Open carry has always been the law of the land in Wisconsin, however some people are now having regrets they supported the Governors two veto’s of concealed carry legislation. There is new talk from the Milwaukee District Attorney and Milwaukee Police Chief about passing a concealed carry law in exchange for our liberty. Well, no thank you.
It is impossible to believe that Milwaukee’s Chief of Police and all of Milwaukee’s police officers really can not control crime and felons with the tens of thousands of laws already on the books. We all know what the problems are and enacting more laws for criminals to ignore and break is not the solution.
Since a carry law is not really about guns (or “gun rights”) but a citizen’s right to possess the proper tool needed to maintain their constant state of peace, I am providing a basic framework below about what a good carry law for Wisconsin should include. Anyone may disagree but if you do there are some rules you must follow. I expect you to provide independently verifiable evidence why I am wrong (your opinions do not count) and then offer an alternative idea that can be verified will work better. If you want the legislature to write a good carry law, it is more likely to happen if you tell them exactly what you want.
Let’s begin.
There are states that allow both unlicensed open carry and have a permit system which provides more authority to those who are willing to be trained and more closely examined. Wisconsin could be one of them.
I propose not to change Wisconsin Statute 941.23, the open carry law. Any law abiding citizen should be able to exercise their right to openly carry a weapon as they may do today (some restrictions apply). No one is forced to obtain a permit to openly carry now and that should not change.
For those citizens who obtain a permit, they should be granted certain exceptions to specific state statutes. For example, an exception for those with a permit would be made to Wisconsin Statute 941.23 allowing a permit holder to carry weapon either openly or concealed. Other exceptions to state statutes would be school zones, bars, state parks, government buildings, vehicles, you get the idea. This would create a statewide carry law, not a concealed carry law.
Permits to carry would be issued on a “shall issue” basis to eligible applicants to carry or possess firearms (open or concealed) for those who meet the following criteria below.
a) People who are at least 18 years of age, who complete approved training, an application and pass a NICS background check, shall be issued a permit to carry by the issuing authority. No other information may be required.
b) Applicants must complete an approved course of training initially and at renewal.
c) Information about permit holders will be included on a private list available only to law enforcement for their official use only.
d) Non-residents meeting the same requirements may also apply for a Wisconsin permit.
e) New permit applicants will pay a non-refundable fee of $25 for a permit that is valid for five years. The renewal fee is $10.
f) Application, training certificate, copy of driver’s license or passport must be presented in person or mailed (postmarked) to the issuing authority within one year from the date of training.
Those meeting the above criteria shall be issued a carry permit card within 30 days of proof of mailing or receipt of application, or a written reason why application was denied. Denials or revocations (once a permit is issued) may be appealed to a circuit court for review. If the court finds the reason for denial or revocation was not clear and convincing the permit must be immediately issued or reinstated and the issuing authority shall be obligated to pay all court costs, including those of the applicant or permit holder.
Below are some benefits for having a permit system.
* The carry privilege is valid everywhere, statewide and no unit of government or governmental agency including city, county, or state may infringe on the rights of a permit holder to go armed except into courtrooms and correctional facilities.
* Private enterprises (non-governmental entities) may post a 11x17 inch sign at every entrance to ban guns within their premises only if they provide a substitute equivalent individual security for the permit holder being disarmed. However, landlords may not prohibit firearm possession by permit holders in common areas, or by their tenants or their guests. No one may prohibit lawful firearm possession in any temporary or permanent parking lot.
* Permit holders may carry, possess or transport uncased and loaded firearms within all types of vehicles.
* Permit holders may purchase guns they are lawfully allowed to possess, without a waiting period or limit on the number of guns purchased.
* Permit holders do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be.
* Approved training must include firearm safety, conflict avoidance, the judicious use of lethal force, the basics of the carry law and a shooting qualification.
* The carry permit may revoked by a circuit court if the permit holder is proven in a clear and convincing way to be a danger to themselves or others.
* The state shall allow lawful carry in Wisconsin of all citizens who possess a valid permit to carry issued from any other state. Wisconsin shall enter into reciprocity agreements or recognize all other states who issue carry permits
* Notwithstanding any other restriction, firearm possession may not be prohibited in temporary or permanent parking lots.
* If a permit holder has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
* Emergency permits may be issued immediately if the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm.
