User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 4:58:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety has an executive session on the bill (Assembly version is AB49) on Thursday, April 23. AB142 ("switchblade" bill) also.
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/cid/1172296 Looks like the 48 hour repeal bill has been put on the fast track to get it done before the budget shitstorm begins. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 5:35:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety has an executive session on the bill (Assembly version is AB49) on Thursday, April 23. AB142 ("switchblade" bill) also. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/cid/1172296 Looks like the 48 hour repeal bill has been put on the fast track to get it done before the budget shitstorm begins. 48 hour repeal will probably be on the assembly floor May 5th. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 4:44:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Good. It always sucks to have to drive back after a wait. Immediate gratification for the win.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 6:20:16 PM EDT
[#4]
CLEO shall-sign next please...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 8:13:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CLEO shall-sign next please... You're in Vukmir's district right? I'm in Wanggaard's. I think it's about time to send some letters. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 9:40:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're in Vukmir's district right? I'm in Wanggaard's. I think it's about time to send some letters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
CLEO shall-sign next please... You're in Vukmir's district right? I'm in Wanggaard's. I think it's about time to send some letters. Good idea! I don't think many of our elected representatives know about the issue. This fall would be a great time for it too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 10:18:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good idea! I don't think many of our elected representatives know about the issue. This fall would be a great time for it too.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
CLEO shall-sign next please... You're in Vukmir's district right? I'm in Wanggaard's. I think it's about time to send some letters. Good idea! I don't think many of our elected representatives know about the issue. This fall would be a great time for it too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 10:33:37 AM EDT
[#8]
What does this proposed change actually do? Just repeal the 48 hour wait? Or will it also repeal the need for the extra fee for the handgun background check? Will the handgun background check now be handled the same way as the long gun background check? I hear on the talk radio shows they are saying it will be up to a 4 hour wait for the handgun background check, that is strange to me as any time I have purchased handgun or a long gun, the background check only took minutes for either, but I had to pay extra for the handgun check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 10:44:59 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does this proposed change actually do? Just repeal the 48 hour wait? Or will it also repeal the need for the extra fee for the handgun background check? Will the handgun background check now be handled the same way as the long gun background check? I hear on the talk radio shows they are saying it will be up to a 4 hour wait for the handgun background check, that is strange to me as any time I have purchased handgun or a long gun, the background check only took minutes for either, but I had to pay extra for the handgun check. It repeals the 48 hour wait only. The fee and the handgun hotline stay in place. Also, background checks will not take four hours. I think the fact that we have been hearing that line is not a bad thing as I don't think people would react well to the fact that the checks take seconds/minutes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 11:07:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Interesting, thank you for clarifying. What is the reason for keeping the extra fee and the handgun hotline? Why not just use NICS for handgun checks as well? Wouldn't that be less expensive to not have to staff the WI handgun hotline?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 2:38:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It repeals the 48 hour wait only. The fee and the handgun hotline stay in place. Also, background checks will not take four hours. I think the fact that we have been hearing that line is not a bad thing as I don't think people would react well to the fact that the checks take seconds/minutes. The 4 hours quoted by DOJ at the Assembly committee hearing is the "average" of all checks run. They ran approx. 100,000 in 2014. The average includes quite a few that may take a full 2 or 3 days (up to 5 days is possible), if something is found that needs further clarification from a court, or the buyer has a common name and does not put a social security number on the 4473. One check that takes 72-120 hours (3-5 days) can skew the average time for 1,000s that are done instantly. FWIW, my last 3 handgun purchases, which came after I got my CC license in 2011, were all cleared instantly in the initial phone call.... just like my typical NICS long gun check (had a NICS just last week on an AR lower... cleared immediately  ). I don't have a common name, only 3 of us in WI with same first & last says Google, and only a single probate case comes up on CCAPs for all 3 (and it's not me). I still DO put my social security number on the 4473, just to make sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 8:43:43 PM EDT
