Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/6/2005 12:57:43 PM EDT
i am surprised that there is not any threads about the outcome of the vote that was supposed ot take place today. does anyone know how it went? i was in class all day and am now looking for the results.
thanks
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 1:29:54 PM EDT
Still hasn't happened. you can listen to it here State Senate
I would venture to say it won't happen today.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 1:43:51 PM EDT
darn...
thanks for the heads up.
annyone want to venture a guess how long it will take to get a final answer f after doyle vetos it and we attempt to override the veto?
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 2:32:52 PM EDT
Still has to get voted on in the assembly which might happen next week. Probally wont know anything until after the first of the year. But the question remains who really cares what they say we can and can't do, the state constitution is clear on our rights.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 3:29:30 PM EDT
what do you mean rugger?
if you mean we should be allowed to carry regardles sof what is on the books ,i agree with you 100%. however i dislike being jailed and haveing some cop with an itchy triger finger point his weapon at me.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 4:38:33 PM EDT
It is going to pass without question. The real issue is whether there are enough votes to override Doyle's veto. FYI - All the BS amendments are getting knocked down...
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 4:39:18 PM EDT
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/insession/senate/index.htm
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 4:58:37 PM EDT
what is the bill's number?
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:06:40 PM EDT
Passed, 23-9
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:13:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
Passed, 23-9



We need a 2/3 majority to over-ride the veto, or 22/32. So unless someone backs out...
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:23:22 PM EDT
so now this gets presented to doyle?
sorry, i have very little knowledge about how legislation is passed.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:29:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By par0thead151:
so now this gets presented to doyle?
sorry, i have very little knowledge about how legislation is passed.



Next it goes to the Assembly. Hard to tell how soon it will come up to be voted on.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:46:20 PM EDT
The actual vote was 23 to 10.

These bastards voted against the bill:

Carpenter
Coggs
Erpenbach
Ha­nsen
Jauch
Miller
Olsen
RisserRobson
Taylor
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:57:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 7:58:30 PM EDT by glenn_r]

Originally Posted By Muad_Dib:
The actual vote was 23 to 10.



so we still need 22 votes to override
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 9:22:07 PM EDT
Email from Dick Baker received at 10pm tonight:


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 votes 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: 12/6/2005 11:09:10 PM EDT
If our Constitutional Rights manage to over-ride the ass-hole governor's veto and there actually is such a thing as a WI CCW, is the Non-Resident Minnesota permit going to be honored in WI if we are a WI resident. Or do we have to get a whole new one?

Some of you guys have non-res. permits for both FL and MN. Hate to see ya have to get another one...
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:03:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 3:08:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:05:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 4:05:24 AM EDT by photoman]
It's my understanding from reading a earlier version that WI would accept any and all other states CCW permits.

I think it's time to get my Min and Fla permits, I don't plan to get a Wiscoonsin permit at least not right away. I still don't like the hole tied to vehical registration thing. Anyone have a link to the newest version of the bill?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:08:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 4:11:21 AM EDT by FMD]
Actually, they inserted language to exempt WI residents from carrying on a Non-resident CC Licence at 175.50 (g).



ETA: Link to SB403 (PDF Document)
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:32:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 4:37:35 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By FMD:
Actually, they inserted language to exempt WI residents from carrying on a Non-resident CC Licence at 175.50 (g).



ETA: Link to SB403 (PDF Document)



BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

When the hell did they add that shit. Thats just fucked up! Let me guess it has to do with the notification system for LE right? I wouldn't doubt it. Thats just fucking fucked up right there. I feel a nastygram comming on to a few select state legislators.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:42:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 4:49:07 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FMD:
Actually, they inserted language to exempt WI residents from carrying on a Non-resident CC Licence at 175.50 (g).



ETA: Link to SB403 (PDF Document)



BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

When the hell did they add that shit. Thats just fucked up! Let me guess it has to do with the notification system for LE right? I wouldn't doubt it. Thats just fucking fucked up right there. I feel a nastygram comming on to a few select state legislators.



Tell me how you really feel, bud.

