Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/4/2005 1:36:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:07:29 AM EDT by Red_Beard]
.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 4:51:23 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 4:58:56 PM EDT
The WGO frustrates the hell out of me.

Rather than work with legislators, they go for an "all or nothing" approach and turn off people to concealed carry.

They are hurting our cause in WI much more than helping it.

Av.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 5:35:58 PM EDT
WGO claims to be "Wisconsin's most-powerful gun rights lobbying organization." ...

that no one has ever heard of.

Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:33:59 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 9:29:15 AM EDT
btt--any know how this turned out?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 10:02:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By akajimmy:
btt--any know how this turned out?



This is from Dick Baker from WCCA...

Dear fellow gun owner:

This evening, in a surprisingly short two-hour debate, the Wisconsin State
Senate passed SB403, the Personal Protection Act shall-issue concealed carry
bill.

Five Senate Democrats voted for the bill: Senator Russ Decker (Schofield),
Senator Julie Lassa (Stevens Point), Senator Bob Wirch (Pleasant Prairie),
Senator Roger Breske (Eland), and Senator Jeff Plale (Milwaukee/South
Milwaukee/Cudahy/Oak Creek).

Eighteen of the nineteen Senate Republicans voted for the bill. The only
Republican to vote against the bill was Senator Luther Olsen (Ripon).

It should be noted, though, that Senator Olsen voted for the override of
Governor Doyle's veto last year, even after voting against it on the first
go-round in the Senate.

Today's vote is one more than is needed to override Governor Doyle's
promised veto. If Senator Olsen votes to override, that means we have two
more votes than necessary to override. We need 22 votes to override.

There were many objectionable amendments to the bill that had been added in
committee that were voted upon today and tabled (defeated). For more details
on these amendments, check out Senator Zien's website at
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen23/news/.

There were some attempts to change the bill radically, which were also
defeated. A suggestion that the bill contain fingerprinting provisions--a
provision that some have mistakenly said the NRA was pushing for--was
offered by Senator Fred Risser, and roundly rejected. Another of Senator
Risser's suggestions, one that would have required recurrent training and
instruction, also was rejected.

Our next battle is in the Assembly next week, where we there are as many as
three more votes than required to override the governor's veto. Of course,
without your action, we could lose by as little as one vote.

As soon as the Assembly calendar is set in stone, we'll let you know the
date and time.

Many who receive these emails think we can't win. Those folks are wrong.

Our chances this year are actually better than last year. We can win.

Please contact your senators who voted for the bill and thank them for their
support. You can find your state senator by going to
http://165.189.139.210/waml/ and entering your address.

The Personal Protection Act was authored over a decade ago. For years it
went nowhere. The last six years have brought us progressively closer to
passage. Last year, we only missed by one vote on the veto override.

We have the momentum to win.

Please do not give up, or give in.

Thanks,
The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:26:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 3:28:18 PM EDT by Red_Beard]

Dear fellow gun owner:

With the state Senate now having passed the Personal Protection Act
shall-issue concealed carry bill, and by a veto-proof margin,
the vote now
moves to the Assembly.

The Assembly is scheduled to vote on the bill next Tuesday, December 13th.

The Assembly vote is even more critical than the Senate vote, because the
numbers are tighter. We need six Democrats to join the Assembly Republicans
in order to have enough votes to override Governor Doyle's promised veto.

We are within one or perhaps two votes of having the numbers we need.

All along, we've been telling you that there are good reasons to believe
that we have a better chance of an override this year than last year. One is
that Governor Doyle will not be in a position to help legislators from his
party during the election, as he did with Representative Gary Sherman. Mr.
Doyle will be too busy with his own campaign to deliver that kind of
support.

We also now have the active support of rank-and-file law enforcement groups,
and diminished criticism of the bill by county sheriffs.

But, perhaps the best reason to believe our chances have been improved is
the recent election of Democratic representatives who are more open to the
idea of trained, licensed law-abiding citizens being able to have a means
for self defense.

Representative Tom Nelson of Kaukauna has proven himself to be an
independent and thoughtful advocate for his constituents. He has also been
willing to look beyond partisan politics and view the Personal Protection
Act for what it is: a bill that addresses the right to self defense, an
issue that transcends political parties. Because he is keeping an open mind
on the issue, it's important that he hears from his constituents. So, please
let him know that you would appreciate his support on this very important
bill.

Similarly, Representative Louis J. Molepske, Jr of Stevens Point has shown
himself willing to look at the Personal Protection Act in a fair and
objective manner. As a former special prosecutor for the Portage County
district attorney's office, he has dealt firsthand with violent criminals.
It's vitally important that Representative Molepske hear from those in his
district who would like to have the means to defend themselves from the very
types of criminals that he has put behind bars.

