NRA is pushing Constitutional Carry?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: NRA is pushing Constitutional Carry?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    36

    NRA is pushing Constitutional Carry?

    Well, knock me down with a feather! According to the NRA, they are pushing for Constitutional Carry (open or concealed carry without a permit or training) in WI with an optional permit for reciprocity.

    Last November’s landmark elections are creating historic opportunities for the cause of freedom in the Badger State. With the combined efforts of gun owners and hunters, anti-freedom majorities in the Assembly and Senate were removed from power, replaced by pro-freedom lawmakers. Scott Walker, the NRA Political Victory Fund’s endorsed candidate for Governor, will soon succeed Jim Doyle, who relished his title as the most anti-gun Governor in state history. Doyle’s departure marks an end to a very long and dark chapter in Wisconsin’s history. Longtime friend of gun owners, J.B. Van Hollen, was re-elected Attorney General.

    Shortly after the 2010 primary elections, the NRA engaged its members throughout the state in an energetic Vote Freedom First campaign. The response was overwhelming. At event after event, the one issue that candidates talked about time and time again was the Right to Carry. They recognize that the day when law-abiding citizens can discreetly protect themselves from violence outside of their homes is long overdue. It is now time for the candidates-turned-elected-officials to convert their words into action.

    Because of Jim Doyle’s distrust of the people, he twice vetoed Right to Carry legislation during his terms in office. Each time, the bills were passed with two-thirds majorities in both houses. This should have been enough to overcome Doyle’s veto pen, but three Assembly members chose partisan politics over personal protection and shamelessly changed their votes from “yes” to “no” during the two override votes in 2004 and 2006.

    Past legislative efforts to secure the Right to Carry always assumed that a veto override would be necessary. Attempting to secure two-thirds majorities required the NRA and other proponents to accept amendments during the legislative process that sought to place additional restrictions on the good citizens of Wisconsin and would have impeded their ability to protect themselves. With the makeup of the incoming legislature, these unnecessary concessions should no longer be necessary.

    The NRA will strive to make Wisconsin’s 2011 Right to Carry law one of the strongest in the country. The experience of 40 other Right to Carry states has eliminated any question as to whether citizens can be trusted to act safely and responsibly. The laws of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona will be used as the model. The latter two, in particular, will set the standard with systems that recognize the citizens’ constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense along with a provision that will provide for the streamlined issuance of a state permit that can be used for reciprocity purposes in other states while traveling. The primary difference between the open carry provision that has always been part of Wisconsin’s statutes and “Constitutional Carry” is that citizens will finally be able to discreetly carry firearms in public. As we all know, this leaves criminals guessing as to who has the ability to defend themselves against aggression.

    With displays of courage and strong leadership from your elected officials; your commitment to be actively involved in the legislative efforts to come; and the NRA’s dedication to this cause, we can achieve an historic victory for Wisconsin gun owners that will last for generations.

    NRA-ILA :: NRA to Push Aggressive Legislative Agenda DuringWisconsin's 2011 Legislative Session
    Last edited by lukem; 12-16-2010 at 06:20 PM.

  2.   
  3. #2
    We all need to keep on them to make sure this happens!

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    5
    Great post. Thanks Paul.

    This is certainly great news.

  5. Perhaps the discontent of many members has them rethinking a few things. In any case they are still a powerful lobby and can also provide that link to many hunters and sportsmen that don't seem to make the connection of carrying for security and protection off of one's homestead. This is only good news for everyone. Glad they are now onboard in the cause for freedom.

  6. #5
    I'm looking forward to the concealed carry option in Wisconsin. I love the idea of Open Carry, but in reality, it sometimes stressful to be on high alert all the time - not just from potential bad guys, but having everyone aware that you've "got a gun" gets old. Sometimes I don't want to be an activist; I just want to be a law abiding citizen that can protect himself and his family.