[#12]
LRB-1710, Background Checks for all Firearm Purchases - This bill has not yet been introduced
Under the federal Brady Law, anyone who purchases a weapon from a federally-licensed firearms dealer has to undergo a background check. In most cases, these checks can be conducted at the point of sale and are almost instantaneous. The dealer submits the buyer’s name to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for long guns or the Department of Justice for hand guns. Since the Brady Law went into effect in February 1994, background checks have prevented more than 2.4 million “prohibited persons” from purchasing firearms, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. However, background checks are not conducted in many private sales of firearms, including sales at gun shows and flea markets and by people who advertise in the newspaper or on the Internet. Recent polls indicate that 80%-90% of Wisconsin residents support background checks on all firearm sales. This bill requires that, with some exceptions, all firearms sales be done through a federally licensed dealer and thus be subject to a background check. Under current law, among the individuals prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm include felons, domestic abusers, fugitives from justice, and those adjudicated as dangerous due to mental illness. Transfers that are excepted from this bill include: § A transfer that is by gift, bequest, or inheritance to a family member § A temporary transfer for a lawful purpose such as hunting or target practice |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 8:47:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 4 hours quoted by DOJ at the Assembly committee hearing is the "average" of all checks run. They ran approx. 100,000 in 2014. The average includes quite a few that may take a full 2 or 3 days (up to 5 days is possible), if something is found that needs further clarification from a court, or the buyer has a common name and does not put a social security number on the 4473. One check that takes 72-120 hours (3-5 days) can skew the average time for 1,000s that are done instantly. FWIW, my last 3 handgun purchases, which came after I got my CC license in 2011, were all cleared instantly in the initial phone call.... just like my typical NICS long gun check (had a NICS just last week on an AR lower... cleared immediately ). I don't have a common name, only 3 of us in WI with same first & last says Google, and only a single probate case comes up on CCAPs for all 3 (and it's not me). I still DO put my social security number on the 4473, just to make sure.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It repeals the 48 hour wait only. The fee and the handgun hotline stay in place. Also, background checks will not take four hours. I think the fact that we have been hearing that line is not a bad thing as I don't think people would react well to the fact that the checks take seconds/minutes. The 4 hours quoted by DOJ at the Assembly committee hearing is the "average" of all checks run. They ran approx. 100,000 in 2014. The average includes quite a few that may take a full 2 or 3 days (up to 5 days is possible), if something is found that needs further clarification from a court, or the buyer has a common name and does not put a social security number on the 4473. One check that takes 72-120 hours (3-5 days) can skew the average time for 1,000s that are done instantly. FWIW, my last 3 handgun purchases, which came after I got my CC license in 2011, were all cleared instantly in the initial phone call.... just like my typical NICS long gun check (had a NICS just last week on an AR lower... cleared immediately ). I don't have a common name, only 3 of us in WI with same first & last says Google, and only a single probate case comes up on CCAPs for all 3 (and it's not me). I still DO put my social security number on the 4473, just to make sure.
I guess I should have watched that committee hearing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 9:21:36 PM EDT
[#14]
My FFL tells me that about 90% of his customers get a delayed response when he calls in. There are just not enough staff to give an instant response most of the time. Delay can be as short as 5 minutes but it's still not instant most of the time. Apparently the operator they talk to on the phone isn't the one processing the check.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:31:17 AM EDT
[#15]
MJS Article on the UBC. link
Same old deflection, reported as a check on sales but will be written as transfers (change of possession). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 6:15:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Same old lies in the Urinal article. "Background checks aren't required at gun shows... " BULLSHIT!!!
 Those fuckers make me sick. They conveniently leave out, private seller to private buyer at gun shows are treated the same as anywhere else such a transaction takes place. To mislead the unknowing, they deliberately also leave out the fact that the vast majority of gun sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers, and as such, the same rules for background checks apply at gun shows as anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 6:30:22 PM EDT
[#17]
What kills this type of law, is requiring the use of a FFL in private transactions. Not only is it difficult for both the buyer & seller to both travel to a FFL at the same time (especially those who work days, and are miles away from the nearest FFL), it would add another $10 fee for the DOJ check, and the $25-50 transfer fee the FFL charges.
