Governor Walker restricts Wisconsin's new CCW Law

[WardenWolf]

Big deal. I had to take an 8-hour course here in Arizona that cost me $100. We should be applauding his signing of the bill rather than criticizing him for requiring a training course. This is a major WIN.

Do you seriously want people who don't know the tricky bits of the law and possibly can't hit the broad side of a barn from 5 feet away carrying a gun? That 4-hour course will keep well-meaning citizens out of jail. It can only do good.

 

[buck460XVR]

For most anybody to buy a hunting license in Wisconsin they need a hunters safety course. Since the hunters safety course is 10 hours it qualifies for the training needed for CCW. Many gun owners in Wisconsin, because they are hunters, have already taken it. It is also much more reasonable cost wise. $10 I think. Classes are held several times a year all over the state. Contact your local warden or gun club.

Here is a link.....Wisconsin Hunter Safety

 

[DougW]

The 8 hours here in Texas is not a big deal. I have heard enough goofy questions from people to convince me that the 8 hours is a bare minimum.

 

[Steve CT]

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.

I agree, and also not in a cavalier way. If a reasonable cost for basic safety training is an obstacle, how do you buy your CCW firearm and the ammunition, and practice enough to maintain proficiency?

 

[trex1310]

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.

Sounds pretty cavalier. When someone(s) is kicking down your <deleted> door, what would YOU rather have, a can of string beans or a .38 spl?

 

[B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian]

So, if a person is indigent they can have their rights denied from them?

Or, if a person is indigent they can have their rights suspended until they're in a more favorable position financially?

I'm sure that's what Jesus would do.

 

[Mr.Blue]

Sounds pretty cavalier. When someone(s) is kicking down your <deleted> door, what would YOU rather have, a can of string beans or a .38 spl?

You don't need a ccw to have a handgun in your home in WI, unlike NY. Not to mention you can use a long gun to protect your family. You don't necessarily need a handgun.

I don't know about you, but food for my family comes before I worry about a potential break-in. Food is higher on Maslow's hierarchy of needs than even protection. If you choose a gun over food for your family, you should seek psychological help.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

That depends on perspective...a gun can be used to provide food when other means fail.

And no...I don't mean by robbing the liquor store.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


Some people are talking about how easy it is to take a class and how cheap $100 is.



What if you live someplace like Illinois or Washington D.C. where finding a class and place to shoot is nearly impossible?



What if you are a single mother who has two kids and you want to protect your family and $100 is a lot of money for you?



How hard is it to excercise your right then?
.

 

[orionengnr]

I don't smoke or dip, so I don't buy the "just quit another vice to finance your training" bit.

The fact is, a training requirement is, by definition, an infringement upon a Constitutionally protected right. The fact that I am an enthusiast of training does not change the above statement in the slightest.

In TX, it is $140 to the state plus "whatever the instructor thinks the market will bear" for the class. That is generally a bit north of another $100 bill, although there are exceptions.

That is not an inconsequential sum to many, especially in today's economy.

I am, generally speaking, a fan of Governor Scott Walker, but I believe he has some learning to do. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, as he signed CCW into law. WI will have her growing pains as other states have, and with luck and effort will come out the other side better for it.

That depends on perspective...a gun can be used to provide food when other means fail.

That depends upon several things. If you live in rural WI, a .22 rifle can be used to harvest squirrels and rabbits. However, I wouldn't carry a .22.
I don't know what the specifics on deer hunting are in WI, but (IMHO) a decent deer hunting handgun starts at a 6" .357 Mag, and a lot of people don't consider that an easy to carry gun.

If you live in Milwaukee, a more appropriate SD choice might be similar to what you see lots of folks discussing here...small .38 and .380/9mm handguns, which are really marginal game takers. Not to mention, the Milwaukee PD (and the judge) will be downright unsympathetic to your protestations of, "I was just trying to bag that squirrel for dinner!" when you discharge that 9mmm inside city limits...

Just sayin...

 

[Balrog]

It is amazing to me how many people here have no idea what a right is, and what the Constitution is about.

Do you have to go to a 4 hour government sponsored course before you buy a newspaper or bible and exercise your 1st amendment rights? Nope. Same applies to the 2nd Amendment.

Look training is a good thing, but it should not be a pre-requisite to exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you believe otherwise you are no friend of freedom!!

Remember in our nation's past, there were literacy tests and poll taxes to deprive the poor and underpriviledged of their voting rights as citizens. Now you people would bring that back with respect to the 2nd amendment. The public schools are really are doing a poor job teaching civics, it appears.

 

[armoredman]

Az started with a 16 hour training requirement, 4 hour renewal and ended up with no requirement for training to carry under Constitutional Carry, and will accept almost any training for the CCW permit if you want one. No renewal training required. We started out with carrying openly being universally accepted and unremarked on, so no big deal.

I have to jump on the bandwagon - driving cars and carrying guns are NOT the same. You have a right to travel, and you have two feet to do so with, not required to drive.

We have had open carry here for 99 years as a state, with no training requirements. Seems to work.

 

[Dr_B]

I think training is always a good idea. But I'm on the fence as to whether it should be required by law. Driver training is one thing, because its a privilege granted by your state. It can be restricted and contingent on training. But arms are a constitutional right. My state (Idaho) requires training, but it is honestly rather minimal.

 

[Mr.Blue]

I consider the ability to drive more important than the right to carry a CONCEALED HANDGUN. Many people need to drive to get to work. They work to feed their families.

 

[B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian]

Ride a bus.

Hire a bodyguard.

Which is more feasible?

 

[mljdeckard]

Is it helpful? No. Does it prevent stupid people from doing stupid things? No. But at the same time, I took mine over fifteen years ago and I can't remember what the big deal was anymore.