Representative Mike Sheridan of Janesville is another Democratic legislator
who is very ably working for his constituents on important issues such as
jobs and taxes. Mr. Sheridan won election to the seat after former
Democratic Representative Wayne Wood retired last year. Wayne Wood always
backed gun owners, 100%. Representative Sheridan, just like the two
aforementioned representatives, is giving careful consideration to the
Personal Protection Act, and to the fact that gun owners make up a large
part of his constituency. Your calls and emails to Representative Sheridan
can assure him that he will enjoy the same strong support from Janesville
gun owners that Wayne Wood did for many years in the Assembly.

No matter who your Assembly representative is, though, it is critical that
you both email them and call them. Your calls and emails to state senators
gave us the victory we had last evening.


This is no time to be complacent, or to believe that we cannot win. We can.

So, please, beginning on Friday, email your state representative, and then
follow up that email with a phone call.

Once again, we don't want to irritate our friends on both sides of the aisle
by overwhelming them with calls and emails all at once. So, we ask that
those of you whose last names begin with the letters A through M send your
emails and then make your follow-up calls on Friday. Those of you whose last
names begin with the letters N through Z should make your phone calls and
send your emails on Monday.

You can find your representative's email address and phone number by going
to http://165.189.139.210/waml/ and entering your address.


As always, we ask that you be polite and to the point in your contacts with
your representatives.

And please forward this email to every gun owner you know, as well as to any
person you know who values the God-given right to self defense.

Thank you,
The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association

P.S. As soon as we know when the Assembly vote is likely to come up on
Tuesday, we'll alert you to that as well, so that we can have as many
supporters there as possible.



Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:29:31 PM EDT
Wooo Hooo!!! Good for Wisconsin!

I left that God forsaken state ten years ago and havent' missed the socialist mindset of the politicos that run the show. Property taxes were out of control, no concealed carry, etc., etc., etc.

I hope it passes and without any bullshit patchwork of "no guns in madison" and "no guns in milwaukee" and "no guns in whatever uber-lib town".
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:33:19 PM EDT
Get to emailing you Sconsin boys!!!!
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:36:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Wooo Hooo!!! Good for Wisconsin!

I left that God forsaken state ten years ago and havent' missed the socialist mindset of the politicos that run the show. Property taxes were out of control, no concealed carry, etc., etc., etc.

I hope it passes and without any bullshit patchwork of "no guns in madison" and "no guns in milwaukee" and "no guns in whatever uber-lib town".




There's a state law that prevents local governments from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:40:48 PM EDT
I'll keep my fingers crossed for you guys up north.

Bastards!
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:44:14 PM EDT
good luck neighbors
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:45:50 PM EDT
Cool. Who's left?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:50:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
Cool. Who's left?



Nebraska, Kansas, & my personal hellhole (IL).
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:55:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TowlieMatrix:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
Cool. Who's left?



Nebraska, Kansas, & my personal hellhole (IL).



I know IL is fucked up, but what the hell is wrong with KS and NE? Good midwest flyover country red states? I'm surprised they don't have some sort of permit system, even discretionary would be better than nothing.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:33:55 PM EDT
They fear... BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!

For some reason, they actually believe their citizens are unstable compared to the rest of the CCW states and the moment they get a gun in their hands, they're gonna start killing people!!





Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:50:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 4:50:54 AM EDT by Red_Beard]
gotta say, these amendments suck...
illegal with .02 alchohol? what's that, half a beer?


http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/dec05/377633.asp


Assembly amends, passes concealed weapons bill
Republicans think tweaks to measure will make it veto-proof
By STACY FORSTER and STEVEN WALTERS
sforster@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Dec. 14, 2005

Madison - Republican leaders in the state Assembly worked into early this morning to amend a measure that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons and rounded up enough Democratic support to fuel an override of the expected veto from Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.


The bill, SB 403, passed the Assembly at 3:10 a.m. on a 64 to 32 vote.


In the marathon session that dragged on because of long breaks lawmakers took to strategize, the Assembly also voted 74 to 23 to end the automatic annual increase in the gas tax beginning in April 2007. Wisconsin’s gas tax is one of the highest in the nation, and current law would raise it to 30.7 cents per gallon next April and to 31.3 cents per gallon in spring 2007.

The Assembly adjourned just before 4 a.m.

The amendment to the concealed weapons bill wasn’t introduced until late Tuesday and included provisions that would:

# Lower the allowable blood-alcohol concentration for those carrying a concealed weapon to 0.02, from 0.08.

# Create a 100-foot safety zone around school property into which guns couldn’t be carried.

# Require a refresher training course for permit holders every five years.

# Make the filing of a false application a felony, not a misdemeanor as it was written.

Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) said he thought the amendment, which passed 71 to 25, was enough to sway some Democrats into sticking with the majority in a veto override.

Gunderson and other supporters say the bill will reduce crime and make Wisconsin safer.

"It’s important for people to be able to protect themselves," Gunderson said.

Supporters could have the two-thirds majority necessary to uphold the veto. Add to the 64 votes those expected from Rep. Mary Williams (R-Medford), who wasn’t present for the vote, and from the person filling the now-vacant 33rd Assembly District seat, and the number would be at the required 66. A replacement for former Republican Rep. Dan Vrakas, now Waukesha County Executive, will be elected Jan. 10.

