Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/13/2005 11:49:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 3:09:44 PM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Monkeyleg:
WI: assembly set to vote on CCW bill..ACT NOW!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assembly is in caucus right now, but will soon be coming out to vote on AB763, our concealed carry bill.

If you live in Janesville, or know anyone who does, please call or have them call Representative Mike Sheridan's office at (608)?266-7503

Likewise, we need people to call Representative Tom Nelson from the Kaukauna area. His number is (888) 534-0005.

Please call now, and get as many others as you can to call.

It's urgent.

Link Posted: 12/13/2005 1:01:45 PM EDT
If you do not know who your assemblyman/woman is go RIGHT HERE Find out and CALL. Be polite and express to them how you want them to vote. Be POLITE!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 2:27:15 PM EDT
looks like they still haven't gotten to it
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 2:29:27 PM EDT
It is 5:28pm and SB403 is up next after the break.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:03:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Flamethrower:
It is 5:28pm and SB403 is up next after the break.



Arrrr, must have decided to skip a few things and then come back to them


I want to know how this turns out but don't know if I can stand listening to the dims crying about shit like a bunch of 4th graders
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:05:58 PM EDT
How long is the break?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:07:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Flamethrower:
It is 5:28pm and SB403 is up next after the break.



Arrrr, must have decided to skip a few things and then come back to them


I want to know how this turns out but don't know if I can stand listening to the dims crying about shit like a bunch of 4th graders



Last year I wanted to reach through my computer and strangle each one of them. They must be taking a long dinner.

6:02 and I am still listening to popping sounds out of my speakers. Get to work you lazy bums!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:11:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
Arrrr, must have decided to skip a few things and then come back to them
s

Yeah, they did skip over it...

6:10 still on break... they finally came back from the recess at 4:22 or so from their pre-noon break earlier.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:35:28 PM EDT
Damn they need to hurry the hell up and get on with the business of the people..... Were not paying them to take long lunch and dinner breaks.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:42:53 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:44:34 PM EDT
I got to head over to a buddy's house one of you guys that has my number call me if and when they pass this thing today i'd like to know when it happens.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 3:56:47 PM EDT
6:53 pm and still on breakhave
Hurry up already
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:03:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
I got to head over to a buddy's house one of you guys that has my number call me if and when they pass this thing today i'd like to know when it happens.



Running in the background on my comp.

If the piano music doesn't drive me batty, I'll give you a yell when something happens.

Can you get text messages?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:15:09 PM EDT
FMD,
How are you listening to it on comp??????
Cheers,
dave
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:23:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drdoolittle_1:
FMD,
How are you listening to it on comp??????
Cheers,
dave



They are still on break as far as I can tell.

Assembly link
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:30:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 5:30:28 PM EDT by drdoolittle_1]
thanks...no sound right now, right???
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:41:11 PM EDT
Says they stand informal which at this point means they are probably at recess untill tomorrow or maybe Thursday after the snow storm. Damn slackers.

If you go up to my link near the top, at the bottom of the link you can access the Senate web site as well.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:46:47 PM EDT
Damn I don't think thier comming back for the rest of the night.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:37:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 7:38:14 PM EDT by ARndog]
Now it says they are in recess for partisan caucus.

WTF? over.

Does that mean they need to talk with everyone in their party to make sure they are comfortable with their vote or what?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:04:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARndog:
Now it says they are in recess for partisan caucus.

WTF? over.

Does that mean they need to talk with everyone in their party to make sure they are comfortable with their vote or what?



When they are in caucus each respective party stays locked away to discuss ammendments and other parts of the proposal. In this case the Dems are probably trying to flip thier members that want to vote for the ccw and get them to vote against ccw. I am sure Dyole is pulling out all of the stops to try and prevent enough people from voting for the bill, in hopes he can sway enough to kill it here or just enough to remove the threat of a veto override if it does get approved.

Partisan caucus can go on for a long time.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 10:14:07 PM EDT
Still going at 1:15am.... on addendment AA14 now, they're all getting tabled... normal bullshit arguements from the anti's...
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 11:13:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 11:22:49 PM EDT by Mugenlude]
Last amendment just got thru at 2:12am... they are going to vote now after Sherman gets done talking, and everyone else that's against the bill who thinks that their lame speaches are going to change peoples minds...
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:31:07 AM EDT
Ladies and Gentlemen, looks like we have 2/3rds.

