ICarry.org  
 • Home • Downloads • Your Account • Forums • 
Navigation
Site Info v2.2.2
Last SeenLast Seen
Server TrafficServer Traffic
  • Total: 61,898,648
  • Today: 5,111
Server InfoServer Info
  • Sep 24, 2017
  • 10:44 am CDT
 
ICarry.org: Forums

 Forum FAQ  •  Search  •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile  •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 
Post new topicReply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
svelectric
Newbie


Joined: Oct 06, 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 3:39 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Effin Finally! Let's hope the right bill is chosen. Get ready to carry!

http://www.rivertowns.net/event/article/id/233808/group/State%20News/
View user's profileSend private message
regulatedIllinoisan
Member
Founders Club
Member<br /><b>Founders Club</b>


Joined: Nov 14, 2009
Posts: 543
Location: Rockfordshire

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:05 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

This is an anti-concealed carry article from the Journal Sentinel. My purpose for posting it is to see what the antis are saying. It is a fairly thorough analysis, albeit from someone who opposes our right to self-defense. I'm glad to hear Constitution Carry is still under consideration!

Quote:
New concealed carry bills go further than previous efforts

Madison — Republican lawmakers are moving quickly on bills to allow people to carry concealed weapons without any training and potentially without having to obtain state permits.

Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states that do not allow people to carry concealed guns and other weapons. Republicans in the Legislature passed concealed weapons bills in 2003 and 2005, but they were vetoed by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat.

With Republicans now controlling the Legislature and governor's office, a concealed weapons bill is expected to easily pass this session.

Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz) and Sen. Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) released two bills Wednesday they wrote together, both of which go much further than past versions of legislation that has gotten traction in the Legislature.

Galloway said she did not believe any training was needed for people to carry concealed guns.

"People who carry concealed as private citizens are responsible people," she said.

Galloway's contention that no training would be needed for concealed carry contrasts with regulations in place for hunters.

State regulations specify that hunters born after Jan. 1, 1973, must complete a hunter safety course. There are some exceptions - for example, if hunters have completed basic training in the military, or they are shooting certain species such as squirrels and rabbits without a license on their own property.

George Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, would not comment on the bill but said his organization has consistently supported concealed carry over the years. He did add that hunter safety courses - combined with the requirement to wear blaze orange in the woods - had "substantially reduced hunting accidents."

The basic hunter education class includes 10 lessons with a minimum of 10 hours of training, including accident prevention.

Critics pounced on the bills, saying at minimum the bill should ban guns from more places, such as domestic abuse shelters.

"It's ironic that legislators would exclude guns from their workplace, the state Capitol, but not think about the safety risks inherent at locations where some of the our most vulnerable community members seek safety and help," said a statement from Patti Seger, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Rep. Donna Seidel (D-Wausau) said no one should be able to carry concealed weapons without training or having to qualify for permits.

"I have strong concerns and objections to a lack of a permitting process," she said.

Seidel said she thought Republicans were rushing the legislation because they want to pass it before a wave of likely recall elections. Nine senators are being targeted, six Republicans and three Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said the potential recalls were not a factor in the timing of the bill.

He said he did not know when the Senate would take up the bill. Galloway said she was hoping for a vote in June.

Hearings planned

Two hearings are planned on the bills on May 12 - one in Wausau and one in Madison. Both bills would be considered at both hearings.

Fitzgerald and Galloway said the hearings would help lawmakers determine which bill to pass and which to set aside. Fitzgerald said some members of his caucus may require some form of training in the bill to pass it.

The major difference between the bills is in permitting. One bill would allow people to carry weapons without getting a permit or other approval from the state. The other bill would require people to get permits but grant them to almost anyone.

Under both bills, guns and other weapons would be banned from police stations and other law enforcement offices; jails and prisons; courthouses; school grounds; airports beyond security checkpoints; and any government building that has electronic weapons screening and a place for people to store their weapons.

The bill requiring permits would allow those 21 and over to carry weapons after going through a background check. The state Department of Justice would have to issue the permits to anyone who was not barred from carrying weapons, such as felons.

The permits would be good for five years and cost up to $65. Renewals would cost up to $40.

The bill on permits would allow businesses to prohibit people from carrying guns in their facilities. Local governments also could bar guns in their buildings.

The bill that does not require permits also would lift a current requirement that guns in vehicles must be encased and unloaded.


Source: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121278599.html
View user's profileSend private message
bsczar1
Newbie


Joined: May 05, 2011
Posts: 9
Location: South Milwaukee

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:23 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

The key right now is to contact your legislators to tell them which version you support, assuming you are not able to make it Wausau or Madison. Naturally, I prefer the "no permit" Constitutional Carry version.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
snickers
Cadet
Cadet


Joined: Mar 20, 2010
Posts: 86
Location: Beloit, WI

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 9:23 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Wisconsin: The 2011 Personal Protection Act Has Arrived!
Committee Hearings Have Been Scheduled for Next Thursday!