Assembly Minority Leader Jim Kreuser (D-Kenosha) said today’s changes made the bill better, but said it still had flaws and predicted that Republicans ultimately wouldn’t have the two-thirds majority necessary to override a veto.

The Senate must take another vote on the amended bill before it can go to Doyle.

The concealed carry bill passed the Senate last week on a 23-10 vote, and Sen. David Zien (R-Eau Claire), the bill’s Senate author, said he’s confident the two-thirds majority would hold up in his house.

Doyle has indicated he will veto the bill as he did a similar one in 2003; at that time, the Senate voted to override it, but the Assembly came up one vote short after having enough on the first vote.

The late changes weren’t likely to sway his position. Doyle spokeswoman Melanie Fonder said the governor remains opposed to the bill.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:11:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:13:55 AM EDT by photoman]
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.

And ya know what on top of that with that damn amendment they can let the damn bill die with the veto, this bill has become a Bullshit filled POS. And is not something we should want to become law. Sorry but when I can be charged with a felony for doing nothing wrong thats a problem. If I'm walking down the street and a school bus passes, I've just commited a felony with no intent to, without even trying to. Sorry this stinks like shit and should not be accepted.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:17:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:18:31 AM EDT by NewbHunter]
I wouldn't be so quick to get excited about this bill. There was at least one amendment that I know of attached that does not sound good at all.

Link to Amendment 15

The way I understand it is if you are just walking down the street and a school bus drives by you then you just commited a felony without trying to, intending to, or maybe even realising it. Basically the amendment makes it illegal to CCW within 100 feet of school property.

It sounds like this amendment would exempt anyone who lives near a school from being able to carry also.

Unless this amendment gets removed I'd just as soon let Doyle veto it and let it die.

Edit: Photoman beat me to it.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:24:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:38:31 AM EDT
Step 1 is a CCW bill passed!

Step 2 is go back and modify it to your liking.

Yeah the amendments might suck but without them there might not be enough support for the bill. Two years from now when you clean up the amendments the media and anti-gunners will barely give it the time of day...but trying to do it now only gives them fuel to deny the whole thing.

Every state that has passed a CCW law has gone back and modified it a couple years later. You won't be stuck with the original law.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:39:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:39:42 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
I wouldn't be so quick to get excited about this bill. There was at least one amendment that I know of attached that does not sound good at all.

Link to Amendment 15

The way I understand it is if you are just walking down the street and a school bus drives by you then you just commited a felony without trying to, intending to, or maybe even realising it. Basically the amendment makes it illegal to CCW within 100 feet of school property.

It sounds like this amendment would exempt anyone who lives near a school from being able to carry also.

Unless this amendment gets removed I'd just as soon let Doyle veto it and let it die.

Edit: Photoman beat me to it.



Are the busses owned by your schoool district?? Here they are not. They are owned by private contractors. The school only has anything to do with what goes on inside the bus. That is where their authority and involvement begins and ends.



Actually, I don't know, but even if that wouldn't put me in violation I can't even go for a walk with my wife through town without passing within 100 feet of at least two schools. I have one school just down the street from me, not more than 5-600 feet.

I'll have to look into the bus thing to make sure if that would put me in violation or not. Either way, I don't like this amendment at all.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:44:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.

And ya know what on top of that with that damn amendment they can let the damn bill die with the veto, this bill has become a Bullshit filled POS. And is not something we should want to become law. Sorry but when I can be charged with a felony for doing nothing wrong thats a problem. If I'm walking down the street and a school bus passes, I've just commited a felony with no intent to, without even trying to. Sorry this stinks like shit and should not be accepted.



Once again, you would rather sabotage a bill that gets us CCW.

The bill makes exceptions to the school premise wording.



22. Page 47, line 17: after that line insert:
“(bg) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun
within 100 feet of school premises unless one of the following applies:
1. The individual is in a motor vehicle.
2. The individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s. 948.605 (2) (b).
(br) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun on
school premises unless the individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s.
948.605 (2) (b).”.



Av.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:46:58 AM EDT
+ eleventybazillion
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:49:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.

And ya know what on top of that with that damn amendment they can let the damn bill die with the veto, this bill has become a Bullshit filled POS. And is not something we should want to become law. Sorry but when I can be charged with a felony for doing nothing wrong thats a problem. If I'm walking down the street and a school bus passes, I've just commited a felony with no intent to, without even trying to. Sorry this stinks like shit and should not be accepted.




One other thing. If you are walking down the street, and there is a school on that street. You will have to go over one block, because even if you cross the street, you will still be within the 100 foot boundry. Unless it is a 4 lane street.

These people are trying to kill this bill with bullshit amendments.

Good luck, and I hope you get a bill that is somehow useable.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:50:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 338winmag:
One other thing. If you are walking down the street, and there is a school on that street. You will have to go over one block, because even if you cross the street, you will still be within the 100 foot boundry. Unless it is a 4 lane street.

These people are trying to kill this bill with bullshit amendments.

Good luck, and I hope you get a bill that is somehow useable.