64 AYES
AINSWORTH R
ALBERS R
BALLWEG R
BIES R
DAVIS R
FITZGERALD R
FREESE R
FRISKE R
GARD R
GIELOW R
GOTTLIEB R
GRONEMUS D
GUNDERSON R
GUNDRUM R
HAHN R
HINES R
HONADEL R
HUBLER D
HUEBSCH R
HUNDERTMARK R
JENSEN R
JESKEWITZ R
KAUFERT R
KERKMAN R
KESTELL R
KLEEFISCH R
KRAWCZYK R
KREIBICH R
LAMB R
LASEE R
LEMAHIEU R
LOEFFELHOLZ R
LOTHIAN R
MCCORMICK R
MEYER R
MONTGOMERY R
MOULTON R
MURSAU R
MUSSER R
NASS R
NERISON R
NISCHKE R
OTT R
OWENS R
PETROWSKI R
PETTIS R
PRIDEMORE R
RHOADES R
SCHNEIDER D
STEINBRINK D
STONE R
STRACHOTA R
SUDER R
TOWNS R
TOWNSEND R
UNDERHEIM R
VAN AKKEREN D
VAN ROY R
VOS R
VRUWINK D
VUKMIR R
WARD R
WIECKERT R
WOOD R


32 NAYS
BENEDICT D
BERCEAU D
BLACK D
BOYLE D
COLON D
CULLEN D
FIELDS D
GRIGSBY D
HEBL D
KESSLER D
KREUSER D
KRUSICK D
LEHMAN D
MOLEPSKE D
NELSON D
PARISI D
POCAN D
POPE-ROBERTS D
RICHARDS D
SEIDEL D
SHERIDAN D
SHERMAN D
SHILLING D
SINICKI D
STASKUNAS D
TOLES D
TRAVIS D
TURNER D
WILLIAMS, A. D
YOUNG D
ZEPNICK D
ZIEGELBAUER D

PAIRED
WILLIAMS, M R
WASSERMAN D
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:41:34 AM EDT
Well I believe it passed. All the nay votes were dems so I take that as a good thing.

CONCURRENCE (should have paid more attention in civic class. Had to look it up)
AYES - 64 NAYS - 32

I can't beleive I watched that for 2 house without a beer But did have some of the wife's homemade cheese cake to ease me through all the whining by the libs Night Night, RnR
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:46:12 AM EDT
Woo, I do believe we are veto-proof so long as we don't have any turncoats this year.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:46:21 AM EDT
We just need the Amendment 15 to pass thru the Senate because without Amendment 15 we don't have HUBLER (D) and we would be one short. We first need to get the same vote in Senate with the new Amendment, then we need to get everyone in Assembly to vote the same again.

Everyone call and thank those who voted for the bill, and ask for their continued support in the event of a veto override!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:49:04 AM EDT
Amendment 15 is very troubling though, with the 100 feet of any school bus = felony deal.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:13:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 4:14:48 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By DLoken:
Amendment 15 is very troubling though, with the 100 feet of any school bus = felony deal.



...or school building (outside of a vehicle). This will probably suck most for someone who lives across the street from a school.

Also added/changed from the Senate version:

A 4-hour "refresher" class required before renewing, and lowering the allowable BAC for CCW to .02 (one beer and you'd be in violation).

Most of you know how I feel about this bill.

Link to Assembly Amendment 15

For future reference (GlennR ):

Direct link to Assembly Calendar with Video
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:22:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DLoken:
Amendment 15 is very troubling though, with the 100 feet of any school bus = felony deal.



The NRA submited a letter stating that any amendments to the bill in the assembly were not wanted. Ya'll should read it if you can.

I don't like that amendment I'm closer then that to school buses on a regular basis, Next to them at a traffic stop, drive past them parked by the school, drive past them on the road. Shit I'm a Felon by default when this bill passes..... These dumbfucks need to fix this shit in commitee.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:28:49 AM EDT
If they can't get rid of some of these dumbas shit amendments to this bill they need to just let Doyle veto the damn thing and come back next year for one more shot at it without all the bullshit added.

Ya I'm pissed.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:55:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
If they can't get rid of some of these dumbas shit amendments to this bill they need to just let Doyle veto the damn thing and come back next year for one more shot at it without all the bullshit added.

Ya I'm pissed.