Yes, it sucks. Add in that the DOJ has no statutory time limit on when they must certify instructors for an "approved" list to provide CCW applicants with training, and I predict it will be this time next year before the first in-state licences get issued. ETA: However, the penalties for carrying without a permit go into effect 60 days after the override. WI might as well be New Jersey for a couple of months, unless we open carry.

<NRA-WCCA-Zein>
But this bill is a good one...
</NRA-WCCA-Zien>

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:43:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
It's my understanding from reading a earlier version that WI would accept any and all other states CCW permits.

I think it's time to get my Min and Fla permits, I don't plan to get a Wiscoonsin permit at least not right away. I still don't like the hole tied to vehical registration thing. Anyone have a link to the newest version of the bill?




I read the bill yesterday morning and it said that cc permits from other states would be honored if the permit holder had to go throught a background check to get the permit.

I didn't read the amendments so I'm not sure what they tacked on.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 4:47:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

I read the bill yesterday morning and it said that cc permits from other states would be honored if the permit holder had to go throught a background check and is 21, and is not a Wisconsin resident to get the permit.



Red part was in the original version of this year's bill.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 5:01:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 5:04:10 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

I read the bill yesterday morning and it said that cc permits from other states would be honored if the permit holder had to go throught a background check and is 21, and is not a Wisconsin resident to get the permit.



Red part was in the original version of this year's bill.



Can't fuck the king Gov out of his money right.

To quote TJ "It is a short sighted err to accept a right as a privilege and declare it a victory."
The first step to that has happened

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 5:02:14 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 5:21:50 AM EDT
Guys,

I'm no fan of the car registration database tied to the CCW licensing system either. But I'm not surprised at requiring WI residents to obtain a WI license instead of non-resident licenses from another state.

A couple of thoughts on that topic. Driver's licenses must be issued by your state of residence. There are decent reasons for that which probably carry over in most forms of licenses. Police officers must be licensed by the state--no "foreign" certifications (which has caused headaches for MN officers trying to work in border areas inside WI). And, finally, other state CCW licenses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does any state allow its own residents to carry on a non-resident permit from another state? If so, I would guess it's a minority of states that have this loophole.

As far as requiring a permit to exercise what's believed to be a right, we've been down that road before. Right or not, it's not recognized by the courts as such and CCW without this can result in arrest. I don't see requiring residents to obtain a resident permit as anything other than an inconvenience. I remain excited that my wife will be able to get a permit and carry.

What I find absolutely amazing is that Wisconsin will honor the permits of all other states. I fully expected Wisconsin to say, "Get our permit or get arrested". Honoring all other state permits is great, because don't most other states tie their reciprocity to whether the issuing state honors their permit? This would make Wisconsin's permit good in a majority of all other states, if I'm correct. It would be the equivalent of a Florida permit.

I still say this is a good deal. Not a great deal, not a perfect deal--but much better than it could have been, and much better than nothing at all.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 6:47:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 6:55:04 AM EDT
My inlaws live in Madison and I'd like to be legal when I visit.

Just get the thing passed. It will take time to fix some of the problems with the restrictions but just having a permit system is a huge first step.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:05:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BulletcatchR:
Thanks for clearing that up. It's what I thought.
Looks like I'll start registering my vehicles under my business. I don't mind a list, but feel it should be restricted till a background check is radio'ed in(linked to my name, not my vehicle), not at a traffic stop.


bulletcatchR



Hmm good idea on the registering the vehical with the business. I also think it should be linked to the actual Name/DL if anything and not the vehical registration.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:09:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 7:12:49 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
Guys,

I'm no fan of the car registration database tied to the CCW licensing system either.

Strangely, this is one thing I don't have an issue with. Edit for clarity: Linking a CCW permit with a DL. In most CCW states that do this, it also comes along with exempting you from the background check required under the Brady Law when you fill out a 4473, and eliminates any waiting period.

But I'm not surprised at requiring WI residents to obtain a WI license instead of non-resident licenses from another state.

I'm not surprised either, but it creates the problem I described in an earlier post. There will be a lag time while CCW is legal but impossible...with stiffer penalties to any who would carry without a permit. It is a change from the last version; a not-so-desirable change, as most states that will issue a Non-Res require either a home permit first, or an extensive background check/training (more stringent than the PPA). By taking that provision out, the only folks that are hurt are the ones who would be able to carry during that "lag time" between the DOJ trainers certification and the first permits issued. The folks who would essentially be "grandfathered" in, like most of the DE alumni who've already got a Non-res from another state. Those aren't the folks you want to exclude from carrying.

