... but they're still in ILL. Now we'll see just how much power the unions have over the Dems. Most of the collective bargaining seems to be intact, except pensions & health benefits... he even lifted the inflation cap on wages. But it appears he's standing firm on the union dues collections. All the crying about collective bargaining has just been a smokescreen to cover the union's real gripe, and that's the almighty dollar they can count on by the mandatory dues collection by the State from members' paychecks.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117598658.html

Madison –– Gov. Scott Walker’s office released documents Tuesday detailing back and forth talks with Senate Democrats in Illinois about his union bargaining bill.

The emails received under an open records request by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel showed ideas and counter-offers made by the Republican governor’s aides and two Democrats as they seek some resolution that would allow Democrats to come back to the state. Senate Democrats have been holed up in Illinois since Feb. 17, when they left the state to block a vote on Walker’s budget repair bill.

That bill would repeal most collective bargaining by public employee unions and has sparked massive demonstrations at the Capitol.

The two Democratic senators, Bob Jauch of Poplar and Tim Cullen of Janesville, have met face to face in recent days with both Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Walker aides.

Jauch could not be reached immediately for comment.

In the latest offer by Walker aides put together on Sunday evening:

* The bill would no longer seek to limit public employee union bargaining over wages to the rate of inflation.

* The bill would allow union bargaining over certain economic issues, including mandatory overtime, performance bonuses, hazardous duty pay, and classroom size.

* The bill would allow bargaining over workplace safety.

* Union contracts for public employees would be limited to a one or two-year period.

* Unions would have to vote every three years to remain active and not every year.

* Employees of UW Hospital and Clinics Authority would not lose all union bargaining rights.

* The Legislature’s budget committee would explicitly have to approve changes to state health programs for the poor sought by the Walker administration. The budget repair bill gives Walker broad powers to reshape those Medicaid health programs.

The Journal Sentinel will post more about these documents over the course of the day.

Cant we just have one (R) change parties and show up as a (D)?

These 14 (D)s still need to be fired on the basis of holding up .govt flow and function.

No. It's a total number of Senators present, has nothing to do with the party.

If one more R had won, they would not have been able to pull the run-away stunt to prevent the quorum.

The party of the Senator doesn't matter. It can't be voted on until there's a qourum. There's no rule that says one Democrat must be present. The qourum needed is 20 Senators, regardless of party. It just so happens that there's 19 Republicans.... one short of a qourum. That's the only reason one Dem is needed. And that Dem can vote no. 8 Repubs can vote no also, as long as the other 11 vote yes. Once a qourum is present, it only takes a simple majority. 11 "Yea" votes will do it, as long as 20 Senators are present.

Edit: Apparantly this story is legit. The emails sent back & forth detailing the "negotiations" are here -> http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Email_exchange_030811.pdf

Gotcha. I will be a stand in senator if they need one. It seems that us citizens will have to pick up the slack since these (D)s dont seem to know how to do their job.

They're fools to tip their hands over this B.S. They've got the entire legislative process to themselves and they aren't doing a MF thing with it.

Voter ID - Pass.
CCW - Pass.
Drug testing for any form of government subsidy; including earned income tax credit, WIC, and medicade. Permanent disbarment for failing. - Pass.
All of the public worker provisions without the budget items. - Pass.

If they wanted these things, it'd be done by now. If these fuckers grandstand for a month and then bring home a half-neutered nothing I'm going to be pissed.

While I don't agree with the concessions, I think making these concessions public is the right thing to do. Walker & the Repubs are losing the P.R. battle because of some mythical "right" to collectively bargain. The whole issue isn't about workers' "rights", it's about the unions' cash flow funneled directly to Democratic candidates, and the fat contracts they get from the Dems they help elect. They're using this "workers rights" smoke screen to hide the core issue. Peel away all the other crap, and what's left is the truth. By making these offers of concessions public, if the Dems turn them down now, the real core of the issue will be plain to see.... union power over Democrat politicions who crave for those big union campaign donations.

I certainly hope Walker is smart enough to put a time limit of acceptance on these concessions.

"You got 24 hrs to shit or get off the pot".

I believe I stated in a thread that the bunch of R pussies would cave.

