Governor Walker restricts Wisconsin's new CCW Law

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


http://www.twincities.com/ci_19115022

Wis. gov approves concealed carry rules

Associated Press

Updated: 10/14/2011 04:08:45 PM CDT



MADISON, Wis. - Gov. Scott Walker has approved the state Justice Department's rules to implement Wisconsin's new concealed weapons law despite the National Rifle Association's concerns that they go too far.

The rules mandate that anyone who applies for a permit to carry a concealed weapon must undergo at least four hours of training. They also require that an instructor sign a completion certificate.

.

 

[Mr.Blue]

I live in WI and to be honest, I'm glad people have to take a course. I don't want ignorant people running around with guns. I see it as equivalent to having to get a driver's license. I believe, and I could be wrong, that the Hunter's safety course covers the requirement.

 

[shotgunjoel]

Meh. It adds some cost and hassle, but I think that training is a god idea.

 

[B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian]

Is training provided to everyone, free of charge?

 

[EddieNFL]

I'm glad people have to take a course. I don't want ignorant people running around with guns.

Aside from those who won't bother applying for a permit?

 

[Burt Blade]

And yet requiring a state-issued ID to vote is an unreasonable restriction on voting.

 

[Hammerhead6814]

Is training provided to everyone, free of charge?

What are you a socialist?

 

[rjrivero]

Did Wisconsin put out a list of states for reciprocity yet? Seems like this entire law is a bit hap-hazard.

 

[B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian]

What are you a socialist?

Nah, but I believe even the less fortunate among us are guaranteed the right to defend themselves and their families.

 

[SaxonPig]

I hardly consider a 4 hour training session as a restriction.

 

[Reasoned1]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[Mr.Blue]

Look who got elected president of our USA. Perhaps being able to vote should require a course as well. At the very least, an IQ test. ;-)

 

[B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian]

I hardly consider a 4 hour training session as a restriction.

I would say a $100 training session could be very restrictive to some people, especially in this economy.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

If you want reciprocity with a long list of other states...the training requirement is not a bad thing.

I'm as much a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment as anybody, but I'll be honest...most folks don't have enough sense to go get the training on their own...and the training is a good thing to have, it just kinda rubs the wrong way that it has to be "required"...but the end result is a positive.

Tennessee requires training...8 hours of it...it was fun, I enjoyed it...I saw several folks that DID learn alot during that 8 hours...I even learned a thing or 2 during the discussion on the "legalities" of defending myself...and Tennessee's permit (residents only) is honored in more states than any other permit.

That is the good thing about the training...

 

[rjrivero]

Ohio is a "must train" state as well. 8 hours class, 4 hours range.

 

[Mr.Blue]

I would say a $100 training session could be very restrictive to some people, especially in this economy.

It's just like a driver's license and all the associated costs of registering and insuring a car. It sucks, but it is necessary. In order to operate a potentially deadly tool (car/gun) I believe a minimum of training should be mandatory. A quick trip to the range and you will probably witness idiots doing dangerous things.

Will it ensure that there are no accidents? No. It will cut down on them though.

 

[GMcBoozer]

I donno about you guys, but I didn't learn a thing from my PTC class. Everything the instructor said I was already aware of/knew.

 

[Mainsail]

No training required in Washington, and no problems because of it.

Do you have to take a four hour class to:

-vote?
-attend the church of your choice?
-kill an unborn baby?
-give a political speech?
-remain silent under police interrogation?

 

[walking arsenal]

We have mandatory training her in MN that has to be retaken every five years. I like it. I think it's good that it is required and wish they would require the same fro having a drivers license.

A re familiarization with the rules and a laws is always a good thing. It introduces you to new tactics and hardware that have been developed and keeps us all much more safe.

 

[mdauben]

It's just like a driver's license and all the associated costs of registering and insuring a car.

I hate to get all second amendment on you, but driving a car is a privileged, while keeping and bearing arms is a right.

Plus, it does discriminate against low income citizens.

Now, I'm not arguing that voluntary training isn't a damn good idea, but mandatory training is the problem. Still, its better than the previous situation in the Dairy State. I guess that just leaves Illinois as the last CCW hold-out, right?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

No training required in Washington, and no problems because of it.

Do you have to take a four hour class to:

-vote?
-attend the church of your choice?
-kill an unborn baby?
-give a political speech?
-remain silent under police interrogation?

Exactly.



You shouldn't have to get "training" to exercise a right. That is infringement of that right.

.

 

[JellyJar]

I have lived in Texas where I had to have a 16 hour "training" class and now live in Alabama where none is required.

The class in Texas was fun and I enjoyed it but there was very little of any real importance taught in it and with the cost of the class and the cost for a CHL it came to over 140 dollars plus I have to pay about that amount every 5 years now to get it renewed. ( I still have my Texas CHL and will go back to Texas next year when it comes time to renew it. I love Texas and need an excuse to go back and visit. )

Here in Alabama there are no requirements for any kind of training or instructions. You go to the sheriff's office, pay anywhere from 10 to 20 dollars each year for a "gun permit" ( just so you can CCW and have a loaded handgun in your car ), then either they do a NICS check right then and there and you walk out with a permit or you wait about 7 to 10 days and it comes in the mail.

Given what doesn't happen here in Alabama with the many people that have gun permits ( In another thread I speculated that perhaps 10% or so of the populace have one. Not sure but that is how many in my county. ). Very few permit holders ever do anything wrong or stupid. Almost never happens. I would say that having all that training is not necessary except that some states won't have reciprocity with your state unless such training required for any CCW permits or licenses. That would be the only really good thing about requiring training.

One last thing. The only reason Texas requires these classes is because requiring them was the only way to get the political support needed to get the CHL law past back in 1995.

As Joe Huffman in his blog ( see www.joehuffman.com ) often says, "Some people cannot tell the difference between potentiality and actuality. "

 

[B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian]

It's just like a driver's license and all the associated costs of registering and insuring a car. It sucks, but it is necessary. In order to operate a potentially deadly tool (car/gun) I believe a minimum of training should be mandatory. A quick trip to the range and you will probably witness idiots doing dangerous things.

Will it ensure that there are no accidents? No. It will cut down on them though.

The right to drive an automobile on public roads isn't a Constitutionally protected right.

Training is a good thing, I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. Here in Missouri we are required to receive 8 hours of training in order to carry concealed. My wife and I took the course in order to comply with the law, not because we agree with the law. All told, in order to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, we spent in excess of $200 each. I don't have the ability to speak for all Wisconsin residents but I can guarantee there will be law-abiding citizens who will not receive training or their permit simply because choosing to feed their children or to carry a firearm is no choice at all.

 

[Mr.Blue]

If they cannot afford $100, how can they afford a gun and ammo? If feeding their families is a real concern, perhaps they should sell the gun and buy food for their families. I do not write this in a cavalier way.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

When it comes down to it...$100 just ain't much money these days.

A pack of cigarettes or a can of Skoal is nearly $10 in some states (I paid $8 in NY)...maybe they could skip a few dips or puffs.

Where there is a will, there is a way.