Posted: 4/15/2011 12:14:56 PM EDT
|
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6627
Wisconsin: More Unnecessary Regulation Being Proposed for Right-to-Carry Bills Thursday, April 14, 2011 Key legislators who have supported past Right to Carry bills in Wisconsin have recently begun to demand that a mandatory training provision be a component of any Right-to-Carry bill introduced this year. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the world’s largest firearms safety and proficiency training organization but it trusts citizens to assume this responsibility on their own. The government should not deem it necessary to micromanage the citizen exercise of essential rights. This is not the American way. The fact that the NRA’s trust is well placed is proven through the experience associated with millions of citizens who have obtained concealed carry permits in the nine states with no mandatory training component and millions of others in twenty other states who are able to carry firearms in public, concealed or openly, without a permit being required. Not one of these 29 states is experiencing problems. If there were problems, at least one state through all of the years would have amended its law to require training. In light of this long standing and well-tested rule of responsibility set by the citizens of these other states, there is no valid reason for Wisconsin’s legislators to believe that their constituents will prove to be the exception. More disappointingly, even some firearms instructors in the state are promoting a training mandate. These are people who should know better but they too choose to ignore the proven experience in all of these other states. While some are unfortunately motivated by what they see is the potential to profit handsomely, others are simply misinformed. They must understand that citizens are capable of deciding for themselves that attending firearms training is the responsible thing to do. Many who claim that a training mandate is essential, point to the required training that law enforcement officers complete. The training necessary for citizens and law enforcement is different because their objectives are different. A citizen’s goal is to survive a life-threatening encounter. Research and experience shows this most often involves scaring away an attacker without a shot being fired and seeking safety. Law enforcement officers require extensive training because they must engage in pursuit, apprehension and suspect control. In other words, they must bring the fight to the criminal. This is much more complex and dangerous than simply fending off an attacker. In addition, much of a law enforcement officer’s firearms training revolves around threat identification and shoot/don’t shoot scenarios. This is necessary because police officers frequently enter unknown circumstances after a call for assistance. Citizens, on the other hand, rarely have difficulty determining who the threat is. For instance, a woman being attacked by a man in a parking garage is certain of who is posing the threat. Some claim that there is no cost associated with a training mandate. This is untrue. The cost is that some people, such as stalking victims, who most need immediate protection offered by a firearm aren’t able to get it. The cost certainly outweighs the apparently non-existent benefit of a mandate based upon the experience of the other states. Your NRA is working diligently in Madison to ensure that the strongest possible Right-to-Carry legislation finally becomes law in the Badger State. It is your responsibility to educate your friends, family and legislators. Please contact your state legislators to ask that they support your Right-to-Carry, it is critical that you ask them to oppose the imposition of needless mandates and restrictions. The experience shows that these do nothing but deter good citizens from protecting themselves and their loved ones from harm. |
|
I agree we should not have to prove ourselves to exercise our right to self protection. Having recently moved from Indiana, all you had to do was apply for a permit and it was issued. You did not need a reason or approval.
On the other hand, in todays world of concealed carry you need to know your WI permit will be all but useless outside the State if there is no training or certification component. Most States refuse to recognize a permit from a State like Indiana, even though Indiana recognizes permits from all States. So if you travel and want to carry in as many States as possible you will also need a Utah or Florida non-resident permit. Those cost money. I will also add that next month my 75 year old Mom and my 16 year old daughter are taking a 9 hour class together on self defense with a gun. Most of it is class time and discussions with legal and LEO professionals. They will fire 100 rounds. My Mom has had her permit for many years, my Daughter is obviously a few years away still on getting one. They both are proficient with handguns and no training is required by the State. So while I agree in prinicpal, if you travel and carry you will spend money anyway to get a non resident permit of some kind. Why not spend your training dollars at home, keep the money here at home and your permit will be of more value in general. Yes, go for the strongest law possible in terms of your individual rights but if it ends up there is training required, it is not a total loss for those who travel outside the State. |
|
The way I read that, the upcoming law WILL be a shall-issue permit law. They wouldn't even be discussing training being mandated if there was to be no permit required.