Good lord, you people are worse than a bunch of liberals.

Read the admendment! There are exceptions!

Av.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:59:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:01:50 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Avalon01:

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.

And ya know what on top of that with that damn amendment they can let the damn bill die with the veto, this bill has become a Bullshit filled POS. And is not something we should want to become law. Sorry but when I can be charged with a felony for doing nothing wrong thats a problem. If I'm walking down the street and a school bus passes, I've just commited a felony with no intent to, without even trying to. Sorry this stinks like shit and should not be accepted.



Once again, you would rather sabotage a bill that gets us CCW.

The bill makes exceptions to the school premise wording.



22. Page 47, line 17: after that line insert:
“(bg) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun
within 100 feet of school premises unless one of the following applies:
1. The individual is in a motor vehicle.
2. The individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s. 948.605 (2) (b).
(br) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun on
school premises unless the individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s.
948.605 (2) (b).”.



Av.


I'm not advocating sabotoging this bill it's already happened in Madison.
Yes I would rather a watered down law that has been tuurned to shit not be passed. Do you know why it's watered down and full of shit? Because thats the only way they could get enough dims to support it. Fuck that. Wait till you have enough support to pass a none nutered bill. IF that means waiting till after the elections in november then so be it.

Also have you read 948.605(2)(B)
Hre is how that possesion is descibed
2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.

Read that and understand it. You have to unload the damn gun and put it in a case.

This law has become loaded down with bullshit. It is not something we should pass and then fix. it should die and be reintroduced when we have sufficant support that we don't have to water it down to appease the damn liberals.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:05:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:06:40 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Avalon01:

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.

And ya know what on top of that with that damn amendment they can let the damn bill die with the veto, this bill has become a Bullshit filled POS. And is not something we should want to become law. Sorry but when I can be charged with a felony for doing nothing wrong thats a problem. If I'm walking down the street and a school bus passes, I've just commited a felony with no intent to, without even trying to. Sorry this stinks like shit and should not be accepted.



Once again, you would rather sabotage a bill that gets us CCW.

The bill makes exceptions to the school premise wording.



22. Page 47, line 17: after that line insert:
“(bg) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun
within 100 feet of school premises unless one of the following applies:
1. The individual is in a motor vehicle.
2. The individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s. 948.605 (2) (b).
(br) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun on
school premises unless the individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s.
948.605 (2) (b).”.



Av.


I'm not advocating sabotoging this bill it's already happened in Madison.
Yes I would rather a watered down law that has been tuurned to shit not be passed. Do you know why it's watered down and full of shit? Because thats the only way they could get enough dims to support it. Fuck that. Wait till you have enough support to pass a none nutered bill. IF that means waiting till after the elections in november then so be it.

Also have you read 948.605(2)(B)
Hre is how that possesion is descibed
2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.

Read that and understand it. You have to unload the damn gun and put it in a case.

This law has become loaded down with bullshit. It is not something we should pass and then fix. it should die and be reintroduced when we have sufficant support that we don't have to water it down to appease the damn liberals.




I'm not a lawyer, so could someone please interpret this crap for me?

Does the part highlighted in red mean that CCW holders are exempt from commiting a felony if they are carrying within 100 feet of school property?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:07:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.



you're right, sorry
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:11:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:14:50 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Avalon01:

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.

And ya know what on top of that with that damn amendment they can let the damn bill die with the veto, this bill has become a Bullshit filled POS. And is not something we should want to become law. Sorry but when I can be charged with a felony for doing nothing wrong thats a problem. If I'm walking down the street and a school bus passes, I've just commited a felony with no intent to, without even trying to. Sorry this stinks like shit and should not be accepted.



Once again, you would rather sabotage a bill that gets us CCW.

The bill makes exceptions to the school premise wording.



22. Page 47, line 17: after that line insert:
“(bg) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun
within 100 feet of school premises unless one of the following applies:
1. The individual is in a motor vehicle.
2. The individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s. 948.605 (2) (b).
(br) Neither a licensee nor an out−of−state licensee may carry a handgun on
school premises unless the individual’s possession of the handgun is described in s.
948.605 (2) (b).”.



Av.


I'm not advocating sabotoging this bill it's already happened in Madison.
Yes I would rather a watered down law that has been tuurned to shit not be passed. Do you know why it's watered down and full of shit? Because thats the only way they could get enough dims to support it. Fuck that. Wait till you have enough support to pass a none nutered bill. IF that means waiting till after the elections in november then so be it.

Also have you read 948.605(2)(B)
Hre is how that possesion is descibed
2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.

Read that and understand it. You have to unload the damn gun and put it in a case.

This law has become loaded down with bullshit. It is not something we should pass and then fix. it should die and be reintroduced when we have sufficant support that we don't have to water it down to appease the damn liberals.




I'm not a lawyer, so could someone please interpret this crap for me?

Does the part highlighted in red mean that CCW holders are exempt from commiting a felony if they are carrying within 100 feet of school property?