 

[rjrivero]

Sounds pretty cavalier. When someone(s) is kicking down your f****g
door, what would YOU rather have, a can of string beans or a .38 spl?

Seems like a can of peas can do a fine job if you're ready to use it......LINK HERE.

 

[jfh]

Gunnies can have good-natured disagreement about the means to an end. That end--'Constitutional Carry' seems to be the phrase that rhetorically carries the day--is a desirable one.

Meanwhile, most of us live in states that do not have the history AZ has had, and the legal encumbrances range all the way from--what, New York's? DC's? Chicago's? over to Alabama's requirements. When the MN bill was certain to pass, the "blood in the streets" refrain was bawled loudly, and political jackasses wore flak jackets to that day's session.

What we gunnies need to be focused on is the incrementalism needed to advance our cause well in the eyes of the nonthinking voters. From what I can tell, Walker's approval is just the kind of incrementalism WI needs right now to keep threading this landmark legislation through to general political acceptance. Don't forget, WI has at least two huge pockets of antigun sentiment, and the bill's passage has taken many years.

Jim H.

 

[mortablunt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian
Is training provided to everyone, free of charge?
What are you a socialist?
__________________

Yes. I believe that RKBA is necessary for a strong group. If preexisting access to resources is necessary in order to gain fundamental rights, then something is seriously wrong.

 

[buck460XVR]

.


Some people are talking about how easy it is to take a class and how cheap $100 is.



What if you live someplace like Illinois or Washington D.C. where finding a class and place to shoot is nearly impossible?



What if you are a single mother who has two kids and you want to protect your family and $100 is a lot of money for you?



How hard is it to excercise your right then?
.

This thread is not about Illinois or Washington D.C.....it is about Wisconsin. As I posted before, anyone with $10 can get the required training in Wisconsin, to CCW. Hunter Safety classes are generally held in every county in the state several times a year.

If you are a single mother with 2 kids, have never owned/shot a firearm before, wouldn't you, for the safety of your children, want some type of formal type of training before you bring a weapon into your home?

 

[Neverwinter]

Gunnies can have good-natured disagreement about the means to an end. That end--'Constitutional Carry' seems to be the phrase that rhetorically carries the day--is a desirable one.

Meanwhile, most of us live in states that do not have the history AZ has had, and the legal encumbrances range all the way from--what, New York's? DC's? Chicago's? over to Alabama's requirements. When the MN bill was certain to pass, the "blood in the streets" refrain was bawled loudly, and political jackasses wore flak jackets to that day's session.

What we gunnies need to be focused on is the incrementalism needed to advance our cause well in the eyes of the nonthinking voters. From what I can tell, Walker's approval is just the kind of incrementalism WI needs right now to keep threading this landmark legislation through to general political acceptance. Don't forget, WI has at least two huge pockets of antigun sentiment, and the bill's passage has taken many years.

I agree with this post. A CCW permit with a training requirement is an improvement over none at all. It can only get better as they continue to make their way toward constitutional carry(however long it takes). Gun owners are not confined to their state, and having a permit with reciprocity is better than having to pay for another course and paperwork to get a permit which has reciprocity.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Training is not the point.

The over-reaching for the WI DOJ and governor is.

The legislature approved CCW with a training requirement. Like it or not, that's the law.

What the governor did with his signature was impose an additional requirement: that the training be at least 4 hours in length. We can discuss whether that's a good minimum or not. But the fact is, that is NOT what the law in WI says. The statute has no minimum hours listed.

The NRA is is the premier civilian firearms training organization in the world; they supported the WI law, but not the DOJ's and the governor's changes to it in the "emergency" temporary rules, because they exceed the law and regulatory authority.

 

[SARDiver]

So, if a person is indigent they can have their rights denied from them?

Or, if a person is indigent they can have their rights suspended until they're in a more favorable position financially?

I'm sure that's what Jesus would do.

Bear in mind that the people who think requiring a training class to exercise a right is a good idea are the same ones who think it is too much trouble to require photo ID when voting.

 

[gym]

If you are required to take a training course, it should be provided free of charge. Reason being that why should some states require it and some don't? if you want everone trained, then you tarin them. I could never figure out how in NYC, it took a year to get all the craap they wanted together, then they just handed you the license. Fbi check, attorneys letter, references from half a dozen people, your bank manager had to confirm your cash deposits, the accountant had to write a letter verifying you need due to the amount of cash you wrere carrying and depositing, 3 different meetings "interviews" with police.After all that ,they never asked you if you could fire a gun. "Back when i got mine", all you neded was an approved safty course, which we had at my place of business by an instructor that lasted an hour. Manyof my guys were hunters and it was the same course that prodeeded your hunting license. That was accepted when I moved here in 1994 for my carry. An approved course given by a certified instructor. But back then in 1972, it was like 50 dollars for the whole group of maybe 10 guys.And no actual guns were used, "it was ny", so how do they get the nerve to charge people now for something that was merley a formality. This is what happens with reciprocity, some states require one thing others another, it's just a scam to make money.I don't remember how much my carry in NY was, but it was ten times more than FL. Like $375+, back in the 80's maybe close to $500 now. Talk about getting ripped off.

 

[hermannr]

The whole problem with requiring training is: It turns your "right" to bear arms into a privilage.

WA has never had a training requirement to OC or CC. Vermont has never had a training or permit requirement. Look at the statistics..do WA or Vermont have a higher incidence of neglegent/criminal use of a firearm, verses all of those states that do not trust their citizens? No.

It is a Jim Crow law to require anything that requires extra funds to participate in. It raises the cost of entrance into the activity.

No everyone can afford dinner tonight, but most of those that cannot afford dinner are the same ones that need SD the most.