As far as I'm concerned, if I must get a permit, then I'm OK with the training requirement. Why? Because without it, we'd lose at least 50%, if not more, of the reciprocity that a training requirement would gain us. The big one, to me anyway, would be MN. Without training, MN will NOT grant reciprocity to WI permit holders. If I gotta spend money on a permit, I prefer to get the most bang for my bucks and have that permit be good in as many states as possible. I've already got $213 worth of non-res permits in my pocket.... and if I gotta spend more money to carry at home, I might just as well have to only "buy" one permit vs three. And besides my "selfish" reasons above... nobody ever got dumber by taking a one day training class. The MN class I took from BDJ LTD was worth every damn penny. No regrets whatsoever. |
|
More disappointingly, even some firearms instructors in the state are promoting a training mandate.
My surprised face 
Of course they are. If there is mandatory training and if the permit costs more than $15 - $20 (more than enough to cover the administration of the permit system), then I will not be getting a permit. Open carry is free, and I'll just stick with that if I feel the need. |
|
Quoted:
More disappointingly, even some firearms instructors in the state are promoting a training mandate.
My surprised face
Of course they are. If there is mandatory training and if the permit costs more than $15 - $20 (more than enough to cover the administration of the permit system), then I will not be getting a permit. Open carry is free, and I'll just stick with that if I feel the need. $15 or $20?  This is WI, land of $115 license plates. I'll be happy if they hold it at $100. 
|
|
The real issue is the training mandate WI would like to implement.
One choice (that is what looks like will happen) is a training requirement that will adhere to the NRA's personal protection outside of the home. This training is VERY lengthly and specific. It in essence will create a minimum 16 hour course and a course of fire for auto and/or wheelgun. If WI scares up like NV, each individual handgun would need to be qualified with and listed on your CCW. The revenue here is the key... The other end of the spectrum is a 4 hour (specific state carry law) block of instruction with a test (correctable to 100%) and ten rounds of qualification with an auto, wheelgun or both. No social security numbers are used, only WI DL info. The instructor submits all forms and cost to the state. The state then sends out the card to the CCW holder. No further things are needed to carry an auto or wheelgun as long as you fired the 10 qual rounds. This is the process ND uses. I am hoping for the latter. V OUT |
|
Quoted:
The real issue is the training mandate WI would like to implement. ... The other end of the spectrum is a 4 hour (specific state carry law) block of instruction with a test (correctable to 100%) and ten rounds of qualification with an auto, wheelgun or both. No social security numbers are used, only WI DL info. The instructor submits all forms and cost to the state. The state then sends out the card to the CCW holder. No further things are needed to carry an auto or wheelgun as long as you fired the 10 qual rounds. This is the process ND uses. I am hoping for the latter. V OUT Actually, the other end of required training is what Iowa got this year, which says that there is no requirement at all for what the training must contain nor for the length. Any handgun or carry training offered by a certified instructor (NRA, LEA, college) fills the requirement. The training doesn't even have to be in person! That's right, in Iowa we can get online training as long as the instructor will offer interaction by email or chat! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real issue is the training mandate WI would like to implement. ... The other end of the spectrum is a 4 hour (specific state carry law) block of instruction with a test (correctable to 100%) and ten rounds of qualification with an auto, wheelgun or both. No social security numbers are used, only WI DL info. The instructor submits all forms and cost to the state. The state then sends out the card to the CCW holder. No further things are needed to carry an auto or wheelgun as long as you fired the 10 qual rounds. This is the process ND uses. I am hoping for the latter. V OUT Actually, the other end of required training is what Iowa got this year, which says that there is no requirement at all for what the training must contain nor for the length. Any handgun or carry training offered by a certified instructor (NRA, LEA, college) fills the requirement. The training doesn't even have to be in person! That's right, in Iowa we can get online training as long as the instructor will offer interaction by email or chat! WOW!!! I hope we will be so lucky, but I can predict - not. 