Well here are the problems with it as writen. A political subdivision of the state usually means the County/city/town/etc. We have a firearms preemption law which means no political subdivision of the state can make any firearms law more strict then the states laws. They can however deal with discharging of firearms issues.

The problems here is that no political subdivision of the state is issueing CCWs under the law, the WDOJ is the issueing AGENCY, and why they include the BATFE in that shit I don't know. None of us are going to get a CCW issued by our county sherrif, they are not the issueing agency. The way it's worded the permit needs to be issued by the county/town/city etc that the school system is in in order to fall under that exception. Thats not going to happen for any of us and state issued CCW would not fit that exception.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:15:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman: It is not something we should pass and then fix. it should die and be reintroduced when we have sufficant support that we don't have to water it down to appease the damn liberals.





What's wrong with fixing it later? If you've got the support to pass a "clean" bill, then you'll have the support to clean up this one.

You can carry sooner, albeit with a few goofy restrictions that you'll have to be mindful of. Then at time A in the future you get the bill cleaned up to a reasonable state.

If you wait, until you have the support, then you just don't legally carry at all from now until time A in the future when you can pass the clean bill.

Either way, at time A you're at the same spot, with a clean bill. The only difference is one route the time between now and then you can legally carry outside of your home.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:17:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:19:12 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Well here are the problems with it as writen. A political subdivision of the state usually means the County/city/town/etc. We have a firearms preemption law which means no political subdivision of the state can make any firearms law more strict then the states laws. They can however deal with discharging of firearms issues.

The problems here is that no political subdivision of the state is issueing CCWs under the law, the WDOJ is the issueing AGENCY, and why they include the BATFE in that shit I don't know. None of us are going to get a CCW issued by our county sherrif, they are not the issueing agency. The way it's worded the permit needs to be issued by the county/town/city etc that the school system is in in order to fall under that exception. Thats not going to happen for any of us and state issued CCW would not fit that exception.



Thanks for the clarification.

So, Avalon...There is a school about 5-600feet away from my house, just down the street.

Which exception are you referring to that would allow me to go for a walk down my street with my CCW?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:19:54 AM EDT
From somebody who is from MA where we have discretionary licensing for CCW, all I can say is: vote for the damn thing- it's better than what you've got already. Go back later and work to clean it up. But at least for now you will have shall issue CCW, if I read the bill correctly. And that's more than we here have.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:20:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:21:21 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By photoman:
How can it go to shitbird? The assembly added an amendment that was not in the senate bill. One that would make it a felony to be within 100 feet of a school bus or building(if not in a vehcial) with a CCW. Does this not now have to go to a comittee to have the differances worked out? I htought it did.



you're right, sorry



Ok good I hope it gets fixed right there. At least change the damn wording of it so the exception actually means something. The way the exception is writen it isn't an exception because the counties are not issueing the permits and as they are the "political subdivision of the state" where the school system is, only they could issue you a permit under this exception where you would not be violating this part of the law.....
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:14:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 7:20:36 AM EDT by Avalon01]

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Well here are the problems with it as writen. A political subdivision of the state usually means the County/city/town/etc. We have a firearms preemption law which means no political subdivision of the state can make any firearms law more strict then the states laws. They can however deal with discharging of firearms issues.

The problems here is that no political subdivision of the state is issueing CCWs under the law, the WDOJ is the issueing AGENCY, and why they include the BATFE in that shit I don't know. None of us are going to get a CCW issued by our county sherrif, they are not the issueing agency. The way it's worded the permit needs to be issued by the county/town/city etc that the school system is in in order to fall under that exception. Thats not going to happen for any of us and state issued CCW would not fit that exception.



Thanks for the clarification.

So, Avalon...There is a school about 5-600feet away from my house, just down the street.

Which exception are you referring to that would allow me to go for a walk down my street with my CCW?



The same law that Photoman is referring to. I interpret it differently than he does.

Av.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:19:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
This law has become loaded down with bullshit. It is not something we should pass and then fix. it should die and be reintroduced when we have sufficant support that we don't have to water it down to appease the damn liberals.



If you honestly believe that this state is going to become MORE conservative, I think you are sadly mistaken.

Lot's of people are moving North from the Chicago areas into Racine County, Walworth County, and Kenosha County. Madison and Milwaukee are only getting larger.

If we don't pass this bill now, I don't think it's going to happen at all. I heard the same "wait until the next elections" during the last time we tried to pass the PPA. Now I'm hearing it again.

When are we going to stop waiting and DO something?!

Av.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:24:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TowlieMatrix:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
Cool. Who's left?



Nebraska, Kansas, & my personal hellhole (IL).



Nebraska's problem is entirely due to one asshole -Ernie Chambers. Think of Jesse Jackson but stupider, and with less money. Thankfully, term limits are about to kick is ass to the curb. Nebraska should get CCW in a year or two.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:24:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Avalon01:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Well here are the problems with it as writen. A political subdivision of the state usually means the County/city/town/etc. We have a firearms preemption law which means no political subdivision of the state can make any firearms law more strict then the states laws. They can however deal with discharging of firearms issues.

