Sinicki just said, "It's for the children.". ROFL

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 16:14
(D)Christine Sinicki just said, "It's for the children.". ROFL

I caught that to..lol.

Well, sounds like the Bill has been read the 3rd time, no more amendments, now they are debating whether to pass the bill or not.

In about 15-20min, WI long journey for CCW will be over.

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 16:50
Sad day for milwaukee, what a dope!

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 16:51
Geez, some of these liberals are some serious windbags.

Shut up and get it over with.

IGF

rfb45colt
06-21-2011, 16:58
Bill passes - 68 -27!!!!!!!!!!!

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 16:58
:cheerleader::cheerleader:

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 16:58
68-27 Bill is concurred in, and moved to the Senate. :wavey:

http://www.wiseye.org/Home/AirVideoStream.aspx

Live WI feed.

rfb45colt
06-21-2011, 16:59
68 ayes - 27 noes. Wi has cc!!!!!!!!!

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 17:01
It's a great day for Wisconsin!

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 17:04
I'm going to be in the Janesville area tonight. Anyone want to meet up for a cup of coffee and some late night shooting (legally, at the gun range :) to celebrate?

tshadow6
06-21-2011, 17:13
Okay, the WI cc bill has passed the assembly, what happens now? Does it go to the Governor or the Senate for their vote? Here in Florida, a bill gets voted on in the FL House of Representatives, then goes to the FL Senate. After that, the bill lands on the Governor's desk. 49/50 is great! After we get IL as "Shall Issue" we need to work on getting Hawaii, NY,NJ, and MA as "shall issue". Did I leave any "may issue" states out?

jpusk
06-21-2011, 17:14
https://www.facebook.com/notes/vicki...50212623123150

This will be announced tomorrow at a WI legislature's joint committee meeting scheduled for 12 noon, according to Darren LaSorte of the NRA, the NRA lobbyist who's been working to get CC in WI since 2001. It details a "compromise" CC bill that will have bi-partisan support and will easily pass the legislature. The votes just are not there for permitless "constitutionnal" carry at this time, but there's plenty of support for this. There's also a 30 minute podcast available that has many more answers to some questions.

Some details are:

there will be permits required with same background check with WI DOJ as required to buy handgun ($13)

must be WI resident and 21 or older (no non-res permits issued)

there will be training required, but just like in FL. No specific course or time-length required. Prior training is good, hunter safety is good, ex military is good, LE training is good... any "certified" firearm safety training will suffice.

NO effect on open carry, but to carry in 1,000' school zone, permit is required, either OC or CC, per federal law (WI cannot change fed law).

OC in vehicle WITHOUT permit (handguns only... laws remain the same for long guns) but permit is still required in 1,000' school zones.

No fingerprints.

Permit cost about $50 for 5 years (less upon renewal).

Database of permit holders available to LE ONLY, NO public access.

nothing on reciprocity mentioned here, but current shall-issue bill has reciprocity provisions, I assume they'll stay the same, which was WI will accept permit from any State (both res or non-res permits) that requires background check, except that will likely now require a minimum training standard also, just like WI residents must have.

Current bill also states WI residents must have WI permit.

Current bill also does not require photo on permit, but just like MN, permit must be accompanied by another "official" ID with a photo, like a DL, to be valid.

I assume the above items in current shall-issue bill will go unchanged because they were not specifically mentioned in "compromise". We'll know for sure tomorrow.

For those who dont know... there are currently two proposed CC bills in WI. SB93 is a constitutional carry bill with optional permits. SB90/AB126 is a shall issue bill similar to what's above. Personally I don't see were there's a "compromise". The votes just are not there for SB93, and the only thing the Dem opponants are "giving" is some support for SB90/AB126... which isn't really needed as the Repubs can do what they want... they control Senate, Assembly, and Governor. :dunno: But enough Repubs won't touch "no-permits" for it to be short of the majority needed.

Contrary to popular misconception, Federal law is in fact subject to state law. This was obvious in the original Constitution, as seen in the "nullification" acts in the late 18th century, but was re-codified after the Civil War. Wiconsin, could, if the scrote existed, eliminate the "school zone".

