I really don't understand why right to work is so important.  The unions will know who is not paying up, and act accordingly. What changes?

You can still be forced to join a union if their contract demands it, if you want to work at that place.

Lol.  No.  The guy who is related to a company manager gets promoted.



 

Where I work (large corp with ~60k employees globally and shitty managment) promotions are doled out on the shit floats principle.

 

I feel sorry for you guys... Shit employers and all.

 

Other than opting out of the union if it is a union shop, what else does right to work mean for the employee?


I mean how different is it than employment at will, or are we going to be dealing with both?


Translation non union employee at a union shop screws up badly, then what??

In WI's case, we are only looking at having the option to not join the union. The concept of a union shop will no longer exist.

A union member will still be under the union contract, with whatever protections the union can give him. A non-union member will be whatever contract/rules set forth by the employer, and sinks or swims as normal.

thanks for the clarification

Thanks!

I have a lot to add and will do so tonight.

The public hearing for the 48hr repeal was not aired live today so we will have to wait until wiseye posts the tape to get it on here.

Link to Video of hearing on AB49

Cool.

Thanks!!!

I'm about 60% of the way through the video of the committee hearing, and the theme so far is that the Democrats (AKA anti-gunners) want the bill amended to also require background checks on all private sales (not gonna happen).

It's also very apparent that they don't realize that the 48 hour waiting period that the bill would eliminate, does not start until AFTER the background check has been completed, and the "proceed with sale" code has been given by DOJ to the FFL.


eta: I've finished watching. "Our" side was very well represented by Sen. Wanggaard, Jim Fendry, Jeff Nass of WI FORCE, and a representative of the NRA (don't recall his name). It was explained that the 48 hour waiting period was never meant as a "cooling off" period, but was necessary to allow sufficient time for a "by hand" background check to be performed. ("by hand" means without aid of computer databases, and manually searching through paper records... which is how it was done in 1976 when the law was instituted. Modern technology has changed all that, and it's no longer needed).

The only testimony in opposition to the bill, from other than the Dems on the committee, came from a domestic violence prevention group, whose opinion was the bill would make victims of DV more at risk.... but he totally ignored the fact (stressed by Sen. Wanggaard, Fendry, and Nass), that the 48hr waiting period is more of an impediment to potential DV victims having the ability to purchase a handgun for self defense against their abuser, than it will deter an abuser hell-bent on violence. Wanggaard spoke of a specific case in his district (Racine) of a woman who attempted to buy a handgun for self defense because she was threatened by her estranged husband, but she too had to wait the 48hrs. While she waited, she was hacked to death with a hatchet.

Three representitives of DOJ testified - for informational purposes to answer any questions. They asked for only one change in the bill. Currently, if a background check is not completed within the 48 hours after initial request, DOJ can invoke a 3 day extension to further complete a check, and issue a "delay" for 5 days total. That gives DOJ 5 days before an automatic "proceed with sale" would kick in. They claim the bill as written would reduce the 5 days to 3 days, and would ask that it remain at 5 days, only for those "delayed". They said that less than 1% of checks result in a flat-out denial (990 out of 100K), and 77% of the (1%) denials were not denied until after 3 days. They also claimed the "average" time for a complete & thorough background check was 4 hours. Huh? Of the 10 handguns I've bought from a FFL in WI that required the DOJ phone call, the longest time for approval was 10 minutes... on a Labor Day weekend. Most were approved before the dealer hung up the phone. I'm no mathematician, but I guess if you "average" a few days for a very few, with a few minutes for most, it's 4 hours.

eta: Several private citizens testified in favor of the bill, and it took one of them to bring up the very valid point about a court in CA striking down CA's waiting period as unconstitutional. He reminded the committee that waiting periods are a "thing of the past", either through legislation such as this, or lawsuits.

They would have been from DCI, then - the state DOJ, not feds.  They do the same background check for pistol purchases as they do for CCW licenses and it might take 4 hours.  I remember before CCW passed the number thrown around was it cost $34 per check and they were only taking in $14, but then Obama the gun salesman made the number per check come down just through sheer volume for several years... that's when they dropped the fee to $10 (wasn't that last budget?).

Yup.

Incidentally that is also why this is a cost-saving measure!

So, when do they vote on it?  Or did they and I missed it?

They need to host an executive session to vote on it. They take like two minutes and they can do it during their next public hearing.

There is absolutely nothing scheduled on their calendar at this time.

When is the next public hearing?

I would think in two weeks with Right to Work in the Assembly this week.

Looks like there are some positive remarks from Walker on the subject.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/walker-throws-support-to-bill-dropping-handgun-wait-period/31583152

Wow. Typical "non-educated on the subject" drivel from a reporter.

"A bill before legislators would eliminate Wisconsin's 40-year-old law that requires the wait between the time a background check is submitted to the Department of Justice and a handgun is acquired."

NO! The wait is a totally arbritary time period, and does not even start until after a background check has been completed. There's a huge difference.

And leave it to douchebag Kessler to say something idiotic.

"... he supports an amendment that would create an exception for people arrested multiple times for domestic abuse".

What kind of "exception" does he want for someone who cannot pass the background check? Duh

To be fair, he said arrested, not convicted.

After a DV arrest, isn't it common for the Judge to issue a "no firearms" order at the initial appearance or when granting bail/bond? And then the victim usually gets a TRO which is an automatic disqualifier. I'm not sure though how much time transpires between the arrest and those appearances and if the accused is ever out of custody during that time and may have a chance to acquire a firearm.