A couple of thoughts on that topic. Driver's licenses must be issued by your state of residence. There are decent reasons for that which probably carry over in most forms of licenses. Police officers must be licensed by the state--no "foreign" certifications (which has caused headaches for MN officers trying to work in border areas inside WI).

I understand the reasoning to an extent. Unfortunately, "My license is in the National Archives" doesn't fly as an affirmative defense. Drivers licenses and LEO certifications aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The RKBA is. Further, there's this "equal protection" part of the Constitution ...although there isn't a judge that would accept it as an affirmative defense outside of Vermont or Alaska.

And, finally, other state CCW licenses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does any state allow its own residents to carry on a non-resident permit from another state?

Yes (Missouri, most recently and off the top of my head).

If so, I would guess it's a minority of states that have this loophole.

Correctamundo (but I wouldn't call it a loophole).

As far as requiring a permit to exercise what's believed to be a right, we've been down that road before. Right or not, it's not recognized by the courts as such and CCW without this can result in arrest.



I don't see requiring residents to obtain a resident permit as anything other than an inconvenience.

...that could negatively affect one's safety in the time between the possible enacting of the PPA, and the time the DOJ starts to issue licenses. I still hold out hope that the courts can make us VT or AK by default.

I remain excited that my wife will be able to get a permit and carry.

Me too (applied to my own wife, as well as yours...backup is backup, dammit)!

What I find absolutely amazing is that Wisconsin will honor the permits of all other states.

While I agree, see the "equal protection" statement I've made above.

I fully expected Wisconsin to say, "Get our permit or get arrested". Honoring all other state permits is great, because don't most other states tie their reciprocity to whether the issuing state honors their permit?

Yes and no. Most states require a reciprocity agreement. There is no provision for the DOJ to extend such an agreement in the current PPA as passed last night.

This would make Wisconsin's permit good in a majority of all other states, if I'm correct. It would be the equivalent of a Florida permit.

Florida is VERY aggressive with their program, and I seriously doubt that WI will be. Add in the fact that reciprocity could very well fall under the DOJ's rulemaking authority (it's not addressed adequately in the text, AFAICT), and the WI permit will probably only add WI, MI, NH, and MN to the Florida permit I already have.

I still say this is a good deal. Not a great deal, not a perfect deal--but much better than it could have been, and much better than nothing at all.

AFTER the DOJ starts issuing licenses.



Sorry for the hair (and post) -splitting, G. Just offering up MHO as a reasoned response.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:14:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
Hmm good idea on the registering the vehical with the business. I also think it should be linked to the actual Name/DL if anything and not the vehical registration.



Another surprise is this: when I read the bill (linked above) this morning, I didn't see a requirement to notify the officer immediately upon contact, like many other states have. Instead, it says you must show the permit when requested. IF I didn't miss something else in the bill, passengers wouldn't be required to notify LE, nor would people walking along the street, etc. Don't get me wrong--I think notifying would be the smart thing to do--but from a privacy standpoint that's a win.

+1 on the foolishness of linking registration to CCW database. It's a feel-good measure for the State Patrol. I didn't check this out during this morning's read of the bill, but from the news reports it sounds like the CCW-vehicle registration link must be requested. I don't think it will pop up automatically when the plate is run. That, combined with the bill's misdemeanor charges for LE who request the info too often, leaves me unconcerned with this provision. It's still a non-issue for me. (But registering vehicles in your business name might prevent the link.)
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:15:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By BulletcatchR:
Thanks for clearing that up. It's what I thought.
Looks like I'll start registering my vehicles under my business. I don't mind a list, but feel it should be restricted till a background check is radio'ed in(linked to my name, not my vehicle), not at a traffic stop.


bulletcatchR



Hmm good idea on the registering the vehical with the business. I also think it should be linked to the actual Name/DL if anything and not the vehical registration.



How does that even make sense? The whole reason of having the vehicle registration tied to the CCW license is so that cops know when they are pulling over a CCW holder right (which I think is stupid, but...)?

