FrankRep
05-13-2011, 06:02 AM
Email your Representatives!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25079&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us
Wisconsin’s Choice: Concealed Carry or Constitutional Carry (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25079&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)
Details:
Another epic battle is going on in Wisconsin, this time over several pieces of proposed legislation that could either limit the right to keep and bear arms or secure that right more fully, under the banner of concealed carry. The battle is being waged by politicians and institutionalized gun organizations as they try to muddy the waters with various pieces of legislation without a reasonable disclosure of the details.
Rapidly approaching a vote in the Wisconsin State Legislature’s upper and lower chambers are several bills that would affect the average citizen's ability to carry a concealed weapon without fear of criminal prosecution. The current debate centers on SB 90 which is a form of licensed carry, and the more popular SB 93 known as constitutional carry. Assembly bill AB 126 appears to be in line with SB 90, the licensed carry bill in the Wisconsin Senate, so for purposes of this discussion only SB 90 and SB 93 will be referred to henceforth.
Technically, SB 90, the licensed carry bill, creates an exception to the current law that forbids the carrying of a concealed weapon in Wisconsin except for police officers. The constitutional carry bill, SB 93, allows an armed person more freedom when carrying, but there are exceptions such as for state or government buildings that provide electronic screening as a criterion for admittance. Employers would still have the last say in whether employees could carry guns into their businesses with the exception of the employees’ vehicles out in the parking lot.
Both SB 90 and SB 93 prohibit citizens from carrying firearms on the residential property of another person who doesn’t wish it. For places where alcohol is served or consumed, licensed carry exempts a person only if that person is not consuming those beverages, while constitutional carry would completely repeal the current prohibition on firearms in these establishments. Constitutional carry is said to eliminate the state prohibition against carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of school grounds, but the federal law would still be in effect, neutralizing that aspect of the constitutional carry proposal.
One confusing area lies with cities, villages or towns that may have ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms. Each of the bills contains a provision that any current local ordinance or resolution does not apply to a “justified firearm discharge.” It is unclear how that term is defined, or who will be defining it and at what point.
SB 93 carries with it NO licensing system, as it is more of a reflection of the God-given right to keep and bear arms; it is, in essence a securing of that right.
However under SB 90 a person would need to apply to the Department of Justice for a valid permit which would last only five years. Persons who apply would have to be 21, not already prohibited from possessing firearms under federal or state law, pass a background check, and pay the required fees. The DoJ could suspend or revoke licenses under “certain circumstances,” and would oversee the administration of the license system -- think permit-based bureaucracy with an established database.
Reciprocity for Wisconsin residents to carry in other states is not covered in SB 93, while SB 90 does treat a person licensed to carry in another state as a licensed Wisconsin resident.
For those citizens who understand the entire concept of the right to keep and bear arms, even the proposed SB 93 constitutional carry measure does not completely reflect the original intent of the Second Amendment of the Constitution when it comes to protecting personal freedom. Still, it is far better than SB 90 which is a limited form of gun control with the usual government agencies managing the system and gun owners. Residents of the Badger State need to contact their State Senators and Assemblymen immediately and let them know constitutional carry should be supported. Anything less is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Email your Representatives!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25079&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25079&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us
Wisconsin’s Choice: Concealed Carry or Constitutional Carry (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25079&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)
Details:
Another epic battle is going on in Wisconsin, this time over several pieces of proposed legislation that could either limit the right to keep and bear arms or secure that right more fully, under the banner of concealed carry. The battle is being waged by politicians and institutionalized gun organizations as they try to muddy the waters with various pieces of legislation without a reasonable disclosure of the details.
Rapidly approaching a vote in the Wisconsin State Legislature’s upper and lower chambers are several bills that would affect the average citizen's ability to carry a concealed weapon without fear of criminal prosecution. The current debate centers on SB 90 which is a form of licensed carry, and the more popular SB 93 known as constitutional carry. Assembly bill AB 126 appears to be in line with SB 90, the licensed carry bill in the Wisconsin Senate, so for purposes of this discussion only SB 90 and SB 93 will be referred to henceforth.
Technically, SB 90, the licensed carry bill, creates an exception to the current law that forbids the carrying of a concealed weapon in Wisconsin except for police officers. The constitutional carry bill, SB 93, allows an armed person more freedom when carrying, but there are exceptions such as for state or government buildings that provide electronic screening as a criterion for admittance. Employers would still have the last say in whether employees could carry guns into their businesses with the exception of the employees’ vehicles out in the parking lot.
Both SB 90 and SB 93 prohibit citizens from carrying firearms on the residential property of another person who doesn’t wish it. For places where alcohol is served or consumed, licensed carry exempts a person only if that person is not consuming those beverages, while constitutional carry would completely repeal the current prohibition on firearms in these establishments. Constitutional carry is said to eliminate the state prohibition against carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of school grounds, but the federal law would still be in effect, neutralizing that aspect of the constitutional carry proposal.
One confusing area lies with cities, villages or towns that may have ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms. Each of the bills contains a provision that any current local ordinance or resolution does not apply to a “justified firearm discharge.” It is unclear how that term is defined, or who will be defining it and at what point.
SB 93 carries with it NO licensing system, as it is more of a reflection of the God-given right to keep and bear arms; it is, in essence a securing of that right.
However under SB 90 a person would need to apply to the Department of Justice for a valid permit which would last only five years. Persons who apply would have to be 21, not already prohibited from possessing firearms under federal or state law, pass a background check, and pay the required fees. The DoJ could suspend or revoke licenses under “certain circumstances,” and would oversee the administration of the license system -- think permit-based bureaucracy with an established database.
Reciprocity for Wisconsin residents to carry in other states is not covered in SB 93, while SB 90 does treat a person licensed to carry in another state as a licensed Wisconsin resident.
For those citizens who understand the entire concept of the right to keep and bear arms, even the proposed SB 93 constitutional carry measure does not completely reflect the original intent of the Second Amendment of the Constitution when it comes to protecting personal freedom. Still, it is far better than SB 90 which is a limited form of gun control with the usual government agencies managing the system and gun owners. Residents of the Badger State need to contact their State Senators and Assemblymen immediately and let them know constitutional carry should be supported. Anything less is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Email your Representatives!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25079&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us