* Employers may prohibit employees from possession a firearm while on the job (except for storage in a vehicle in any parking lot).
* The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting for example) is a $5,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence.
* The issuing authority, certified training organizations and certified trainers are not liable for the acts of permit holders.
* The issuing authority shall promptly certify training organizations who then may certify trainers
* The state will maintain a list of all people who do not have a permit. This list would be useful to law enforcement when responding to a crime because it would include all criminals. This list would therefore be public.
If the permit carrier becomes ineligible at any time under state or federal law from possession a firearm, the permit immediately becomes void and must be returned to the issuing authorities’ office within five business days.
People without a permit to carry but with a lawful hunting license may carry a firearm according to their license, applicable hunting regulations and state statute.
The legislature expressly reserves to itself, all authority to regulate individual rights which are protected by the state constitution.
Comments
Part I
"There are states that allow both unlicensed open carry and have a permit system which provides more authority to those who are willing to be trained and more closely examined. Wisconsin could be one of them."
I do disagree with you, and while I don't have any verifiable evidence for my position, that is the statist totalitarian gun-grabbers' fault and not mine. But that's OK because my objection is so obvious and so common sense I don't believe it needs any verifiable evidence. It seems demonstrably true on its face.
Why, if I'm to be trusted with a gun holstered openly on my hip, must I submit to some procedure to obtain my employees' permission to carry it in my pocket, submitting myself to de facto registration?
If the thing isn't going to go berserk and start shooting people if I open carry, why would it start shooting people it can't even see from the inside of my pocket or waistban
Part II
If a certain action on my part is a "right" I should be able to exercise that right anonymously with no further interference from my paid servants.
* Employers may not prohibit employees who hold a valid carry permit from possessing a concealed firearm while on the job or on company property.
Reason: Certified good people are good people at work too, and should be able to secure themselves against the same threats as when not "on the clock."
* The penalty for violating a permit holders rights (unlawful posting for example) is a $25,000 fine per permit holder per occurrence.
Reason: A certified good person's life is extremely valuable, and removing their ability to be secure can have grave consequences, and should come with a stiff penalty. No penalty is assessed when no rights are violated.
* Private enterprises (non-governmental entities) may personally ask each armed individual to vacate their premises or disarm only if they provide a substitute equivalent individual security. However, landlords may not prohibit firearm possession by permit holders in common areas, or by their tenants or their guests. No one may prohibit lawful firearm possession in any temporary or permanent parking lot.
Reason: Non-criminals should not have to be on guard for doing nothing wrong.
* Permit holders do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be and may use whatever force necessary to remain where they may legally be, and may use whatever force necessary to maintain or return to their constant state of peace when threatened.
Reason: Permit holders (the certified "good people," should be granted all available options by law to resist being victimized. They have already received training on conflict avoidance and the judicious use of lethal force.
I think this is a unique idea in Wisconsin, one that hasn't been proposed here before. People talked about concealed carry legislation (with mandatory permit system), but not "carry the way it makes the most sense at the time." The other "obvious" idea not previously mentioned is retaining our current carry abilities.
I recognize the pros and cons of a permit system, and without debating those here propose the following changes:
* The carry privilege is valid everywhere, statewide and no unit of government or governmental agency including city, county, or state may infringe on the rights of a permit holder to go armed except into facilities where people are held by court order because they are a danger to themselves or society, such as jails, prisons, and mental institutions.
Reason: Permit holders are trained and certified "good people," and should be able to carry everywhere, including courthouses, especially since courthouses can at times be the most dangerous places.
Employment law trumps you, sorry Brad.
The fine for violating our rights will be what the legislature decides it will be. I doubt anyone will go for $25,000 right out of the box. The deterrant effect is the cumulative cost over time, not the per occurance cost.
I know you understand the escalation levels of threat and the justified use of force which is already the law in Wisconsin. I added the "stand your ground" part because that is not law yet. You are overthinking this.
I specifically said "courtrooms and correctional facilities" for a reason. Permit holders are still allowed to carry in courthouses.
Patients in a mental health facility have already lost their right to possess a firearm. Your using the good judgement God gave you when entering such a facility should take care of the remaining issues.
1 comment & 2 disagreements, w/2 proposed solutions.
941.23 is NOT "the open carry law"; there is no OC law. OC is a right because the law is mute in the face of the state Constitution on the matter. It is permitted because it is not prohibited. That said...