V OUT |
|
Quoted:
The way I read that, the upcoming law WILL be a shall-issue permit law. They wouldn't even be discussing training being mandated if there was to be no permit required. As far as I'm concerned, if I must get a permit, then I'm OK with the training requirement. Why? Because without it, we'd lose at least 50%, if not more, of the reciprocity that a training requirement would gain us. The big one, to me anyway, would be MN. Without training, MN will NOT grant reciprocity to WI permit holders. If I gotta spend money on a permit, I prefer to get the most bang for my bucks and have that permit be good in as many states as possible. I've already got $213 worth of non-res permits in my pocket.... and if I gotta spend more money to carry at home, I might just as well have to only "buy" one permit vs three. And besides my "selfish" reasons above... nobody ever got dumber by taking a one day training class. The MN class I took from BDJ LTD was worth every damn penny. No regrets whatsoever. Here's what's great about the system in Indiana. Even though 8 states don't recognize our license to carry (that recognize Utah's), we have a lifetime license for $120.00 If YOU want to travel to other states, YOU are welcome to get a Utah non-resident permit for $65 plus training. If you're someone who never leaves your town, you don't have to jump through the extra hoops and expense of training. It should be left up to the individual. They really should pass constitutional carry, and perhaps have a permit system for those that want the reciprocity. It shouldn't be forced on people. I have family in WI and visit often. I'm hoping they will recognize other states' permits from the outset. |
|
I've sent emails out to my state senator (don't have an assemblyman right now) and to the bill's authors. I'm just glad the NRA is mobilizing in this matter, and I re-upped my membership specifically because they called for constitutional carry here. A permit system for reciprocity purposes would be great, but seeing as the only state to which I travel regularly is IL, reciprocity agreements wouldn't do me any good personally.
I'm an adult, and I will get the level of training I deem necessary. If it doesn't fit under a permitting system's requirements, then I simply won't get a permit. |
|
After twice narrowly missing a shall-issue law despite a veto by a rabid anti-gun governor, and now having a big Repub majority in the legislature and a guv who won't veto CC legislation, one would assume that getting a CC law in WI would be a "slam-dunk". It should be. But... I still don't think there's enough support in the legislature for constitutional carry.
What I fear most (not the same as past years) is not the anti-gunners in the legislature and governors mansion, but ourselves. It's comments like "I won't get a permit" that indicate there's more fighting amongst ourselves on the horizon then there'll be opposition to CC from the antis. Any "all or nothing" approach, which includes pro-gunners demanding no-permits and fighting against a good shall-issue system, will get us nowhere and gain nothing. Only we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Below is a letter from State Senator Kedzie, sent to a constituent. I found this on opencarry.org. I think he has the mindset we need. Basically he's saying he intends to get what can be gotten... but not come away with nothing. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?89309-Senator-Kedzie-prefers-Constitutional-Carry April 15, 2011 Thank you for contacting me to express your strong support of legislation to repeal the prohibition on carrying a firearm while concealed. I am supportive of this effort, but must clarify a few things on this matter. First, this issue has not been forgotten nor ignored by the Legislature this session, but I do understand the anxiety that some feel other legislative matters have been given priority over this one. As the Majority party, our immediate priority this session was – and continues to be – any and all efforts to stabilize the economy and create jobs. That has manifested itself in several forms, including, but not limited to, the recently-enacted budget repair bill, the enactment of a number of economic development initiatives, and the proposed 2011-13 state budget. Each of those items – particularly the budget repair bill – has consumed a great deal of time for lawmakers in both Houses. Second, and as you may know, there will more than likely be differing versions of concealed carry legislation coming from both Houses of the Legislature. Some will advocate for a complete repeal of the prohibition – commonly referred to as ‘constitutional carry’ – while others may offer conditions to carrying a firearm while concealed, such as a permits, training standards, and various prohibitions on where a firearm may be carried. My support will fall to the constitutional carry legislation when it is eventually introduced. But bear in mind, if that bill fails to garner the support needed to advance in the Senate, I will lend my support to whichever version can obtain the necessary 17 Senate votes in which to pass. Finally, I am committed to seeing this effort through, but am not willing to sacrifice the good for the perfect. Wisconsin has an opportunity to become the 49th state to adopt some type of concealed carry legislation this year, and it would be unfortunate if we, as lawmakers, were to end this session with absolutely nothing to show in this regard. I can assure you, I understand the sentiment of “rights” versus “privileges” on this issue, which is why I am supporting the constitutional carry legislation. But again, if we do not have the necessary votes in the Senate for that legislation to carry the day, I cannot abandon my historical support for concealed carry legislation. At this time, I ask for your patience and continued support, as I am confident legislation will soon be offered and hearings will be held in the very near future. Again, thank you for taking time to contact me on this matter of mutual concern; I do appreciate hearing from you. Sincerely, Neal Kedzie State Senator 11th Senate District |