So, what if you're carrying CCW and you're driving someone else's car? Kind of defeats the purpose.

So, does this mean that if I have an LLC for NFA stuff, I can transfer my vehicle registration over to my LLC and then when I get pulled over the cop won't know that I have CCW?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:23:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
Sorry for the hair (and post) -splitting, G. Just offering up MHO as a reasoned response.



Certainly no apology is warranted. Reasoned responses are always respected (IBTJBT replies ) Furthermore, you bring up good points. I don't have time to do it now, but what's the penalty for carrying w/o CCW license after the bill is passed? Right now it's a class A misdemeanor, so does it become a felony? I didn't pay attention

I hadn't considered your point about DETC alumni with out-of-state CCW permits being able to carry immediately upon passage. That would include my wife as well. So, it's not a perfect bill (what government bill is????), but I'll still take it as written, with clean-up to follow.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:28:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Hmm good idea on the registering the vehical with the business. I also think it should be linked to the actual Name/DL if anything and not the vehical registration.



Another surprise is this: when I read the bill (linked above) this morning, I didn't see a requirement to notify the officer immediately upon contact, like many other states have. Instead, it says you must show the permit when requested. IF I didn't miss something else in the bill, passengers wouldn't be required to notify LE, nor would people walking along the street, etc. Don't get me wrong--I think notifying would be the smart thing to do--but from a privacy standpoint that's a win.

+1 on the foolishness of linking registration to CCW database. It's a feel-good measure for the State Patrol. I didn't check this out during this morning's read of the bill, but from the news reports it sounds like the CCW-vehicle registration link must be requested. I don't think it will pop up automatically when the plate is run. That, combined with the bill's misdemeanor charges for LE who request the info too often, leaves me unconcerned with this provision. It's still a non-issue for me. (But registering vehicles in your business name might prevent the link.)



Glenn the original version(before all the amendments for the SP) had the same thing. There was no requirement to notify or show the CCW license unless asked spesificly. Something I like actually about this bill.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:38:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 7:38:59 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
...what's the penalty for carrying w/o CCW license after the bill is passed? Right now it's a class A misdemeanor, so does it become a felony? I didn't pay attention.



Could have sworn the last version upped it to a felony, but don't have the time to go back and re-read it for the 5th time since last night looking for changes.

Photoman, yer probably sittin on yer butt playing rent-a-cop () you wanna find it for us?
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 7:53:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
...what's the penalty for carrying w/o CCW license after the bill is passed? Right now it's a class A misdemeanor, so does it become a felony? I didn't pay attention.



Could have sworn the last version upped it to a felony, but don't have the time to go back and re-read it for the 5th time since last night looking for changes.

Photoman, yer probably sittin on yer butt playing rent-a-cop () you wanna find it for us?



In a second I'll find it, I actually just skipped past it to find the requirements for "certifying instructors" which is in the bill.

(3m) COURSE OR CLASS REQUIREMENTS. (a) A firearm training or firearm safety
course or class under sub. (3) (h) 1. or 3. shall include all of the following:
1. Instruction on how to handle, load, unload, and store handguns.
2. Instruction on the privilege of self−defense and the defense of others under
s. 939.48.

3. Instruction on how to avoid injuring 3rd parties when defending himself,
herself, or others in a manner that is privileged under s. 939.48.
4. Basic self−defense principles.
5. Instruction on how to carry a concealed handgun safely.
6. Instruction on firing a handgun.
7. Practice firing a handgun.
8. Instruction by an instructor certified by the department under par. (b).
(b) The department shall certify instructors and maintain a list of instructors
that it certifies. To be certified by the department as an instructor, a person must
meet all of the following criteria:
1. Be qualified under sub. (3) to carry a concealed weapon.
2. Be able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge required for instructing
students under par. (a) 1. to 7.


The part in red gets me. Now I have to ask some questions. We were told in our NRA instructors course that in Wisconsin you can not teach the stuff in red above unless you were POST certified or a lawyer/judge. I don't know how correct that is but that to me says that even as an NRA certified instructor I wouldn't be able to do CCW course. Now I don't know if I'm looking at that correct, or if the info I was given was wrong, but I need to get some clarification on that.