Why the $10 fee to DOJ for long guns? All firearms sold in WI in these private sales would go through DOJ, not NICS, so a transaction number can be issued to seller by DOJ, and DOJ keeps a record of the transaction, to prove the sale was done legally under WI law. NICS doesn't do that. Until they figure out some way to make this easier than using a FFL (like an 800 number for unlicensed persons to use), and make it FREE of charges, it'll never fly. That's besides the fact that it's totally un-enforcible on any transaction involving any firearm in private hands on the day of enactment. There's no way to prove WHEN a discreet sale between friends took place, unless the gun was at a dealer and traceable post law enactment. Dumbasses haven't figured that out yet. Or maybe they have, and total registration (the only way for it to be 100% enforcible) is next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2015 4:54:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What kills this type of law, is requiring the use of a FFL in private transactions. Not only is it difficult for both the buyer & seller to both travel to a FFL at the same time (especially those who work days, and are miles away from the nearest FFL), it would add another $10 fee for the DOJ check, and the $25-50 transfer fee the FFL charges. Why the $10 fee to DOJ for long guns? All firearms sold in WI in these private sales would go through DOJ, not NICS, so a transaction number can be issued to seller by DOJ, and DOJ keeps a record of the transaction, to prove the sale was done legally under WI law. NICS doesn't do that. Until they figure out some way to make this easier than using a FFL (like an 800 number for unlicensed persons to use), and make it FREE of charges, it'll never fly. That's besides the fact that it's totally un-enforcible on any transaction involving any firearm in private hands on the day of enactment. There's no way to prove WHEN a discreet sale between friends took place, unless the gun was at a dealer and traceable post law enactment. Dumbasses haven't figured that out yet. Or maybe they have, and total registration (the only way for it to be 100% enforcible) is next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 9:15:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baby steps comrade, baby steps. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What kills this type of law, is requiring the use of a FFL in private transactions. Not only is it difficult for both the buyer & seller to both travel to a FFL at the same time (especially those who work days, and are miles away from the nearest FFL), it would add another $10 fee for the DOJ check, and the $25-50 transfer fee the FFL charges. Why the $10 fee to DOJ for long guns? All firearms sold in WI in these private sales would go through DOJ, not NICS, so a transaction number can be issued to seller by DOJ, and DOJ keeps a record of the transaction, to prove the sale was done legally under WI law. NICS doesn't do that. Until they figure out some way to make this easier than using a FFL (like an 800 number for unlicensed persons to use), and make it FREE of charges, it'll never fly. That's besides the fact that it's totally un-enforcible on any transaction involving any firearm in private hands on the day of enactment. There's no way to prove WHEN a discreet sale between friends took place, unless the gun was at a dealer and traceable post law enactment. Dumbasses haven't figured that out yet. Or maybe they have, and total registration (the only way for it to be 100% enforcible) is next. In WI you can research anyone's public record. No reason for a mandatory BGC. Make sure you mention the 50% failure rate (response error) of BGC's and the resulting infringements on rights it causes when making your voice heard to your representative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 11:44:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In WI you can research anyone's public record. No reason for a mandatory BGC. Make sure you mention the 50% failure rate (response error) of BGC's and the resulting infringements on rights it causes when making your voice heard to your representative. If you're talking about CCAPS, it will only have records of actions in a WI courtroom. Crimes committed in other states, or federal crimes, won't show up. Neither will mental health issues or restraining orders. Please don't start thinking I'm in favor of universal background checks. I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here, and also giving my opinions on why such a law is futile, if not unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 7:15:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're talking about CCAPS, it will only have records of actions in a WI courtroom. Crimes committed in other states, or federal crimes, won't show up. Neither will mental health issues or restraining orders. Please don't start thinking I'm in favor of universal background checks. I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here, and also giving my opinions on why such a law is futile, if not unconstitutional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In WI you can research anyone's public record. No reason for a mandatory BGC. Make sure