|
Quoted:
Any "all or nothing" approach, which includes pro-gunners demanding no-permits and fighting against a good shall-issue system, will get us nowhere and gain nothing. Only we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. While I'll agree with that statement, I don't "think" that will be much of a problem. Now I only have a relatively small sample group to look at, most of the pro-gunners that I know in person or on the internet are fighting for Constitutional Carry. Out of everybody I can think of only one person would qualify as taking an all or nothing approach and truthfully I think he's wound a bit tight to even own a firearm. Most of us will not publicly say we will be happy with any form of carry because that just doesn't make any sense, you wouldn't say you want to fuck but would settle for a hand job would you? We are lobbying for a Constitutional Carry bill to be introduced and will go from there. Obviously we know the odds are not in our favor but we keep increasing them, just look at the letter you posted from Senator Kedzie. When Paul started making contact with him Kedzie didn't have a clue what Constitutional Carry was and only talked about permit carry, not too long ago he stopped by an open carry get together and when I spoke to him he still brought up permit carry and how other legislators wouldn't even begin to embrace anything else. Now we are gaining support from more and more legislators but we still need everybody to contact their representatives and educate them on what Constitutional Carry is. Thankfully the NRA has been issuing positive statements and hopefully is working behind the scenes. Most of us WILL be happy with any carry bill as a start but, no mater what gets introduced (besides 100% Constitutional Carry) we will fight to make it better. Settling for what the government decides to gives us just isn't an option. Even if you don't support Constitutional Carry you still need to contact your representatives and tell them what YOU want to see in a carry bill. Edit: When I say YOU need to contact you legislators that wasn't directed towards you rfb45colt, I'm directing that at others who read it but have yet to made contact with their representatives. |
| I'm actually OK with a training requirement. I'm OK with not having a training requirement too, but this is not the detail worth fighting over. Heard too many stories from friends in other states who did take the training, and were appalled at how inept the other students in their class were. At least this way permitted citizens were required to shoot a box of ammo in a controlled setting first. I'm OK with this aspect of Well Regulated, so long as it's not onerous or unreasonable. |
|
Quoted:
I'm actually OK with a training requirement. I'm OK with not having a training requirement too, but this is not the detail worth fighting over. Heard too many stories from friends in other states who did take the training, and were appalled at how inept the other students in their class were. At least this way permitted citizens were required to shoot a box of ammo in a controlled setting first. I'm OK with this aspect of Well Regulated, so long as it's not onerous or unreasonable. Okay, so you sit through a class taught by who? What are their qualifications? How long is the class? What is the curriculum? Who decides the curriculum? What is the cost of said class? Is that cost in addition to the permit costs? Then you shoot one box of shells? What does that prove? Are you required to score a certain percentage of hits to miss ratio to pass? Or can we just blast 25 rounds down range and call it a day? What if the student doesn't have the means to use their own handgun? Are we (as a society) any better off after having people attend this type of "training"?! Or is it merely a feel good measure? Will I (or anyone for that matter) be exempt from said training because of their background/employment/previous training or will I/we be subjected to sit through a class and waste a day (8hrs) or two days (16hrs) just to say we were trained?! |
|
I can answer the questions with a NV CCW instructor background (10 year experience) with a WI tweaked guess:
Okay, so you sit through a class taught by who? By a WI county certified instructor. (my guess would be an NRA PP outside the home certification) What are their qualifications? None except the aforementioned. How long is the class? WI will establish. What is the curriculum? WI will review the instructor's lesson plan and ensure it meets WI criteria. Who decides the curriculum? Each individual instructor creates their own with WI reviewing it. What is the cost of said class? Varies (not less than $80 because all instructor's at the annual certification meeting agree to a cost) Is that cost in addition to the permit costs? Yes Then you shoot one box of shells? Varies - Usually 36 rounds (12 at 3 yrds, 12 at 5 and 12 at 7). What does that prove? You can engage targets at 21 feet (old FBI stat about gunfight distance) or less. Are you required to score a certain percentage of hits to miss ratio to pass? Yes - all in the target zone. Or can we just blast 25 rounds down range and call it a day? No - targets will be kept by instructors for liability reasons. What if the student doesn't have the means to use their own handgun? Your own handgun is a prerequisite. Are we (as a society) any better off after having people attend this type of "training"?! I don't think so. Or is it merely a feel good measure? I think so. Will I (or anyone