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 17:14
Okay, the WI cc bill has passed the assembly, what happens now? Does it go to the Governor or the Senate for their vote? Here in Florida, a bill gets voted on in the FL House of Representatives, then goes to the FL Senate. After that, the bill lands on the Governor's desk. 49/50 is great! After we get IL as "Shall Issue" we need to work on getting Hawaii, NY,NJ, and MA as "shall issue". Did I leave any "may issue" states out?

The Governor... The Assembly passed the Senate version of the bill.. so now it just needs the Gov's sig to be law.

windplex
06-21-2011, 17:46
dumb questions:

1) how and where do I apply for a permit?

2) will NRA have reasonable and available instruction to meet the requirements? another source then?

3) do i need to hagve completed #2 before i apply for #1

life is good:supergrin:

Riflemanz
06-21-2011, 17:52
The GOV has to sign the bill first.It will take time for the paperwork to get drawn up.Just relax and clean your pistol.Here is a free course for training.If your a Vet your good to go and if your a Wis DNR hunters saftey grad, your good too!
www.mdgunsafety.com/

rfb45colt
06-21-2011, 18:01
Another AYE vote was added late. There were two "paired" voters... which means one votes AYE the other votes NO, and they cancel each other out (don't ask... I don't have a clue why they do this). There were 98 present. The actual final tally is 70-28.

xenophon
06-21-2011, 18:50
Another AYE vote was added late. There were two "paired" voters... which means one votes AYE the other votes NO, and they cancel each other out (don't ask... I don't have a clue why they do this). There were 98 present. The actual final tally is 70-28.

I predicted 70. A very nice cushion majority. FINALLY!!!! woohoo.

We get to celebrate again when Walker signs, and one last time, when the bill actually takes effect.

Here is the current, "damn, still gotta wait list":
1) Walker
2) Publishing bill
3) Bill taking effect
4) Getting the permit app
5) Sending in permit app and WAITING for the permit to come back approved!

wait wait wait wait wait and more wait these past long years. ALMOST ALMOST there. A huge step forward today.

Goodspeed(TPF)
06-21-2011, 19:04
wait wait wait wait wait and more wait these past long years. ALMOST ALMOST there. A huge step forward today.

I was just thinking that. :wavey:

IndyGunFreak
06-21-2011, 19:37
5) Sending in permit app and WAITING for the permit to come back approved!


Well, since the law will likely take effect Nov 1, and they have 45 days to issue... That means the first permits should be rolling out about a week before Christmas.

What a present!

xenophon
06-21-2011, 20:36
Well, since the law will likely take effect Nov 1, and they have 45 days to issue... That means the first permits should be rolling out about a week before Christmas.

What a present!

The permit would be a nice stocking stuffer to myself :) Along with maybe a holster and a nice wilderness belt.

On a side note, there will be a slight economy jump and sales coming from the WI folks starting to stock up on ccw gear :)

Training jobs, demand for more supplies, and job(s) created in the WI DOJ to handle the permits. All side benefits ;)

HerrGlock
06-22-2011, 06:09
The permit would be a nice stocking stuffer to myself :) Along with maybe a holster and a nice wilderness belt.

Y'know if you ordered a VersaMax2 today you would get it just in time... :whistling:

:)

HerrGlock
06-22-2011, 06:41
Interesting. The AP article states that, "The weapons would be barred anywhere within 1,000 feet of school grounds..." and other areas.

One problem with that:

48.605 (2) (title) Possession of firearm in on the grounds of a school zone.
Section 71. 948.605 (2) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:
948.605 (2) (a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place
that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone on the
grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony.

It seems this bill actually deletes the 1000' law for state enforcement regardless of whether you have a permit or not and only makes it illegal to possess a firearm on school property proper. The federal law would still apply for those without a permit, though.

wallytoo
06-22-2011, 10:43
What day do I get to go the Sheriff's office and get my application?!?!

I'm pumped!

rfb45colt
06-22-2011, 11:57
Interesting. The AP article states that, "The weapons would be barred anywhere within 1,000 feet of school grounds..." and other areas.

One problem with that:



It seems this bill actually deletes the 1000' law for state enforcement regardless of whether you have a permit or not and only makes it illegal to possess a firearm on school property proper. The federal law would still apply for those without a permit, though.

A good explanation of the new law is here -> http://legis.wisconsin.gov/insession/insessiondocs/lcmemos/SB-93LCMemo.pdf

The only change not in the above link is "participation in organized shooting competitions" was removed by Senate floor amendment from the training qualifications. (page 6, 1st sentence, of 1st paragraph, is deleted).

