Wisconsin Senate passes permit bill, 23-10

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThatIsAFact

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
44
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/dec05/375788.asp

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
December 7, 2005

State Senate supports concealed guns

By Steven Walters

On a 23-10 vote, senators passed a bill (SB 403) that would allow residents 21 and over to carry concealed guns if they passed a training course. If that two-thirds majority holds, it would be strong enough to override a promised veto by Doyle. The Assembly will likely take the bill up Tuesday [December 13]. It is expected to pass that house, but it is unclear whether two-thirds of the Assembly will support it. Doyle vetoed a similar measure in 2003. The Senate overrode that veto, but the Assembly came one vote short of doing so.

"The governor doesn't think having people carrying loaded weapons around makes anyone any safer and doesn't think the vast majority of people in Wisconsin want loaded weapons in public parks or shopping malls," Fonder said.

Senate President Alan Lasee (R-De Pere) said the bill would allow people to protect themselves. He came to support the bill more than 20 years ago, after someone left an anonymous threat for him and he learned he couldn't get a permit to carry a gun. "I carried a 9-millimeter (handgun) for two months -- and I'm the law breaker now, even though somebody threatened my life?" he said.

Republicans last week added restrictions on where guns could be taken in an effort to attract more votes. Permit holders could not bring guns into child care centers, domestic violence shelters, churches, hospitals and clinics, college campuses and sporting events for kids. People would also be barred from carrying concealed weapons while they are intoxicated. Democrats' attempts to add further restrictions -- such as banning guns from the state Capitol and in some cases from condominiums -- were thwarted.

The state has banned carrying concealed weapons for 133 years, and remains one of just four states to have such a ban. The $75, five-year permits would be issued to people 21 and older who passed a gun training course, provided they had not been convicted of felonies, drug crimes or violent misdemeanors. They could be disqualified under certain circumstances, such as if they were addicted to drugs or alcohol or had certain mental health problems. They would not need further training to receive subsequent permits.

In addition to the bans in certain locations set last week, guns would not be allowed in police stations, prisons, jails, courthouses, professional and college sporting events, airports, taverns and restaurants where alcohol accounts for more than half of sales. Federal law bans guns in schools. Public facilities could ban guns only if they provided metal detectors and locked storage areas. Private businesses could ban guns from their premises only if they posted signs and individually notified customers as they entered their buildings.

The bill has divided law enforcement groups. Last week, the bill was amended to allow police officers to check a database during traffic stops to see whether vehicle owners had concealed weapons permits. But some officers said the provision didn't go far enough because they would not be allowed to check the database in other situations, such as when going to a home for a domestic disturbance. Milwaukee Police Chief Nannette Hegerty opposes the bill. Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. said through a spokeswoman that he will not comment on the legislation unless it has cleared both houses and is in its final form. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager opposes the bill, as does Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, who is running against her in the Democratic primary. Their Republican opponents -- Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher and J.B. Van Hollen, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin -- support it.
 
GREAT JOB CHEESE HEADS!!!

Fingers crossed.

Just a couple quick questions:
But some officers said the provision didn't go far enough because they would not be allowed to check the database in other situations, such as when going to a home for a domestic disturbance.
How does someone having a CCW affect a change in what an LEO might walk into while responding to a domestic disturbance?

Will they approach that closed door in a relaxed and casual fashion if they (much to their great relief) find that there isn't a registered CCW holder in the home?

What ... are they nuts?
-
 
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=64205&ntpid=4
Another version of the story.

Sen. Luther Olsen of Ripon, the lone Republican to vote against the measure, said he couldn't reconcile it with his "vision that we live in a more civil society."

"I don't think ... that in a more civil society people need to carry a gun," he said.
When asked "What about Police officers?", Sen. Olsen replied "..."
 
Sen. Luther Olsen of Ripon, the lone Republican to vote against the measure, said he couldn't reconcile it with his "vision that we live in a more civil society."

"I don't think ... that in a more civil society people need to carry a gun," he said.
Well, you people in WI know who not to vote for next time, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top