This showed up in my in-box.

CONCEALED CARRY EMERGENCY! Analysis of (anti-gun) Personal Protection Act (PPA) - concealed carry bill WGO dubs it: "The Gun Owner Disarmament Act of 2005" – NRA, state politicians cut backroom deals for gun control bill, pass it off as concealed carry September 30, 2005 Dear Second Amendment Friend: This is a concealed carry emergency! This alert is so important we're sending it out again in case you missed it: That's because the Personal Protection Act (PPA) contains numerous gun control concessions. And while I'm pretty sure you're already a member of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) - with our staff working around the clock to expose and fight the anti-gun sections of this carry bill, I haven't had time to check for sure. If your WGO membership is not active, DO NOT WAIT to join or renew - goto http://www.wisconsingunowners.org and click on "join wgo" in the left hand column for quick, safe and secure donation. If you're not a WGO member, you need to join quick - to receive our Fall 2005 newsletter, The Wisconsin Gun Owner - to get the FULL story and strategy on how we - along with our Washington D.C. equivalent Gun Owners of America (GOA) plan to pass a REAL concealed carry law in our state. Frankly, this is the fight we've really been preparing for – and I'm afraid the enemy is much closer than expected. The draft of the Personal Protection Act (PPA) — a shall-issue carry-by-permit bill — was finally reintroduced in the state legislature: And it is a gun control monster - much WORSE than last session's bill. The big delay, it turns out, was that politicians were busy adding an additional gun control provision to the bill with two thumbs up from NRA lobbyists who helped draft the bill (see H.R. 218 provision below). And while WGO expected to see some anti-gun concessions, the bill was instead HEAVILY loaded down with massive gun control. Last session, activists from Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) lobbied state Representative Scott Gunderson (R-Union Grove) and State Senator Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) to remove gun owner registration language which would register gun owners who applied for a permit to carry with the state Department of Justice (DOJ). Instead of listening to you – your calls, petitions, e-mails - Gunderson and Zien are rubbing your nose in it – by EXPANDING DOJ's role in the concealed carry permit process. Apparently, to them, your opinion doesn't matter. The 2003-04 previous version of the bill proposed that permits would be issued by county sheriffs, with Department of Justice doing a criminal background check and registering gun owners into a DOJ "computerized list." WGO opposed that background check and gun owner registration list, saying it was an infringement of the right to bear arms, and treated gun owners like criminals. It would also make passing a clean Vermont-Alaska-type bill later virtually impossible. Rather than remove that gun control, Zien and Gunderson - hailed as pro-gun heroes by some, but responsible for authoring the PPA, one of the most aggressive gun control bills to face Second Amendment proponents in some time — now want DOJ to issue carry permits as well. That means you will have to beg the FBI, BATFE and other historically anti-gun bureaucracies under DOJ who will be graciously granting you your "right" to bear arms permission slip. As I told a reporter yesterday at the State Capital press conference: The real issue isn’t reduced crime (that’s a tangential benefit to CCW) - the right to bear arms is the ultimate check against governmental tyranny. If you give government the ability to regulate that check and balance, you simply destroy that check and balance. That means that if the PPA as it is written becomes law, you will lose more of your gun rights than you will gain. In fact, many analysts believe multiple CCW issues being heard by the State Supreme Court right now could result in "unintended consequences" – ushering in a Vermont/Alaska-type concealed carry law, in which no permits, lists, fees, training requirements or other gun controls would be required to carry. That would be an ideal situation: to repeal Wisconsin’s misguided ban on carrying concealed weapons outright. On the other hand, by passing the PPA in its current form, gun owners may be jeopardizing their chances of ever restoring their right to bear arms fully in this state. But State Senator Dave Zien is using the possibility of a Vermont-carry case law precedent coming down from the State Supreme Court as a threat to usher in the PPA (and all its anti-gun provisions) – indicating to many analysts that he and other so-called "pro-gun" politicians oppose Vermont-carry, despite their claims. Here’s what state politicians don't want you to know