I drive past a fricken school on my way to and from work every day. Not to mention school busses. What an absolutely asinine amendment! People scared of their own shadow. Either give us CCW or don't. None of this in-between bullshit!

If they don't get rid of these idiotic amendments I am not getting my CCW and I'd just as soon let it die, hoping for national CCW or the WI SC to finally get off their asses and give us AK or VT style CCW (fat chance).

+1 on being pissed.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:57:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mugenlude:
We just need the Amendment 15 to pass thru the Senate because without Amendment 15 we don't have HUBLER (D) and we would be one short. We first need to get the same vote in Senate with the new Amendment, then we need to get everyone in Assembly to vote the same again.

Everyone call and thank those who voted for the bill, and ask for their continued support in the event of a veto override!

.


NOOOOOOO we don't need that amendment to go through at all in the senate or the assembly. the bill is going to have to be worked out in a commitee now because of the diferances, I hope that this amendment will be removed then, this is bad bad bad bad bad amendment.

Think about it, go for a walk have a school bus drive by you and guess what, you just commited a felony without wanting to, without trying to and most importantly, without even the intent to.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:11:27 AM EDT
Ok, I read through amendment 15. It sounds like it is legal to be carrying within 100 feet of a school or bus if you are in a vehicle, but not just walking past (still stupid). But in the amendment it says:


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).



What does s.948.605 (2) (b) say? It doesn't describe what exception that is in the amendment linked by FMD. Not that it matters a whole lot, as I still think the amendment is BS, but I'm curious.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:24:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:26:54 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Ok, I read through amendment 15. It sounds like it is legal to be carrying within 100 feet of a school or bus if you are in a vehicle, but not just walking past (still stupid). But in the amendment it says:


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).



What does s.948.605 (2) (b) say? It doesn't describe what exception that is in the amendment linked by FMD. Not that it matters a whole lot, as I still think the amendment is BS, but I'm curious.



It's part of the gun free school zone laws. link


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.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:25:50 AM EDT
The big selling points on Amendment 15 for Hubler was 0.02 BA, and additional training class. Black (D) brought up the same issues with the amendment that you are stating, but the feeling *I* got when listening to the arguements is that I think they are going to revise the wording, Gunderson didn't even comment on it.

I think what might need to be done is to add "knowingly" to the wording, meaning you would need to approaching the school, building, etc., and incidental contact with passing buses as you walk down the street wouldn't be a violation.

I don't have a problem with the blood alcohol level lowering, in the past version of the bill we had zero tolerance. I also don't mind the additional training when renewing, it will give time for people to review changes to the laws, and refresh the memory.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:25:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Ok, I read through amendment 15. It sounds like it is legal to be carrying within 100 feet of a school or bus if you are in a vehicle, but not just walking past (still stupid). But in the amendment it says:


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).



What does s.948.605 (2) (b) say? It doesn't describe what exception that is in the amendment linked by FMD. Not that it matters a whole lot, as I still think the amendment is BS, but I'm curious.



It's part of the gun free school zone laws. link



Thanks.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:32:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:32:48 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Mugenlude:
The big selling points on Amendment 15 for Hubler was 0.02 BA, and additional training class. Black (D) brought up the same issues with the amendment that you are stating, but the feeling *I* got when listening to the arguements is that I think they are going to revise the wording, Gunderson didn't even comment on it.

I think what might need to be done is to add "knowingly" to the wording, meaning you would need to approaching the school, building, etc., and incidental contact with passing buses as you walk down the street wouldn't be a violation.

I don't have a problem with the blood alcohol level lowering, in the past version of the bill we had zero tolerance. I also don't mind the additional training when renewing, it will give time for people to review changes to the laws, and refresh the memory.



That wopuld create more problems. If I go for a walk, I walk right past Fratt school knowingly. So CCW passes with this amendment and I go for a walk and take my CCW I knowingly pass within 100 feet of a school building with a CCW I'm now commiting a felony for walking down a public sidewalk. That does not fly period at all end of story.

I want CCW just as bad if not more so them everyone else, but I'm not willing to play these games. Sometimes it's just best to wait and sicne we barely have a 2/3 majoprity for the veto override without putting a lot of bullshit to keep those votes then maybe just maybe we should say fuck it, let it die, and lets come back after the next election.........
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:34:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:36:10 AM EDT by NewbHunter]

Originally Posted By Mugenlude:
The big selling points on Amendment 15 for Hubler was 0.02 BA, and additional training class. Black (D) brought up the same issues with the amendment that you are stating, but the feeling *I* got when listening to the arguements is that I think they are going to revise the wording, Gunderson didn't even comment on it.

