Constitutional Carry picks up steam in Wisconsin

[bnhcomputing]

I don't understand how they can support it in one state and not for all? Unless I am mistaken, this is still all one country.

I think that in principle they do support Constitutional Carry in all states, even gun-phobic New Jersey and Maryland, where there's no chance whatsoever of winning CC through the legislature, at least at present. Unless you were confident the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the concealed carry laws in those states (doubtful), it would probably be smart not to pick a fight you're going to lose.

In the case of Wisconsin, trying for progress a step at a time might make the most sense. If first you win "shall issue," it will be much easier to win Constitutional Carry later, after the dire predictions of the anti-gun crowd don't come about.
[
1. The GOP including the Governor Elect ran on a SMALLER GOVERNMENT platform. New state employees right out of the box is not smaller government. If the GOP goes that route, they LOOSE the TEA Party AND the GOP looses the legislature in 2012.

2. You will NEVER get rid of the ANTI gun crowd and their FEAR comments.

3. Thousands are "Open Carrying" already today, so the fear mongering myths have been dispelled already.

4. No permit means no tax. WI has a history of INCREASING, not reducing or ending fees. If WI goes with a permit system, we'll be stuck with it for 50+ years.

5. NOBODY has yet to show a difference between "OC" (Free in WI today) and CC (Illegal in WI today) such that OC is free and CC should require $300+ in fees and taxes. Can anybody show the difference?

6. With $300 in fees and taxes, an entire socio-economic class will be left without the "permit." What about the poor people? The ones who need the ability the most will be least likely to afford it making self-defense only for the "PRIVILEGED."
] Of course, you have to know the politics of the state and what is realistically possible. Remember, 25 years ago both Alaska and Arizona were "no issue." Before they could become CC, they had to see that having law-abiding citizens armed was actually positive for the state. An attempt to force those states to jump immediately from "no issue" to CC would have failed.
[
Here I agree 100%, twenty-five (25) years ago things were different. Since then, WI has added a constitutional amendment protecting our RTKBA AND a county judge has already declared the current ban on CC in WI unconstitutional.

If the legislature enacts a permit system, would that REMOVE a right from the individuals in that county and replace it with a permit? I can see the residents of that county immediately challenging the constitutionality of having their right reduced to a privilege. It could/would keep implementation of CC in WI tied up for years.
]

The Supreme Court made favorable rulings in Heller and McDonald, but they noted specifically that the decisions would not affect state laws regarding carrying concealed. The Supreme Court was a big help against the outright gun bans of crime-ridden cities run by authoritarian leftists, but most of the progress in concealed carry has come from victories in state legislatures, not the courts.
[
Again, I'll site Clark County, WI. The COURT declared the outright BAN on CC in WI unconstitutional. The only results (regarding gun rights) that WI has seen in the past 12 years has come from/through the courts.
]

Visit Wisconsin Carry, Inc. to learn more.

[BamaBoy]

Good points, bnhcomputing. If in fact you can win through the courts, then you should not hesitate to take that path. Apparently in Wisconsin the judiciary, most of the politicians, and certainly the citizens would be OK with an Arizona-type system. I would guess that a statewide pro-gun referendum would pass. In that kind of climate, get all you can.

But the situation is quite different in certain other states. In New Jersey, for example, the judiciary, most of the politicians, and unfortunately most of the citizens are anti-gun. Any pro-gun referendum would probably lose. Remember, the hunters, blue-collar workers, and middle class have been fleeing NJ for decades. The population loss is only partly defrayed by immigrants who do not come from pro-gun cultures (generally Asians on the economic top and Hispanics on the bottom). NJ is nothing like the libertarian state it was in the (now-distant) past. Its politics are dominated by limousine liberals, intellectuals, public-sector unions, and the chronic poor. The legislature, for example, passed one-gun-a-month, microstamping of firing pins, a ban on nonexistent "plastic" guns, and every other idiotic notion it could. In pay-to-play New Jersey, concealed carry is possible only with an "honorarium" so large that even wealthy people choke on it.

Philosophically, I think the entire nation should be like Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont. Still, I can understand a permit that requires a background check and a nominal fee, as long as it's truly "shall issue." But I will concede that any such system entails the risk that politicians will see it as a cash cow. Some states already use the permit system to enrich their training organizations.