you mention the 50% failure rate (response error) of BGC's and the resulting infringements on rights it causes when making your voice heard to your representative. If you're talking about CCAPS, it will only have records of actions in a WI courtroom. Crimes committed in other states, or federal crimes, won't show up. Neither will mental health issues or restraining orders. Please don't start thinking I'm in favor of universal background checks. I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here, and also giving my opinions on why such a law is futile, if not unconstitutional. I understand what you are getting at. I was eluding to the fact that "If" they were really that worried about it, ie, was about crime prevention at all, make NCIS checks on a voluntary basis. It is already illegal to sell to a "Prohibited" individual but as long as we ask... So why not have the so long as we ask, & I see your DL, I go type-type & see I am in the clear. Piss on the mandatory crap through an FFL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2015 5:05:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 48 hour repeal will probably be on the assembly floor May 5th. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety has an executive session on the bill (Assembly version is AB49) on Thursday, April 23. AB142 ("switchblade" bill) also. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/cid/1172296 Looks like the 48 hour repeal bill has been put on the fast track to get it done before the budget shitstorm begins. 48 hour repeal will probably be on the assembly floor May 5th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2015 5:27:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am guessing it didn't come up today? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety has an executive session on the bill (Assembly version is AB49) on Thursday, April 23. AB142 ("switchblade" bill) also. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/cid/1172296 Looks like the 48 hour repeal bill has been put on the fast track to get it done before the budget shitstorm begins. 48 hour repeal will probably be on the assembly floor May 5th. No, they did not have a floor session today.  They had public hearings & committee executive sessions scheduled for today thru Thursday. Maybe they'll have a floor session on Friday, or next week.??? Their posted schedule calls for a floor period from May 5th-14th, and there's no further committee meetings scheduled after Thursday.
FWIW... the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety held an executive session on the bill on April 23rd. 7 amendments were offered... 6 by Dems (the universal background check crap) which were all voted down (8-4), and amendment 7 was approved 12-0. Amendment 7 conforms the Assembly bill to the bill passed by the Senate... it gives DOJ up to 5 days for extra research on certain background checks (same as current law). The bill originally reduced that from 5 to 3 days, DOJ objected to that change (their ONLY objection) and the Senate obliged them when they passed their version of the bill. In short, the Assembly committee kind of "cleared the path". http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/records/assembly/criminal_justice_and_public_safety/1175045 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2015 10:28:02 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they did not have a floor session today. They had public hearings & committee executive sessions scheduled for today thru Thursday. Maybe they'll have a floor session on Friday, or next week.??? Their posted schedule calls for a floor period from May 5th-14th, and there's no further committee meetings scheduled after Thursday.
FWIW... the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety held an executive session on the bill on April 23rd. 7 amendments were offered... 6 by Dems (the universal background check crap) which were all voted down (8-4), and amendment 7 was approved 12-0. Amendment 7 conforms the Assembly bill to the bill passed by the Senate... it gives DOJ up to 5 days for extra research on certain background checks (same as current law). The bill originally reduced that from 5 to 3 days, DOJ objected to that change (their ONLY objection) and the Senate obliged them when they passed their version of the bill. In short, the Assembly committee kind of "cleared the path". http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/records/assembly/criminal_justice_and_public_safety/1175045 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety has an executive session on the bill (Assembly version is AB49) on Thursday, April 23. AB142 ("switchblade" bill) also. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/cid/1172296 Looks like the 48 hour repeal bill has been put on the fast track to get it done before the budget shitstorm begins. 48 hour repeal will probably be on the assembly floor May 5th. No, they did not have a floor session today. They had public hearings & committee executive sessions scheduled for today thru Thursday. Maybe they'll have a floor session on Friday, or next week.??? Their posted schedule calls for a floor period from May 5th-14th, and there's no further committee meetings scheduled after Thursday.