I think what might need to be done is to add "knowingly" to the wording, meaning you would need to approaching the school, building, etc., and incidental contact with passing buses as you walk down the street wouldn't be a violation.

I don't have a problem with the blood alcohol level lowering, in the past version of the bill we had zero tolerance. I also don't mind the additional training when renewing, it will give time for people to review changes to the laws, and refresh the memory.



Even if they added "knowingly" I wouldn't like it. I live in a small town and my wife and I like to go for walks regularly. Since it's a small town it's not hard to pass at least two different schools on a normal walk around my neighborhood. Therefore I would "knowingly" be carrying past school property if wanted to go for a walk carrying my CCW.

Edit: LOL, photoman we must share part of the same brain. This is the second time you beat me to it!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:06:07 AM EDT
I'm really interested in hearing Glenn's take on this. Perhaps i'm missing something here perhaps not.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:51:46 AM EDT
I understand what you guys are saying, I just hope they can revise the wording so this works. Eliminating this amendment will kill our chances of a veto override. I don't know Zien/Gunderson's reasoning, or course of action... however, I don't think they would let something like that through unless they had a plan of attach to correct it.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 6:51:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 6:54:25 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'm really interested in hearing Glenn's take on this. Perhaps i'm missing something here perhaps not.



+1 on the red.

I don't think you're missing anything.

Any and all "zero tolerance" policies are crap, and .02 might as well be zero-tolerance. I'm not advocating carrying while under the influence, but it's stupid to think that under this bill, I (or anyone else) would probably be in violation if I (or they) had one beer with a meal at Applebees while carrying. God help you if something goes bump in the night outside if you've had a shot of Nyquil.

Now add in the school zone bullsh*t, along with all the other negative consessions that have been made in the original version of this year's PPA.

Nope, I don't like it at all.

ETA:

Originally Posted By Mugenlude:
... however, I don't think they would let something like that through unless they had a plan of attach to correct it.



You have waaaay more faith than I do.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:11:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'm really interested in hearing Glenn's take on this. Perhaps i'm missing something here perhaps not.



+1 on the red.

I don't think you're missing anything.

Any and all "zero tolerance" policies are crap, and .02 might as well be zero-tolerance. I'm not advocating carrying while under the influence, but it's stupid to think that under this bill, I (or anyone else) would probably be in violation if I (or they) had one beer with a meal at Applebees while carrying. God help you if something goes bump in the night outside if you've had a shot of Nyquil.

Now add in the school zone bullsh*t, along with all the other negative consessions that have been made in the original version of this year's PPA.

Nope, I don't like it at all.

ETA:

Originally Posted By Mugenlude:
... however, I don't think they would let something like that through unless they had a plan of attach to correct it.



You have waaaay more faith than I do.



Well my whole thing is the way the exception is worded in 948.605. That being that the permit has to be issued by the political subdivision of the state that the school system is in. My reson of course being that no political subdivision of the state is issueing permits, a STATE agency is. A state agency is not a political subdivision of the state. And I'm still confused about the whole BATF thing in there as well....
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:43:28 AM EDT
Well Amend. 15 adds some troubling stuff. We seem to be tetering so close to the 2/3s needed for veto over ride that one or two Reps can push for a lot of crap. Hopefully this will be at least further 'fine tuned' back at the Senate before another round for the Reps and THEN up for a veto.

At least the school bus thing excludes when you are in a vehicle. But if I'm walking down the side walk and school bus passes me, I'm a felon? Impossible to enforce, but still.

I notice the school bus thing says that it applies to buses owned by the school. Not sure how it is anywhere else, but where I went to school (Kenosha county) the buses were owned by a private company who contracted with the schools. No idea how I'm supposed to figure out who owns the school bus when I see one approaching, though.

This has added enough crap that I'm not sure if I want it or not.

Interested to hear some more opinions.

Our alternative (IMO) would be to wait for a new Gov. So when is Doyle up for election?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:55:15 AM EDT
Drawcut as far as I know the school busses here in Racine are privetly owned for the most part but Unified does have some busses that it owns....
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:06:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
Our alternative (IMO) would be to wait for a new Gov. So when is Doyle up for election?



