• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The time for action is NOW!

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA

That's a judicial solution, not a legislative one. You don't know if you'll win that, especially when dealing with a hostile 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. John is a very capable attorney (he's mine for my case against LaCabe in Denver, Colorado), but the 7th Circuit is extremely hostile territory.

If you have the chance to take out the gun free schools buffer zone law in the state legislature, take it.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Scott McCallum

Question - are either/both of the previous carry bills acceptable? What changes would be required to get your support?

In my personal opinion, NO!

First: Either one of the past bills would have made WI the MOST RESTRICTIVE shall-issue permitting system in the country, from that perspective alone they are unacceptable.

Second: Implementing a permitting system WILL BE 100s of new employees and $$Millions$$ in new expenses. I want smaller government, not more government.

I don't want a 1,000 or even 100 page health-care type carry bill that we (the ordinary person) won't be able to figure out and that we "need to pass to see what's in it."

A REPEAL has no fiscal impact, no new employees, no new department, no new administration, and can bypass a bus load of committee hearings because of that.

A repeal could be on Walker's desk by May 2011, and we have CC the next day. A permit/privilege system won't be fully implemented until sometime in 2012.

Like Nik said, KEEP IT SIMPLE. Let's REPEAL the CC ban first, and worry only about that. Once that's done, then we can take on Vehicle, Parks, GFSZ, and government buildings.

A "Castle Doctrine" should be a bill that happens later as well. Only "no-permit carry" was in the GOP plank, let's get it done!

NO ONE has given a valid reason why we need a permit, NO ONE. I've heard terms like "political reality," and "reciprocity." Well, here is the political reality, "no-permit carry" IS IN the GOP plank. These same "political reality" people would have told you getting "no permit" in the plank was not possible either. It is time for the nay-sayers to stop with the "political reality" BS. The reality is, we did already did it! "no-permit" is in the plank and we CAN vote them out!

As to reciprocity, I honestly believe that if WI can go to "no-permit" CC, then MN, ND, SD, MT, UT, WY will all follow suit. With the exception of IL, we could see "no-permit" spread from WI all the way to TX! Those worrying about reciprocity need to worry about their own back yard first. Deal with WI, and then worry about the other states.

Nik is right, WI is decades behind the rest, but now is our chance to be a LEADER rather than a follower. Now is the time for WI to take the lead, and we CAN do it!

Lastly, I am seeing the word "hypocrite" used against those who are pro-permit. By definition, "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." Being pro-permit is NOT hypocrisy but being pro-permit and claiming to want smaller government is a contradiction.

We need to be like a laser, focused on a single point. If we are, then like a rifle, we can go a LONG way.

Carry On.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
In my personal opinion, NO!

First: Either one of the past bills would have made WI the MOST RESTRICTIVE shall-issue permitting system in the country, from that perspective alone they are unacceptable.

Second: Implementing a permitting system WILL BE 100s of new employees and $$Millions$$ in new expenses. I want smaller government, not more government.

I don't want a 1,000 or even 100 page health-care type carry bill that we (the ordinary person) won't be able to figure out and that we "need to pass to see what's in it."

A REPEAL has no fiscal impact, no new employees, no new department, no new administration, and can bypass a bus load of committee hearings because of that.

A repeal could be on Walker's desk by May 2011, and we have CC the next day. A permit/privilege system won't be fully implemented until sometime in 2012.

Like Nik said, KEEP IT SIMPLE. Let's REPEAL the CC ban first, and worry only about that. Once that's done, then we can take on Vehicle, Parks, GFSZ, and government buildings.

A "Castle Doctrine" should be a bill that happens later as well. Only "no-permit carry" was in the GOP plank, let's get it done!

NO ONE has given a valid reason why we need a permit, NO ONE. I've heard terms like "political reality," and "reciprocity." Well, here is the political reality, "no-permit carry" IS IN the GOP plank. These same "political reality" people would have told you getting "no permit" in the plank was not possible either. It is time for the nay-sayers to stop with the "political reality" BS. The reality is, we did already did it! "no-permit" is in the plank and we CAN vote them out!

As to reciprocity, I honestly believe that if WI can go to "no-permit" CC, then MN, ND, SD, MT, UT, WY will all follow suit. With the exception of IL, we could see "no-permit" spread from WI all the way to TX! Those worrying about reciprocity need to worry about their own back yard first. Deal with WI, and then worry about the other states.

Nik is right, WI is decades behind the rest, but now is our chance to be a LEADER rather than a follower. Now is the time for WI to take the lead, and we CAN do it!

Lastly, I am seeing the word "hypocrite" used against those who are pro-permit. By definition, "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." Being pro-permit is NOT hypocrisy but being pro-permit and claiming to want smaller government is a contradiction.

We need to be like a laser, focused on a single point. If we are, then like a rifle, we can go a LONG way.

Carry On.

We need to be like our state motto and go Forward! Permits are not forward, but the same old thing.
 
M

McX

Guest
noticed a few 'blips' on the book, similar to mine. the book offers an opportunity for us en mass to get the point across to our newly elected- by us, leaders. use it to make your voice heard.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I suggest we have a lobby day in Madison. I am relatively ignorant as to the inner workings of WI state government so I am going to ask some questions that may be dumb:

1. When do the new legislators get sworn in?
2. Assuming no emergency session, when is the 1st meeting?
3. Assuming an emergency session, when does that happen?

Would it be worthwhile having a march around the capital in the next couple of weeks with 'Repeal 941.23' signs and then go inside to talk to the legislators?

Thanks!
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
That's a judicial solution, not a legislative one. You don't know if you'll win that, especially when dealing with a hostile 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. John is a very capable attorney (he's mine for my case against LaCabe in Denver, Colorado), but the 7th Circuit is extremely hostile territory.

If you have the chance to take out the gun free schools buffer zone law in the state legislature, take it.

lol Gray... First you suggest "unless WCI plans a legal challenge" then you find out we have a legal challenge and you go a different direction...

Sorry, just got a chuckle out of that

That aside, you are right. We should NEVER rely on the courts alone. We should use every method, and most certainly legislative to protect our rights.

WCI has always stated we believe in the "all of the above" type approach.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
We need to be like our state motto and go Forward! Permits are not forward, but the same old thing.

WCI's position is that our ultimate goal is non-permit right to carry, but we are not "all or nothing" and we believe in anything that moves us forward.

We believe that anything that increases people's OPPORTUNITY to carry that does not sacrifice the rights we have is a step forward.

If PPA had passed in 2003 the first time around, how many people that have been victims of crime may have been able to defend themselves? We'd also have SEVEN years worth of proof positive to all the myth-believers in the sheltered state of Wisconsin that the "wild west" myths and the "fender benders turn into shootouts" myths are not true.

Yes, it would have been the most restrictive shall issue law, but it would have been better than NOTHING. and in the past 7 years we may well have been able to get the onerous restrictions changed.

Look at how many other states have been removing the restrictive aspects of their shall issue laws?

Having said ALL that, yesterday is gone. TODAY IS TODAY.

There is a feasible opportunity to achieve what has always been and will always be our ultimate goal. no-permit required right to carry in Wisconsin this legislative session.

The WORST we can do is a shall issue permit system, and as long as that doesn't contain a poison pill that outlaws OC as it is now, that is still a step forward.

It doesn't make sense to be "all or nothing" but it also doesn't make sense to sell ourselves short.

The pieces are in place for non-permit right to carry in Wisconsin this legislative session. As that is our ultimate goal, it only makes sense to go for it.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
lol Gray... First you suggest "unless WCI plans a legal challenge" then you find out we have a legal challenge and you go a different direction...

Sorry, just got a chuckle out of that

That aside, you are right. We should NEVER rely on the courts alone. We should use every method, and most certainly legislative to protect our rights.

WCI has always stated we believe in the "all of the above" type approach.

I believe part of the problem politically with the GFSZ is that if someone votes for repeal of it, they can be demonized by liberals.

I believe the politically sensitive way of dealing with this is through the courts. Baring that, a change to the GFSZ law would be practical, for example, if a CRIME is committed with a gun within 1000' of a school, then use it as a sentencing enhancer.

Don't make carrying the gun a crime, make the using the gun in a commission of a crime a bigger crime.
 

Viper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
143
Location
Just outside Madistan
Unsure of What We Should Be Writing to Legislators

After reading this thread I am not completely certain of what content should be in our initial contact letters with our legislators.