about the Personal Protection Act: •        The draft bill will create a massive, EXPANDED gun owner registration scheme with the state Department of Justice (DOJ) – giving government agents full access to the list of names of anyone they deem 'suspicious.' And you can bet these agencies — who routinely redefine what constitutes a "terrorist" in the hysteria of the day — will regard people who carry guns as a threat. Prepare to be regarded as extremist. •        The draft bill will give cops who pull you over an instant alert that you are a permit holder and may be armed. The Appleton, Wisconsin police chief has already said that he will inform his officers to "draw their weapons" on all permit holders detained during routine traffic stops. Obviously this militates strongly against the DOJ list and permit system in favor of a clean Vermont bill, but apparently the authors of the bill don't think you're smart enough to figure that out. •        The draft bill will create vast new NO-CARRY AREAS in which you may not enter if you are armed. If you enter one of these NO GUN OWNERS ALLOWED areas unintentionally or to help someone being attacked, you could be prosecuted and face imprisonment and permanent confiscation of ALL your guns – not just your carry sidearm. The authors of the PPA are also encouraging business owners to post "No Carry Allowed" signs – stigmatizing law-abiding gun owners in a segregation-like atmosphere. •        The draft bill will create the state framework to implement H.R. 218 – the "Retired Cops-Only" concealed carry federal bill. Cops-only concealed carry is opposed by over two dozen staunch gun rights organizations because it creates special classes of citizens, elevating the value of the life of a retired police officer above that of "ordinary" citizens – a typical situation under totalitarian regimes, not a free constitutional republic. •        State politicians and NRA lobbyists cut these backroom deals without consulting WGO or GOA – knowing full well grassroots gun owners would oppose the language. When pressed today about this, State Senator Dave Zien dodged the issue and double-spoke, saying, "Well, at least it's introduced now." If the draft bill becomes law without removing the gun control provisions, a dangerous precedent will be set in which politicians will not heed the admonitions of their pro-gun constituents but instead will cut backroom gun control deals with NRA leadership for small gains and huge gun rights losses. A few hours ago, the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association (WCCA) issued a statement that these gun control changes are "important." Regretably, we cannot count on the institutional gun lobby to clean up this bill. I hope you agree with WGO that these changes – which make last session's bad CCW bill look mild by comparison – are in fact deplorable, even unacceptable. So you and I are the only force standing in the way of what we're more appropriately calling the "Gun Owner Disarmament Act of 2005." If you don't believe that creating a government list of gun owners can be abused, then you must not have noticed that New Orleans police and BATFE agents conducted door-to-door gun confiscations just a couple weeks ago: victimizing the victims. Creating a list of avid pro-gun people who are sure to own guns (and know how to use them) is exactly the type of list which will be abused in "times of crisis" to disarm you by force. We must clean up the PPA. We must pass CLEAN concealed carry. There simply is no other option. To do so, be prepared for the political fight of your life - and vital action alerts very soon. If your WGO membership isn't active, you simply aren't in the fight. If you are a WGO member, prepare to hunker down in the trenches. Corey Graff, Executive Director P.S. - WGO is a 501(c)4 non profit organization and the ONLY gun rights organization in Wisconsin endorsed by Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America. That's because when it comes to your gun rights, we will NEVER be bought off and will NEVER budge an inch. The PPA in its current form is simply too insulting for words, but we need you to make sure your WGO membership is active - so we can alert you with mail action alerts that will be critical to fighting the gun control provisions politicians seem intent on sneaking past you and grassroots gun owners. Please join today if you haven't already. Time is not a luxury we have. If your membership is active, accept my thanks in advance. If not, Join Now: http://www.wisconsingunowners.org Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. P.O. Box 338 Green Bay, WI 54305 http://www.wisconsingunowners.org [phone] 888.202.1645 [fax]   866.208.1346 [e-mail] [email protected] "Wisconsin's Only No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization"