Ok now I'll go look up the whole CCW without a permit penalties. BRB
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 8:05:12 AM EDT
Ok found it.

941.23 (2) (intro.) Any person except a peace officer, other than one of the
following
, who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor.

It then goes on to list active LE, retired LE and licensees.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 8:14:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 8:25:24 AM EDT by FMD]
Finished some phone calls. PM keep looking, but know that I couldn't find a modification to the exsisting penalty for CCW without a permit (a good thing).


Originally Posted By photoman:
...I actually just skipped past it to find the requirements for "certifying instructors" which is in the bill.

(3m) COURSE OR CLASS REQUIREMENTS. (a) A firearm training or firearm safety
course or class under sub. (3) (h) 1. or 3. shall include all of the following:
1. Instruction on how to handle, load, unload, and store handguns.
2. Instruction on the privilege of self−defense and the defense of others under
s. 939.48.

3. Instruction on how to avoid injuring 3rd parties when defending himself,
herself, or others in a manner that is privileged under s. 939.48.
4. Basic self−defense principles.
5. Instruction on how to carry a concealed handgun safely.
6. Instruction on firing a handgun.
7. Practice firing a handgun.
8. Instruction by an instructor certified by the department under par. (b).
(b) The department shall certify instructors and maintain a list of instructors
that it certifies. To be certified by the department as an instructor, a person must
meet all of the following criteria:
1. Be qualified under sub. (3) to carry a concealed weapon.

2. Be able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge required for instructing
students under par. (a) 1. to 7.

The part in red gets me. ...



The part in blue gets me.

Who has oversight on the DOJ, Doyle or Jagermeister? Either one could cause some problems if they want to keep us regular folks from carrying.

Let me pose a worst case scenario:

The DOJ won't certify ANY instructors, because no potential instructor will qualify under Sub.(3): i.e. The DOJ sets the cert level, but to be certified, you have to qualify for a CCW. Since their are no instructors qualified to give a class at that point, the DOJ can refuse to certify a potential instructor as unable to meet the requirements.

If you don't think Doyle or Peg would pull something like that, I'd say you were a bit naive.

ETA: I know I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here, but it's food for thought. If you don't think it's possible or even likely, take a look at the legal wrangling the Antis pulled in MN and in MO after they passed CCW legislation.

Edit 2: For those who haven't followed the saga of CCW in MO and MN: It took Missouri 18 months after they overrode their Governor's veto to get permits issued (after having to bring it to the MOSC), and MN just recently got their "shall issue" back after a year long fight and re-passing their version of the PPA: also after a trip to the MNSC.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 9:28:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
Finished some phone calls. PM keep looking, but know that I couldn't find a modification to the exsisting penalty for CCW without a permit (a good thing).


Originally Posted By photoman:
...I actually just skipped past it to find the requirements for "certifying instructors" which is in the bill.

(3m) COURSE OR CLASS REQUIREMENTS. (a) A firearm training or firearm safety
course or class under sub. (3) (h) 1. or 3. shall include all of the following:
1. Instruction on how to handle, load, unload, and store handguns.
2. Instruction on the privilege of self−defense and the defense of others under
s. 939.48.

3. Instruction on how to avoid injuring 3rd parties when defending himself,
herself, or others in a manner that is privileged under s. 939.48.
4. Basic self−defense principles.
5. Instruction on how to carry a concealed handgun safely.
6. Instruction on firing a handgun.
7. Practice firing a handgun.
8. Instruction by an instructor certified by the department under par. (b).
(b) The department shall certify instructors and maintain a list of instructors
that it certifies. To be certified by the department as an instructor, a person must
meet all of the following criteria:
1. Be qualified under sub. (3) to carry a concealed weapon.

2. Be able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge required for instructing
students under par. (a) 1. to 7.

The part in red gets me. ...



The part in blue gets me.

Who has oversight on the DOJ, Doyle or Jagermeister? Either one could cause some problems if they want to keep us regular folks from carrying.

Let me pose a worst case scenario:

The DOJ won't certify ANY instructors, because no potential instructor will qualify under Sub.(3): i.e. The DOJ sets the cert level, but to be certified, you have to qualify for a CCW. Since their are no instructors qualified to give a class at that point, the DOJ can refuse to certify a potential instructor as unable to meet the requirements.

