User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/7/2015 8:04:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the link: But domestic violence organizations call the 48-hour wait critical to victim safety and say it was also intended as a "cooling off" period. He says the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim is the one or two days during separation. "You have to ask yourself if someone wants a gun instantaneously or within an hour or two, why do they really need it that quickly?" said Tony Gibart, with End Domestic Violence Wisconsin. "It seems if someone needs it very quickly, chances are they are up to no good. Some people just don't grasp reality very well. This proposed law change would make WI the same as 43 other States. Does this "what if" domestic violence scenario have any evidence in those other 43 states of being a major issue there? He also is assuming a handgun buyer "needs a handgun instantaneously", instead of simply doesn't want the inconvenience and major annoyance of return trips... especially someone with a CCW license who already has a gun on their hip. And perhaps most importantly, he totally discounts the fact that just maybe it's the potential domestic violence victim who is the gun buyer, and because of this needless law, she has to wait those 2 "most dangerous" days to buy a handgun for self defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the link: But domestic violence organizations call the 48-hour wait critical to victim safety and say it was also intended as a "cooling off" period. He says the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim is the one or two days during separation. "You have to ask yourself if someone wants a gun instantaneously or within an hour or two, why do they really need it that quickly?" said Tony Gibart, with End Domestic Violence Wisconsin. "It seems if someone needs it very quickly, chances are they are up to no good. Some people just don't grasp reality very well. This proposed law change would make WI the same as 43 other States. Does this "what if" domestic violence scenario have any evidence in those other 43 states of being a major issue there? He also is assuming a handgun buyer "needs a handgun instantaneously", instead of simply doesn't want the inconvenience and major annoyance of return trips... especially someone with a CCW license who already has a gun on their hip. And perhaps most importantly, he totally discounts the fact that just maybe it's the potential domestic violence victim who is the gun buyer, and because of this needless law, she has to wait those 2 "most dangerous" days to buy a handgun for self defense. Now we see exactly what I was talking about. They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. The D's will use this unless we absolutely write it so it can not be construed as a arbitrary bypass around this train of thought. Yet an absolution of Rights using reasonable language & conclusion so as to consider their points but work the wording so that it acknowledges the Rights gauranteed under the 2A. We need to wise up, use the Law & court rulings where applicable, & shove the Laws down their throats! I am sick & tired of this bull shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 2:36:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it.  The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 3:16:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.... They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen.
The only real barrier would be the bill not being scheduled in either the house or the senate and that would be on R leadership. Also, the assembly committee on criminal justice and public safety is 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats and I would doubt that Kleefisch would hold this up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 7:23:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only real barrier would be the bill not being scheduled in either the house or the senate and that would be on R leadership. Also, the assembly committee on criminal justice and public safety is 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats and I would doubt that Kleefisch would hold this up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen.
The only real barrier would be the bill not being scheduled in either the house or the senate and that would be on R leadership. Also, the assembly committee on criminal justice and public safety is 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats and I would doubt that Kleefisch would hold this up. I appreciate the info guys on the content of the Committee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 9:23:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now we see exactly what I was talking about. They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. The D's will use this unless we absolutely write it so it can not be construed as a arbitrary bypass around this train of thought. Yet an absolution of Rights using reasonable language & conclusion so as to consider their points but work the wording so that it acknowledges the Rights gauranteed under the 2A. We need to wise up, use the Law & court rulings where applicable, & shove the Laws down their throats! I am sick & tired of this bull shit.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From the link: But domestic violence organizations call the 48-hour wait critical to victim safety and say it was also intended as a "cooling off" period. He says the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim is the one or two days during separation. "You have to ask yourself if someone wants a gun instantaneously or within an hour or two, why do they really need it that quickly?" said Tony Gibart, with End Domestic Violence Wisconsin. "It seems if someone needs it very quickly, chances are they are up to no good. Some people just don't grasp reality very well. This proposed law change would make WI the same as 43 other States. Does this "what if" domestic violence scenario have any evidence in those other 43 states of being a major issue there? He also is assuming a handgun buyer "needs a handgun instantaneously", instead of simply doesn't want the inconvenience and major annoyance of return trips... especially someone with a CCW license who already has a gun on their hip. And perhaps most importantly, he totally discounts the fact that just maybe it's the potential domestic violence victim who is the gun buyer, and because of this needless law, she has to wait those 2 "most dangerous" days to buy a handgun for self defense. Now we see exactly what I was talking about. They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. The D's will use this unless we absolutely write it so it can not be construed as a arbitrary bypass around this train of thought. Yet an absolution of Rights using reasonable language & conclusion so as to consider their points but work the wording so that it acknowledges the Rights gauranteed under the 2A. We need to wise up, use the Law & court rulings where applicable, & shove the Laws down their throats! I am sick & tired of this bull shit.