Next year. But there are at least 20 Republicans set to retire next year, thats where the battle will be.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:12:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 8:14:43 AM EDT by tommytrauma]

Originally Posted By MGLouie:

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
Our alternative (IMO) would be to wait for a new Gov. So when is Doyle up for election?



Next year. But there are at least 20 Republicans set to retire next year, thats where the battle will be.



This is a very big thing. If we lose just 3 seats out of the 20, the PPA won't even come up for a vote. We need to pass this now, amendment 15 and all. Cross the damn street when you start to approach the school. The bus issue will be tweaked.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 8:20:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tommytrauma:

Originally Posted By MGLouie:

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
Our alternative (IMO) would be to wait for a new Gov. So when is Doyle up for election?



Next year. But there are at least 20 Republicans set to retire next year, thats where the battle will be.



This is a very big thing. If we lose just 3 seats out of the 20, the PPA won't even come up for a vote.



Correct. No one can guarantee how the Assembly and Senate will be set.

IMO we cant wait. If all works out in our favor next election the PPA can be cleaned up. If not we wont see the PPA for many years to come.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:19:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 9:23:32 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By tommytrauma:

Originally Posted By MGLouie:

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
Our alternative (IMO) would be to wait for a new Gov. So when is Doyle up for election?



Next year. But there are at least 20 Republicans set to retire next year, thats where the battle will be.



This is a very big thing. If we lose just 3 seats out of the 20, the PPA won't even come up for a vote. We need to pass this now, amendment 15 and all. Cross the damn street when you start to approach the school. The bus issue will be tweaked.



Not increadibly worried aobut the bus issue, Racine unified only owns like four busses the rest are private. It's the 100ft of a school premis thing that pisses me off as well as the wording of the exception. And crossing the street is not a way to bypass it as in most cases yer still within that distance.

As to the losing 20 repubs I had not know that till oyu posted it before. That doesn't really change things though. Becuase those 20 seats could all be in predominetly Repub districts. Hell were losing a repub and a dem that I know of down in Racine, in both cases a repub will go to the assembly. Which reminds me I have to talk to someone about working on his campaign.


ETA: if this shit gets stripped out in commitee I won't have a problem with the bill I'll accept the damn LE database thing I don't and won't like it but I'll take th bill minus this new amendment.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:31:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MGLouie:

Originally Posted By tommytrauma:

Originally Posted By MGLouie:

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
Our alternative (IMO) would be to wait for a new Gov. So when is Doyle up for election?



Next year. But there are at least 20 Republicans set to retire next year, thats where the battle will be.



This is a very big thing. If we lose just 3 seats out of the 20, the PPA won't even come up for a vote.



Correct. No one can guarantee how the Assembly and Senate will be set.

IMO we cant wait. If all works out in our favor next election the PPA can be cleaned up. If not we wont see the PPA for many years to come.



Good points, both. I wouldn't guarantee ousting Doyle for that matter.

I hate to see this bill keep getting worse and worse. IF we do lose seats in the upcoming elections - we could be stuck with it 'as is' for a long time. Nothing to prevent the Dems from making it worse or repealing entirely if Doyle stays in and the Dems gain some seats.

I live across the street from a baseball park, so if a school bus parks across the street for a few hours - that could be a PITA as soon as I set foot off my property.

Would it be better to have no PPA and stand on constitutional grounds if one chooses to carry? Let them try to prosecute you and push for a WI SC case? Lots of time, money and general PITA for both you and your family. I'm not sure myself right now.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:36:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Drawcut:
Would it be better to have no PPA and stand on constitutional grounds if one chooses to carry? Let them try to prosecute you and push for a WI SC case? Lots of time, money and general PITA for both you and your family. I'm not sure myself right now.



I know where I stand, and truthfully, where many others do as well (even if they won't admit it on a public internet forum).

<===Feeling like the lone voice in the wilderness.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:44:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
ETA: if this shit gets stripped out in commitee I won't have a problem with the bill I'll accept the damn LE database thing I don't and won't like it but I'll take th bill minus this new amendment.



The problem I see is without this amendment (w/ some verbage revisions) there is NO CCW. Personally, I'll take CCW w/ these school restrictions in leiu of nothing. Who says the WI Supreme Court is going to do anything soon, if at all.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top