for that matter) be exempt from said training because of their background/employment/previous training or will I/we be subjected to sit through a class and waste a day (8hrs) or two days (16hrs) just to say we were trained?! No exceptions, you will sit through the class. Even instructors have to be trained by another, non-associated instructor to keep their CCW. Even though I disagree with alot of the measures, I wanted to chime in to enlighten some of what the process is elsewhere. V OUT |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm actually OK with a training requirement. I'm OK with not having a training requirement too, but this is not the detail worth fighting over. Heard too many stories from friends in other states who did take the training, and were appalled at how inept the other students in their class were. At least this way permitted citizens were required to shoot a box of ammo in a controlled setting first. I'm OK with this aspect of Well Regulated, so long as it's not onerous or unreasonable. Okay, so you sit through a class taught by who? What are their qualifications? How long is the class? What is the curriculum? Who decides the curriculum? What is the cost of said class? Is that cost in addition to the permit costs? Then you shoot one box of shells? What does that prove? Are you required to score a certain percentage of hits to miss ratio to pass? Or can we just blast 25 rounds down range and call it a day? What if the student doesn't have the means to use their own handgun? Are we (as a society) any better off after having people attend this type of "training"?! Or is it merely a feel good measure? Will I (or anyone for that matter) be exempt from said training because of their background/employment/previous training or will I/we be subjected to sit through a class and waste a day (8hrs) or two days (16hrs) just to say we were trained?! Not trying to make sure it's a requirement, so I'm not trying to argue here - so much as show another point of view. On average I take 2 people to the range a year who've never fired a gun before - (or close enough to it). By the end of 2 magazines they have considerably higher competency and familiarity than they did at breakfast. By the end of 100 rounds, they're feeling pretty good. So to address the question of if there is any benefit - yes, I think there is. Should it be waived if you can show any degree of prior familiarization or competency - yes I think so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm actually OK with a training requirement. I'm OK with not having a training requirement too, but this is not the detail worth fighting over. Heard too many stories from friends in other states who did take the training, and were appalled at how inept the other students in their class were. At least this way permitted citizens were required to shoot a box of ammo in a controlled setting first. I'm OK with this aspect of Well Regulated, so long as it's not onerous or unreasonable. Okay, so you sit through a class taught by who? What are their qualifications? How long is the class? What is the curriculum? Who decides the curriculum? What is the cost of said class? Is that cost in addition to the permit costs? Then you shoot one box of shells? What does that prove? Are you required to score a certain percentage of hits to miss ratio to pass? Or can we just blast 25 rounds down range and call it a day? What if the student doesn't have the means to use their own handgun? Are we (as a society) any better off after having people attend this type of "training"?! Or is it merely a feel good measure? Will I (or anyone for that matter) be exempt from said training because of their background/employment/previous training or will I/we be subjected to sit through a class and waste a day (8hrs) or two days (16hrs) just to say we were trained?! Not trying to make sure it's a requirement, so I'm not trying to argue here - so much as show another point of view. On average I take 2 people to the range a year who've never fired a gun before - (or close enough to it). By the end of 2 magazines they have considerably higher competency and familiarity than they did at breakfast. By the end of 100 rounds, they're feeling pretty good. So to address the question of if there is any benefit - yes, I think there is. Should it be waived if you can show any degree of prior familiarization or competency - yes I think so. There should be no training requirement. |
|
Quoted:
Will There should be no training requirement. /thread. No training should be required to legally carry the means to defend yourself. I'm sure the training folks will muck it up, and try to get their $$$ which is total bullshit. However, it would be nice if they took past training in to account. I've had carry permits in 3 states, and have had plenty of traning classes. I like Florida's "traning" stance: .mil...hunter's safety, etc...all count as "training". |
|
Quoted:
you wouldn't say you want to fuck but would settle for a hand job would you? 100% of nothing is nothing. It is important to remember that when you are negotiating with others. I assume you mean a 2nd party and not your own hand? 0% is how much legal CC we have now. If offered, take the hand job now, negotiate for more. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
you wouldn't say you want to fuck but would settle for a hand job would you? 100% of nothing is nothing. It is important to remember that when you are negotiating with others. I assume you mean a 2nd party and not your own hand? 0% is how much legal CC we have now. If offered, take the hand job now, negotiate for more. Not exactly. While it isn't swiss cheese, there are enough holes in 941.23 that while you might do the ride, you might also get away without doing the time. Lawyers, guns, and money. It's the American way. 