Yup, I saw that, and I know what you're saying. But... then I thought of it this way...  to be fair also, if someone is arrested but NOT convicted, in the eyes of the law they have NOT  been found guilty of any crime. (I didn't say found "not guilty", I said NOT found guilty... there is a difference ).  Why should they be treated any differently? If they've been arrested but their case has not yet been resolved, they won't pass the background check. Only if charges were not filed and the case dropped, or they've been found innocent, will they then pass the background check. And the waiting period begins after clearing the background check.

It's dangerous to liberty when we start denying rights, even if only temporarily, because of accusations.  

The proposed bill must be made very clear, and Kessler is amongst those confusing things... either through his own ignorance, or intentionally. It has NOTHING to do with the performance of background checks when buying handguns, that will not change. It is about the arbitrary time period (48 hours) that the buyer must wait, for NO good reason,  AFTER clearing the mandatory background check, before they can take possession of the new handgun.

Update in OP:

PUBLIC HEARING Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:00 AM 411 South
Senate Bill 35: Relating to: waiting period for handgun purchases.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:30 PM 330 Southwest
Senate Bill 35: Relating to: waiting period for handgun purchases.
(this is the committee vote on the bill)

Correct.

 

He's talking about having different rights or taking away rights based on being ARRESTED for something.


Which wouldn't pass muster very long, but could end up in the law (and cost the state a bunch of money in the inevitable lawsuit.)

No argument here.  Just want to make sure arguments are developed from an accurate foundation.  

Remember the spa shooting? The shooter had a restraining order granted against him, but it wasn't recorded until 2 days after the shooting, IIRC. Background check would not have stopped him.

If they would write it how the Federal judge wrote it, we wouldn't be concerned over such details.

Now food for thought: The waiting period only pertains to FFL's, so from a restrictions standpoint to new purchasers, in a situation of fearful circumstances such as a woman or man that has been threatened bodily harm, & has reasonable belief that the person that has threatened them may do what they said, who here is most harmed by the waiting period Law? Both are but let's atleast narrow down the argument to fundamentals.

I say it is woman because, generally speaking, a woman has social differences that, statistically speaking, put her at a disadvantage in purchasing a firearm from a private party. The knowledge to make an educated choice is much harder to come by at short notice.

For a woman to go to an FFL/ range & speak with an non-biased professional & be able to try the guns out is a huge advantage.

Sure she can go there to get advice & then go looking around on-line, but that takes time. Even to set up a meeting for a private purchase can take days.

In OP:

Sen. Wanggaard on WPR discussing Senate Bill 35: Relating to: waiting period for handgun purchases.

The comments section on the WPR "Joy Cardin Show" facebook page, under the question of repealing the 48 hr wait, is very entertaining.

Now I have a headache.

Funny my page shows no comments. I listened to about half of the radio show. I listened to the Anti Troll that claimed to be an "NRA Member" but was for the waiting period.

I will finish listening to it tonight. I was disappointed that in 22minutes not a single word about the infringements of a Right was discussed
As I predicted it was all about, as I predicted, feel good cooling off periods. While the point of "Allowed to legally posses a firearm" was mentioned it had me asking: ALLLOWED? I am allowed to legally purchase a handgun?

I don't think so.

It has been "allowed" that we have accepted this violation to our Rights. We are now disallowing it. Plain & simple.

3/10/2015 LRB 0102/1 and LRB 1928/1 Representative Kathy Bernier and Senator Terry Moulton: Definition of a switchblade knife; Possession requirements

This bill excludes from the definition of switchblade knife a knife with closure-biased springs that require physical force to be applied to the blade in order to open the knife. This bill exempts from the prohibition qualified law enforcement officers, qualified former law enforcement officers, and persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon, including certain out-of-state licenses.

Spring assisted knives are no longer switchblades and CCW can carry auto-knives.

Interesting.

 

I wonder if state preemption is going to make CCW holders exempt from possessing those knives in municipalities where they might be restricted or banned.

I don't think it does.

This one really gets my goat.  I called Rep Craig and Senator Lazich a moment ago telling them to cosponsor and support.  I also voiced support for the school ground carry, repeal of 48hr wait, shall sign legislation, et al.  

How about a bill that makes Switchblades legal?  It's just a knife FFS.

 

Preemption only applies to firearms, so no. But... if a state statute specifically legalizes a product, I don't think municipalities can outlaw it. Conflict of laws. I suppose it would depend on the wording. If it just removes the illegality verbage (making something illegal, legal, simply because there's no law against it) then I believe municipalities can ban. But if they add "spring assisted knives" specifically to the CCW statute, I don't think they can for CCWers. But I'm no lawyer, just my opinion.

Or they can add language to 66.0409 that adds knives to the pre-emption law.

You say "can carry auto knives", as though it's already been passed.  Is this true?  If so, do you have a link to the law?  I tried Google and didn't turn up anything..

Thanks!

I was summarizing the bill that was released today. It has a long way to go. My apologies.

I believe the intent of the bill is to remove spring assisted knives from the switchblade definition while legalizing switchblades for concealed carry holders and LEOs. I now see that the summary I posted doesn't say that but the bill I saw clearly says that. my brain is a piece of shit today.

Thank you for clarification.  I assume you'll update the thread if/when it passes and goes into effect? I'd love to own an auto...

Thanks for the clarification non of my disappointment was directed at you.  

 

Senate committee had their public hearing on SB 35 (handgun wait) yesterday, executive session is today at 1:30pm... in which they'll likely vote on it.