WISCONSIN to allow permitless concealed carry.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lapuamag

member
Joined
Sep 30, 2017
Messages
32
Anyone know the details or have any information on the permitless carry bill in WI? When will it pass? What will happen to the number of carjackings/ violent crime in Milwaukee when anyone can carry with no permit....not just thugs!
 
Nothing on the bill lately. It would take, "Shall not be infringed" back to its true meaning. I think with the bill they need to include language such as. " No jurisdiction would have the authority to impose regulation or ordinance to further restrict beyond State Law."
 
Remember the police chief of Milwaukee said carry permit holders were the reason for the voilence in his city, he must be hiding in a corner if the bill passed (I haven't been paying much attention).

Then again, with hunters safety being valid "training" for the permit and nearly all Wisconsinites taking that when they are kids, it basically wad permitless carry, just with a approx $40 donation to the state, plus postage.

Edit: Looks like the state senate still needs to vote on it, possibly next month.
 
Last edited:
Just passed senate committee.

Scott Walker opposes it. He thinks it's appropriate to submit yourself to the state and pay to request the priviledge to conceal carry. Unless his monetary masters tell him to sign it, it won't make it.
 
It isn't that much of a permit as is anyway, is there even a shooting test? Four hours of classroom training was all I saw...i took the MN course when I lived there, the classroom portion was more than 4 hours if memory serves, and there was a shooting test. Overall, a class worth taking, but at the same time, it wasn't as difficult or as stringent as I expected. I was surprised by it being so easy. One thing I can say tho, many people should take some type of class, it amazes me how many of the pro-gun people I meet that can barely hold a group or know anything about the law or firearms, really they should reform the law and counter to the government that they should provide a training course at the expense of the state for those who wish to attend, people need training, and all the money they use from hunting licenses don't only need to benefit the DNR, and new trucks for park rangers. I'd be willing to bet the greedy bastards would let people carry without a license if they had to provide the training.
 
Nothing on the bill lately. It would take, "Shall not be infringed" back to its true meaning. I think with the bill they need to include language such as. " No jurisdiction would have the authority to impose regulation or ordinance to further restrict beyond State Law."

Just FYI, Wisconsin already has preemption covered in state statute. No locality can make firearm rules more strict than the state law.

More concerning in this bill is the language making it legal for felons to possess pre-1899 antique firearms. This is optically bad and may get weeded out in the conference committee if the senate bill doesn't include it.

There's a strong chance Walker will veto the whole thing anyway - he's trying to get reelected in '18.
 
Just FYI, Wisconsin already has preemption covered in state statute. No locality can make firearm rules more strict than the state law.
Lately they included this language in the knife/switchblade repeal. It was good language.
 
I just sent a copy of my DD214 in when I applied. I suspect any version of the bill will leave felons possessing in, but carrying out. Quite frankly, I'd have preferred WI had a classroom and range requirement, because several states, including the one next door, don't recognize WI's permit for that reason.
 
In my state AZ we no longer require a permit but one can still take the course and get a permit so they can carry in other states I let my permit laps I may renew it which is the best way to go since I have noticed lot less classes being offered just not worth the money to become certified instructor if no one is taking the classes there are still a few gun clubs that offer it.
 
I like the idea of the first time handgun buyer that wants to conceal carry getting some training.
Maybe about the laws of the land of CCW as it pertains to their state. This training could save a few
people a lot of legal headaches in the future.

In my CCW class 6 years ago there was a woman who could not pass the test without a little help from the staff.
The test was on of the easiest multiple choice test I have ever taken in my life.
 
As you and I both have probably owned guns for a good part of our lives, have given some serious though to what it means to carry a sidearm and the consequences of using it to defend ourselves and others. I also suspect that most of the people on this board have given this idea some serious thought. In my class of 25 there were a few people who did not have a clue and some of them were life long gun owners. These people need to here what the instructors had to say. The rest of the class could have spent the 4 hours doing something else.

I believe that you and most of the people on this forum could have taken and pasted the test without hearing one word of what the instructors had to say, but there were a few who really needed to be in that class. Those few people really need that short education to change some of the wrong ideas they had .I doubt they would have sought out any kind of education on CCW if the class was not mandatory.

I guess all in really saying is there are some people who really need to be educated about the laws of the state they live in .
 
While i encourage people to at least take the Hunters Safety course to meet the permit requirements here in WI, it is not up to me to dictate conditions before someone exercises a natural right. I have met people who have received professional training and are still unsafe, and I have dealt with people who are entirely self taught and are nothing but safe.
I hope we get constitutional carry, but it won't affect me much since the card is worth having for FTF transfers.
 
I've lived in Washington state for three decades. Washington has had shall issue concealed carry since the early 1960's, so we have a little experience with it. There is no prior experience requirement , class, or test at all - pay the fee, get fingerprinted, and you get the permit.

Requiring training is one of those no-brainer common sense things - of course you should have to be trained, right? But you know what - I really don't hear of incidents where untrained CPL (Concealed Pistol License, as they are called here) holders do something bad where training would have helped.

I recall one incident where a college student/frat president turned 21 (min age), got the permit, and a couple of days later did a drunken driveby of a rival frat. But I doubt that training would have helped (Instructor: 'no, Johnny, the CPL doesn't authorize drivebys of people you don't like'). You hear of people shooting fleeing burglars occasionally, but that doesn't involve a CPL.

To be clear, I think training is great. I've paid for three weeks or so of it over the years. The notion that bad things will happen if it's not required seems like common sense. But - I don't see the real world results bearing that out.
 
I am thinking more along the lines of what ideas some people have about the concealed carry law and how it pertains
to them. Some people in my class had completely wrong ideas.
 
I am thinking more along the lines of what ideas some people have about the concealed carry law and how it pertains
to them. Some people in my class had completely wrong ideas.

Hate to say it but there is no statistical evidence that required training for ccw permits improves safety. There is marginal evidence supporting that training makes a difference in hunting. My guess based on other stats is that most people obtaining a ccw do not carry on a regular basis and almost never statistically have to fire their weapons. Hunters do at least take a shot every now and then at something which probably accounts for the greater statistical significance for the institution of such training.

Furthermore, there is a problem with legal education on firearm usage--most firearms trainers are not lawyers and most lawyers know little or nothing about self-defense law. Getting into the weeds, there are the printed statutes and then there are the court decisions interpreting those. I generally stay away from commenting on legal threads because people either try to use ambiguity in statutory language to justify bad ideas, espouse rhetoric such as "shall not infringe" or they are so overly cautious that everything appears to them to be against the law. Others try to apply the laws in their states to other jurisdictions or laws where the facts do not apply. I have even seen self-proclaimed lawyers embarrass themselves on such matters.

Ideally, any legal training for a license would come from lawyers who actually defend these cases and voila--there is on video such an animal--the Armed Citizen's Defense League. The only problem is that it is multiple DVD's of material that few of those attending mandatory training are willing to spend that amount of time and probably fewer still that absorb this material in one setting. Thus, any training that does not "substantially burden" the exercise of a constitutional right (which seems to be where the federal courts are going with the 2nd Amendment--not addressing state court constitutional problems here), will be by nature cursory and relatively cheap. Requiring everyone to go through Mas Ayoob's Mag 20 or Andrew Branca's training (leaving aside the problem of cloning them) would probably be struck down by the courts as undue burden due to the cost and length. Furthermore, fools are generally impervious to both knowledge and experience and training will probably not be able to eliminate all of them.

Frank Ettin, the moderator there on the legal forums, does a good job at moderating but he must have little hair left after having to pull it out so much from posters.
 
I think training is a good idea but the concealed law never really did anything except used to arrest citizens the police thought should not have a firearm reality is living in high crime areas have to protect themselves if your gun is unloaded in a locked container not really going to be useful. They always claimed the law made it safer for police stops I would bet anyone who planned on shooting at the police really never cared about breaking other laws. I wonder how many people who were law abiding citizens would up in jail over this law who had no criminal intent with the firearm. Any law pertaining to firearms should always state with criminal intent meaning using a firearm to commit other crimes those are the ones we want off the streets.
 
People knowing the traffic laws did not keep 40,000 plus people from dying in traffic accidents last year .
505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm. I guess people with gun are far safer than
people with cars. I concede the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top