Fucking worthless cowards, the whole lot, D and R.

This is a political chess game... and I could be wrong, but I think Walker just said "check-mate". The only thing left for the AWOL Dems to fight over now is union dues being mandatory and collected by the state on behalf of the union. So by remaining out of the state over this "special interests'" financial matters, and no longer about individual workers' rights, makes the Dems look like the campaign-donation money grubbers they really are.  

That and I think he is playing their game. Like they do with restricting guns. Ask for the world right away even if you only want a few things. If you get more than you want you are golden.

At first I too was pissed when I initially heard about this. It sounded like Walker was caving in. Now, I'm not so sure. It almost sounds like he's playing a game with them.

I will say one thing though, if he does cave in, the rest of the country well be screwed over by these thug unions and/or dems who act like childish five year olds when they don't get their way and throw a temper tantrum.

And God only knows why the R's weren't passing any and every bill they could while in the absence of the D's. I don't understand that tactic at all.

Because they didn't really want to pass them.

I'm sure that's it.

The voter ID thing got stopped because there is some sort of budget issue with it, fee to get the card or something.

 

Just curious, but where did you get this info?

Well, if they operate anything like MN does, it's what they will try for. Most politicians, on both sides, just looooove them some regulations and fees. The MN trainers cartel actively works to prevent anything that would loosen their hold on the training "certification" and fees required to teach carry classes in MN. Look up Joel Rosenberg if you want more information on this issue. He worked to get the MN carry law passed a few years back, and he's working now to make it 'more free and less fee' but is getting puchback from those who get money from it.
(Disclaimer: I'm not super-familiar with the issue since I moved from MN a while ago, but I have kept up with the basics)

The other problem with the Voter ID was that the Senate version was a piss-poor bill that only had the photo-ID requirement.

It did nothing with same-day registration, or mail-registrations, which are the boon to Acorn-like groups pumping up false registrations. Most of which weren't even used for fraud, just for the low-life workers to scam money off of Acorn.

The Assembly version was much better, and has all the "if you're too lazy to go to city hall and register a week in advance, you're too lazy to vote" stuff a good Voter-ID bill should have.

The bill would no longer seek to limit public employee union bargaining over wages to the rate of inflation.




THIS is truely disappointing.  My wages haven't kept up with the rate of inflation.  EVER.    Why should the public sector get it, let alone be allowed to exceed it?  If I'm misinterpreting this part of the concession, please correct me.

This really PISSES me off.

While I endorse the photo ID idea, I also have no problem with the same-day registration, and here's why. The law applies to the whole State, not just metro areas. If you're in a rural township, you likely vote at your town hall. Townships aren't normally huge areas, and most people will live a reasonable distance from their pollling place.

However, those townhalls aren't open for people to come in and register... there's typically nobody there, except for monthly town meetings and elections (the poll workers who have the registration records etc don't typically attend monthly meetings). So to pre-register, you must travel to the county courthouse, where you can register with the county clerk. That can only be done during normal working hours, and those who work and are sometimes as much as 50-75 miles away from their county's courthouse, need to take a minimum of a half day off work, and drive maybe 100-150 miles round trip. What happens in these cases is they don't even bother. At my polling place, which is my town hall, they have a seperate table with two workers who take registrations on election days. I'm somewhat surprised at how many people use this system to register.... my wife and I did.   BTW... In a lot of rural areas, these are Republican voters, and up here, Acorn is something that falls off your oak trees.

Here's an example: If you just moved to Winchester or Presque Isle in NW Vilas County and never registered there before, and if you need to pre-register, you must drive to the Vilas County Courthouse, which is in far S.E. Vilas County in Eagle River. That's about a 120 mile roundtrip, which must be made between 8:00am & 4:30pm, Mon-Fri.  Or... you can come to your nearby town hall polling place on election day, and register there.

I agree with your concerns.

However, I think the concerns over poll-packing/busing which is usually more a Democrat/Liberal activity outweigh inconvenience, or theoreticals about someone who just moved to a particular small community right before one particular election cycle.

Perhaps a provisional ballot could be issued in this case, then counted once the registration is verified. That might be a good compromise.