Now it is Time for You to Act!



The good citizens of Wisconsin have been denied their right to self-defense for too long and the time has now come to make the Personal Protection Act a reality! It is time that Wisconsin joins Free America and the 48 other states with concealed carry laws. The bills have been circulated for sponsorship and it is critical that you contact your state Representative and state Senator to urge them to cosponsor this legislation.



There are two bills being introduced in the 2011 legislative session that allow Wisconsinites to carry concealed weapons for personal protection. The first is known as “permitless carry” and it simply eliminates the current prohibition against law-abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms. Many citizens already carry openly and this will allow them to conceal their firearms. It also eliminates the “cased and unloaded” requirement for handguns in motor vehicles. State Senator Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) has introduced this bill in the Senate and there is currently no companion bill in the Assembly. Its designation before assigned a bill number is LRB 2007 and both senators and representatives are able to cosponsor it.



The second is a “shall issue” carry license bill that allows Wisconsinites to obtain a license from the state Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to carry a concealed weapon. This license bill offers some additional benefits. These include the ability to use the license to carry a concealed weapon in many other states while traveling and the ability to carry concealed weapons in school zones (1000-foot area surrounding school grounds). These zones are prolific and it is virtually impossible to navigate populated areas without entering them while engaging in routine activities. The federal penalty for a school zone violation is up to five years in prison and a fine. State Senator Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) and state Representative Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz) are the sponsors of this bill. The current Senate Bill designation is LRB 2027 and the Assembly Bill is LRB 2033.



When contacting your state legislators to request that they cosponsor the Personal Protection Act, please also ask them to oppose any amendments that restrict your ability to defend yourself or place unnecessary hurdles in the process required to obtain a concealed weapons license. Too many legislators are acting as if there are not 48 other states with such concealed carry laws and that there is no way of determining what works and what does not. The time for guessing has ended!



We have provided two documents that will further inform you about this fight for your rights. One is a summary of the bills, with details regarding the “shall issue” carry license bill, and the other is a comprehensive Questions and Answers document.



In addition to contacting legislators, it is very important that we have a strong showing of support at the committee hearings that have been scheduled. You can rest assured that the anti-freedom forces will be there and they must be countered. These two hearings are scheduled for the same day so please choose the one that is best for you:



Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections

Thursday, May 12 at 10:30 a.m.

State Capitol Building

Room 417 North

Madison, WI

(only the “shall issue” carry license bill will be heard)



Senate Committee on Judiciary

Thursday, May 12 at 12:30 p.m.

UW Marathon County

Center for Civic Engagement

625 Stewart Street Wausau , WI

(both bills will be heard)



To contact your legislators, you can call the Legislative Hotline at 800-362-9472 or you can click here and find individual contact information for your state Senator and state Representative. PLEASE ACT SOON! YOUR FREEDOM DEPENDS ON IT!


This alert is posted at: www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6737
View user's profileSend private message
Klaiviel
Newbie


Joined: May 09, 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 8:38 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Hey guys I know this is definitely not the popular opinion and I am not trying to start any fights but I think we should reexamine if we really want to move forward with the constitutional carry bill.

Now I am 100% on board with concealed carry and I will be attending the hearing in Madison on Thursday. But, constitutional carry creates a number of problems compared to the shall issue bill.

Firstly, the most obvious is the reciprocity issue. If we are not able to get an actual license we will not have the ability to carry in other states. Now Wisconsin could address this like Alaska by issuing licenses to those that request them for this purpose; however, part of the allure to the constitutional carry bill is the low cost due to their being no license.

Also, take a good look at the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995. If we get constitutional carry we will actually lose the ability to carry within school zones that we would otherwise have with shall issue.

"(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

This is also mentioned in the post above this one. This effects me personally as I go to school at UW-Milwaukee and considering the crime that happens in the surrounding areas, I would definitely like to be armed.

Lastly, consider the sheeple. People are going to be much more comfortable with concealed carry if it requires a permit. Even though that is completely retarded it is still true. Mostly, I am concerned about law enforcement as they seem to be vehemently opposed to concealed carry in general. So I guess what I am saying is popular opinion among the sheeple will be shall issue > CC. As long as I get to carry my gun I could care less.