By the same token it prevents a woman who leaves an abusive man from buying a gun to protect herself. She apparently has to hope he waits 36 hours before raping or killing her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 9:29:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the same token it prevents a woman who leaves an abusive man from buying a gun to protect herself. She apparently has to hope he waits 36 hours before raping or killing her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the link: But domestic violence organizations call the 48-hour wait critical to victim safety and say it was also intended as a "cooling off" period. He says the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim is the one or two days during separation. "You have to ask yourself if someone wants a gun instantaneously or within an hour or two, why do they really need it that quickly?" said Tony Gibart, with End Domestic Violence Wisconsin. "It seems if someone needs it very quickly, chances are they are up to no good. Some people just don't grasp reality very well. This proposed law change would make WI the same as 43 other States. Does this "what if" domestic violence scenario have any evidence in those other 43 states of being a major issue there? He also is assuming a handgun buyer "needs a handgun instantaneously", instead of simply doesn't want the inconvenience and major annoyance of return trips... especially someone with a CCW license who already has a gun on their hip. And perhaps most importantly, he totally discounts the fact that just maybe it's the potential domestic violence victim who is the gun buyer, and because of this needless law, she has to wait those 2 "most dangerous" days to buy a handgun for self defense. Now we see exactly what I was talking about. They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. The D's will use this unless we absolutely write it so it can not be construed as a arbitrary bypass around this train of thought. Yet an absolution of Rights using reasonable language & conclusion so as to consider their points but work the wording so that it acknowledges the Rights gauranteed under the 2A. We need to wise up, use the Law & court rulings where applicable, & shove the Laws down their throats! I am sick & tired of this bull shit.
By the same token it prevents a woman who leaves an abusive man from buying a gun to protect herself. She apparently has to hope he waits 36 hours before raping or killing her. Exactly! Thanks for making an excellent point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 11:29:59 PM EDT
[#7]
We need to tack on CLEO shall-sign for NFA to ward off Rule 41P, and word it so it looks like a "background check enhancement".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 11:31:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly! Thanks for making an excellent point.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From the link: But domestic violence organizations call the 48-hour wait critical to victim safety and say it was also intended as a "cooling off" period. He says the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim is the one or two days during separation. "You have to ask yourself if someone wants a gun instantaneously or within an hour or two, why do they really need it that quickly?" said Tony Gibart, with End Domestic Violence Wisconsin. "It seems if someone needs it very quickly, chances are they are up to no good. Some people just don't grasp reality very well. This proposed law change would make WI the same as 43 other States. Does this "what if" domestic violence scenario have any evidence in those other 43 states of being a major issue there? He also is assuming a handgun buyer "needs a handgun instantaneously", instead of simply doesn't want the inconvenience and major annoyance of return trips... especially someone with a CCW license who already has a gun on their hip. And perhaps most importantly, he totally discounts the fact that just maybe it's the potential domestic violence victim who is the gun buyer, and because of this needless law, she has to wait those 2 "most dangerous" days to buy a handgun for self defense. Now we see exactly what I was talking about. They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. The D's will use this unless we absolutely write it so it can not be construed as a arbitrary bypass around this train of thought. Yet an absolution of Rights using reasonable language & conclusion so as to consider their points but work the wording so that it acknowledges the Rights gauranteed under the 2A. We need to wise up, use the Law & court rulings where applicable, & shove the Laws down their throats! I am sick & tired of this bull shit.