And honestly I'm un-PC enough to say right out loud if the Left whines that "Traditional Democrat/Liberal constituency or demographic XYZ is going to be disenfranchised by this!" I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over it.

We had to call our County Clerk (I think that's who she was) and she set up an appointment that worked for both of us "after hours" to come in and get registered to vote. When we did it I thanked her for taking the time out of her personal life to accommodate our schedules. She said that it wasn't an issue that they do it all the time. Then she told me about same day registration no need for ID, and I was  That was my introduction to the possibility of voter fraud.

I had a teacher in college show us a study done that showed if minimum wage stayed up with inflation we should all be making $17 and change per hour. If you take that number at flat $17 its a little over $32,500 a year. Teachers already make more than that on average. So it has been a steady trend for unions to keep that bargaining privledge going.

thats the price one must pay to VOTE.
you only need to register once. so its not that big of a deal.
Voter ID will stop (or severely reduce)voter fraud, which is a very serious crime, however lightly it may be treated by local enforcement.
vote fraud de values each of our votes.

The (R)s already said early in the election year that budget was going to come first. Which they are currently trying to do and keeping their word on. They said CCW will come up in the spring time.

Your issue with training is comical. Training is necessary. You need to know the laws before you CCW. Police have to train and qualify to be able to use their firearms but somehow you think that everybody else in general can do the same things that a LEO would be doing (in terms of legal use of a firearm) without any training. LOL. God forbid that people have to educate themselves and people make money from it. I mean are people expected not to be paid for the work in training you?

I highly doubt WI will be like AK or VT type of carry. Training will be a factor.

I still endorse requiring the current photo ID to register,  must be done in person not by mail, and the address on the ID must be located within the precinct you vote at (none of the "I just moved here last week" crap, voting multiple times in multiple places). That'll eliminate any fraud.  I fail to see why when & where you register makes any differance.  Like you said, you only do it once... unless you move a lot.

If the Mossed can go into Argentina and snag Eichmann in the middle of the night how hard could it be to drive to Illinois and bag a state senator?

I won't debate the training is necessary thing, because I agree... but I would not use LEO training as an example, nor even a guideline.  LEOs actively pursue bad guys and may be in potentially deadly confrontations every day... that's their day to day job. They need much more extensive training than does the average citizen, whose main objective is not to go to the bad guys, but to escape from them unscathed. The average CCWer likely will never be in a "bad" situation, but I agree that some basic principles of self defense methods and legal issues on the use of deadly force should be mandatory knowledge in case it's needed.  

Agreed. I should have made it more clear in terms of LEOs can protect themselves and others from attacks. Using a firearm as a civillian will not be anyhting like a LEO on most things. However both can protect themselves with it.

This is a political chess game... and I could be wrong, but I think Walker just said "check-mate". The only thing left for the AWOL Dems to fight over now is union dues being mandatory and collected by the state on behalf of the union. So by remaining out of the state over this "special interests'" financial matters, and no longer about individual workers' rights, makes the Dems look like the campaign-donation money grubbers they really are.


I tend to agree.

Bullshit! If they wanted it, it would be done.

"Valid WI issued ID must be presented in order to register to vote, and must also be presented at the polling place in order to secure a ballot. All present voter registrations expire six months from today and must be renewed according to the terms above."


See, no budget provisions. We already have voter registration stations and election judges that check off the registrations on elections day. It doesn't need embedded funding. When the Dems get back they can pass a separate budgetary bill that funds free state-ID cards (not DLs) for people who go to the DMV and fill out a form applying for aid due to indigence. Lying on the form is federal perjury with a penalty of 3-5- years.

They've got the entire place to themselves. They can pass ANYTHING they want to. What are they doing? Fucking around with bills about how we name high school mascots? Is that the political chess you folks are talking about?
It's a political wet dream for cryin out loud. "Hey, imagine if the other side didn't show up ... boy we could really have our way with this place." Go to town, mother fuckers. It's go time!

They got put there to tow a line and there aren't any hands on it.