There are a few issues that I agree with.
When you fill out an application you are requesting permission from a body that wields authority over the activity you wish to engage in. In turn, you are granted or denied permission as a priviledge.
Why should I request permission to exercise a right?

People seem to have no understanding of what constitutes a right.

-----------

Secondly, I have asked before why we are bothering with this fight now.
It is expensive, and the outcome is largely known.
We have a winning hand, and are too stupid to play it.

Strategy one:
We can put anything we want on the governor's desk, at will, without discussion or negotiation with anyone. Currently, it will certainly be vetoed, and we must capitulate until the bill is pallatable enough to our opposition that they are willing to betray their allegiances.

That's more powerful than it's given credit for. How inept would a gun-control bill have to be before you'ld vote to override a veto? How much dirty dealing, log rolling, and slush-fundage would it take to get you override a veto in favor of a gun control bill?

It is lunacy. If we want to pursue this legislatively, we ought to focus our efforts on unseating Doyle. Accomplish that one attainable goal, and we can have our way with CCW.
I've heard many proselytize about getting anything they can RIGHT NOW, and then going back in and fixing it up once we've taken the governor's mansion.  I don't think it will ever play out that way.


Strategy two:
The WSC gave the legislature a warning to get the collective shit together. If you ask me, they should have rendered the decision right then and there. By their own admission, they saw that the anti-ccw law was in violation of the state constitution. They went the route of political back scratching rathen than perform their duties. It's disgusting, but it's where we're at.

Do nothing in the legislature.

The executive branch of the state government knows that their position is tenuous. Prosecutors are reluctant to engage any CCW violation that looks semi-legitimate. It is purported that big money is waiting in the wings to back a good CCW case all the way to the WSC.

I don't know if I believe this, but the threat seems to be working. Jim Fendry says that the NRA is ready to pounce on a case. I said that I know PLENTY of folks that are willing to go to bat and be test cases RIGHT NOW. Fendry says, 1st it has to be a legitimate case, and 2nd they(Gun groups) can't engineer a case, for that would be participating in a crime ...... not good ....... blah blah blah.
Sounds like bullshit to me. I don't think Fendry is a liar; I like him. The politics reek.

Point is, we're at a standoff and the other side is blinking like crazy. Why-TF would you pick now to appease them? It's absolutely stupid, and not believably short sighted.

What Wisconsin needs is a real pro-gun movement with a real leader.  Someone who believes in CCW.  Someone who understands that politics includes the art of negoitation and compromise.

WGO is hurting the effort to get CCW.  What legislation have they ever gotten passed?  

Jim Fendry doesn't support CCW and has said so.  He isn't an effective leader, organizer or spokesman.  He only speaks to the converted and collects their money.  There is already a case making its way through the court system to readress the CCW issue in Wisconsin.  I don't know what Jim (NRA?) is waiting for?  I think that is BS.

We certainly need to replace Doyle.  I am not sure that means anything better for our chances.

Frankly I like the strategy the authors have used.  At least it gives opponents a chance to duck and cover.  Certainly any WGO bill would be a non-starter.

I wish I could be more optimistic.

Jeff

My comments..
The PPA CCW is beter than no CCW.
A background check for the application?  Doesn't sound any different then when buying a gun, why isn't WGO fighting 4473's?
As far as the VT style carry, do you think that any viable pro CCW violation is going to be prosecuted?
As far as being pulled over by police, don't a lot of the states make you inform the officer?
No carry areas, gee, sounds the same as last time, what's the new hubbub?
Isn't HR 218 already in effect at a  national level?
As far as VT carry, I WANT training to be required.

"As I told a reporter yesterday at the State Capital press conference: The real
issue isn’t reduced crime (that’s a tangential benefit to CCW) - the right to
bear arms is the ultimate check against governmental tyranny."  
OK, now if nothing makes gun owners seem like wackos to the mass public, that statement will.

This is the way government works, compromise to get what you want. Yes I want VT. carry but it’s never going to happen unless it’s done a little at a time! Get the PPA passed then continue to work on changing the people in the government. We have to stay vigilant even after it’s passed. Every state that is shall issue is in a constant fight to keep it that way or improving what they have.

As for the WSC and its rulings, the Wisconsin v. Fisher case may take years to be decided. State v. Hamdan  took 5 years before ruled. Anyone want to wait 5 or more years to get CCW? The court will change by then and who knows how it will rule!

Let's work on here and now. We’ll be able to do the rest after.

What MisterPX said.

4 paragraphs of "send us money, join now" in an informational email?  Wow.  And people complain about the NRA!  These guys are busy patting themselves on the back about not compromising, but they forget to point out they've never accomplished ANYTHING.

I'll take the proposed bill and smile if/when it passes.

+1 MPX.

I really don't like the way this letter seems to intentionally mislead the reader when talking about 'DOJ'.  Many references to Federal DOJ when it would be State DOJ doing the issuing.  So where else are they misleading me?

Anybody have a copy of the proposed PPA?  I'd like to read through it myself.

Quoted: Anybody have a copy of the proposed PPA?  I'd like to read through it myself.

www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen23/news/PPA/05-36852%20Senate%20Bill.pdf

Quoted: My comments… The PPA CCW is better than no CCW.

Thank you.  

Nobody has any idea how often I've heard people say "this will never happen in Wisconsin".  I don't even listen to it anymore - it just rolls off of me.

Having been active with this fight for years and years - way back from "nobody will ever write the bill", to "it'll never see the Judicial Committee", to "Chvala will kill it in the Senate" (remember that night?), to "it'll never pass either house, much less both", and all the way up to "Doyle's veto will never be overridden" (which of course, thanks to that traitorous son-of-a-bitch Gary Sherman, did actually happen) – I don’t care if the PPA passes with a condition that you have to learn how to crochet before you can get a permit.  I really don't, because the important thing is to get this goddamn law on the books AND THEN we can start looking at everyone else’s RKBA “wishlists” – but Jesus H. Christ - first things first.  