    I got my non-resident permit to carry in Minnesota last month ($130 for the class & $75 for the permit) and now have done open carry and concealed carry. It is a lot less stressful to carry concealed. Still run on yellow alert, but not red. Constitutional Carry would be great. With a MN permit, I don't have every state I my travel too, but with Florida I would.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Elkhorn, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    36
    OK. I emailed Jordan Austin from the NRA for some clarification. I just woke up from my faint.

    Here's the question I asked:

    I just received the legislative alert that said basically that the NRA is working on Constitutional Carry with a permit for reciprocity.

    I want to make sure I understand what that means. Does it mean I will have the right to open and/or conceal carry with no permit/training requirement but if I want reciprocity I can voluntarily apply for a training optional permit?

    Please respond.

    Thanks!
    Here is his response:

    Yes.
    While I will take him at his word, how can a training optional permit be recognized by other states? What other states issue permits with no training and/or fingerprints?

  8. #7
    I think what they have in mind is constitutional carry law, but with an optional permit system in place, that would include a safety course and background check.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    OK. I emailed Jordan Austin from the NRA for some clarification. I just woke up from my faint.

    Here's the question I asked:



    Here is his response:



    While I will take him at his word, how can a training optional permit be recognized by other states? What other states issue permits with no training and/or fingerprints?
    Yeah I am sure he is not supporting this on his own. In the past he was in favor of Shall issue with mandated training. Seemed like he had his hands in the pockets of Gene German and his clan of firearms instructors. I had a conversation with him and he personally told me he would not support anything less than shall issue with mandated training. After his little temper tantrum and all of the name calling he sent me in an email, which I forwarded on to his superiors, now he is in favor of Constitutional Carry? Sounds more like his boss has told him where the bear poops in the buck wheat! Must have knocked him down a peg and he now knows his roll. All I can say is Don't trust him. Not putting down the NRA but Austin is a snake in the grass.
    With that said, I am glad the NRA has jumped on board. Of course it is after much of the work has been done but still the support is much needed and they do hold a significant amount of weight.

  10. #9

    Post Important considerations for drafting concealed carry legislation

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Yeah I am sure he is not supporting this on his own. In the past he was in favor of Shall issue with mandated training. Seemed like he had his hands in the pockets of Gene German and his clan of firearms instructors. I had a conversation with him and he personally told me he would not support anything less than shall issue with mandated training. After his little temper tantrum and all of the name calling he sent me in an email, which I forwarded on to his superiors, now he is in favor of Constitutional Carry? Sounds more like his boss has told him where the bear poops in the buck wheat! Must have knocked him down a peg and he now knows his roll. All I can say is Don't trust him. Not putting down the NRA but Austin is a snake in the grass.
    With that said, I am glad the NRA has jumped on board. Of course it is after much of the work has been done but still the support is much needed and they do hold a significant amount of weight.
    Most states that have some form of reciprocity law do not require training or fingerprint-based background checks as conditions of recognizing another state's licenses.

    The only state that expressly requires fingerprinting as a condition of reciprocity is Washington. Every other state that has a reciprocity law will tolerate name-based background checks.

    There are several states that condition reciprocity on training requirements, and these requirements vary by state: Delaware, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio* (appears, in practice, to deny reciprocity to states that don't have a training requirement but has apparently made an exception for Washington), and South Carolina. While even a basic firearms safety course will qualify in most of these states, Kansas, Nevada, and (recently) New Mexico interpret their laws to require the training course to include a specific live fire shooting exercise (e.g., Utah, which has a classroom-only training requirement but does not require live fire, has reciprocity with Delaware, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Ohio, but has been expressly rejected by Kansas, Nevada, and New Mexico--the latter 2 having once had reciprocity with Utah but subsequently withdrew).

    There are a few other things that I would encourage you to consider.

    Nevada, Virginia, and West Virginia, by statute, and Minnesota, by interpretation of their statute, require a state to have a centralized, computer database of all permits/ licenses for verification by law-enforcement officers 24/7. Most states with modern "shall issue" laws (adopted after Florida's 1987 "shall issue" law began the modern concealed carry movement) have adopted compliant laws.