While I don't think Wisconsin will go from no concealed carry to constitutional carry like  Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming, I don't believe we need mandatory training. While the thought of training makes most people warm and fuzzy inside, I don't think any mandatory training is effective.  Look at Utah's out of state permit which is popular with people from WI, does sitting to a lecture for four hours really make you that much more ready to make a decision in a split second weather to use deadly force or not? How about Florida, a hunters safety course will suffice there, is that good enough to allow me to carry a firearm?

Kentucky, Iowa, Utah, Colorado, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Tennessee, Idaho, Maine and South Carolina have or are about too introduce some form of Constitutional Carry legislation which means carry with no permission slips or mandated training. I guess Wisconsin is "special" right? Without the mandatory lecture and maybe a couple of rounds down range the blood will fill the streets, shootouts will happen at the O.K. Corral and dogs and cats will live together....

Most will agree that training is a great idea and  should be taken by everyone who carrys, of course defensive driving training is great and you could use those skills on almost a daily basis but very few take it. The reason is once you set a bar (like a drivers license or firearm permit) most people are confident that's good enough. If you look at how mandatory training evolved in states that require it you will see it has very quickly broken down into a pay and pass system, the same that will happen here.

Before I was old enough to have any firearms I kept a baseball bat in my bedroom at night, how come I didn't need training and a permit for that? And before someone talks about the rounds flying toward the children, do you have statistics on how many innocent people are shot while someone is legally defending themselves? Most cases of self defense never involve firing the weapon.

The biggest thing is I carry right now, of course its open carry because its legal, why do I need training and a permit to do what I am legally allowed to do right now just because my t-shirt covers it ?  Why would anyone want to take a step back on our rights?

Indiana? Georgia? Washington? Pennsylvania?  Blood in the streets, right?

None of those sates have any sort of training requirements for CCW permits.  They are true "shall issue" states.



That's not the issue in MN.  The guys who started AACFI "helped" write the law, naming AACFI as sole arbiter of CCW trainer certification, before AACFI actually existed. They then started AACFI to train permitees, and certify trainers. IOW, they wrote their own cash-cow into the CCW bill.

I'm all for folks getting trained, and trained well.  I'm against it being a requirement in order to exercise a right.  ETA: Nothing comical about it.

I never said anything about blood in the streets. Stop putting words in my mouth. You need to know the laws of what is acceptable or not in using deadly force. Plain and simple. That requires training. Whether it be in a lecture for a few hours like UT's CCW or classroom and shooting like in MN.

You need to know things like:

Ability
Opportunity
Jeopardy
Fleeing felon laws and the points that make it legal to shoot a feeing felon or not
Use of force continuum
What constitutes and is considered deadly force. (how and when you can use it)

I will admit that I love training (7 hangun courses, 2 rifle courses, 3 classroom courses). I took LFI-1 with Massad Ayoob, a Internationally known instructor and EXPERT SHOOTING WITNESS in court, the best thing about taking his classes are that once you have you can then use him as an expert witness for your defense in court if it goes that way. The fact that some of you see no benefit in having training is just absurd and if you think that ignorance of the laws is a defense, well good luck with that.

Instead of seeing training as a hinderence please look at it as a part of your defense when you go to court or when you talk to the police (with your lawyer present).

And yes I have taken a classroom course that helped you prepare for taking someones life. It was the second half of LFI-1 taught by Massad.

ETA: I have taken MN CCW as well. It was worth the money.

Apologies for the hyperbole (actually an interrogatory), but my assertion stands. See below.



Actually, you don't need to know any of those things to carry a gun in the states I listed.  You might need to know them if you shoot someone.  You probably don't need to know them if a "reasonable man" standard is used and you shoot someone.  Justified is justified, whether the DA prosecutes you or not.  A jury of your peers should get it, and in most cases they do (whether you can articulate it or not).



300+ training hours here (I think, I lost count), 6 carry permits, frequent travel in ~20 states where I can carry, and I do, in fact see the benefit of training.  That doesn't change the issue, which is legislating a basic human right.



You are either willfully ignorant of what I have posted, or you just don't get it.



If it was put on by AACFI, then you contributed to the problem in MN... as I did once upon a time.  Knowing what I know now, all I can say is "A fool and his money are soon parted".