As far as the VT style carry, do you think that any viable pro CCW violation is going to be prosecuted?

Exactly.  That old dude from Arkansas that stopped at the wrong Milwaukee gas station and used his concealed 44 mag to defend himself from the punks that were beating him with his own cane did have to spend the weekend in jail.  But it wasn't because the DA was mulling over CCW charges against him - it's because the jails in Milwaukee are so 18th century, that in most cases, you won't be seeing a judge (much less a public defender) for 36 hours minimum once they toss you in.  McCann's a self-serving politician first, and a judicial chihuahua second.  

There are more potential CCW charges getting shoved underneath the carpet here than people are aware of.  The reason?  Munir Hamdan.

As far as being pulled over by police, don't a lot of the states make you inform the officer?

Yep, and this brings up the "TIME" notification system in the patrol units - that was a major sore spot last time around (especially on the day of the override vote, with the anti-CCW members of the WI State Patrol I spoke to as they worked every legislator’s office with their smokin' hot, tall but sassy, blonde union spokes-eye-candy).  

This year, I was of the opinion "JUST GIVE IT TO THEM!" - but have now turned around on this issue: It's lethally stupid for cops to rely on any electronic device to "help them decide" whether or not a vehicle occupant (or residence) is potentially weapons free.  They HAVE to assume everyone they pull over is going to try and punch, stick, spit, or stab at them.  They’re the ones walking around with bulls-eyes on their chests after all.  The TIME/CCW notification has a very real potential to get lazy cops killed, and that just ain't worth it.

"As I told a reporter yesterday at the State Capital press conference…”

Well, it is a free country.  But it seems like sometimes the WGO and all 6 of their paying members are just trying to scare the sheeple into a “reasonable” PPA (at least that’s what I hope – but as stated before, I do suffer from occasional bouts of denial ).  You can yell and scream for them to shut-up – but in reality – that’s exactly what they want.  I, on the other hand, think that education is the key.  A friendly conversation calmly enumerating the facts that CCW does indeed save lives goes a lot further winning over the fence sitters than the “but it’s my right” argument (which to be honest, just causes most people to tune out).

The time to fight for the PPA is here again.  Just as in the past, that’s really all I need to worry about.  Sure it’ll never make it out of committee, much less pass either (or both) houses.  And just as sure as the Packers are going to annihilate the Cleveland Browns at their Lambeau opener (), of course the Governor is going to veto it – but to be honest I really don’t care because I know the PPA is going to become law in Wisconsin one day.  That’s all there is to it.

I had a long and eloquent reply written a second ago and got bounced from the system before I could hit submit.

So I'll summarize.

THE GOA CAN SUCK MY SWEATY NUT SACK!

While I agree in concept with many of their ideas, they have no clue how the political process works.  I'm convinced that they are simply a money and morale sucking leech for the pro-CCW movement in WI.

-Anthony

{Edit}  To clarify, I do think the fucktards at the GOA know one thing about the political process.  They know how to collect money and do nothing with it but self promote.

Quoted: It's lethally stupid for cops to rely on any electronic device to "help them decide" whether or not a vehicle occupant (or residence) is potentially weapons free. <snip> The TIME/CCW notification has a very real potential to get lazy cops killed, and that just ain't worth it.

I disagree.  If it gives anti-CCW Chiefs/Sheriffs one less thing to complain about, it's fine with me.  Lazy cops are going to get killed regardless of whether there is a TIME CCW notification or not.  It's a complete non-issue, either way, as far as I'm concerned.  If it satisfies somebody else and makes bill passage more likely, let them have it.

Edited to clarify, I agree that it's stupid to depend on electronic notifiication, but I disagree that this notification is a problem if it stays in the bill.

tag for later

Quoted: Quoted: It's lethally stupid for cops to rely on any electronic device to "help them decide" whether or not a vehicle occupant (or residence) is potentially weapons free. <snip> The TIME/CCW notification has a very real potential to get lazy cops killed, and that just ain't worth it. I disagree.  If it gives anti-CCW Chiefs/Sheriffs one less thing to complain about, it's fine with me.  Lazy cops are going to get killed regardless of whether there is a TIME CCW notification or not.  It's a complete non-issue, either way, as far as I'm concerned.  If it satisfies somebody else and makes bill passage more likely, let them have it. Edited to clarify, I agree that it's stupid to depend on electronic notifiication, but I disagree that this notification is a problem if it stays in the bill.