[bigdaddy1]

I know the "schools" are lobbying hard for mandatory training so they can cash in on the newly authorized concealed carry law. Its all about the almighty buck. I think its pretty sh*tty myself.

[J.Gleason]

I say we should vote BNHComputing as our new NRA Wisconsin liaison! I like his ideas, thoughts and points on this entire issue.

[G50AE]

Philosophically, I think the entire nation should be like Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont. Still, I can understand a permit that requires a background check and a nominal fee, as long as it's truly "shall issue." But I will concede that any such system entails the risk that politicians will see it as a cash cow. Some states already use the permit system to enrich their training organizations.

You know it's realy irronic that you would say that seeing as how you flamed another member of this forum for posting that Alabama should adopt a "Shall-issue" policy with respect to concealed carry permits.

[BamaBoy]

Troll alert. Please do not feed this troll.

[Eagle2009]

At the moment there is no such thing as truly legal "constitutional carry" in any populated area of the country. The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 makes it a felony for anyone with a functional firearm to travel on any public sidewalk, road, or highway that passes within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school in the country. The only exception is if the person has a carry-license physically issued by the State where the school is located, the Federal GFSZA 1995 doesn't even make an exception for a permit holder carrying under a reciprocity agreement.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

[bigdaddy1]

At the moment there is no such thing as truly legal "constitutional carry" in any populated area of the country. The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 makes it a felony for anyone with a functional firearm to travel on any public sidewalk, road, or highway that passes within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school in the country. The only exception is if the person has a carry-license physically issued by the State where the school is located, the Federal GFSZA 1995 doesn't even make an exception for a permit holder carrying under a reciprocity agreement.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

Wisconsin Carry Inc is currently taking this task to court. Please visit, join and support this effort.

[CalicoJack10]

I know the "schools" are lobbying hard for mandatory training so they can cash in on the newly authorized concealed carry law. Its all about the almighty buck. I think its pretty sh*tty myself.

Not all of the schools are doing that. I actually at present teach free open carry classes, and I charge group rates for private instruction on all of my CCW related stuff. I also teach free to kids ages 8 to 17, and law enforcement/military for certain classes. I could care less about the money involved as long as we don't have people involved in "Accidental Shootings", mostly because in the long run, that will hurt the idea of CC in Wisconsin, as well as everywhere else.

Though I do appreciate the statement that you made, after all that is the reason I got certified as an instructor, I would rather teach at cost or for free just to make sure that the Anti's can't keep finding reasons to bash those of us that would stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The only reason I say "At Cost" is because it does cost money to teach some of these courses, especially the NRA courses.

If Wisconsin does become a constitutional carry state, you can bet that I will be teaching free/at cost classes for CCW too.

The idea of carrying a firearm is more about preventing the loss of life than it is about the ability to take a life. In my eyes, and in the eyes of my assistant instructors, it has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with keeping people safe.

[bigdaddy1]

Not all of the schools are doing that. I actually at present teach free open carry classes, and I charge group rates for private instruction on all of my CCW related stuff. I also teach free to kids ages 8 to 17, and law enforcement/military for certain classes. I could care less about the money involved as long as we don't have people involved in "Accidental Shootings", mostly because in the long run, that will hurt the idea of CC in Wisconsin, as well as everywhere else.

Though I do appreciate the statement that you made, after all that is the reason I got certified as an instructor, I would rather teach at cost or for free just to make sure that the Anti's can't keep finding reasons to bash those of us that would stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The only reason I say "At Cost" is because it does cost money to teach some of these courses, especially the NRA courses.

If Wisconsin does become a constitutional carry state, you can bet that I will be teaching free/at cost classes for CCW too.

The idea of carrying a firearm is more about preventing the loss of life than it is about the ability to take a life. In my eyes, and in the eyes of my assistant instructors, it has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with keeping people safe.

I appreciate your concern over the anti's using the potential of accidental or wrongful shootings. I would look toward Virginia and Alaska which has been a Constitutional Carry states for many years, and I don't remember hearing any stories about mass accidental or wrongful shootings from those states. While I agree that training is advised, and I recommend it (especially if its free ) but disagree with making it a requirement. Doing so degrades it to a privilege rather than a right.