We are just going to have to disagree on some things then.

You see it as your right to carry a gun. I agree with that. ( I do understand your points btw)

I see it as a necessity to have training, I guess all that training you took didnt pay off on teaching you responsibility with a firearm and peoples lives.

If you think that the right to bear arms is on a seperate plain that what happens in court after you shoot someone, then I guess you need some more classes. You may have the right to bear arms but you also have the responsibility not to harm people and know when you can and cannot use deadly force. By just owning a gun, that knowledge is not magically transplanted into your head, you have to learn it.

As for the MN CCW. I was indoctrinated on the laws which gave me knowledge on what is legal or not. I paid them to teach me laws. They did so. No fool here good sir, just a man who wants to see his family every night and not have to worry about going to prison for breaking a law over use of deadly force.

Redacted to prevent running afoul of the CoC.

Please consider rephrasing or modifying your sentiments before replying.  I don't take kindly to those types of insinuations, doubly so when they are as unfounded as those you posted.

You need some thicker skin if you think those were personal attacks. Not meant to tell you to "fuck off". If I wanted to tell you that I would. That is not my intention here.

You do have the right to bear arms as stated before, but there are still limitations. You do not have the right to own Nuclear weapons, Missles, or other weapons of Mass destruction. Just like you have the freedom of speech but do not have the right to slander people. You have the right to assemble but not use taxpayer dollars for collective bargaining.

In states that have CCW as far as I am aware most of them say you cannot have a loaded gun just sitting on the seat next to you. It needs to be encased or in a holster if loaded. Obviously there are some differences between states. The states made those laws and they are legal even though you have the right to bear arms. You cant carry in bars, or police stations, or court houses. So please explain those?

You have the freedom of religion but you cant do things that harm others while practicing that religion.

You have the freedom of the press but you cant write liable things about people or organizations.

Yes, rights come with responsibilities.  No one is arguing that except you, and you're doing a poor job of it by attempting to impugn my training, experience, and character.

You still have not responded to the salient two points, namely that 1) training is not "necessary" to exercise a right (contrary to your assertion), and 2) that the issue raised about the requirement for training & certification of trainers in MN was written into the law to benefit a single entity, namely the authors of that law.

ETA: As a reminder, this is the context of the debate:

I get it. You have a problem with a group in MN setting standards of what has to be taught for CCW because that group decides who can teach it and for how much and they are the only ones. I took my class from a man in WI. He was certified to teach MN CCW laws. He taught me very well. (He is now working with the Gov. of New Mexico for gun rights and things of that nature.) Im sorry you had a bad experience. But that is MN right to make such laws.  It doesnt stop people from getting CCW, there are bad trainers everywhere, people still own and carry guns in MN.

Why should someone have to get training to carry?  So they dont go around breaking the law and infringing on my rights to life. If some guy doenst realize that he is resposible for the bullets he shoots, he could be getting mugged and start shooting wildly and one of his rounds hits and kills you or one of your loved ones. If he had an understanding of the laws he would be more cautious knowing that he could be put into jail and or sued civilly. Your right to protect yourself does not make you immune to responsibility in not harming other people.

Basically all the state would be doing is telling you the laws on which you have to obey and what you can and cannot do legally while using deadly force. Im sorry you have a problem with that, because I dont.

Your replies are repeatedly contrary to that assessment.

No I understand his points. I dont have to agree with them. Agreeing is not understanding.

+1

Credit where it's due. They crossed one off the list. Not exactly a strategy to run the table. Clearing up the issue that was keeping the opposition at bay should be last .... if you intend on running down the list that is.

Addressing the points directly is fundemental.

You don't have to agree, but tapdancing around the subject by telling us how you feel about it rather than utilizing substantive arguments to back up your position would be a key to showing that you truly do understand.

Just sayin'.

I answered your direct questions above.

Just sayin'

Really?  You made a claim that training is "necessary" to exercise a right.  I provided examples where that clearly wasn't the case.  You ignored those examples and instead claimed that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, am clearly in need of more training, and that you are correct because Mas Ayoob says so.  If we don't listen to you, family members will be shot by untrained CCW holders responding to muggers.