I suggest the permit be a Permit to Carry, without distinguishing the manner of bearing. This doesn't have to be some draconian all-or-nothing approach. It's quite doable, works fine in MN (where most people choose to conceal).
Second, there should not be a complication as to reciprocity that doesn't need to be there. A previous PPA actually had the most elegant language there could be, to wit: A current/valid permit issued by another state shall be recognized as a permit issued by this state. End of story. Do not allow the bureaucracy to get into the childish sandbox fights of individual state-to-state letters & negotiations. No website updates, no questions, and leads by example.
No required training, fees, license or renewals. This is a right, not a privilege. Would the training requirement benefit you financially? Need an example - Vermont
As an addition, I would require all law enforcement officials to abide by the same restrictions when not working a specific shift.
Wes, before Wisconsin Statute 941.23 was enacted, people could carry a weapon either openly or concealed. The legislative intent of this law is to force people to openly carry (which has alwans to carry) by prohibiting concealed carry. It is the states open carry law.
Recroprocity and recognition are not the same thing. Combined, they afford the greatest opportunity to honor as many states permits as possible while affording a Wisconsin permit holder to travel to the greatest number of states while armed. Just because Wisconsin will recognize all permits from other states, does not mean those states will also recognize a Wisconsin permit.
Sean, my proposal does not require anyone to obtain a permit. I do not want to change anything about the current unlicensed open carry law.
I am a trainer and I hope to train you and all your friends. To date, over 2,000 citizens have been trained in Wisconsin where there is no training required to carry lethal force. Training for you is totally optional and I am not proposing that it be mandatory for anyone who does not want to apply for a permit.
Alaska has a dual system (which is better than Vermont) where people may carry within the state without a permit, or apply for a permit if they want one and enjoy the benefits that come along with it.
Wes, I am proposing a permit to carry law, not a concealed carry law. We agree.
How the law was written in Minnesota will not work in Wisconsin, if unlicensed open carry is to be preserved. No one could have openly carried in Minnesota without a permit so we did not have that issue to work around. The law was changed from descretionary issue to shall issue, which is a totally different matter.
Since the two states have very different sets of laws, the approach needs to be different in Wisconsin to arrive at the carry law desired. I am offering some ideas to help the legislature can get from here to there. People have always started with changing Wisconsin Statute 941.23 and I am proposing to leave it intact and incorporate exceptions to the law for permit holders instead.
Minnesota has no RKBA in it's Constitution either.
Sorry about the typo. The system hangs up sometimes and I did not catch it before sending the response...
This is nothing more then lobbying for Trainers to profit from a "Mandatory" training to exercise your God given right.
All that is needed in Wisconsin is to adapt the Fire arms laws of Vermont or Alaska and enact a no compromise CCW/OCW non permitted system.
Other than that the SCOTUS has already remarked on several occasions that an individual does not have to be trained, pay a fee, register or be permitted to exercise their rights.
If people want to attend a training course it should be voluntary and not mandatory or required.
You as an instructor are the only one benefiting from this idea.
Unless you are willing to train everyone for free?
Gene
Open carry in the state of Wisconsin is nearly useless. The only exceptions might be for individuals who walk everywhere or want to make a point about open carry. The current vehicle laws make open carry very impractical.
What sort of privileges, besides reciprocity, come with getting permission to exercise my rights (Alaska)?
I don't understand the required training to carry a concealed weapon. How is this different than the untrained individual who open carries?
The best solution would be to get rid of the laws that make concealed carry illegal and laws that force you to unload and case firearms in vehicles.
What about applying the same restrictions to our employees in law enforcement?
I understand that this may be a step in the right direction, but why concede so much to the enemy from the start?
Great proposal and it makes unparalleled sense. This proposed law would be very close to the law in Minnesota that has been proven to be effective. The Minnesota law also has proven that all the bad things Jim Doyle has dreamed up over the years to scare people about those carrying firearms in public is so much bull hockey. There are a handful of people who want nothing but Vermont style carry for Wisconsin. Those who are able to discern reality realize that will never happen here and to keep proposing it is just silly and a waste of time. Having taken the training to obtain a couple permits from other states I think it is extremely valuable. There is much to learn about carrying lethal force in public and I feel it is a moral obligation to my fellow citizens to be knowledgeable about this very serious subject.
Gene, I think that you have put together a good blueprint for them to work with. Knowing the politics in the major cities of Wisc. I highly doubt that a Vermont/Alaska type law would get anywhere. Regarding private businesses, the government already sticks it's nose in there too often so we don't want to give them more reason to dictate what we think, good or bad. A private business is governed by it's owner and/or stockholders.
Exercising your "Right" to open carry does not predispose that you have the knowledge to do so safely without endangering those around you that don't. Any person who carries, either openly or concealed should have to demonstrate some basic level of proficiency with the firearm they decide to carry. It seems only logical to me that a person next to you, who has a permit to carry has at "least" the necessary training to be able to unholster their firearm without shooting themselves in the foot or worse.
Let's not make this about Trainers wanting to get more students. It is not. It is about being able to defend yourself if the need arises and knowing the consequences (legal, personal, psychologically, etc.) for doing so.
To grant a permit to carry to an individual, based solely on his Constitutional Right, without regard to IF that individual knows how to use it is dangerous to my thinking. Rights carry responsibilities and the main responsibility here is to have the "trainin
Part II
Additionally, we could argue the Open vs Concealed all day. There are valid arguments on both sides of this issue. However, in Wisconsin, in this day and age, to see a person open carry wearing street clothes, without the accompanying badge affixed to his belt in front of his firearm is still something we do not see every day. You can do so, but it does carry it's own set of risks and problems.
I think I remember something a long time ago where a person said, "I don't care where two people make love, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." Open Carry, does, regardless of the political point you are trying to make, "frightens the horses." Until people get used to seeing it, there are going to be problems and the inevitable "man with a gun" call by frightened people who are only going about "their" lives without a lot of problems.
One possible solution would be to adopt the New Hampshire carry law. They issue only to their own residents
Part III
New Hampshire continued...
New Hampshire issues Non-Resident permits but to only those who have completed and possess either a Florida or Utah Permit. You send copies of your regular CCW, your photo drivers license, the application and 20 bucks. Then you good whether you want to carry open or concealed... your choice. Although I have no empirical evidence to support it, I would think most would prefer to carry concealed so they don't draw attention to themselves.
Thanks for your efforts Mr. German. They are appreciated by this Wisconsin resident more than you know. Please keep up the good fight to help Wisconsin finally get a good legislation in this matter. For the record, I possess Minnesota, Florida, New Hampshire and Utah carry permits.
Gene, I think that you have put together a good blueprint for them to work with. Knowing the politics in the major cities of Wisc. I highly doubt that a Vermont/Alaska type law would get anywhere. Regarding private businesses, the government already sticks it's nose in there too often so we don't want to give them more reason to dictate what we think, good or bad. A private business is governed by it's owner and/or stockholders.
Pete
Quote "To grant a permit to carry to an individual, based solely on his Constitutional Right, without regard to IF that individual knows how to use it is dangerous to my thinking. Rights carry responsibilities and the main responsibility here is to have the "training"
Do you not understand what a "right" is? If you have to do something to gain a "right", doesn't that "right" become a privilege?
Jim
Quote "There are a handful of people who want nothing but Vermont style carry for Wisconsin."
A better way to phrase the statement above would be like this - There a handful of people who want our public servants to leave us the hell alone. Rights are only privileges once the government places restrictions on them. I don't know what is so difficult to understand.
Like I said, some of Gene’s ideas may be a step in the right direction, but some help to relegate the 2nd amendment to privilege status.
I think people who are compelled to vote for national elections should have to take a test to prove their civics knowledge. State elections would still be open for all (so we would not have lost our local voting rights), but the requirements for the special privelege of voting in national elections would coerce people into getting the necessary training to vote in a proper fashion locally as well. We've already got that setup in WI, Gene, it's called the "go get a job as a cop and become a super-citizen" plan. Your approach is pragmatic, but philosophically retarded. Not only that, but what would a cop be able to do to me carrying unpermitted in a school zone? Answer: consensual contact only, as they would not have any RAS to believe a crime was being comitted because OC by permitees would be allowed there, and they have no reason to believe I am not a permitee without knowing my name, which I do not have to give.
Also, give me one good reason why a permit should expire.