By the same token it prevents a woman who leaves an abusive man from buying a gun to protect herself. She apparently has to hope he waits 36 hours before raping or killing her. Exactly! Thanks for making an excellent point.
Ya know, that is a great point. Someone can apply for an emergency CCW license right away by court order, but technically would still be unable to protect him/herself during the waiting period, |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 11:56:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to tack on CLEO shall-sign for NFA to ward off Rule 41P, and word it so it looks like a "background check enhancement". Yup! While we are at it make transfers within the state effective immediately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2015 8:27:37 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: .... They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2015 11:38:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sooo... Constitutional Carry needs to be added to this one as well.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen.
I'd like to see another bill for constitutional carry too.... but as a separate bill. What I don't like is "bundling" stuff all into one bill. Then it's an all or nothing type of thing, and you usually get nothing. Eliminating the 48 hr wait is all but a sure thing on it's own. Start sticking other more "controversial" things on it, and it could all be a loser. Every proposed law change should stand on it's own merits, not political strategy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2015 12:06:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to see another bill for constitutional carry too.... but as a separate bill. What I don't like is "bundling" stuff all into one bill. Then it's an all or nothing type of thing, and you usually get nothing. Eliminating the 48 hr wait is all but a sure thing on it's own. Start sticking other more "controversial" things on it, and it could all be a loser. Every proposed law change should stand on it's own merits, not political strategy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... They will use the Clinton era induced "Cooling off period" as their go to fundamental argument to send it back to committee. Delaying it for an unneeded period of time unless we just write it correctly. All bills are assigned to a committee in each house. The joint committees of both houses usually then hold public hearings together. Then the committees vote. The majorities in the committees reflect the majorities in the houses. If it passes the committee votes, it then goes to the full houses' schedule for debate & consideration. That's where it could be sent back to the joint committee, by either house voting so. The D's don't have anywhere near enough votes to do that. If it passes committee the first time, and a bunch of R's don't "defect", it's a done deal. Think Act 35 (CCW law). D's vehemently opposed it, but they were outnumbered, so they attempted a modification by "compromise". There were actually more D's with AYE votes in the end, than were expected.... because the original bill was for constitutional carry, not shall-issue. D's supported shall-issue because they were more afraid of constitutional carry becoming a reality, and said "we'll support this one, but not that one", and the fight was over. And we caved into it. The worst case scenario I see here, is another "compromise" attempt (like what killed constitutional carry in favor of shall-issue) and the 48hr wait is removed for CC licensees. IMO, that's the worst that can happen.
I'd like to see another bill for constitutional carry too.... but as a separate bill. What I don't like is "bundling" stuff all into one bill. Then it's an all or nothing type of thing, and you usually get nothing. Eliminating the 48 hr wait is all but a sure thing on it's own. Start sticking other more "controversial" things on it, and it could all be a loser. Every proposed law change should stand on it's own merits, not political strategy. I will add that neither chamber in this legislature seems to keen on amending bills once they are out of the gate. If you have already spent time bouncing an issue off of interest groups to get their approval you wouldn't want to risk that with amendments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2015 1:25:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to tack on CLEO shall-sign for NFA to ward off Rule 41P, and word it so it looks like a "background check enhancement". And make sure that it includes MG's and either negates that mess of a law that requires a "permit" for MG's or cleans up and removes that part of the law altogether. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2015 4:39:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And make sure that it includes MG's and either negates that mess of a law that requires a "permit" for MG's or cleans up and removes that part of the law altogether. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We need to tack on CLEO shall-sign for NFA to ward off Rule 41P, and word it so it looks like a "background check enhancement". And make sure that it includes MG's and either negates that mess of a law that requires a "permit" for MG's or cleans up and removes that part of the law altogether. Indeed. IMO, the CLEO-shall sign is RELEVANT to a background check bill since it's a very similar activity and legal function. I do agree a cons-carry bill should be separate. There's also the issue of having too many eggs in one basket legislatively. If there were a serious push for cons-carry in WI, I'd even be up for raising the class requirements for the now voluntary permit, to get the widest reciprocity in the U.S. as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:17:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Items Added 2/13/2015
LRB 0077 Representative Joel Kleefisch Senator Janet Bewley Concealed Carry for Certian Former Law Enforcement Officers This proposal will allow qualified law enforcement officers who were employed in another state but have retired in Wisconsin, as well as law enforcement officers whose former employer no longer exists, to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law allows the Department of Justice to issue Concealed Carry Permits to former law enforcement officers who worked in and are still residents of Wisconsin. This legislation would expand that ability to include former law enforcement officers who worked in another state but are now residents of Wisconsin. LRB 0079/2 and LRB 1395 Representative Joel Kleefisch Senator Van Wanggaard Off duty law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers going armed with firearms on or near school grounds This proposal will restore abilities that off duty and qualified former law enforcement officers possessed under Wisconsin law and H.R. 218 prior to the passing of Wisconsin’s Concealed Carry Law (2011 Act 35). LRB 0079/2 (LRB 1395) exempts off duty and former law enforcement officers from firearms prohibitions on school grounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 4:05:41 PM EDT
[#16]
I vehemently oppose that last one. School carry should not be done incrementally as there are a lot of arguments our enemies can use against us later on if only cops get the right recognized interim.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 7:02:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Items Added 2/13/2015 LRB 0077 Representative Joel Kleefisch Senator Janet Bewley Concealed Carry for Certian Former Law Enforcement Officers This proposal will allow qualified law enforcement officers who were employed in another state but have retired in Wisconsin, as well as law enforcement officers whose former employer no longer exists, to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Current law allows the Department of Justice to issue Concealed Carry Permits to former law enforcement officers who worked in and are still residents of Wisconsin. This legislation would expand that ability to include former law enforcement officers who worked in another state but are now residents of Wisconsin. LRB 0079/2 and LRB 1395 Representative Joel Kleefisch Senator Van Wanggaard Off duty law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers going armed with firearms on or near school grounds This proposal will restore abilities that off duty and qualified former law enforcement officers possessed under Wisconsin law and H.R. 218 prior to the passing of Wisconsin’s Concealed Carry Law (2011 Act 35). LRB 0079/2 (LRB 1395) exempts off duty and former law enforcement officers from firearms prohibitions on school grounds. NO. This crap comes up with regularity. We all get to play by the same shitty rules. Why do some continue to think they're more equal than others?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 7:52:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Well, I just saw an email from WI Carry - Rep. Brooks for the win! He's looking for cosponsors on a bill that would allow carry on school grounds for all the animals on the farm!