The examples of CCW permits being issued with zero training requirement is still there, and your response was hardly what I would call an answer.

Regarding the MN training thing... you seem to be ignorant of how it all went down, and simply don't care that the RKBA community got fleeced.  It's a cautionary tale, but has no relevance, right?




Edit for spelling.

Are you saying that the MN law would have been passed with no training requirement, if "The guys who started AACFI " hadn't "helped" to write the law? And the only reason the MN law has a training requirement is because those guys who started AACFI had it put in there so they could make money from it? No offense, but having a daughter who's lived in MN since 2000 (before the shall-issue law) and knowing that the political climate there was not much differant than WI,  I find it hard to swallow that MN would've, or even could've, passed a shall-issue CCW permit law with no training requirement. They barely got it through as it was. The DFL, Democratic Farmers League, (or as my daughter calls them.. dumb fucking liberals)  are anti-gun and as bad, or worse, than the asshole liberals we have here, who succeeded in blocking ccw in WI 3 straight times.

BTW... I've taken the MN course by an AACFI instructor in WI. My MN permit to carry expires on July 15, 2011, my (2nd) FL permit is good 'til 2013. I'm really hoping  I don't have to renew either, and can get something from WI instead.

The conversation started with this (posted by broccoli):



I see that as an accurate statement. Pay particular attention to the parts in blue, and keep reading.



You've missed the point entirely. The bill in MN got worse when the language about who could instruct and who could "certify" said instructors was inserted.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out why it was inserted, since the single entity allowed to train and certify trainers was the company set up by the RKBA guys "helping" the legislators who authored the bill.



As have I.  I quit trying to correct his misinformation about an hour in.  He was a nice guy, with his heart in the right place (not everyone who is certified/teaches through AACFI is money-grubbing by any means), but the curriculum when it comes to carrying outside of MN was horrible.  The "tactical" portion of the curriculum was ridiculously bad.  Unfortunately, for a long time, AACFI was the only game allowed when it came to curriculum and certification of CCW trainers for MN permits.  That's changed somewhat, but not due to the MN RKBA establishment (who also just happens to own AACFI).



Here's to the hope that 941.23 is just struck outright.

I will listen to Massad Ayoob before I listen to you. I also have state level training, laws, and other states that say the same thing that MA does. So I will stick with them.

Its painfully obvious that you have an ax to grind with MN CCW laws. Too bad that rfb45colt just gave you a reason why that group that helped pass CCW in MN is GTG. As I said before I recieved great training for my MN CCW class. Im sorry that you didnt. Im sorry you have problem with capitalism and training standards. Maybe we should let the police go out with no training too?

It seems pretty clear the the precedence has been set that you will need some type of training to get CCW. Riddle me this batman if CCW is a right then why do you have to get a permit? By getting a permit you are asking permission from the state or local CLEO. By asking their permission you will play by their rules such as getting training. WI will never have AK/VT type carry laws. This state will never be the wild west like you want it to be. If 2ndA shouldnt be infringed then felons should get guns too right? NOPE that is another restriction. what do you know who would have thought.

If you cant understand that uneducated people on our laws, in which you must abide. need to know the laws to responsibly CCW then this discussion is over. I refuse to go in circles because you dont like my answer/opinion. Get over it.

There are restrictions on the 2nd ammendment. Get used to it. You cannot have nukes, bombs, and missles. Does that mean the your 2nd Ammendment rights are being infrindged? NOPE. If a state wants to put CCW training on they can. Why? because it doesnt totally stop you from owning firearms or OCing. Just like the FOID card in IL doesnt stop you from getting a gun. Just like background checks dont stop you from getting a gun (unless you are a felon).

If people cant understand simple examples then they have no place CCWing. Having an understanding of when general shoot scenarios are ok and not ok needs to be explained and taught to people before they start carrying a gun because I guarantee you that there will be people who use the "well I didnt know" excuse and that is not acceptable. People need to know the legal use of force continuum before they CCW, they are going to need to know that to use deadly force Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy need to be ther to legally use it. How many people do you think will know the legal defenitions to CCW safely and legally? Why? because when the laws get written up to get CCW even the trainers will have to learn new stuff.