The problems here is that no political subdivision of the state is issueing CCWs under the law, the WDOJ is the issueing AGENCY, and why they include the BATFE in that shit I don't know. None of us are going to get a CCW issued by our county sherrif, they are not the issueing agency. The way it's worded the permit needs to be issued by the county/town/city etc that the school system is in in order to fall under that exception. Thats not going to happen for any of us and state issued CCW would not fit that exception.



Thanks for the clarification.

So, Avalon...There is a school about 5-600feet away from my house, just down the street.

Which exception are you referring to that would allow me to go for a walk down my street with my CCW?



The same law that Photoman is referring to. I interpret it differently than he does.

Av.



Um look up a definition of "political subdivision" ok no CCW holder will be or legaly can be exepmt from that amendment, because the exceptions in that particular law refer to permits issued by the political subdivision that the chool system is located in.

So one more time. The Wisconsin Department of Justice will be issuing the CCW permits, that AGENCY is NOT a POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE. Therefore a permit issued by them would not fall under the exception in the law. There is no way around that that is how the law is writen and worded.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:34:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Avalon01:

Originally Posted By photoman:
This law has become loaded down with bullshit. It is not something we should pass and then fix. it should die and be reintroduced when we have sufficant support that we don't have to water it down to appease the damn liberals.



If you honestly believe that this state is going to become MORE conservative, I think you are sadly mistaken.

Lot's of people are moving North from the Chicago areas into Racine County, Walworth County, and Kenosha County. Madison and Milwaukee are only getting larger.

If we don't pass this bill now, I don't think it's going to happen at all. I heard the same "wait until the next elections" during the last time we tried to pass the PPA. Now I'm hearing it again.

When are we going to stop waiting and DO something?!

Av.



We have more ways to it then just the damn legislation. If you have to nuter a bill so damn much just to get it passed you have issues. And passing the bill as is is not doing anyone any good.

The same thing can also be asked of everyone that says pass it then fix it. If you feel the state is going to become more liberal, then passing it and fixing it later sure as hell isn't goint to work. If the only way you can pass it is to bend over and take it in the ass from the liberals, what makes you think you'll have the votes to change the bill, they wouldn't vote for it till this shit was added, why would they vote to remove it later....

As to the election stuff, I know whats going on around here in Racine. And it's a step in the right direction.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:54:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
We have more ways to it then just the damn legislation. If you have to nuter a bill so damn much just to get it passed you have issues. And passing the bill as is is not doing anyone any good.

The same thing can also be asked of everyone that says pass it then fix it. If you feel the state is going to become more liberal, then passing it and fixing it later sure as hell isn't goint to work. If the only way you can pass it is to bend over and take it in the ass from the liberals, what makes you think you'll have the votes to change the bill, they wouldn't vote for it till this shit was added, why would they vote to remove it later....

As to the election stuff, I know whats going on around here in Racine. And it's a step in the right direction.



So basically you think that there's no hope of passing a clean bill, and that passing this crappy one will leave us stuck with it because it will give the courts something to point to in concealed carry cases, wheras without the bill passed they'd have to reconcile the concealed carry ban with the state RKBA amendment?


All I can say to that is that I do not trust the courts and expect they'll fugg us over as bad as anyone else in government.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:17:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
We have more ways to it then just the damn legislation. The courts? They are more liberal now than they were the last time the PPA was brought up. The last case they decied on for CCW left us with a very specific way to CCW (on your property or place of businees). I don't think the courts are going to rule on CCW anytime soon, even the US Supream Court advids Second Admendment issues.If you have to nuter a bill so damn much just to get it passed you have issues. And passing the bill as is is not doing anyone any good. Yes it is. It gets us CCW. I am willing to risk it now when we have a chance, than a few years down the road when we may not. At least we get CCW, if we all sit and wait we may NEVER get it. That is worse than what is being offered now.

The same thing can also be asked of everyone that says pass it then fix it. If you feel the state is going to become more liberal, then passing it and fixing it later sure as hell isn't goint to work. If the only way you can pass it is to bend over and take it in the ass from the liberals, what makes you think you'll have the votes to change the bill, they wouldn't vote for it till this shit was added, why would they vote to remove it later.... Again, at least we have CCW. It may not be a Vermont-style law, but it's better than what we have now. And it's better than the possibility of never having legal CCW.

As to the election stuff, I know whats going on around here in Racine. And it's a step in the right direction.

[I don't know about Racine, but Walworth County is becoming more liberal everyday.

I'm tired of waiting. Waiting for the next election. Waiting for more Conservatives in power. Waiting to vote out people who didn't support the PPA.

I wish the S.C. would rule that CCW is a "right", but that won't happen anytime soon. This bill is the best chance we have. We blew it last time.

Look at how different this bill is from the last time the PPA was written. It's only going to be worse or not at all if we don't get something passed.

Av.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:28:40 AM EDT
Can you imagine what it would take to get a AK/VT carry bill? Christ this bill is fat with B.S. but better than what is here now.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:33:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 8:55:49 AM EDT by Dolomite]
This whole school bus panic attack is going to turn out to be much ado about nothing.


