The time for action is NOW!

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

Same as what happened to the County Board petition collection? Hijacked by special financial interests.

Again Doug. You are a slanderous loser. Sit on your island and bash the efforts of others. Thats ALL you do.

Yes you have plenty of time behind the keyboard to cite JUST enough data so that a couple suck-ups pay you a compliment here or there... At the end of the day, you are a self-absorbed cancer. You don't care about the movement, you care about DOUG.

This will be the last time I ever respond to your tripe. I make things happen. You sit on your island and pound it out on a keyboard. Good work buddy. (insert eye roll here)

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

Interesting question, Has ABATE ever stood up for the motorcyclist's right to carry?
Just curious. Maybe this could bring the likes of WCI and Abate together to work together on this and increase the numbers. Just a thought.

I've had that thought myself, believe me. Since both corporations are strongly pro-freedom, it would seem like a good relationship - but ABATE deals strictly with motorcycling issues and won't get involved as an organization. It's written into the bylaws, and it's standard operating procedure - technically I can't even mention firearms issues during a chapter meeting unless I know it's a topic of interest to nearly everyone present!

However, many members are gun owners and support the second amendment & right-to-carry, and there's nothing stopping me from making phone calls or talking about it before & after meetings. A lot of individual members are interested in gun rights, and that's who I'll be targeting. I recently served 4 years on the board of directors, so I know several members statewide who may be interested in joining and/or working with WCI. I'll be bending a few ears to see what support I can drum up for this cause.

In fact, someone on ABATE's Legislative Committee is one of those strong gun rights supporters, who is very knowledgeable about Wisconsin politics and on a first-name basis with many legislators and others in state government. He would be a great addition to this fight and we'd be lucky to have him on board, but he's a very busy man and may not have time to get involved. I make no promises, but I'll talk to him and find out his level of interest in/ability to help out.

 

[Mugenlude]

Here you go, This is information from the GOP Convention:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...2ndAmendment_in_thePoliticalArena.pdf&h=f43d5

From WISGOP.org:

"We oppose efforts to restrict the ownership, manufacture, carry, or sale of firearms by law-abiding citizens. "

Permits are restrictions.

J.Gleason, you gave me that information previously (thank you), but like I said previously, that document also says this...

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Republican Party of Wisconsin, in caucus assembled, urges the Wisconsin Legislature to adopt legislation permitting law-abiding citizens without a felony record or a record of serious mental health problems to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons;

You can't read the parts that you want it to say and ignore the rest. I know that you are pushing for repeal, so am I, but I need to see something solid to give to my legislator if I'm going to go tell them this is what they are supposed to be supporting. Trust me, I want the Resolutions on the GOP website to say what is linked on the WCI summary... hopefully WCI will get it figured out and the website will be updated.

 

[Mugenlude]

from another thread, here is the documentation of the change at the state GOP meeting.

I have a message in to a state GOP delegate who is also a WCI Founders club member to find out if its just a case of the website not being updated.

Thanks Nik!

 

[J.Gleason]

J.Gleason, you gave me that information previously (thank you), but like I said previously, that document also says this...



You can't read the parts that you want it to say and ignore the rest. I know that you are pushing for repeal, so am I, but I need to see something solid to give to my legislator if I'm going to go tell them this is what they are supposed to be supporting. Trust me, I want the Resolutions on the GOP website to say what is linked on the WCI summary... hopefully WCI will get it figured out and the website will be updated.

You must have missed this part,

Another major accomplishment at the GOP Convention was amending resolution
2010 -02 2nd Amendment. The following resolution was proposed as it is written here.
The words that are struck through are the words we were able to get removed.
2010-02 2nd Amendment
WHEREAS, the Constitutions of the United States and Wisconsin both guarantee the right to keep and bear
arms; and
WHEREAS, Wisconsin does not allow law‐abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for their
self‐defense; and
WHEREAS, Forty-Eight (48) states has adopted legislation allowing their citizens to obtain permits to carry
concealed weapons for their self‐defense; and
WHEREAS, in those states which have adopted such legislation, the number of incidents of misuse of the
concealed weapons resulting in the revocation of the permits for carrying concealed weapons has been
negligible,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in caucus assembled, urges
the Wisconsin Legislature to adopt legislation to permitting law‐abiding citizens without a felony record or
a record of serious mental problems to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons;

The parts in red were struck through on the amendment of the GOP Platform.

 

[Mugenlude]

The first step is finding a legislator that will bring it forward NOW to get the ball rolling. That way it will be ready when Walker takes office.

Have you found a legislator who is willing to do so? Have you talked to Gunderson about it?

 

[J.Gleason]

Thanks Nik!

It is the same thing I gave you. Thanks again Nik.

 

[J.Gleason]

Have you found a legislator who is willing to do so? Have you talked to Gunderson about it?

I have spoken with Representative Al Ott and Senator Elect Frank Lasee. Everyone in their district should be calling them, writing them, visiting them and doing the same.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Really as anagrammatically as that?

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in caucus assembled, urges the Wisconsin Legislature to adopt legislation to permitting law‐abiding citizens without a felony record or a record of serious mental problems ...

Really as anagrammatically as that?

 

[J.Gleason]

Really as anagrammatically as that?

I agree, but again that is the fault of the person transcribing the text. It is an OXYMORON.

It should have read,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in caucus assembled, urges
the Wisconsin Legislature to adopt legislation recognizing the right of law‐abiding citizens without a felony record or
a record of serious mental problems to carry concealed weapons;

With that said, the time is still NOW!

This is something Fireball357 needs to bring to the attention of the GOP since he was a Delegate at the Convention.

 

[Mugenlude]

You must have missed this part,

Another major accomplishment at the GOP Convention was amending resolution
2010 -02 2nd Amendment. The following resolution was proposed as it is written here.
The words that are struck through are the words we were able to get removed.
2010-02 2nd Amendment
WHEREAS, the Constitutions of the United States and Wisconsin both guarantee the right to keep and bear
arms; and
WHEREAS, Wisconsin does not allow law‐abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for their
self‐defense; and
WHEREAS, Forty-Eight (48) states has adopted legislation allowing their citizens to obtain permits to carry
concealed weapons for their self‐defense; and
WHEREAS, in those states which have adopted such legislation, the number of incidents of misuse of the
concealed weapons resulting in the revocation of the permits for carrying concealed weapons has been
negligible,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in caucus assembled, urges
the Wisconsin Legislature to adopt legislation to permitting law‐abiding citizens without a felony record or
a record of serious mental problems to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons;

The parts in red were struck through on the amendment of the GOP Platform.

That's the issue, it's still present on the WI GOP website.

 

[J.Gleason]

My follow up email to my representatives,

Gentleman,

I am writing as a follow up on our previous conversations on the repeal of State Statute 941.23.

As you know representative Gunderson is poised to introduce his Personal Protection Bill again as soon as Governor Elect Walker takes office.
This bill was vetoed by Governor Doyle and rightly so as it was a compromise of our gun rights. The bill would have traded our right to open carry for the right to conceal carry and would have included fees, permits and mandated training.

That bill is deeply in contradiction of the GOP Platform on which the Republican Candidates ran for office this year. That platform supports non-permitted carry and smaller government.
By creating a permit system the legislature would in fact be creating bigger government in that there would have to be government involvement in collecting fees, issuing permits, running background checks, collecting and recording all of this information which is tantamount to gun registration; not to mention that the bill also required mandated training which in and of itself is an infringement upon the rights of those who live on a fixed income. Even low income people such as senior citizens have the right to bear arms for self defense and personal security.

Wisconsin has waited to long to join the ranks of the states that allow a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm in the manner of their choosing.

The election this year came as a surprise to many legislators who were voted out and the firearm carry issue played a huge part in that here in Wisconsin.

While the NRA has supported permitted carry in the past, permitted carry is becoming a thing of the past as evident in the states of Arizona, Vermont and Alaska. Smaller Gun Rights groups here in Wisconsin are picking up the pieces that the NRA chooses to ignore. These groups actually have memberships that may outnumber the memberships of the NRA here in Wisconsin. These groups are also growing every day. Their voices should be heard.

There is a simple solution to the whole permit/bigger government issue. That would be to repeal 941.23 and remove the restrictions on Concealing a weapon for law abiding citizens.

I am requesting that you move forward with legislation on the repeal of 941.23 and present this legislation to Governor Elect Walker upon his taking office in January of 2011.
This repeal would not compromise any rights, would not create bigger government and would not impose fees, mandated training or cost any fees to the taxpayers.
The repeal would also not require local law enforcement to mandate time and employees to issue permits, collect fees, run background checks or collect any information which would be nothing less then gun registration.

This is a common sense approach and with the Republican Majority in the Assembly and the State Senate along with a Republican Governor would help Wisconsin make History as the 4th state supporting Constitutional Carry.

941.23 has already been found as unconstitutional in the Clark County Court in recent weeks and was declared as unconstitutional by the Jackson County District Attorney in recent months. 941.23 also contradicts the Wisconsin State Constitution Article 1:25 which reads,

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
[1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]

This is possible and with your help can be accomplished by the time the new governor takes office.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I eagerly await your reply.


James Gleason

 

[J.Gleason]

That's the issue, it's still present on the WI GOP website.

Yes, I believe someone is working on getting that updated.
The copy I gave you was distributed immediately after the GOP Convention. I am sure there are typos and editing is needed but the message is there.

 

[Gray Peterson]

As you know representative Gunderson is poised to introduce his Personal Protection Bill again as soon as Governor Elect Walker takes office.
This bill was vetoed by Governor Doyle and rightly so as it was a compromise of our gun rights. The bill would have traded our right to open carry for the right to conceal carry and would have included fees, permits and mandated training.

No version of the Personal Protection Act that was passed by the legislature was passed with any sort of open carry ban.

 

[J.Gleason]

No version of the Personal Protection Act that was passed by the legislature was passed with any sort of open carry ban.

It was a trade off of CCW for OCW. Everyone knows that.
I am not in support of that bill at all. The Bill would have to be totally rewritten to leave out any compromise, permits (Other than reciprocity), fees or MANDATED TRAINING!

These are all infringements of our rights and are virtually Registration. If you give any LEO your information to obtain a permit, that info is stored. Your name is on a list. you have been registered.

Stop trying to candy coat things. Look at reality. The fact is repealing 941.23 is the easiest, most cost effective and does not create bigger government. Not to mention it gets rid of an unconstitutional statute and comes no where even close to registration.

 

[Gray Peterson]

It was a trade off of CCW for OCW. Everyone knows that.

"Everyone knows that" is not a substitute to doing your own research. No version of the PPA between 2001 to 2010 included an open carry ban.

These are all infringements of our rights and are virtually Registration. If you give any LEO your information to obtain a permit, that info is stored. Your name is on a list. you have been registered.

As a person who is specifically exempted from a general ban on carrying weapons in general. You keep making this about guns and firearms and registration. No version of the PPA had specific firearms registration on the licenses. It is a weapons license, which allows you to carry a wide variety of weapons.

Stop trying to candy coat things. Look at reality. The fact is repealing 941.23 is the easiest, most cost effective and does not create bigger government. Not to mention it gets rid of an unconstitutional statute and comes no where even close to registration.

I am a constitutional carry advocate. I am proud of the fact that the state of my birth went constitutional carry (Arizona), and I want that that be the case nationwide. I am also a supporter of Knife Rights as well, and believe that arms isn't just firearms.

However, I am perfectly willing to call out people who side (especially those that make up things like open carry being banned by the PPA's and falsely saying it's registration when it's not) with anti-gunners like Doyle, and continue to subject Wisconsinites to the current situation that currently stands, where people are being murdered, raped, maimed, and beaten every day with no potential of fighting back, unless they choose to do what we do and just open carry, with the continual police contact problems. You and I are brave people who like to open carry and are equipped mentally and emotionally for the task and dealing with people. Most people are not, and they'd rather just carry concealed so they can do so at their jobs and about their business every day.

Simply put: If we don't have the votes to full repeal of 941.23 (among various other statutes that need to be flat out removed or significantly reduced), I am not willing to subject in my personal opinion, as a matter of ideological purity, to the continued situation of what it is now. I have numerous friends who live in Wisconsin. I cannot effectively carry in Wisconsin in most urban areas. I want the problem fixed.

 

[J.Gleason]

"Everyone knows that" is not a substitute to doing your own research. No version of the PPA between 2001 to 2010 included an open carry ban.

This would indicate that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

As a person who is specifically exempted from a general ban on carrying weapons in general. You keep making this about guns and firearms and registration. No version of the PPA had specific firearms registration on the licenses. It is a weapons license, which allows you to carry a wide variety of weapons.

It was a compromise.

I am a constitutional carry advocate. I am proud of the fact that the state of my birth went constitutional carry (Arizona), and I want that that be the case nationwide. I am also a supporter of Knife Rights as well, and believe that arms isn't just firearms.

How can you be a constitutionalist and still favor permits? Now who is making 5hit up?

However, I am perfectly willing to call out people who side (especially those that make up things like open carry being banned by the PPA's and falsely saying it's registration when it's not) with anti-gunners like Doyle, and continue to subject Wisconsinites to the current situation that currently stands, where people are being murdered, raped, maimed, and beaten every day with no potential of fighting back, unless they choose to do what we do and just open carry, with the continual police contact problems. You and I are brave people who like to open carry and are equipped mentally and emotionally for the task and dealing with people. Most people are not, and they'd rather just carry concealed so they can do so at their jobs and about their business every day.

Who is making anything up? I only stated fact. Gundersons Bill was a Compromise and nothing more. Obviously you have no clue what registration is if you do not see that giving any information to LEO amounts to being registered. They will store that information and use it as they see fit and if that means to find out who has the weapons they want to confiscate then so be it. I am not sure who you are trying to convince here, other members of the forum or yourself. Keep trying though. I am sure your efforts would be mush more wisely put to the task of repealing 941.23.
Simply put: If we don't have the votes to full repeal of 941.23 (among various other statutes that need to be flat out removed or significantly reduced), I am not willing to subject in my personal opinion, as a matter of ideological purity, to the continued situation of what it is now. I have numerous friends who live in Wisconsin. I cannot effectively carry in Wisconsin in most urban areas. I want the problem fixed.

The simple fix would be to repeal 941.23. Who says we can not or will not get the votes? Oh wait your talking about the ones that are so eager to get a permit that they will give up anything for it. Hey wait, those are the same people who stated that we would never get support from legislators for constitutional carry. So if they were wrong then why should we listen to them now? Just so they can get their hands on a permit? Oh Brother.

The fact is your just trying to convince everyone here to just go along with Gunderson and get their permit and pay their fees and sign up for their mandated training, all so they can get that piece of paper in their hand that gives them the "Privilege" to do what the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions give them the "Right" to do.

 

[Gray Peterson]

This would indicate that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

You're the one who made the claim that the PPA would have banned open carry. No version of the PPA which was introduced would done any such thing. You keep saying I don't have a clue. Prove me wrong. Cite to me in any of the bill citations from the previous PPA bills in the last ten years where open carry was banned.

It was a compromise.

Repeating it so doesn't make it so.

How can you be a constitutionalist and still favor permits? Now who is making 5hit up?

I don't favor permits. I support repealing 941.23. What I won't do is tell legislators that they are anti-gunners for voting for a licensing system for concealed carry in the alternative if there are not the votes to pass it out of the Legislature.