So basically for all the reasons above I am going to recommend that we focus more on the shall issue option as it actually gives us more freedoms and less hassles. I will definitely be supporting it at the hearing in Madison on Thursday. I hope to see you guys there.
View user's profileSend private message
bsczar1
Newbie


Joined: May 05, 2011
Posts: 9
Location: South Milwaukee

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 12:51 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

It probably won't get published, but I responded to an anti-concealed carry opinion letter in today's Milwaukee Urinal-Sentinel:

This is in response to Mr. Anthony Wilborn of Port Washington, who concludes those who wish to exercise our right to bear arms-as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitutional-are ignorant egomaniacs who do not need a firearm because “one of the reasons that person has never actually needed a gun in the past was because he or she was not carrying one”. Your reasoning illogical. Did you ask people recently robbed or raped if they did not need a firearm because they were not carrying? Criminals already carry concealed firearms. You may be content with the possibly of being a victim of a strong-armed robbery, or allowing your wife or daughter to be raped or murdered at the hand of a criminal with an illegal concealed firearm, but my wife and I prefer the option of defending ourselves. Open carry is legal without training or permitting. However, the laws are restrictive and certain law enforcement agencies harass those who exercise our rights. Concealed carry allows discreet carrying of a firearm-all we are asking is that we are allowed to cover up our firearm, and for the removal of some restrictive statutes. With open carry, criminals know who is carrying. The added benefit with concealed carry is criminals do not know whether potential victims are carrying or not. This logically leads to causing a criminal to think twice, therefore leading to less crime. I cannot presume to speak for everyone, but most people who wish to carry hope to never have to use a firearm on another human being. It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
__________

On another note, I understand the permit issue, but I'd need to do some more research to see where I stand.


Last edited by bsczar1 on Tue May 10, 2011 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
bsczar1
Newbie


Joined: May 05, 2011
Posts: 9
Location: South Milwaukee

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 2:52 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

The consitutional carry eliminates the GFSZ rules by making it "on school grounds".


WORDS STRUCK OUT WORDS ADDED
SECTION 70. 948.605 (2) (title) of the statutes is amended to read:
948.605 (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.

You may want to go here and do some reading:

http://wisconsingunowners.org/2011/05/05/concealed-carry-proposals-circulated-but-beware-permit-to-carry-scheme/
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Klaiviel
Newbie


Joined: May 09, 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 3:35 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

That's a nice improvement but it still will prevent me from carrying on the college campus. Therefore, I still prefer shall issue.
View user's profileSend private message
melensdad
Corporal
Corporal


Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Posts: 706
Location: IN/ILL state line (IN side) at Will/Kankakee Counties & State Line

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 7:29 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

A citizen from Indiana just sending up some good vibes to my friends in arms up in Wisconsin. This year is probably the most likely year to achieve this! The GOP controls everything up there, its now or never.

I just hope your law is a SHALL ISSUE not a MAY ISSUE type law and I hope you offer some sort of reciprocity to license holders of other state.

_________________
If you are interested in antique snowcats or tracked vehicles, visit my old snowcat pages: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/forumdisplay.php?f=65
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
bsczar1
Newbie


Joined: May 05, 2011
Posts: 9
Location: South Milwaukee

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:07 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Klaiviel,

Please correct if I am wrong, but doesn't the Gun Free School Zone only apply to K-12? Here is the current statute definition:

948.605 Gun−free school zones. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(a) “Encased” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet−firing
gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any
starter pistol.
(am) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.

AND

948.61 Dangerous weapons other than firearms on
school premises. (1) In this section:
(a) “Dangerous weapon” has the meaning specified in s.
939.22 (10), except “dangerous weapon” does not include any
firearm and does include any beebee or pellet−firing gun that
expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter
pistol.
(b) “School” means a public school, parochial or private
school, or tribal school, as defined in s. 115.001 (15m), which provides
an educational program for one or more grades between
grades 1 and 12 and which is commonly known as an elementary
school, middle school, junior high school, senior high school, or
high school.
(c) “School premises” means any school building, grounds,
recreation area or athletic field or any other property owned, used
or operated for school administration.

These definitions show it is meant for K-12, but it is my understanding individual schools (ex. colleges) and businesses would have the right to ban firearms from their premises, so even with a permit you may be barred from carrying at UWM. Is my understanding correct?

Upon further research (a few minutes later than above), this one would include UWM:

941.235 Carrying firearm in public building. (1) Any
person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or
leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) This section does not apply to peace officers or armed
forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or
to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city,
village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any
county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding
s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this subsection, peace
officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state−
certified commission warden.

I'll have to look to see how each bill changes this section tomorrow. For now, it's time for bed.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
bsczar1
Newbie


Joined: May 05, 2011
Posts: 9
Location: South Milwaukee

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 9:18 am Reply with quoteBack to top

The Consitutional Carry Bill repeals Section 941.235 and puts in place 941.232, effectively giving you carry at UWM as long as the school does not prohibit it. At least that is my understanding-but I am no lawyer.

http://wisconsingunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/11-20071-1.pdf
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Klaiviel
Newbie


Joined: May 09, 2011
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 10:33 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Hey so you guys that are going, which hearing are you going to? I was originally going to go to Madison but now I am thinking of taking the long trip to Wausau (I am coming from Kenosha). Due to constitutional carry being discussed at Wausau I am sure that's going to bring the anti's out of the woodwork. Definitely think its going to be the more interesting of the two. Opinions? Anyone else going?
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
Page Generation: 0.18 Seconds
:: fisubsilver shadow phpbb2 style by Daz :: RavenNuke theme by www.nukemods.com ::