Gene, I think that you have put together a good blueprint for them to work with. Knowing the politics in the major cities of Wisc. I highly doubt that a Vermont/Alaska type law would get anywhere. Regarding private businesses, the government already sticks it's nose in there too often so we don't want to give them more reason to dictate what we think, good or bad. A private business is governed by it's owner and/or stockholders.
Without addressing each commenter specifically, I would like to answer your a few of comments. I may not provide an answer to those who only expressed their opinions.
The first thing I am going to do is agree to disagree with those who only offered an opinion which differs with me. As I said in setting the rules, your opinion does not count.
Things change over time. Issuing a permit for a specific time allows an opportunity for all permit holders to be retrained at known time. I can not think of any professional license that does not require some minimum hours of ongoing training to maintain it.
Speaking of training, I could substitute a written proficiency exam which if passed, would waive the training requirement. If you already know what I would teach you, then all you need to do is ace the test and prove it.
I expected people would gripe about the restoration of their right to open carry, just as soon as it was done. The same people did nothing to make it happen.
I can tell you for sure that the AG did not wake up on April 20th and think "I don't have much to do today, maybe I'll do a memo about open carry". That was the end result of very specific work done toward achieving that memo.
I am telling you this because just complaining about what others are doing will not get you what you want. If you want something entirely different, knock yourself out and find a way to make it happen. You need to present and sell your ideas in Madison. What I think is not so important. It is what you can get passed through the legislature and signed into law (and not be repealed later when the political winds shift) that counts.
No one has materially improved this proposal with a better idea, so I will keep doing what I can to move it forward as it is.
I do want to respond to Pete. New Hampshire will issue to anyone with a valid permit. However the fee has just increased to $100. I am recommending a PA permit instead. Go to www.handgunlaw.us for info
Great proposal and it makes unparalleled sense. This proposed law would be very close to the law in Minnesota that has been proven to be effective. The Minnesota law also has proven that all the bad things Jim Doyle has dreamed up over the years to scare people about those carrying firearms in public is so much bull hockey. There are a handful of people who want nothing but Vermont style carry for Wisconsin. Those who are able to discern reality realize that will never happen here and to keep proposing it is just silly and a waste of time. Having taken the training to obtain a couple permits from other states I think it is extremely valuable. There is much to learn about carrying lethal force in public and I feel it is a moral obligation to my fellow citizens to be knowledgeable about this very serious subject.
Gene
You say "I expect you to provide independently verifiable evidence why I am wrong (your opinions do not count) and then offer an alternative idea that can be verified will work better."
I don't know what kind of evidence you are looking for, but I will try this little tidbit:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be "infringed".
I can see how you may have skipped over the shall not be infringed portion. For evidence refer to our nation before the first gun control laws were passed. Also, what more evidence does one need than the current Vermont carry laws.
I like how you wrote your own future income into the bill.
You do not need to pass a test to gain access to your rights. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Jim
Are you also a firearms safety instuctor?
It is obvious that several posters here are instructors.
Isn't it ironic that Gene makes the rules here for what qualifies a response from him? Go figure.
There have been other instances of fire arms instructors trying to weasle their way to the legislative table in an effort to have Bills written to fit their personal financial agenda.
the next step is for Gene to amend the Bill to read that only he is allowed to qualify fire arms instructors for these training purposes. Right Gene?
Why can't a person who has had hunters safety get a permit? It is a state required course. Taught by state certified instructors.
Why isn't that enough? Why does this Bill affecting an individual right have to balance on your bank account?
Even better, why do you have to be involved when you are not even a resident of this state? Let me answer that for you. Because it is all about your bank account and nothing more.
If it isn't about the money then make a commitment right now that training for all Wisconsin residents will be free of charge.
As far as those of you who are skeptics about the Vermont/ Alaska carry system being achievable, tell that to Vermont and Alaska.
Great proposal and it makes unparalleled sense. This proposed law would be very close to the law in Minnesota that has been proven to be effective. The Minnesota law also has proven that all the bad things Jim Doyle has dreamed up over the years to scare people about those carrying firearms in public is so much bull hockey. There are a handful of people who want nothing but Vermont style carry for Wisconsin. Those who are able to discern reality realize that will never happen here and to keep proposing it is just silly and a waste of time. Having taken the training to obtain a couple permits from other states I think it is extremely valuable. There is much to learn about carrying lethal force in public and I feel it is a moral obligation to my fellow citizens to be knowledgeable about this very serious subject.
NO, I am not an instructor. Having taken the class though I came to realize how much there is learn about carrying lethal force in public and that training is really needed to get it right. Make a mistake-go to prison. Sometime in the near future I will probably take the instructor class to enhance my knowledge. J. Gleason-Hunter Safety to qualify for a carry permit?-if you do not know the difference between hunter safety training and permit to carry training you are a prime candidate for the latter and you really ought to get some training.
Jim
Everyone can acknolaedge the value of proper training. The problem is with making the training required. The right to bear arms becomes nothing more than a privilege. The training amoounts to a driver's learner's permit. By the way, driving is not a right.
Not only would Gene want to make training required, but he would like to require additional training to renew a permit. Are you honestly telling me that in 3-5 years any responsible adult would forget the implications of using deadly force?
Continued in next post...
Sorry about the spelling - crying baby
Gene
I will not try to downplay any effort that you have or will put into the gun rughts movement. All I ask is that you not propose ideas with silly little restrictions. Those silly little restriction may come back to bite liberty lovers on the ass.
You can't apease our enemy - they only want one thing.
In the future please don't write your own financial ticket into any proposal. We get too much of that from Washington.
Unless I am mistaken, the objective of hunting is to kill something, and the objective of carrying in public is for no one to be killed. Hunters usually carry a rifle, people interested in self security usually have a holstered handgun. Hunters generally try to be in remote areas without other people, unlike urban situations where security is important. Clothing, awareness levels, and rules are all different. Hunting and personal security have little in common.
Permit instructors invest a lot of their own time and money to help educate others. If someone were to complain about the cost, perhaps they should first look into the cost of public school systems. Even in business situations, many all-day seminars cost $1,200 and will not help save a person's life.
The author asked comments contain reasons backed by facts, a cornerstone of debate. If a person cannot supply a well-reasoned argument there is little use in their participation.
NO, I am not an instructor. Having taken the class though I came to realize how much there is learn about carrying lethal force in public and that training is really needed to get it right. Make a mistake-go to prison. Sometime in the near future I will probably take the instructor class to enhance my knowledge. J. Gleason-Hunter Safety to qualify for a carry permit?-if you do not know the difference between hunter safety training and permit to carry training you are a prime candidate for the latter and you really ought to get some training.
NO, I am not an instructor. Having taken the class though I came to realize how much there is learn about carrying lethal force in public and that training is really needed to get it right. Make a mistake-go to prison. Sometime in the near future I will probably take the instructor class to enhance my knowledge. J. Gleason-Hunter Safety to qualify for a carry permit?-if you do not know the difference between hunter safety training and permit to carry training you are a prime candidate for the latter and you really ought to get some training.
Open carry may be the law of the land, but don't try it in Madison, on any campus, public or private, or out in parklands. Some gun scaredy hysterical will be calling 911.
I'd say this is all too much regulation you're proposing. I resent CCW permits as a restriction on my carry, and an instrument of people making my open carry shameful and something I can be arrested for!
2A is my carry permit!
7. The penalty for violating an individual’s rights (unlawful posting, unlawful detainment for example) is a $5,000 fine per individual per occurrence. This applies to ALL individuals including LEO who are individually responsible for said forfeiture.
8. If you lose your ability to legally possess a firearm, then you lose the out of state permit. This is the ONLY way to lose the permit.
9. The issuing authority is not liable for the acts of permit holders.
We use this as a start then repeal the tavern, and school zone laws.
1. Any adult or emancipated minor may poses a firearm and/or out of state CC permit. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be and Wisconsin does NOT require a CC permit.
2. No landlord may post or restrict.
3. A CC permitting system, with reciprocity with the other states.
4. CC permits should be something we apply for at the SAME places we buy our firearms. The same background check is sufficient. If I can purchase the firearm, then I get the permit. I would accept a small processing fee payable to the state for printing/mailing the permit.
5. Voluntary inclusion on a "law enforcement" list.
6. If any individual has a defensive gun use and is found not criminally liable by court order or investigation, they are granted immunity from civil prosecution.
I have a few questions for bnhcomputing.
Are you proposing that Wisconsin somehow regulate permits issued by other states? If so, how could that be possible since Wisconsin has no authority in any other state?