If you don't think Doyle or Peg would pull something like that, I'd say you were a bit naive.

ETA: I know I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here, but it's food for thought. If you don't think it's possible or even likely, take a look at the legal wrangling the Antis pulled in MN and in MO after they passed CCW legislation.

Edit 2: For those who haven't followed the saga of CCW in MO and MN: It took Missouri 18 months after they overrode their Governor's veto to get permits issued (after having to bring it to the MOSC), and MN just recently got their "shall issue" back after a year long fight and re-passing their version of the PPA: also after a trip to the MNSC.



Isn't a 'Peace Officer' qualified to carry a concealed weapon? That would circumvent that Catch 22 problem. As far as I could find (in my lunch break), nothing specifies that the Peace Officer needs to be on duty or even from the state of WI to be exempt from the CCW prohibition. (I could be wrong on the state thing.)



Link Posted: 12/7/2005 11:43:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 11:44:29 AM EDT by glenn_r]
I think the issue they bring up revolves around this: whether the DOJ would issue any instructor licenses, or try to obstruct the process by failing to implement. aka, they can issue instructor credentials rather than must issue them.

This shouldn't be a problem. The legislation says,

"8. Instruction by an instructor certified by the department under par. (b).
(b) The department shall certify instructors and maintain a list of instructors
that it certifies.



"Shall" in legalese-speak doesn't allow any wiggle room. The DOJ might drag their feet, but they must perform what the legislation requires.
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 1:42:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glenn_r:
I think the issue they bring up revolves around this: whether the DOJ would issue any instructor licenses, or try to obstruct the process by failing to implement. aka, they can issue instructor credentials rather than must issue them.

This shouldn't be a problem. The legislation says,

"8. Instruction by an instructor certified by the department under par. (b).
(b) The department shall certify instructors and maintain a list of instructors
that it certifies.



"Shall" in legalese-speak doesn't allow any wiggle room. The DOJ might drag their feet, but they must perform what the legislation requires.



Yes, I understand that they might try to drag thier feet for any reason they can find. But the Catch 22 that FMD mentioned could have allowed DOJ to hide behind a technicality even if the law states 'shall'. Plus the fact that the law gives no required time frame could allow for much foot dragging. ("We're working on that as fast as we can".......)

But, in our favor is the fact that the fees would be a source of revenue for DOJ - providing some incentive for Peg L. () to get her butt in gear.

Link Posted: 12/7/2005 5:11:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
.... the fact that the law gives no required time frame could allow for much foot dragging. ("We're working on that as fast as we can".......)



Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Link Posted: 12/7/2005 5:17:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2005 5:20:17 PM EDT by Boomholzer]


Actually, they inserted language to exempt WI residents from carrying on a Non-resident CC



Can someone clarify for a ignoramious like myself? I am seriously missing something.

Another state which is OK with certain states (WI being one of them) allows non-residents to apply and achieve a CCL. A Wisconsin resident does so. What would the allocation of another State's rights and reciprocity have to do with WI law?
I HAVE to be misinterpreting this.

WI doesnt honor any other state's CCL at this point, there is no LE right as there is no right to carry. And when is DOES happen, and it will, WI allocated rights and reciprocity will differ.

I know I use the term "rights" loosely. Modern day talk. I mean it by actions supported by the bill.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 5:13:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomholzer:


Actually, they inserted language to exempt WI residents from carrying on a Non-resident CC



Can someone clarify for a ignoramious like myself? I am seriously missing something.

Another state which is OK with certain states (WI being one of them) States that issue non-resident permits do so regardless of the applican't state of residence. There is no magic list of locations that allow you to apply for a non-res permit. allows non-residents to apply and achieve a CCL. A Wisconsin resident does so. What would the allocation of another State's rights and reciprocity have to do with WI law?
I HAVE to be misinterpreting this.



Red part might be where there is some misunderstanding.

The last time the PPA was passed, the language was such that a WI resident, with a non-resident permit from another state, would have been legal to carry the day the law went into effect: even without a WI permit. Many of us have non-resident permits from other states, so this was a good thing (no waiting to carry legally while waiting for our WI CCW license).