Yup I have to agree. It is stupid as shit especially if thats going to be an officers main indication if a driver might have a weapon. The other thingI thought odd though was that while they are going to have the eolectronic notification, there is no requirement to present yer CCW license to an officer unless they ask for it. So if they don't ask, you don't have to tell, but they will already know anyway...

When I  made any traffic stops or approached anyone, I always assumed someone was armed until proven otherwise. Kinda' like "treat all guns as loaded". Being "lazy" or taking things or people for granted can get you killed!
Cheers,
Dave

Quoted: When I  made any traffic stops or approached anyone, I always assumed someone was armed until proven otherwise. Kinda' like "treat all guns as loaded".

No different than when I'm working on a circuit.  Before I touch it, I use a voltmeter to check that it's not energized even after I've killed the power source (unless of course there's an intern handy) - it's simple, every day, common sense safety.

Which is why I get so upset when people like Assembly member Leon Young (ex-MPD) got up right before the override veto vote and said regarding the TIME notification, "I used to be a police officer, and we always treated everyone we pulled over with respect and assumed that they would respect us as well... until they proved otherwise."

I was simply shocked.  He was either telling a naked lie or mentally handicapped.

If I didn't know better, I'd say the whole WGO screed was a move by antis to cause division among gun owners and to draw support away from the PPA.

Whoops. double tap.

Quoted: If I didn't know better, I'd say the whole WGO screed was a move by antis to cause division among gun owners and to draw support away from the PPA.

Well they are not doing that good of a job of it. Most all of us think them wack jobs. Hell even I do and they are more in line with my way of thinking about most gun issues then the NRA is.

Quoted: Quoted: If I didn't know better, I'd say the whole WGO screed was a move by antis to cause division among gun owners and to draw support away from the PPA. Well they are not doing that good of a job of it. Most all of us think them wack jobs. Hell even I do and they are more in line with my way of thinking about most gun issues then the NRA is.

+1

Get rid of Doyle and then take a shot at it or go through the courts which seem favorable on this issue.

Quoted: Get rid of Doyle and then take a shot at it or go through the courts which seem favorable on this issue.

The best shot we have in the courts hasn't been touched yet it's been with the WSC since March IIRC.

Photoman,

You are refering to SOW V. Scott K. Fisher 2004AP2989-CR

It was accepted on June 5th, 2005.  If my reading of the website is correct the case hasen't been scheduled for oral arguments yet.  Oral arguments are currently scheduled through January of 2006.  

I guess it will be heard around March - June 2006.   A decision would be at least 60 days after that.

Jeff

Quoted: Photoman, You are refering to SOW V. Scott K. Fisher 2004AP2989-CR It was accepted on June 5th, 2005.  If my reading of the website is correct the case hasen't been scheduled for oral arguments yet.  Oral arguments are currently scheduled through January of 2006.   I guess it will be heard around March - June 2006.   A decision would be at least 60 days after that. Jeff

Yes, last time I looked at it it still didn't show anyting past 3/2/05 as far as actions by the court.
Link, hope it works Shit just realised thats the activity in the COA not the supreme court.

Also this was actually a request for clarification by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Hamdan/Cole decisions more so then a case that will be argued. The 4th found that they had a case that fell between the cracks so to speak betwen the hamdan and cole decisions. The biggest issue is that it may only open up CCW in another limited fashion the same way Hamdan did. But it does have the possibility to actually open it up because the justices on the court of appeals are basicly asking well when does the "security" aspect of going CCW come into play out side of a business/own property CCW situation. The key being that the state RKBA amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms for "Security, defense......" If you can't carry it with you at all times, then how can you carry for your security and defense, and I think thats basicly what the 4th court of appeals is asking too on this. In order to carry for your security and defense you have to be able to carry not just in your business or in your home, but at all times, so where is the line drawn with regards to carrying for "security and defense"

Wow, what a bunch of screaming Chicken Little BS.  

The TIME issue.....I agree.  If it will deaden some of the PD admin opposition to the bill, it's well worth it.

As far as the DOJ handling the admin side of the permits themselves.......who cares?  And what's with the "FBI" crap?  Since when does a STATE's DOJ govern FEDERAL agencies?  What a fucktard.

Hell, even my local Sheriff, who is pro gun and pro CIII, and who just returned from Afghanistan, had reservations about the PPA, because he literally did not have the budget to implement what it required on the admin side.  The DOJ handling it will disarm a lot of criticism at the County level.

I think it's a decent bill.  Probably the best we can do is to keep hacking away at all three sides of the issue....state legislation, electing a better Governor, and working the courts.