Can you imagine what it would take to get a AK/VT carry bill?
AK had to pass shall issue first.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:46:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
This whole school bus panic attack is going to turn out to be much ado about nothing.


Can you imagine what it would take to get a AK/VT carry bill?
AK had to pass shall issue first.



I hope you're right.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:51:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 8:58:24 AM EDT by tommytrauma]

Originally Posted By Kassnar:
Can you imagine what it would take to get a AK/VT carry bill? Christ this bill is fat with B.S. but better than what is here now.



It's a whole hell of a lot better than what we have now, and will be tweaked to make it even better yet.

The idea of waiting to get the "perfect" bill passed is just about as naive as the crap the WGO claims to believe. This would be the biggest step forward that this state has ever experienced in this arena, but some her want to toss it out 'cause it isn't enough for them. Never mind the simple little fact that it leaves us miles ahead of where we are currently. Never mind that further changes will be made in coming sessions as the anti fuss and fury dies down. Some of us might have to avoid certain small areas until the law is tweaked, so let's stick with a complete and total prohibition instead.

Photoman, newbie, I know both of you. I really expected a more logical response from each of you. This gets us 95% of the way, and it makes obtaining the remaining 5% in the next few years obtainable. Instead, you advocate rejecting it out of hand and waiting to see what we can get after 20 pro gun representatives retire in the next year???? Have you guys taken up crack????

Take the god damn free car, and quit bitching that it doesn't have a CD player.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:52:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Avalon01:

Originally Posted By photoman:
We have more ways to it then just the damn legislation. The courts? They are more liberal now than they were the last time the PPA was brought up. The last case they decied on for CCW left us with a very specific way to CCW (on your property or place of businees). I don't think the courts are going to rule on CCW anytime soon, even the US Supream Court advids Second Admendment issues.If you have to nuter a bill so damn much just to get it passed you have issues. And passing the bill as is is not doing anyone any good. Yes it is. It gets us CCW. I am willing to risk it now when we have a chance, than a few years down the road when we may not. At least we get CCW, if we all sit and wait we may NEVER get it. That is worse than what is being offered now.

The same thing can also be asked of everyone that says pass it then fix it. If you feel the state is going to become more liberal, then passing it and fixing it later sure as hell isn't goint to work. If the only way you can pass it is to bend over and take it in the ass from the liberals, what makes you think you'll have the votes to change the bill, they wouldn't vote for it till this shit was added, why would they vote to remove it later.... Again, at least we have CCW. It may not be a Vermont-style law, but it's better than what we have now. And it's better than the possibility of never having legal CCW.

As to the election stuff, I know whats going on around here in Racine. And it's a step in the right direction.

[I don't know about Racine, but Walworth County is becoming more liberal everyday.

I'm tired of waiting. Waiting for the next election. Waiting for more Conservatives in power. Waiting to vote out people who didn't support the PPA.

I wish the S.C. would rule that CCW is a "right", but that won't happen anytime soon. This bill is the best chance we have. We blew it last time.

Look at how different this bill is from the last time the PPA was written. It's only going to be worse or not at all if we don't get something passed.

Av.




The bill is only worse because pepople decided it's better to take it up the ass and "compramise" on some dumb shit. This bill is worse then the last version which if we all remember only faild to pass because of political gmaes durring the veto override. If you guys would have heard Jim Fendry talk about it earlier this month you'd know what I mean.

The whole pass it now fix it later is a flaw in thinking if one believes as you do that the states political landscape is geting more liberal. Because as I already said, the chances of getting the BS pulled out later when the dems are more in number is not going to be possible. So then were stuck with a BS filled law.




So basically you think that there's no hope of passing a clean bill, and that passing this crappy one will leave us stuck with it because it will give the courts something to point to in concealed carry cases, wheras without the bill passed they'd have to reconcile the concealed carry ban with the state RKBA amendment?


All I can say to that is that I do not trust the courts and expect they'll fugg us over as bad as anyone else in government.



I think we'll have a better chance after the november elections to pass a clean bill.

As to the WSC having something to point to in CCW cases thats a possibility, we could end up fucking ourselves and being stuck with this POS bill. But then again they may not. The chief Justices decent in the Hamdan case really supprised me with her position on the issue. I think though that the real test will be come Feb when the Fisher case is heard.

I for one don't think wisconsin's political landscape is going to shift to the left. I believe that that it will continue to the right. People are getting pissed at the libs in Wisconsin government.

Remember the court has already said that Wisconsins CCW prohibition is constitutional because the right is susceptable to resonable restrictions, however prohibition is not a resonable restriction. Go back and read hamdan and see what they list as reasons for resonable restrictions. You'll laugh yer ass off because most of them sound like the "it will be the wild west" "Blood in the streets" reasons given by the dims.