The current version of the PPA changed that language for WI residents only. However, it would recognize someone from IL, that is not a resident of WI, but that had a Minnesota non-resident permit. That's just plain screwed up that they could carry on day one, while I had to wait until I got a WI permit (despite having at least 2 non-res permits with more stringent training and background requirements than the WI license).


WI doesnt honor any other state's CCL at this point, there is no LE right as there is no right to carry.


Part in red is already Federal law. The right exsists despite not being codified in WI (yet) by the PPA. Not picking nits, just pointing out that LEOs from other states can carry in WI no matter what WI law says.


And when is DOES happen, and it will, WI allocated rights and reciprocity will differ.


Yes, the allocated rights will differ between WI and other states, but WI will not have reciprocity with any other state; rather WI will recognize any other permit issued by any other state. There is a difference, and it's an important one. Many other states require a formal reciprocity agreement. Merely making a blanket statement that all other permits are recognized (while certianly a good thing for folks from out of state) really doesn't help WI permit holders a whole lot.

For instance: A WI permit holder won't be able to carry in Ohio (they require a reciprocity agreement), but an Ohio permitee will be able to carry in Wisconsin (if the PPA passes, it recognizes all, without regard to reciprocity). There are actually only a handfull of states that recognize all, rather than reciprocate all. It can be a confusing legal minefield (you're not an ignoramus).

I'd reccomend visiting Packing.org as well ass the "Carry Issues" forum at arfcom to bone up on some of the legal issues.

Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:01:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By Boomholzer:


Actually, they inserted language to exempt WI residents from carrying on a Non-resident CC



Can someone clarify for a ignoramious like myself? I am seriously missing something.

Another state which is OK with certain states (WI being one of them) States that issue non-resident permits do so regardless of the applican't state of residence. There is no magic list of locations that allow you to apply for a non-res permit. allows non-residents to apply and achieve a CCL. A Wisconsin resident does so. What would the allocation of another State's rights and reciprocity have to do with WI law?
I HAVE to be misinterpreting this.



Red part might be where there is some misunderstanding.

The last time the PPA was passed, the language was such that a WI resident, with a non-resident permit from another state, would have been legal to carry the day the law went into effect: even without a WI permit. Many of us have non-resident permits from other states, so this was a good thing (no waiting to carry legally while waiting for our WI CCW license).

The current version of the PPA changed that language for WI residents only. However, it would recognize someone from IL, that is not a resident of WI, but that had a Minnesota non-resident permit. That's just plain screwed up that they could carry on day one, while I had to wait until I got a WI permit (despite having at least 2 non-res permits with more stringent training and background requirements than the WI license).


WI doesnt honor any other state's CCL at this point, there is no LE right as there is no right to carry.


Part in red is already Federal law. The right exsists despite not being codified in WI (yet) by the PPA. Not picking nits, just pointing out that LEOs from other states can carry in WI no matter what WI law says.


And when is DOES happen, and it will, WI allocated rights and reciprocity will differ.


Yes, the allocated rights will differ between WI and other states, but WI will not have reciprocity with any other state; rather WI will recognize any other permit issued by any other state. There is a difference, and it's an important one. Many other states require a formal reciprocity agreement. Merely making a blanket statement that all other permits are recognized (while certianly a good thing for folks from out of state) really doesn't help WI permit holders a whole lot.

For instance: A WI permit holder won't be able to carry in Ohio (they require a reciprocity agreement), but an Ohio permitee will be able to carry in Wisconsin (if the PPA passes, it recognizes all, without regard to reciprocity). There are actually only a handfull of states that recognize all, rather than reciprocate all. It can be a confusing legal minefield (you're not an ignoramus).

I'd reccomend visiting Packing.org as well ass the "Carry Issues" forum at arfcom to bone up on some of the legal issues.




Thanks, being a holder that would have been advantagious. I read some parts as new law conflicting with previous CHL rights with other states. BACKWARDS I read it.

Thanks again FMD.


WI doesnt honor any other state's CCL at this point, there is no LE right as there is no right to carry.