FWIW... the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety held an executive session on the bill on April 23rd. 7 amendments were offered... 6 by Dems (the universal background check crap) which were all voted down (8-4), and amendment 7 was approved 12-0. Amendment 7 conforms the Assembly bill to the bill passed by the Senate... it gives DOJ up to 5 days for extra research on certain background checks (same as current law). The bill originally reduced that from 5 to 3 days, DOJ objected to that change (their ONLY objection) and the Senate obliged them when they passed their version of the bill. In short, the Assembly committee kind of "cleared the path". http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/records/assembly/criminal_justice_and_public_safety/1175045 The session day was moved to the 13th. There will not be a vote on the bill on the 13th. There will be a vote on the bill sometime in June. The Assembly is running one session day a month. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 10:04:16 AM EDT
[#25]
The following amendments have been introduced for AB 142: Definition of a switchblade knife; Possession requirements.
Preemption of Local Knife Restrictions No Disorderly Conduct for Knives Removing Gravity and Thrust Movement Language from Law Knives not as Dangerous Weapons |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 11:59:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Man, preemption would be AWESOME.
Up until just very recently here, there was a local ordinance that spring-assist knives were no bueno. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2015 11:33:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Yeah, where I live, the city council made the ordinance "at the officers discretion" as to whether knives over 3" could be considered a weapon (they decided to exempt those with a CCL for some reason).
Or something to that effect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2015 9:06:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Any updates? What happened on the 13th? Anything?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2015 11:22:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any updates? What happened on the 13th? Anything? Well... Not a lot. The assembly did pass three bills relating to benefit reform. Limiting foods purchased on foodshare Drug testing for work programs Drug testing for unemployment insurance There will be a session day in June.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:54:20 PM EDT
[#30]
I haven't heard anything on this before. If we get switchblades that would be great!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 9:23:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well... Not a lot. The assembly did pass three bills relating to benefit reform. Limiting foods purchased on foodshare Drug testing for work programs Drug testing for unemployment insurance There will be a session day in June. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any updates? What happened on the 13th? Anything? Well... Not a lot. The assembly did pass three bills relating to benefit reform. Limiting foods purchased on foodshare Drug testing for work programs Drug testing for unemployment insurance There will be a session day in June. From AB 192: If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test
positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 1:25:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From AB 192: It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any updates? What happened on the 13th? Anything? Well... Not a lot. The assembly did pass three bills relating to benefit reform. Limiting foods purchased on foodshare Drug testing for work programs Drug testing for unemployment insurance There will be a session day in June. From AB 192: If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test
positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 5:12:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Any updates? What happened on the 13th? Anything? Well... Not a lot. The assembly did pass three bills relating to benefit reform. Limiting foods purchased on foodshare Drug testing for work programs Drug testing for unemployment insurance There will be a session day in June. From AB 192: If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 9:31:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to see the real time 'savings' if this passes. Drug users know how to beat drug tests. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From AB 192: If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test
positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 12:23:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From AB 192: If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test
positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area.
Wait.. You work, but still draw unemployment? I'm confused.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 5:12:56 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait.. You work, but still draw unemployment? I'm confused.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area.
Wait.. You work, but still draw unemployment? I'm confused.. Ever heard of Seasonal Employment? What do you think builders employees do when the ground is frozen & it is too cold to pour concrete & too snowy to build houses? But yeah, focus on that...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 8:17:35 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry... Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: From AB 192: If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry... Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area. Let's not let the thinly-veiled Walker-bashing infect this thread. There are LOTS of "those kind" here... But... In FL when they did this, the drug users simply stopped trying to get assistance. The reason it "didn't work" and they didn't "catch" anyone is the numbers applying dropped by an amount roughly equivalent to the number of drug users. Therefore, the presence of the test prevents payments WITHOUT needing to be done at all. Therefore, the claims that it will "cost xyz too much" are bullshit opinions by people not thinking things out... or democrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 9:41:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever heard of Seasonal Employment? What do you think builders employees do when the ground is frozen & it is too cold to pour concrete & too snowy to build houses? But yeah, focus on that...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area.
Wait.. You work, but still draw unemployment? I'm confused.. Ever heard of Seasonal Employment? What do you think builders employees do when the ground is frozen & it is too cold to pour concrete & too snowy to build houses? But yeah, focus on that...