The CCW prohibition is considered a resonable restriction for these reasons



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶53. We turn now to the public benefits underlying the CCW statute and how they apply in the circumstances of this case. As we explained in Cole, Wisconsin's prohibition of the carrying of concealed weapons is, as a general matter, a reasonable exercise of the police power, Cole, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ¶40, and serves many valuable purposes in promoting public safety.

¶54. In State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994), the court of appeals described the inspiration for CCW laws as follows:

The reason for these statutes, it has been said, is "because persons becoming suddenly angered and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person."

Id. at 71 (quoting from Williams v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 807, 807-08 (Ky. 1953), with citations in Williams omitted). In short, carrying a concealed weapon permits a person to act violently on impulse, whether from anger or fear, and that is a prospect the law may discourage.

¶55. Another rationale for prohibiting concealed weapons is to put people on notice when they are dealing with an individual who is carrying a dangerous weapon. Notice of the presence of a dangerous weapon permits people, including law enforcement officers, to act accordingly. See Ross v. State, 566 S.E.2d 47, 49 (Ga. App. 2002); Anderson v. State, 614 A.2d 963, 965 (Md. 1992); 94 C.J.S. Weapons § 21 (2001). This objective is perhaps the most significant inspiration for CCW laws. A related concern is that concealed weapons facilitate the commission of crime by creating the appearance of normality and catching people off guard.



Not one of those is a real benifit, they are all precieved benifits. And those that are going to commit a crime with a concealed weapon are going to do so regardless of the law. A person is no more likly to act violently on impulse with a CCW then they are a weapon of oppertunity or their hands or feet. In fact most crimes of impulse are carried out not with guns but with knives/sticks/bats/weapons of oppertunity. I really hope the Fisher case gets into some aspect of this too. But I doubt it will. No CCW in a courtroom, thats a resonable restriction, no CCW at all, thats not a resonable restriction.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:59:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:


So basically you think that there's no hope of passing a clean bill, and that passing this crappy one will leave us stuck with it because it will give the courts something to point to in concealed carry cases, wheras without the bill passed they'd have to reconcile the concealed carry ban with the state RKBA amendment?


All I can say to that is that I do not trust the courts and expect they'll fugg us over as bad as anyone else in government.



I think we'll have a better chance after the november elections to pass a clean bill.




Ok, then forgetting about the courts, if we have the numbers to pass a clean bill as of november, why wouldn't we have the numbers to clean this one up? And if we can clean it up, why not get it now and clean it up later.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:01:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
I think we'll have a better chance after the november elections to pass a clean bill.


Oh Jesus H. Christ! After 20 Republicans retire from the legislature next year? No thanks, screw that.

Dude, I like your fightin' attitude and all (I wish I could put it in a bottle an sneak it into the water system) - but will there ever be a bill clean enough for you?

Also, for anyone out there that plans on taking the un-Constitutionality of this bill to the courts after it gets the override, it’s very important to remember not to apply for a permit, ever, for anything relating to a firearm. Doing so recognizes that you are cognizant of your subservience to the State.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:11:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tommytrauma:

Originally Posted By Kassnar:
Can you imagine what it would take to get a AK/VT carry bill? Christ this bill is fat with B.S. but better than what is here now.



It's a whole hell of a lot better than what we have now, and will be tweaked to make it even better yet.

The idea of waiting to get the "perfect" bill passed is just about as naive as the crap the WGO claims to believe. This would be the biggest step forward that this state has ever experienced in this arena, but some her want to toss it out 'cause it isn't enough for them. Never mind the simple little fact that it leaves us miles ahead of where we are currently. Never mind that further changes will be made in coming sessions as the anti fuss and fury dies down. Some of us might have to avoid certain small areas until the law is tweaked, so let's stick with a complete and total prohibition instead.

Photoman, newbie, I know both of you. I really expected a more logical response from each of you. This gets us 95% of the way, and it makes obtaining the remaining 5% in the next few years obtainable. Instead, you advocate rejecting it out of hand and waiting to see what we can get after 20 pro gun representatives retire in the next year???? Have you guys taken up crack????

Take the god damn free car, and quit bitching that it doesn't have a CD player.

.

I'm not advocating passing aperfect bill, it's not possible, however the 2003 bill was better then this one is now, and the bill as introduced to the Senate was better then this one is now.

I have nothing to like about this bill and I can't play the "something is better then nothing" game on this as even just accepting that we will have to have a law passed to get CCW is a big step down from my normal position on htis issue. That being that the right is already there and that the "resonable restrictions" on that right just need to be removed, and the best place to do that is the courts in my eyes.


And this whole everyone screaming BUT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS shit is really getting to me because no one bothered to really read the wording of the exception. There is no exception because a state agency is not a political subdivision of the state, that means holding a Wisconsin CCW permit would not be a defense for having a gun within 100 ft of a school because the permit according to the exception has to be issued by the political subdivision in which the school/school district resides and the political subdivisions are not issueing the CCW permit the state is.

I don't want a perfect bill, it will never happen I know that, but I'd at least like one that is not as marred down in BS appeasment shit like this one has become.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:12:47 AM EDT
good luck guys. i hope you get it through. illinois still sucks.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top