|
|
Lawyers, guns, and money. It's the American way.
Bullseye! I have plenty of experience with LEO's, rides, TSA, Profiling, Lawyers, Judges, fees, fines, civil code violations and those fines and I still retain all my legal and God given rights. BTDT willing to give the seminar....offline. While we are are at it, it is good to have a Lawyer BEFORE you need one. It is not like TV, they don't take your call, your case or come get you unless they already know you are a reveune stream to them. At least not the good Lawyers that you really want representing you. My business atty was also a Veteran, Hunter and PRO gun all the way. That is why I will likely hire a local attorney to do our trust. Just need the right one. |
| To be clear, because I will choose not to get a permit if I do not agree with aspects of the law, does not mean I will not support passage of the law. That's a huge reason I was involved in the nascent OC movement here, is to keep all options on the table, and keep pushing for something better while dealing with what we have in whatever way suits me best. |
|
Has anyone asked the bill writers about what kind of reciprocity/honor system they are going for if constitutional carry is not passed? The best (if permits are required) being "we honor ALL state-issued permits for EVERYONE" and the second-best being "we honor all state permits for non-WI residents, but WI residents must have a WI permit" which is what Iowa got this year.
If they go to a MN style reciprocity, it could be a huge pain in the rear with the personal feelings of the AG and governor dictating which states they 'feel' are good enough, followed by years of them lying to gun owners and intentionally misinterpreting the plain language and common definitions of words in the law. |
|
Quoted:
Has anyone asked the bill writers about what kind of reciprocity/honor system they are going for if constitutional carry is not passed? The best (if permits are required) being "we honor ALL state-issued permits for EVERYONE" and the second-best being "we honor all state permits for non-WI residents, but WI residents must have a WI permit" which is what Iowa got this year. If they go to a MN style reciprocity, it could be a huge pain in the rear with the personal feelings of the AG and governor dictating which states they 'feel' are good enough, followed by years of them lying to gun owners and intentionally misinterpreting the plain language and common definitions of words in the law. The last CCW bill, vetoed by Doyle, had the above in red. Don't know what any future bill will contain. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anyone asked the bill writers about what kind of reciprocity/honor system they are going for if constitutional carry is not passed? The best (if permits are required) being "we honor ALL state-issued permits for EVERYONE" and the second-best being "we honor all state permits for non-WI residents, but WI residents must have a WI permit" which is what Iowa got this year. If they go to a MN style reciprocity, it could be a huge pain in the rear with the personal feelings of the AG and governor dictating which states they 'feel' are good enough, followed by years of them lying to gun owners and intentionally misinterpreting the plain language and common definitions of words in the law. The last CCW bill, vetoed by Doyle, had the above in red. Don't know what any future bill will contain. I disagree with the part in red. If WI does have a permit system, I will get one. But requiring WI residents to have a WI permit seems rediculous. I already have permits to carry. Requiring WI residents to have WI permits will only serve to increase the massive backlog, and deny the right to carry CCW. Years down the road, once the system is in place, sure...I could understand it. |
|
Besides the money-grab aspect of it, I think it's because they don't want people who would not qualify for a WI permit, but could pass other state's background checks getting around it that way.
Just like how you can't get a hunting license if you have back taxes, child support, parking tickets etc. WI is not going to honor an MN or MI hunting license either. Nor would they accept an out of state DL if WI was your primary residence. (shrug) More state control over you for anything is not good, but as it goes, I find this to at least be the least objectionable part of it all. |