My proposal does not require anyone to obtain a permit. It is not a CC permit however; it is a permit to carry. The manner of carry is at the permit holder’s discretion.
I believe you agree with me on your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th points except I am not proposing that FFL's accept applications. Let's keep this simple. If the legislature decides it will be the DOJ who issues the permits, I propose that we should apply directly to the DOJ.
For two lists to be useful, everyone needs to be on one or the other. Perhaps we should list only those people who do not have a permit?
As to your 7th point, I believe LEO's should personally pay a much greater fine for their actions as determined by a court. They should be held to the highest standards of conduct possible.
More...
Your 8th point is the law, except my permit may be revoked for other reasons which a court deems are "clear and convincing". We can try to limit the reasons for denial or revocation as you suggest, but states generally follow other states laws and this is much different than most if not all other states laws. Doing this puts recognition of Wisconsin’s permit by other states at risk. There is a cause and effect that we need to consider.
I am proposing those people with permits are granted an exemption to the school zone and tavern laws, as well as other laws which limit when or where we can carry such as vehicles, government buildings, state parks and such.
I appreciate your constructive comments to improve this proposal.
We have to face the political realities of a carry bill's chance to become law. Today, any carry bill introduced will go to a committee and die there.
Elections are coming again and this can be useful as a measure of who you want to support.
To clarify:
1. Any adult or emancipated minor may poses a firearm and/or out of state CC permit. Said individuals do not have a duty to retreat anywhere they may lawfully be and Wisconsin does NOT require a CC permit.
Wisconsin ALREADY has unrestricted open carry, I propose expanding that to any manor of carry.
5) Government should NOT have a list of those with permits, that is REGISTRATION. If I decide I want to be on some list, then fine. Some liberal judge will rule the list MUST be published, and that will be trouble.
My point is, we can ALREADY CARRY without a permit, why would we no GIVE UP that for a permit. NO, I say we leave "open carry" as is, and work to overturn/remove the concealed carry ban. Then we have TRUE carry, no permit required.
We honor other states carry permits, and we setup a simple application to get an "out of state" carry permit. Again, no permit at all required for Wisconsin, but if you want to carry in another state, then you can get the "out of state" permit for a very small fee paid to the state.
The problem with training is cost $$$ and availability. $200 for training and another $200 to the government for the permit disqualifies 10% or more of the population. The total fees need to be less than $50.
Then this will be like Hunter Education, and the classes will always be full and people will wait years.
Anything that has required training will not get my support.
I would prefer to see Alaska or Vermont style carry laws over Gene's proposals. One thing Gene forgets to note is that MN doesn't have a RKBA in it's state constitution which is why for MN it is a carry permit. We here in WI have the right to keep and bear arms according to article 1 section 25 so to require a permit whether openly carrying or concealed would be foolish. Why would we want to turn a right into a privilege? If we can't pass VE/AK style carry laws then I would prefer bnh computings plan over any that required training. I have no problem with voluntary training and encourage it but neither the federal or WI constitutions mention training as part of the right to keep and bear arms. I see no reason to appease or bow to the anti civil rights people as they will never be satisfied.
Wisconsin would have a good carry law, if it were not for their butt headed Governor! I was there to testify for the PPA in 2005 and Doyle vetoed it. Get rid of Doyle and get someone in the Governors mansion that is not about screwing over the people.
I like Gene Germans version of the carry bill. Yes, he is a firearms instructor. You can't do the training for nothing, unless you are a millionaire.
Some people need firearms training and others don't. Training and firearms safety is never a bad idea.
Speaking for myself I would like to see what would amount to a Concealed Carry course added as a requirement for graduation from High School. It should be taught in the junior or senior year by qualified Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors. Not everyone is interested in shooting as a sport or hobby or for self defense, but even those who have been brainwashed into fearing firearms should have the knowledge to safely secure and handle a accessible weapon.
I think that your proposals are ever bit as an infringement on the right to bear arms as any two bit hater of firearms.
If I want to buy a gun and I am not certifiably a nut, domestic batterer or felon, then why shouldn't I be able to? To tell me that I can only buy and use a gun if I take classes or go through some other ridiculous ordeal is simply more obstacles to put before me.
The criminals don't have to take course, wait two weeks for their background checks or pay a ridiculous fee.
Can't you see that the only people you are hurting is the people who support law and order?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!