I did the same thing for more than a decade in the 70s-early 80s when I was a union roofer. There were some pretty rough snowy/cold winters in those years. We worked on flat, tar & gravel roofs, on large commercial/industrial buildings in the Chicago area. I had a mortgage to pay and kids to feed. We'd normally have a seasonal shutdown in Dec-Jan-Feb, as you couldn't install a roof over a foot or more of snow & ice, and union labor was too expensive to have us remove it. 3 months is a long time with no income. When I'd go to the unemployment office to sign up, half the people in there signing up were from the building trades. Roofers, bricklayers, concrete finishers, iron workers, road builders, etc... any "trade" that worked outside was effected to some degree. Happens every winter, wherever there's snow & cold. The majority of what we collected was paid by our employers, all part of the construction business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 9:50:11 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever heard of Seasonal Employment? What do you think builders employees do when the ground is frozen & it is too cold to pour concrete & too snowy to build houses? But yeah, focus on that...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area.
Wait.. You work, but still draw unemployment? I'm confused.. Ever heard of Seasonal Employment? What do you think builders employees do when the ground is frozen & it is too cold to pour concrete & too snowy to build houses? But yeah, focus on that...
Hey, don't be a smartass. I was just asking a question. I have no idea what builders employees do, I have a desk job. Hence, the question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 10:14:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey, don't be a smartass. I was just asking a question. I have no idea what builders employees do, I have a desk job. Hence, the question. [img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif" /> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area. 
Hey, don't be a smartass. I was just asking a question. I have no idea what builders employees do, I have a desk job. Hence, the question. [img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif" /> My apologies. You seem to have tripped my Sarcasmometer/ condescensionometer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 1:30:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ahem. Let's not let the thinly-veiled Walker-bashing infect this thread. There are LOTS of "those kind" here... But... In FL when they did this, the drug users simply stopped trying to get assistance. The reason it "didn't work" and they didn't "catch" anyone is the numbers applying dropped by an amount roughly equivalent to the number of drug users. Therefore, the presence of the test prevents payments WITHOUT needing to be done at all. Therefore, the claims that it will "cost xyz too much" are bullshit opinions by people not thinking things out... or democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: From AB 192: It is unclear to me the definition of "Claim" here. In filing for UI benefits you open a "Yearly Claim" that goes from each consecutive fiscal year from filing date. You also, however, file a "Weekly Claim". I am not opposed to this; as I fall under the guidelines of this requirement due to my Job, as described in the law. I am, however, concerned at the absorbent costs associated with this if it is required for "weekly claims". At over $100/ test my companies 3 employees would cost the State approx. $3,600 over a short 3-month period. So imagine the shock to the State budget if this is required for weekly claims for the entire state! The Budget that Walker has worked so hard to cut will be unduly hard-shipped by this. Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry... Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area. Let's not let the thinly-veiled Walker-bashing infect this thread. There are LOTS of "those kind" here... But... In FL when they did this, the drug users simply stopped trying to get assistance. The reason it "didn't work" and they didn't "catch" anyone is the numbers applying dropped by an amount roughly equivalent to the number of drug users. Therefore, the presence of the test prevents payments WITHOUT needing to be done at all. Therefore, the claims that it will "cost xyz too much" are bullshit opinions by people not thinking things out... or democrats. I'd like for this thread to not be locked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 2:27:29 PM EDT
[#42]
I don't mean to derail the discussion
but an Executive Session has been announced in the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 for Assembly Bill 142 Relating to: going armed with a switchblade. This is the committee vote before the bill can be scheduled for a vote before the full assembly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 6:43:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahem. Let's not let the thinly-veiled Walker-bashing infect this thread. There are LOTS of "those kind" here... But... In FL when they did this, the drug users simply stopped trying to get assistance. The reason it "didn't work" and they didn't "catch" anyone is the numbers applying dropped by an amount roughly equivalent to the number of drug users. Therefore, the presence of the test prevents payments WITHOUT needing to be done at all. Therefore, the claims that it will "cost xyz too much" are bullshit opinions by people not thinking things out... or democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe, maybe not. The flip side of that coin is all the money that will be saved by NOT paying benefits to drug addicts. Well, I draw the max, not everyone does, & that is under $400/wk. I'm sure the state will be charged more than what the company I work for gets charged. Double minimum. Now food for thought; Remember UI is "Insurance", not a direct payout in the state. Employees & employers pay into this system weekly with wage garnishment. It is like the lottery, trust me they are not losing money on the lotto.... BUT; do the math. 4.8% UI rat times 4.8Million people @ $100-200/ test (yearly) means the medical industry just scored a contract for between $24-48Million. Theoreticaly, if everyone passes the state just increased the payout from UI with no bennefits except to pad the pockets of the medical industry...