We should be asking them to introduce a bill to repeal 941.23 only at this time, correct?
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
lol Gray... First you suggest "unless WCI plans a legal challenge" then you find out we have a legal challenge and you go a different direction...

Sorry, just got a chuckle out of that

That aside, you are right. We should NEVER rely on the courts alone. We should use every method, and most certainly legislative to protect our rights.

WCI has always stated we believe in the "all of the above" type approach.

I think because we may be confusing two different issues, the Gun Free School Zones Wisconsin state law problem, and the problem of a neighboring state (Michigan) banning pistol possession unless you have a home state possession of carry license. Michigan may resolve the issue next year due to the new legislature and governor too.

Agreed, I would, however, suggest making a license in some form available. $5, NCIC/WICIC check, issued on the spot at a sheriff's office. Has "reciprocal weapons carry license" on it so that they can travel to other states and take advantage of reciprocity/recognition.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
WCI's position is that our ultimate goal is non-permit right to carry, but we are not "all or nothing" and we believe in anything that moves us forward.

Agreed wholehearted. Watch out from your right flank, though. Corey Graff at Wisconsin Gun Owners will accuse you of selling out if you settle for anything less than constitutional carry. Would be good, if he does, to point out that your organization filed several lawsuits against bad OC stops and the gun free school zones act whereas WiGO did....what again?
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
After reading this thread I am not completely certain of what content should be in our initial contact letters with our legislators.

We should be asking them to introduce a bill to repeal 941.23 only at this time, correct?

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

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I think because we may be confusing two different issues, the Gun Free School Zones Wisconsin state law problem, and the problem of a neighboring state (Michigan) banning pistol possession unless you have a home state possession of carry license. Michigan may resolve the issue next year due to the new legislature and governor too.

Agreed, I would, however, suggest making a license in some form available. $5, NCIC/WICIC check, issued on the spot at a sheriff's office. Has "reciprocal weapons carry license" on it so that they can travel to other states and take advantage of reciprocity/recognition.

If you have a CPL from any state (does not have to be a resident permit.) you can possess/OC a handgun in Michigan. You can only CC if the permit is from your home state.

Also if your state has a handgun registration or license requirement you can possess a handgun in Michigan. Yes, still restrictive and most likely unconstitutional, but better than a few years ago. And yes we hope to make progress with gun laws in Michigan over the next two years.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Agreed, I would, however, suggest making a license in some form available. $5, NCIC/WICIC check, issued on the spot at a sheriff's office. Has "reciprocal weapons carry license" on it so that they can travel to other states and take advantage of reciprocity/recognition.

NO!!!!!

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

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

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
If you have a CPL from any state (does not have to be a resident permit.) you can possess/OC a handgun in Michigan. You can only CC if the permit is from your home state.

Also if your state has a handgun registration or license requirement you can possess a handgun in Michigan. Yes, still restrictive and most likely unconstitutional, but better than a few years ago. And yes we hope to make progress with gun laws in Michigan over the next two years.

Good, thank you for the clarification.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
I believe part of the problem politically with the GFSZ is that if someone votes for repeal of it, they can be demonized by liberals.

74% of people voted for the RKBA in Wisconsin. 26% voted against. I know LIBERALS who whole-heartedly support the RKBA.

Don't be worried about the 26%'ers. Work on educating the 74%'ers who don't yet understand the onerous nature of the GFSZ.

EVEN the Sheboygan county DA said "Wisconsin Carry has a point with our lawsuit" and the law should be changed.

Its really only the HARD core liberals (26%'ers) who would demonize a politician over a change in the GFSZ law.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
74% of people voted for the RKBA in Wisconsin. 26% voted against. I know LIBERALS who whole-heartedly support the RKBA.

Don't be worried about the 26%'ers. Work on educating the 74%'ers who don't yet understand the onerous nature of the GFSZ.

EVEN the Sheboygan county DA said "Wisconsin Carry has a point with our lawsuit" and the law should be changed.

Its really only the HARD core liberals (26%'ers) who would demonize a politician over a change in the GFSZ law.

Don't get me wrong, I will be pushing for a political solution since theoretically it will be faster, just passing on a couple thoughts I had.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
NO!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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