The bill allows open or concealed carry of a handgun (no long-guns) within the 1,000' GFSZ State law if you have a permit. No permit = unloaded and encased. Bill also allows "car carry" of loaded handgun without a permit, in all areas outside the 1,000' GFSZ.

Under fed GFSZ law, only those with permits issued by the state the school is located in are exempt. So... what the WI bill has done about out-of-staters with permits is this ->

"The substitute amendment contains a statement that, for purposes of federal law under which an individual is exempt from the prohibition against possessing a firearm in a school zone because he or she is licensed to possess a firearm under the conditions set forth in federal law, an out-of-state licensee is licensed by Wisconsin."

windplex
06-24-2011, 14:10
my employer just issued a memo that CC is not allowed here. termination; no warnings.

vista461
06-24-2011, 15:01
Here's an FAQ
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/sen11/news/images/0930_001%20FAQ.pdf

vista461
06-24-2011, 15:06
my employer just issued a memo that CC is not allowed here. termination; no warnings.
Could be worse,
My type of employer is specifically mentioned in the bill as a place you can't carry.:supergrin:

HerrGlock
06-24-2011, 15:50
my employer just issued a memo that CC is not allowed here. termination; no warnings.

They can do that about actually carrying, not about keeping it in your car while you're at work.

If you're feeling froggy, ask them if they plan on hiring more security for the parking lot due to the firearms being in cars there. :supergrin:

windplex
06-24-2011, 16:23
They can do that about actually carrying, not about keeping it in your car while you're at work.

If you're feeling froggy, ask them if they plan on hiring more security for the parking lot due to the firearms being in cars there. :supergrin:

fortunately memo speaks to cc not car storage

funny thing is we have had several gun related issues. 2 were disgruntled ex-girlfriends. one put a 1911 to a workers head and kidnapped him for 2 hours after confiscating his phone and wallet. the bum "decided" to pay his 700 back rent the next day:supergrin: funniest thing was that he proclaimed shortly before that he was thinking of pimping full time -- of course I had to say i dont know much about the pimping game but arent the pimps supposed to control their girls and not vice versa?:rofl:

xenophon
07-01-2011, 09:38
Update: Gov Walker said he will sign during a ceremony in Wausau, WI on Fri July 8th. I believe this means they should start accepting apps Nov 1st since it'll get published in July.

vista461
07-01-2011, 11:10
The ap reports that the local news stations are regurgitating are talking about 1000ft school ban that got removed in teh bill. Hopefully that's a mistake on the AP's part and Walker isn't going to put it back in with his line item veto. You can't swing a dead cat and not be within 1000ft from a school in a lot of Milwaukee county

rfb45colt
07-01-2011, 11:47
The ap reports that the local news stations are regurgitating are talking about 1000ft school ban that got removed in teh bill. Hopefully that's a mistake on the AP's part and Walker isn't going to put it back in with his line item veto. You can't swing a dead cat and not be within 1000ft from a school in a lot of Milwaukee county

First.... Line-item veto only applies to budget bills. It does NOT apply to "regular" bills like SB93. Any veto would be all or nothing.

Secondly, the 1,000' GFSZ was NOT removed. It's still there on both the state and federal levels. Maybe the local media either doesn't know this, or is trying to "spin" the truth. But Walker knows the facts. Just like the federal law, cc "licensees" are exempt from the 1,000', but not the school grounds. No license, no change. What the State bill did was remove all the State's GFSZ "language", and replace it with the federal language (except it left out section (iii)... the "locked" requirement for unloaded and encased firearms). The bill originally had the locked requirement from the fed law in the new state law, but it was pointed out that changing the state statute's language to the federal and using (iii) would make millions of instant criminals during hunting seasons, so the "locked" case was deleted. You cannot pass through virtually any town in WI without passing within 1,000' of a school, and nobody uses a locked case for their shotgun or deer rifle (nor do most hunters even own a case that can be locked).

The state bill did remove the felony penalty from the 1,000' for non-licensees and replace it with a forfeiture, but did not change anything on the school grounds or buildings... and it cannot change the federal law.

The Dems attempted amendments to remove the licensee exemptions and change in penalties for non-licensees in the GFSZ, but were defeated by huge (bi-partisan) margins.

There has been a lawsuit filed by WI-Carry.org. to challenge the constitutionality of the 1,000' GFSZ because of the "swing a dead cat" situation you described, and the small town situation I described, claiming it nullifies the State & federal RKBA amendments in most urban areas. If that suit is successful, the whole GFSZ will be a moot point.

rfb45colt
07-01-2011, 11:51
repost deleted.....

wjv
07-01-2011, 13:30
my employer just issued a memo that CC is not allowed here. termination; no warnings.

Keep it in your trunk and keep your mouth shut. Don't tell ANYONE! SERIOUSLY!

xenophon
07-01-2011, 21:01
my employer just issued a memo that CC is not allowed here. termination; no warnings.

So, open carry then ;)

swinokur
07-02-2011, 06:09
July 8th

http://www.wsaw.com/news/headlines/Gov_Walker_to_Sign_Conceal_and_Carry_Bill_in_Wausau_124861234.html?ref=234

IndyGunFreak
07-02-2011, 06:14
Article is wrong on guns not being allowed within 1000ft of a school (at least according to everything I have read).

IGF

wrangler5
07-02-2011, 07:56
< snip > There has been a lawsuit filed by WI-Carry.org. to challenge the constitutionality of the 1,000' GFSZ because of the "swing a dead cat" situation you described, and the small town situation I described, claiming it nullifies the State & federal RKBA amendments in most urban areas. If that suit is successful, the whole GFSZ will be a moot point.

The original GFSZ act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in US v Lopez, 1995. But the legal theory was that the law as Congress passed it was not sufficiently related to interstate commerce to be within the authority of Congress. So Congress immediately (well, in 1996 - that's pretty fast for Congress except when they're voting to spend money they don't have) re-passed the law, with a clause that said it only applies to a firearm that "has moved in or otherwise affects" interstate commerce.

Now under Supreme Court precedent virtually EVERY activity affects interstate commerce (the Feds can regulate how much wheat you grow for personal consumption because by growing your own you would NOT be buying wheat that moved in interstate commerce, therefore your personal wheat growing "affects" IC and can be regulated - Wickard v. Filburn, 1942). So there's not much chance the current law will be declared unconstitutional under the Lopez approach. And the Supremes have already said (in Heller) that the 2A doesn't prohibit regulation of guns in "sensitive" areas including schools.

I wish WI-carry.org the best of luck in the lawsuit, but unless there are other similar lawsuits in other federal circuits it may be a tough issue to get before the Supremes. They have already said Congress can regulate guns in sensitive areas, and that schools are sensitive areas, and this case is going to ask them to define just how far a sensitive area extends from the school building. That's the kind of question the Supremes work very hard to avoid having to answer.

I don't know how easy it is to find a 2A friendly federal district court judge in WI. And appeals go to the 7th Circuit, headquartered and run out of Chicago. Not sure of the likelihood of getting a 2A friendly panel out of that bunch either (the 7th Circuit found the Chicago handgun ban to be perfectly OK under the Constitution, IIRC). So unless WI-carry wins in both the trial and appellate courts, I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on getting the Supremes to look at the case unless there are at least several other cases with the same issue from other circuits but with conflicting results.

swinokur
07-02-2011, 08:05
Article is wrong on guns not being allowed within 1000ft of a school (at least according to everything I have read).

IGF

Indy you are correct. Current GFSZA law permits CCW permit holders issued by the state the school is in to carry a weapon in their cars within the 1000 foot limit.

You can't expect the media to give a 100% factual report.

Sad

rfb45colt
07-02-2011, 08:37
Article is wrong on guns not being allowed within 1000ft of a school (at least according to everything I have read).

IGF

Yes it is wrong.... but that's the AP, what did you expect? Accuracy on a gun story? And to make matters worse, every TV station and newspaper in WI has broadcast/published that inaccuracy. I guess they can't be bothered to proof-read / check-facts either. "If it's the Associated Press, it must be right". :dunno:

Those with permits are allowed to carry either open or concealed right up to the school property itself (1,000' does NOT apply). Crossing onto school property, however, is a felony. Without a permit, the GFSZ is still in effect, but the penalty under the state law has been reduced to a civil forfeiture.

IndyGunFreak
07-03-2011, 07:04
When the GFSCZ was passed, they would have been better off, rather than just banning all guns within 1k feet of a school, making a serious felony enhancement if you were armed while committing another crime within 1k feet of a school.

Police catch you dealing dope within 1k feet of a school, make it a mandatory 10yrs. That's a lot more productive than trying to turn someone who gets caught speeding in a SZ w/ a firearm in his car, into a convicted felon.

wrangler5
07-03-2011, 07:49
When the GFSCZ was passed, they would have been better off, rather than just banning all guns within 1k feet of a school, making a serious felony enhancement if you were armed while committing another crime within 1k feet of a school.

Police catch you dealing dope within 1k feet of a school, make it a mandatory 10yrs. That's a lot more productive than trying to turn someone who gets caught speeding in a SZ w/ a firearm in his car, into a convicted felon.

You assume that making schools safer was the ultimate objective of those promoting the GFSZ. I suggest that that was NOT the goal.

It's arguable that the real objective of those who came up with the law was to create one more way to make felons out of ordinary gun owners and thereby disqualify them for life from firearm ownership. No doubt there were some dippy Congresscritters who bought into the "it's for the children" mantra. And the law was cleverly crafted to be very hard for a sensible legislator to vote against, as doing so would let his next opponent campaign on a "he voted to put children at risk" plank. At bottom, it was intended as just another trap for gun owners in general.

Clay1
07-03-2011, 09:25
Yes it is wrong.... but that's the AP, what did you expect? Accuracy on a gun story? And to make matters worse, every TV station and newspaper in WI has broadcast/published that inaccuracy. I guess they can't be bothered to proof-read / check-facts either. "If it's the Associated Press, it must be right". :dunno:

Those with permits are allowed to carry either open or concealed right up to the school property itself (1,000' does NOT apply). Crossing onto school property, however, is a felony. Without a permit, the GFSZ is still in effect, but the penalty under the state law has been reduced to a civil forfeiture.

This is dated June 22, after the bill passed and it is more of a plain language representation of the bill and is valuable to save: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/sen11/news/images/0930_001%20FAQ.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 9 of the document. If you are in or on the grounds of a school with a firearm the penalty is the same, a class I felony. If you have a permit and are within the 1K feet the penalty is lowered to a class B forfeiture. A class B forfeiture isn't a felony but you will still have a class B forfeiture. Can someone explain what exactly a class B forfeiture is?

Here are two great links, you can read the actual bill: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/enrolled/sb93 or you can read the LC Amendment memo: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/lc_amdt/sb093.pdf

I'm not a lawyer and I am trying my best to understand this stuff but could use a push in the right direction from time to time. I see where the senate passed the law on 6-14-11 and the Assembly passed the law on 6-21-11. The date on the LC Amendment memo is 6-15-11. I would feel more warm and fuzzy if the LC amendment memo had a date on of 6-21-11. Is everything in the Amendment memo as passed under the law that the Assembly finally passed? Thanks,

Rick

rfb45colt
07-03-2011, 13:19
This is dated June 22, after the bill passed and it is more of a plain language representation of the bill and is valuable to save: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/sen11/news/images/0930_001%20FAQ.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 9 of the document. If you are in or on the grounds of a school with a firearm the penalty is the same, a class I felony. If you have a permit and are within the 1K feet the penalty is lowered to a class B forfeiture. A class B forfeiture isn't a felony but you will still have a class B forfeiture. Can someone explain what exactly a class B forfeiture is?

Here are two great links, you can read the actual bill: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/enrolled/sb93 or you can read the LC Amendment memo: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/lc_amdt/sb093.pdf

I'm not a lawyer and I am trying my best to understand this stuff but could use a push in the right direction from time to time. I see where the senate passed the law on 6-14-11 and the Assembly passed the law on 6-21-11. The date on the LC Amendment memo is 6-15-11. I would feel more warm and fuzzy if the LC amendment memo had a date on of 6-21-11. Is everything in the Amendment memo as passed under the law that the Assembly finally passed? Thanks,

Rick
Sections 91-96 of the enrolled bill deal with schools and GFSZ (948.605). On the topic of permitees carrying in the 1,000 GFSZ, the relevant part is Section 94 of the enrolled bill, which says:

Section 94. 948.605 (2) (b) 1m. and 1r. of the statutes are created to read:
948.605 (2) (b) 1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
1r. Except if the person is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

Legalese "interpreted" says SB93 creates another "exception" (1r) to 948.605 (GFSZ) for licensees and out-of-state licensees for the 1,000' zone... but still prohibits carry by licensees "in or on the grounds of a school". If you don't have a permit, you're not "excepted" from 948.605. With a permit, you're "excepted".... but not in or on school grounds.... which leaves the 1,000' zone to be "excepted" from. Get it?

The 1m exception is the same as federal law (unloaded and encased), except the federal requiremnt for the case to be "locked" was not incorporated into state law. The "locked" requirement under 18 USC 922 would be "(iii)".

Edit to add: a "forfeiture" is a fine but not a criminal charge. Examples of "forfeitures" are trespassing, littering, jaywalking, not wearing a seatbelt, parking tickets, etc. A "class B" would be $500, I believe.

vista461
07-08-2011, 15:46
Gov Walker signed it today.:cheerleader:

and now there is only one....

wallytoo
07-08-2011, 15:50
<--- Big fan of Governor Scott Walker.

Yahoo!

IndyGunFreak
07-08-2011, 17:01
Well done Wisconsin..

It's about freakin time! :)

xenophon
07-08-2011, 20:05
Ah, the permanent ink has dried. It is done. Now we wait for the day that we see the application appear on the WI DOJ website for downloading.

What a day.

rfb45colt
07-09-2011, 14:30
Ah, the permanent ink has dried. It is done. Now we wait for the day that we see the application appear on the WI DOJ website for downloading.

What a day.

Indeed. I've We've been working/fighting/waiting for this day for at least 10 years.

I celebrated last night with some Leinies. :cheers:

RussP
07-09-2011, 16:14
Ah, the permanent ink has dried. It is done. Now we wait for the day that we see the application appear on the WI DOJ website for downloading.

What a day.Congratulations!! Dry ink is good.

vista461
07-09-2011, 19:17
I had heard on the news a few days ago that they were going to start accepting apps in Sept.
Probably crash the site on the first day for downloads. lol

wallytoo
10-31-2011, 17:44
Printing out, filling out, and mailing out my application tomorrow. Yippee!!

Except for the fact that I'm angry that I have to get any governments permission to exercise a right that was God-given, and supposedly Constitutionally protected.

Filhar
10-31-2011, 18:28
I'll be at the Post Office that delivers their mail at 7:00 in the morning. They pick up at 7:30, so I should have one of the first ones in the office.

Filhar
10-31-2011, 19:09
I'll be at the Post Office that delivers their mail at 7:00 in the morning. They pick up at 7:30, so I should have one of the first ones in the office.

wallytoo
12-03-2011, 11:36
As of December 1st, I possess a valid Concealed Carry License issued by the State of Wisconsin.

pipedreams
12-03-2011, 11:49
Yes it is wrong.... but that's the AP, what did you expect? Accuracy on a gun story? And to make matters worse, every TV station and newspaper in WI has broadcast/published that inaccuracy. I guess they can't be bothered to proof-read / check-facts either. "If it's the Associated Press, it must be right". :dunno:

Those with permits are allowed to carry either open or concealed right up to the school property itself (1,000' does NOT apply). Crossing onto school property, however, is a felony. Without a permit, the GFSZ is still in effect, but the penalty under the state law has been reduced to a civil forfeiture.


This same stupid story went around in Iowa a year ago when the Iowa CC law went in to effect. Just another case of you can't believe what you read in the newspaper or hear on TV.

pugman
12-04-2011, 21:47
As of December 1st, I possess a valid Concealed Carry License issued by the State of Wisconsin.

Put mine in the mail about mid November...how long did yours take?

wallytoo
12-17-2011, 20:06
Put mine in the mail about mid November...how long did yours take?

I had mine in the mail on November 1st. They had 45 days, and it only took 30. I was pleased that it took less time than they were allowed to take.

Hope you have yours by now.

I hope to not see you carrying soon!

pugman
12-18-2011, 18:20
I had mine in the mail on November 1st. They had 45 days, and it only took 30. I was pleased that it took less time than they were allowed to take.

Hope you have yours by now.

I hope to not see you carrying soon!

Carried this afternoon :supergrin:

Mine actually took about 15 days.