    Minnesota has a 3-year disqualification following any conviction for assault, battery, or other violent misdemeanor; any drug-related offense; and violating a domestic violence protective order. Other states must have these disqualifications (again, they need only be for 3 years) as a condition of recognition in Minnesota. Again, most states with modern "shall issue" laws have adopted similar disqualifications.

    Most states either unilaterally honor all other states' licenses/permits (e.g., Iowa (eff. 1/1/11), South Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan, among others) or have a reciprocity statute that honors all other states' licenses/permits on the sole condition the other state reciprocate (e.g., North Dakota). The more liberal your standard for reciprocity is (constitutional carry would be best, followed by a "shall issue" law that unilaterally honors all other states' licenses/permits), the more successful you will be in getting other states to honor your (hopefully optional) license/permit.

    Regardless of the form of your reciprocity law, you need to provide specific statutory authority for a state official (e.g., the Attorney General) to enter into formal, written reciprocity agreements with other states as necessary to secure recognition of your (hopefully optional) licenses/permits in those states and require that official to periodically contact the Attorney General or other appropriate state official in every other state that does not honor your licenses until that state agrees to do so. Ohio and West Virginia require formal, written reciprocity agreements; all other states with some form of reciprocity law have some legal mechanism for the establishment of reciprocity via less formal processes. Iowa omitted from their new law statutory authority for formal, written agreements and will be unable to have their permits honored in Ohio and West Virginia without additional legislation. Furthermore, due to changes in other state's laws, there's usually at least one state each year that adopts a new or improved reciprocity law and which may need to be contacted by your AG or other responsible state agency to secure recognition of your licenses.

    Several states--either by statute (Washington) or their interpretation of their reciprocity law (Kansas, Nevada, Ohio)--do not honor licenses of states that issue licenses to anyone under 21 years old (Kansas and Ohio have established reciprocity with North Dakota for North Dakota Class 1 licenses only--see below). Several other states will not honor the license if the individual licensee is less than 21 years old (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and West Virginia) but do not make the other state's minimum licensing age a condition of reciprocity.

    Currently, there are 16 states in which an individual licensed to carry concealed weapons is not required to undergo the NICS background check for purchasing or receiving a firearm from an FFL because 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3)(A) and 27 C.F.R. 478.102(d)(1) provide an exemption for licensed individuals if the laws of the state in which the license was issued contain adequate background check procedures to verify the licensee's eligibility to lawfully possess firearms. The key to meeting this requirement is to have specific statutory language requiring a NICS check fo all new and renewal license applicants and, in the case of aliens, a federal Immigration Alien Query.


    Last year, North Dakota became the first state to establish a 2-tier licensing system in an effort to expand their reciprocity with other states while not subjecting current licensees (or those who generally stay close to home and aren't concerned primarily with more reciprocity) to greater licensing requirements. They have had enough success that I believe other states may want to consider creating their own multi-tier licensing sysme involving different classes of license based on the licensee's age (18-20 years old or 21 or over), level of training, and whether a fingerprint-based background check is required.

    Based upon my research of other states' reciprocity requirements, I have just finished drafting a bill for West Virginia that would create 5 different classes of licenses. This bill would reduce the minimum licensing age from 21 to 18 for classes 4 and 5, require a higher level of training for classes 1, 2, and 4, and require one-time fingerprinting (as well as the higher level of training and a 21-year-old minimum age) for Class 1. This bill would also qualify all 5 licenses classes for the federal firearm purchase background check exemption.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC
    Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

  11. I am sure that once Doyle is out on his keester, AG Van Hollen will step up and get more involved.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Help USA Carry get a NRA Club Award
    By lukem in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-03-2010, 08:04 PM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  3. Rick Scott Promises to Sign Open Carry Bill for Florida
    By StogieC in forum Florida Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 10:57 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 03:10 PM
  5. Arkansas Petition For Open Carry Of Handguns
    By cmclairday2 in forum Arkansas Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 07:05 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast