[cracked butt]

Does anyone know of what the training requirements will be for obtaining a permit if Concealed carry becomes law in Wisconsin?

I talked to a NRA training counselor this last weekend, and he couldn't even give me a precise answer as to the requirements other than a minimum of a 22 hr class. He told me the state still needs to determine what kind of course material is necessary. Does anyone know more about the requirements?

[CommonSense]

The Bill doesn’t state the requirements (at least from what I’ve read) and I don’t see in the Bill how that will be resolved. I guess time will tell.

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, the training requirements are going to need a new course. Here's what qualifies now:


Proof of training includes a firearms training course that meets the requirements "a" through "g" below and is offered to law enforcment officers, correctional officers, special deputies, licensed private detectives and other security or law enforcement personnel. Another form of proof of training is particiation in organized shooting competitions or military training that meets the requirements "a" through "g" below and that the sheriff determines is substantially equivalent to the standards set by the law.

NRA-certified instructors, as well as instructors from other organizations, will be constructing over the next few months courses that will not be overly burdensome in terms of time or money, but will meet the requirements set by the law. Those requirements are that the course include the following:

(a) Instruction on how to handle, load, unload, and store handguns.
(b) Instruction on the privilege of self–defense and the defense of others under s. 939.48.
(c) Instruction on how to avoid injuring 3rd parties when defending himself,
herself, or others.
(d) Basic self–defense principles.
(e) Instruction on how to carry a concealed handgun safely.
(f) Instruction on firing a handgun.
(g) Practice firing a handgun.

[Strings]

>Another form of proof of training is particiation in organized shooting competitions<

Cool... what form does "proof" take here? IPSC ranking? I shoot locally... do I just need to bring my sherrif out to a match?

"Hey Sherrif. I want to use my participation in IPSC as training. Want to come to a match and verify that I'm safe? Ammo's on me... "

[Monkeyleg]

Hunter, the bill specifies the seven basic requirements. However, it is up to each individual sheriff (otherwise known as desk-polisher, flak-catcher, obstructionist, or worse) to decide whether a particular course meets the state's requirements.

There's a number of NRA certified instructors who are running around trying to build a money-making course structured around these requirements. Problem for them is, they have to kiss the "opt-out" sheriff's butt so hard, they'll have blisters on their lips and nothing to show for their efforts.

In the next couple of months--God willing that we get this veto overriden--there will be a standardized course that will meet state requirements, and which every sheriff who isn't just looking for a butt-kissing will accept.

We'll have five months to get the system in order. We only have a week or two in which to get the veto overriden.

Let's focus on the horse, rather than the cart.

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: Without going off on me (which you usually do), what are the requirements for the blind and otherwise disabled?

[Strings]

I'll field that one. I don't remember seeing any such in the bill. At a guess, they didn't even think of it (for the blind, anyway). I'd imagine that your "usual" physical handicaps would just be accomodated somehow by the instructor. For the legally blind... I kinda doubt the legislature even thought of it at all...

And, before anyone says a word, that wasn't a bad question: I seem to recall someone in another state (I want to say CO), who got a permit despite being legally blind...

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, if you have the impression that I've "gone off on you," then forgive me. I've gone off on only a few people in my life, but that was decades ago and involved irrational people who got rational results for their actions.

The training requirements of the bill prohibit the issuance of a license to a person who is not physically capable of handling a weapon. Here's the legalese:

The individual does not have a physical disability that prevents him or her
from safely handling a weapon. The department shall promulgate rules specifying
the procedures and definitions that the sheriff is required to apply when determining
whether an individual is ineligible for a license under this section because he or she
has a physical disability that prevents him or her from safely handling a weapon.


And, of course, there's the language prohibiting those who have been found to be mentally ill, or judged to be addicted to alcohol or drugs, or the other usual disqualifying behaviors that would prevent one from owning a firearm.

BTW, the offer for coffee at George Webb's still stands.

[CommonSense]

Hi Monkeyleg: So if I’m interpreting your post correctly, it’s up to a sheriff to determine if a disabled person has the right to carry a stun gun or other device? And the people that can’t see, hear or escape a bad environment are at the mercy of the local sheriff?

I hope I missed something. That has ADA lawsuits written all over it. And NO to all the people here that think I’m just trying to point out holes – I do have a niece that is deaf and in a wheelchair for life. So please don’t bother me with more retarded replies.

To those that want to bash me just for fun of it, why should a Breathalyzer be legal evidence in court for OWI but not for CCW While Intoxicated as dictated in this bill.

I don’t really need answers to the last statement. However, if you’re just another one of the people here looking for a target, feel free to reply.

My real question was directed to Monkeyleg at the start of this message.

[Zak Smith]

Assuming that the veto is overridden or no veto is signed (heard something from a friend who heard it on the radio 1670am), when does it become law?

In other words, if I have an out of state license which is recognized, on what date can I carry in WI?

-z

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, the "department" referenced in the paragraph that I quoted is the Department of Justice, not the sheriff's department. What sort of disability would make the person not able to safely operate a firearm, I don't know.

Also, are you certain that breathalyzer tests are admissible as evidence in DUI cases? It was always my understanding that they had to do an actual blood test. (Never been through the process, never want to go through it).

Zak, the permit system will become operable on the first day of the fifth month following the bill's publication. If we get the bill passed this month, that would be April 1, 2004.

However, it's going to take the state Department of Justice some time to establish reciprocity with other states.

[CommonSense]

Monkeyleg: I was just asking to find out if a person with a disability would be allowed to CC any weapon they could properly and safely use or if they would be excluded because they couldn’t pass all the “handling” parts of the required training for hand guns.

Yes, I’m certain that a Breathalyzer is admissible evidence in all OWI cases (car, boat, snowmobile, etc.). That part of the bill is not an issue to me though. I just found it humorous.

[Strings]

I was stopped for a field sobriety check one night: I had JUST had a drink, and thought I was OK. During the "follow the light" portion of the test, I realized that my tracking was jerky: this means the alcohol is effecting you, and I said something to the affect of "I'm jerky... I can't drive home". The officer finished the test, and asked if I'd consent to a breathalizer, stating that understand that this test is inadmisable in court . Said he just wanted to verify that it was alcohol in my system...

Granted, that's from a cop in the field... he may have been BSing...

[CommonSense]

Hunter Rose: No. He was probably telling you the truth if I’m reading your post correctly. There are portable breath field tests that aren’t admissible. Most are rated between 70 to 80% accurate. They can be used for probable cause though. Had you failed that test, he would have taken you in for more accurate testing.

[Strings]

I saw one of the portables at a ship's party: they were using it to decide if people were safe to drive. Watched one guy, who could barely stand, blow a .000. Saw another, who hadn't been drinking, blow .15. Decided right then I would never trust a breathalizer...

As a side note: I usually don't drink, and really DID think that I was still good to go that night. After the little "follow the light" test, I would've been walking regardless of the cop saying it was ok or not. And I didn't get any ticket out of it either...

[CommonSense]

Oh God.. Don’t trust the ones bars offer. They are way below even the field tests that officers use. Here’s a good rule to follow: If you think you should test yourself before driving – Don’t drive.

Anyway.. I’ll stop with this before a mod tells me I’m off topic again. Take care!

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I don't think this is off-topic. It's a huge part of the debate over CCW.

You and Hunter Rose have some distinctly different experiences with breathalyzers. And I have a peculiar one of my own: a few years back I got a motel in Ontario, unloaded the gear from my bike, and went to the bar next door for a beer. I hadn't even finished one when the bartender asked me to try out his new breathalyzer machine. I hadn't even finished one beer and I was over the limit.

The amount of bullfeathers being tossed around by the opponents--and the supporters--of SB214 has risen to the level where the public is just going to shut their ears.

There are now new dynamics that have come into play, and the timing of things may not be what we thought they were before.

[Strings]

Dick... care to elaborate on the timing and dynamics you mentioned?

CommonSense: the one being used at the party was one borrowed by the command from the police. It was just so out of calibration that a stiff wind would set it off half the time...

[CommonSense]

No Breathalyzer will work right after having a drink. If you try that, the residue alcohol in your mouth will be measured. Properly administered, it’s supposed to measure the content of alcohol coming from your breathe out of your lungs (and hence in your bloodstream). I don’t know how long an officer is suppose to wait, but I did see on several of my Google searches, that an officer has to observe the person for at least 15 minutes prior to testing. Keep in mind that this is for breath test that can be used as evidence. There are new products out now available to law enforcement that has a breathalyzer built in a flashlight (not admissible, but good for probable cause).

Anyway, if you want to learn more about what “implied consent” you agreed to when you got your WI driver’s license, U.W. Law School is a good source:

http://www.law.wisc.edu/rcid/resourcecenter/resourcereports/resourcecenterreport2003.htm