 Let your reps/senators know you want them to cosponsor. Let's get some momentum going!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 8:24:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I just saw an email from WI Carry - Rep. Brooks for the win! He's looking for cosponsors on a bill that would allow carry on school grounds for all the animals on the farm! Let your reps/senators know you want them to cosponsor. Let's get some momentum going!Excellent, Did the email say he circulated the memo yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 9:21:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Says its being authored now and will be introduced next week.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 9:39:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I just saw an email from WI Carry - Rep. Brooks for the win! He's looking for cosponsors on a bill that would allow carry on school grounds for all the animals on the farm! Let your reps/senators know you want them to cosponsor. Let's get some momentum going!Excellent. What specifically do I need to ask my reps to do ? Is the 48 hr removal still looking for cosponsors too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 10:20:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent. What specifically do I need to ask my reps to do ? Is the 48 hr removal still looking for cosponsors too? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, I just saw an email from WI Carry - Rep. Brooks for the win! He's looking for cosponsors on a bill that would allow carry on school grounds for all the animals on the farm! Let your reps/senators know you want them to cosponsor. Let's get some momentum going!Excellent. What specifically do I need to ask my reps to do ? Is the 48 hr removal still looking for cosponsors too? I will be in the horn come Monday!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 12:49:28 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent. What specifically do I need to ask my reps to do ? Is the 48 hr removal still looking for cosponsors too? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, I just saw an email from WI Carry - Rep. Brooks for the win! He's looking for cosponsors on a bill that would allow carry on school grounds for all the animals on the farm! Let your reps/senators know you want them to cosponsor. Let's get some momentum going!Excellent. What specifically do I need to ask my reps to do ? Is the 48 hr removal still looking for cosponsors too? Deadline was Wednesday. Seems to a bunch of Cosponsors. We will see. From what I heard, the antis have a form email going around against it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 7:57:23 AM EDT
[#24]
The LE off duty bill has been coming up every session, and been shot down by gun owners, with the charge being lead by WCI. Why can't that idiot lear his lesson and stop it, or at least include ordinary citizens in it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 8:16:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Deadline was Wednesday. Seems to a bunch of Cosponsors. We will see. From what I heard, the antis have a form email going around against it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I just saw an email from WI Carry - Rep. Brooks for the win! He's looking for cosponsors on a bill that would allow carry on school grounds for all the animals on the farm! Let your reps/senators know you want them to cosponsor. Let's get some momentum going!Excellent. What specifically do I need to ask my reps to do ? Is the 48 hr removal still looking for cosponsors too? Deadline was Wednesday. Seems to a bunch of Cosponsors. We will see. From what I heard, the antis have a form email going around against it. Then lets get in on that action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 10:14:33 AM EDT
[#26]
How about a CLOE must sign law for NFA?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 11:52:10 AM EDT
[#27]
I think we take care of our immediate personal protection needs first and foremost, and then we tackle the "shall sign" as either an amendment to the 48 wait repeal (tout it as background check improvement act or something) or push it off a little bit. I think we'll be well poised to handle it when more comes out on timeline for 41P, since this can be a "all your constituents are about to get fucked for things they already own" thing at that point...
I am not a stratergerist. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 1:37:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think we take care of our immediate personal protection needs first and foremost, and then we tackle the "shall sign" as either an amendment to the 48 wait repeal (tout it as background check improvement act or something) or push it off a little bit. I think we'll be well poised to handle it when more comes out on timeline for 41P, since this can be a "all your constituents are about to get fucked for things they already own" thing at that point... I am not a stratergerist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 4:11:36 PM EDT
[#29]
WCI leadership wants to focus on the GFSZ issue, and now a lawmaker is actually writting a bill, chances are starting to llok good, as well as the possibility of the 48 hour repeal.
If we start asking for too many things, we may wind up with none. We all know there is a long wish list of pro gun laws we want, but we'll have to take what we can get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 6:20:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about a CLOE must sign law for NFA? That would be nice. All the Reps should know somethings about it. The NRA survey that graded all the candidates during the fall election had a question about it. If they got an "a" ranking, they indicated that supported it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2015 7:52:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a fan of the "throw the kitchen sink at them and take whatever sticks strategy." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think we take care of our immediate personal protection needs first and foremost, and then we tackle the "shall sign" as either an amendment to the 48 wait repeal (tout it as background check improvement act or something) or push it off a little bit. I think we'll be well poised to handle it when more comes out on timeline for 41P, since this can be a "all your constituents are about to get fucked for things they already own" thing at that point... I am not a stratergerist. That's exactly what they do. Let's use the "Smorgasboard" tactic on them for a change & see how they like it. Get all those irons in the fire & then stick em in the eye with them...metaphorically speaking, ofcourse. But if that doesn't work....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 6:32:07 PM EDT
[#32]
I called Sen. Harsdorf's office today and asked her to support repealing the bill to get rid of the 48 hour wait for handguns. The secretary told me that they had got several other support calls about it
I also called Rep. Knutson's office and was happy to learn he supported the measure even though a assembly bill hasn't been drafted. Hopefully the bill will eliminate the 48 hour wait for handguns for everyone, not just ccw holders.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 7:49:34 PM EDT
[#33]
I need to contact my legislators about these bills, although I know they won't support them because they're libs.