Now you do the math if that is on "weekly Claims"... what has this cost the state then would be in the economy cripling area.
Let's not let the thinly-veiled Walker-bashing infect this thread. There are LOTS of "those kind" here... But... In FL when they did this, the drug users simply stopped trying to get assistance. The reason it "didn't work" and they didn't "catch" anyone is the numbers applying dropped by an amount roughly equivalent to the number of drug users. Therefore, the presence of the test prevents payments WITHOUT needing to be done at all. Therefore, the claims that it will "cost xyz too much" are bullshit opinions by people not thinking things out... or democrats. First of all it was not a thinly veiled anything. I voted for Walker in the last election. That does not mean I can not have questions as to the wording & application of the law when there are vague definitions being used. Secondly, I am not a blind mouse that follows along with everything without questioning the aspects & evaluating, from various perspectives, the pros & cons in an effort to establish a basis for rational discussion & conclusion. Without a base number of cost, an extrapolation of benefits is a moot discussion. It is not BS opinion. It is a simple cost evaluation, that is probably a tad more complex than simple multiplication factors. I understand that. Lastly, like I said, I fall under the guidelines set forth in the law. I am not complaining about a piss test. I take at least two a year. Do you? So yes, I, as well as the other driver co-workers, are going to have to do testing. My boss said yesterday, " That makes no sense for you to take them since you do them through the year like you guys do." Fiscal responsibility is something we all must embrace & the only way to do that responsibly is to know what the cost is & the benefit of those costs. Unless these "Druggies" you are talking about had a job they are required to do a number of mandatory screenings, or were let go for a positive test while employed, they are not required to take the drug screening. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 8:43:47 AM EDT
[#44]
Did the repeal of the 48 hr waiting period ever pass the assembly?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 11:28:17 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did the repeal of the 48 hr waiting period ever pass the assembly? No. There is a session day next week. We will know soon if it makes the calendar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 11:49:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Major Change to Switchblade Bill: Unlicensed Carry
The following Substitute Amendment removes the term "Switchblade" from state law. As a result, any knife could be carried concealed without a license. The amendment prohibits prohibited persons from concealing knives that may be "dangerous weapons." Substitute Amendment |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 1:09:18 PM EDT
[#47]
All the legal talk makes my brain hurt so can someone tell me in plain English what the above post means? I think it means switchblade are no longer an offense?. And is it moving forward in the legal process to become law? What is the time frame it will be Law?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 2:02:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the legal talk makes my brain hurt so can someone tell me in plain English what the above post means? I think it means switchblade are no longer an offense?. And is it moving forward in the legal process to become law? What is the time frame it will be Law? If the bill becomes law, the Assembly Committee vote is today, a switchblade knife will be no different legally than any other knife.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 3:29:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 7:00:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the bill becomes law, the Assembly Committee vote is today, a switchblade knife will be no different legally than any other knife. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: All the legal talk makes my brain hurt so can someone tell me in plain English what the above post means? I think it means switchblade are no longer an offense?. And is it moving forward in the legal process to become law? What is the time frame it will be Law? If the bill becomes law, the Assembly Committee vote is today, a switchblade knife will be no different legally than any other knife. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