I meant it as: There is no LE right to know/care about a WI resident holding a CCW card to another state as WI did'nt honor it. Did'nt mean it as a LE's right to carry.

Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:11:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2005 6:13:07 AM EDT by Avalon01]
It amazes me that some of you would throw away a good chance to get CCW here in WI beacuse it's not open enough.

Is it perfect ?-Not for us who feel we should have Vermont style CCW. We are not your "average" gun owner however. The bill is written to appeal to the masses, and the masses don't own a whole lot of guns. Most of them are hunters with a bolt action or two - not multiple AR-15's/AK's/handguns.

WI has been anti-CCW for what? Over 125 years?

Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction.

Av.

Edit: So it's tied to car registration? So what? I don't see the problem. Some states require you to show your CCW card when pulled over anyway.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:13:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomholzer:
Thanks, being a holder that would have been advantagious. I read some parts as new law conflicting with previous CHL rights with other states. BACKWARDS I read it.

Thanks again FMD.



Problem no.

Just go out and get a Florida Non-res, and then I can put you up and pay you so you can protect me and mine while the DOJ reviews "certification procedures" for new instructors.



WI doesnt honor any other state's CCL at this point, there is no LE right as there is no right to carry.

I meant it as: There is no LE right to know/care about a WI resident holding a CCW card to another state as WI did'nt honor it. Did'nt mean it as a LE's right to carry.



Gotcha.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:36:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2005 6:41:06 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By Avalon01:
It amazes me that some of you would throw away a good chance to get CCW here in WI beacuse it's not open enough.



Av, I think you've misunderstood my points. I'd love to see a CCW law pass, but I have serious reservations with this one. The "new" version has added language that is utter bullshit short term, and crap long term.

Will it be fixed? maybe. When? Who knows.

Now add in that there are 5 cases on CCW waiting in the SC right now, prosecutors seem unwilling to prosecute CCW (only) cases; that we could possibly have Vermont/Alaska style carry without ANY restrictions...and that a GOOD bill would only need to wait until the next gubenetorial election...

With Doyle gone, it would be a slam dunk.

Hopefully you can see why I'm not exactly enthusiastic with a watered-down-and-comprimised-so-we can-get-elected-LE-on-board-to-appease-the-two-fence-sitting-Dems-to-get-them-to-vote-on-our-side-even-though-the-only-people-we-are-hurting-is-the-law-abiding-public-but-it's-okay-cause-we-got-it-passed-so-we-can-say-we-did-something bill that the senate approved two days ago.

Vermont carry would be ideal, but I don't mind a reasonable permit law. The current PPA has some unreasonable provisions, and here's the kicker:

In each state that has gotten the "bad" parts of their license system removed (OH and VA), they have had an EXCELLENT grassroots/pro-RKBA organization on their side. WCCA doesn't hold a candle to the Ohio group or the Virginia group (FWIW we, as the "roots" in that suck compared to Ohioans and Virgiinians as well), so I fear that the bad parts of the PPA will be with us forever.

Take a step back and logically work through this entire thread reading what's posted. I don't think you'd be amazed when you were finished reading.

ETA:

Originally Posted By Avalon01:
Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction.



I would respectfully disagree, specifically because the PPA would create a permiting system second only to NY, NJ, CA, and MD in restrictions. Ask the residents of those states how that's worked out for them.


<<==Former resident of NJ.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:51:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
Now add in that there are 5 cases on CCW waiting in the SC right now, prosecutors seem unwilling to prosecute CCW (only) cases; that we could possibly have Vermont/Alaska style carry without ANY restrictions...and that a GOOD bill would only need to wait until the next gubenetorial election...



I think WI has gone to the Democrats - far to many people from IL are moving across the border to take advantage of cheap housing and open land.

IF we get rid of Doyle, and IF the SC rules in favor for us, we MIGHT get Vermont-style CCW.

That two ifs and a might.

Although we don't know that the CCW will pass, I think there is a better chance of that than waiting for the S.C. to determine everyone should have Vermont-style CCW.

Av.
Link Posted: 12/8/2005 6:52:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Avalon01:


Just passing CCW is a huge step in the right direction.



I can only once again quote TJ-

It is a short sighted err to accept a right as a privilege and declare it a victory.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top