They might support the LEO off-duty carry bill, but that's not what we want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 11:11:49 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I called Sen. Harsdorf's office today and asked her to support repealing the bill to get rid of the 48 hour wait for handguns. The secretary told me that they had got several other support calls about it I also called Rep. Knutson's office and was happy to learn he supported the measure even though a assembly bill hasn't been drafted. Hopefully the bill will eliminate the 48 hour wait for handguns for everyone, not just ccw holders.I will call Hasdorf today. Update: Secretary did not give a direct answer whether she will support the Bill or not. Simply stated, "She is a stong supporter of 2A Rights..." I stated my assertion she should be in support of it as I would support her in the future. I also left her the information on the 9th District ruling on waiting periods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 5:21:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Vote Stroebel today in Ozaukee/Washington!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 11:21:09 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will call Hasdorf today. Update: Secretary did not give a direct answer whether she will support the Bill or not. Simply stated, "She is a stong supporter of 2A Rights..." I stated my assertion she should be in support of it as I would support her in the future. I also left her the information on the 9th District ruling on waiting periods. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I called Sen. Harsdorf's office today and asked her to support repealing the bill to get rid of the 48 hour wait for handguns. The secretary told me that they had got several other support calls about it I also called Rep. Knutson's office and was happy to learn he supported the measure even though a assembly bill hasn't been drafted. Hopefully the bill will eliminate the 48 hour wait for handguns for everyone, not just ccw holders.I will call Hasdorf today. Update: Secretary did not give a direct answer whether she will support the Bill or not. Simply stated, "She is a stong supporter of 2A Rights..." I stated my assertion she should be in support of it as I would support her in the future. I also left her the information on the 9th District ruling on waiting periods. The bill is a repeal for all handgun purchases.
Also a note on calling into offices. Representatives When you select the details of your representative or senator, you will get the names and email addresses of staff. Use it to remember their name and ask to speak to them if you make a follow up call or email. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 11:26:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Vote Stroebel today in Ozaukee/Washington! Results of the WI 20th Senate Election 66% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING Duey Stroebel (R) 6,527 68% Lee Schlenvogt (R) 2,248 23% Tiffany Koehler (R) 843 9% VIA the Washington County Republican Party facebook page |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 2:01:35 PM EDT
[#38]
I just contacted my rep. Keith Ripp and his aide returned the call. He said that Ripp does support the bill, but there will more than likely be a compromise that will end with the background check waiting period only being waived for CCW holders.