Who is making anything up? I only stated fact. Gundersons Bill was a Compromise and nothing more. Obviously you have no clue what registration is if you do not see that giving any information to LEO amounts to being registered. They will store that information and use it as they see fit and if that means to find out who has the weapons they want to confiscate then so be it. I am not sure who you are trying to convince here, other members of the forum or yourself. Keep trying though. I am sure your efforts would be mush more wisely put to the task of repealing 941.23.

I underlined the particular quote so I can point out the insanity of what you're suggesting. Giving any information to the government gives it access to LEO's. Do you have a drivers license or state ID? You're registered on a list that LEO's can access. Are you registered to vote? You're on a list that LEO's can access. Did you buy a gun from a gun store in any way in the last 50 years? You're on a list of gun owners that the police can ask for copies of the 4473's from the local stores with a warrant.

You also continually miss the point. The concealed weapons licensing bill is a WEAPONS license, not a firearm license. There is no specific registration of firearms on the license, no qualification with each gun, none of that crap.

The simple fix would be to repeal 941.23. Who says we can not or will not get the votes? Oh wait your talking about the ones that are so eager to get a permit that they will give up anything for it. Hey wait, those are the same people who stated that we would never get support from legislators for constitutional carry. So if they were wrong then why should we listen to them now? Just so they can get their hands on a permit? Oh Brother.

No one said it. What I'm saying is that while it's good to push for repealer, prepare for the potential disappointment, and you can spare us the ranting and raving on this forum about a licensing bill being anti-gun and compromising. Sometimes legislation is a zero-sum game.

The fact is your just trying to convince everyone here to just go along with Gunderson and get their permit and pay their fees and sign up for their mandated training, all so they can get that piece of paper in their hand that gives them the "Privilege" to do what the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions give them the "Right" to do.

Concealed carry is not a right by itself. Carry is.

Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment ). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

District of Columbia v. Heller

 

[oak1971]

"Concealed carry is not a right by itself. Carry is."

Total and utter bull crap. The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you bear arms, neither does our state constitution, which also guarantees the right to bear arms for ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE.

The mode of bearing arms (carry), is left up to the individual. It's a concept known as freedom, heard of that much?

 

[Gray Peterson]

"Concealed carry is not a right by itself. Carry is."

Total and utter bull crap. The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you bear arms, neither does our state constitution, which also guarantees the right to bear arms for ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE.

The mode of bearing arms (carry), is left up to the individual. It's a concept known as freedom, heard of that much?

State v. Schultz, which struck down 941.23 at the district court level, pointed out that open carry was not viable due to potential violations of two laws (child access and disorderly conduct), which was specifically referenced by State v. Hamdan. If those two laws did not exist, or they specifically exempted open carry and allowed concealed carry inside of one's home in a lockbox, safe or on their person inside of said home, the Schultz court would not have stricken 941.23 from the books in that county citing McDonald.

The Heller court cited with approval several different state supreme court decisions (footnote 9) which supported the idea that the state could ban the manner in which arms may be borne, as long as some way of carrying was unfettered. It is certainly not unfettered in Wisconsin due to the existence of the child access statute, the disorderly conduct, and the fact that the concealed weapons statute extends even into one's home.

Does this mean that I do not support repealing 941.23 and changing the disorderly conduct statute? Nope. I support repeal. That's the crazy part about this silly argument because I actually agree with repeal.

Where you and I part company is when your fellow travelers in the "No-Compromise" camp start calling for a bill's defeat because it doesn't 100 percent go your way. Not only would such a camp's belief would have caused a majority of states not to flip for self defense carry in the 1990's and the 2000's, it would not have created the idea that carry for self defense is a common thing in this country. The more states who is in the "able to carry for self defense via both methods" camp, the better the chances that when a carry case actually does go to SCOTUS, they will take judicial notice of the states which has passed carry reform and tell these remaining rogue's gallery of states to buzz off and declare carry outside of the home to be very specifically a fundamental right, just like they did in Heller and McDonald when they took judicial notice of the fact that handgun bans inside of the home was an extreme outlier of common law in this country.