He said this was because along with the Democrats several Republicans have expressed reservations about repealing the statute in its entirety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 4:37:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just contacted my rep. Keith Ripp and his aide returned the call. He said that Ripp does support the bill, but there will more than likely be a compromise that will end with the background check only being waived for CCW holders. He said this was because along with the Democrats several Republicans have expressed reservations about repealing the statute in its entirety. Did he say "waiting period"... not "background check"? The BATFE has the power to waive background checks for CC licensees by putting a State on it's "exempt" list. Instead of a NICS call, the FFL records your CCL number on the 4473. This is the way it works in 22 States - right now! WI has not been put on that BATFE B-C exempt list yet, presumably because of the 48 hour handgun waiting period statute (another reason to repeal it). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 4:43:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did he say "waiting period"... not "background check"? The BATFE has the power to waive background checks for CC licensees by putting a State on it's "exempt" list. Instead of a NICS call, the FFL records your CCL number on the 4473. This is the way it works in 22 States - right now! WI has not been put on that BATFE B-C exempt list yet, presumably because of the 48 hour handgun waiting period statute (another reason to repeal it). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just contacted my rep. Keith Ripp and his aide returned the call. He said that Ripp does support the bill, but there will more than likely be a compromise that will end with the background check only being waived for CCW holders. He said this was because along with the Democrats several Republicans have expressed reservations about repealing the statute in its entirety. Did he say "waiting period"... not "background check"? The BATFE has the power to waive background checks for CC licensees by putting a State on it's "exempt" list. Instead of a NICS call, the FFL records your CCL number on the 4473. This is the way it works in 22 States - right now! WI has not been put on that BATFE B-C exempt list yet, presumably because of the 48 hour handgun waiting period statute (another reason to repeal it). That's a compromise in our direction and I have heard that as a rumor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 4:51:28 PM EDT
[#41]
The State of Wisconsin Legislature does not have the authority to "waive" background checks on gun buyers who buy from FFLs. That's a federal law, only the BATFE has that power.
48 hour waiting period is a State law, Feds have nothing to do with waiting periods since NICS went into use in 1998. The WI Legislature controls the waiting period B.S., they CAN repeal it. That's why I asked for the clarification on what was said, before this gets too far off-kilter. Background checks will still take place on handgun buys, as always (unless BATFE acts).... but like long guns, you can "take it with you", instead of coming back in 2 days, if a repeal bill is passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 6:06:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did he say "waiting period"... not "background check"? The BATFE has the power to waive background checks for CC licensees by putting a State on it's "exempt" list. Instead of a NICS call, the FFL records your CCL number on the 4473. This is the way it works in 22 States - right now! WI has not been put on that BATFE B-C exempt list yet, presumably because of the 48 hour handgun waiting period statute (another reason to repeal it). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just contacted my rep. Keith Ripp and his aide returned the call. He said that Ripp does support the bill, but there will more than likely be a compromise that will end with the background check only being waived for CCW holders. He said this was because along with the Democrats several Republicans have expressed reservations about repealing the statute in its entirety. Did he say "waiting period"... not "background check"? The BATFE has the power to waive background checks for CC licensees by putting a State on it's "exempt" list. Instead of a NICS call, the FFL records your CCL number on the 4473. This is the way it works in 22 States - right now! WI has not been put on that BATFE B-C exempt list yet, presumably because of the 48 hour handgun waiting period statute (another reason to repeal it). Sorry, my mistake, I meant waiting period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 8:54:18 AM EDT
[#43]
See AB 49
It's the bill for the removal of the waiting period. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 11:05:57 AM EDT
[#44]
Extraordinary session called next week to pass RTW.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 12:04:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Extraordinary session called next week to pass RTW. I will make updates tonight. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 12:42:50 PM EDT
[#46]
I thought they were going to hold off on RTW until after the spring election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 2:03:02 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought they were going to hold off on RTW until after the spring election. Nope. The Senate is rolling out a bill and will have it through committee and to a vote by the end of next week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 2:56:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Rtw?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 3:20:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Right To Work
Meaning you don't have to join a union even if it's a union shop. Hopefully it means they don't have to pay union fees (not dues). I read a story about one teacher (not sure if in WI) who was not a member of the union, but money was being taken from his check anyway to pay the union president or somebody, because it was in the contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 3:29:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right To Work Meaning you don't have to join a union even if it's a union shop. Hopefully it means they don't have to pay union fees (not dues). I read a story about one teacher (not sure if in WI) who was not a member of the union, but money was being taken from his check anyway to pay the union president or somebody, because it was in the contract. I should have the Right to not join a Union of I don't want to. End of discussion. Not that I ever will again be in the position to have to choose, but still. |
|
|
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.
