Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Speaking strictly as an NRA-certified instructor: I'm whole-heartedly in favor of training, but mandating it is a senseless, unjustifiable infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Governor Walker restricts Wisconsin's new CCW Law
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
Standing Wolf: completely agree.
Training is a great idea but shouldn't be mandatory to exercise a right.
.
Standing Wolf: completely agree.
Training is a great idea but shouldn't be mandatory to exercise a right.
.
mgmorden
Member
Not sure that I agree with the training requirement, but realistically it's not going to keep many who want the permit from getting it. We have training requirements for CWP in this state (and EIGHT hours, not four) and you can still find plenty of classes for $50 or under.
Plus, many states require training for reciprocity, so if you want to carry in other places, the training requirement will help you there.
Plus, many states require training for reciprocity, so if you want to carry in other places, the training requirement will help you there.
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
Military Service??
This is copied directly from the statute, Wis. Stat. 175.60(4)(a): TRAINING REQUIREMENT, What kind of training is required to get a license?
"In an application for a license, an individual must include proof of having received firearm training. The proof of training requirement may be met by ANY of the following:"
(What immediately follows is a listing of various types of training, like the Hunter's Safety Course, which are acceptable, but ends with the following paragraph)
"Documentation of completion of small arms training while serving in the US armed forces as demonstrated by an honorable discharge or generaal discharge under honorable conditions or a certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of small arms training and certification."
I don't see anywhere where this new ruling by the AG and the Gov changes any part of this.
I plan to get my application and send in my fee, along with a copy of my DD-214.
We shall see ....
This is copied directly from the statute, Wis. Stat. 175.60(4)(a): TRAINING REQUIREMENT, What kind of training is required to get a license?
"In an application for a license, an individual must include proof of having received firearm training. The proof of training requirement may be met by ANY of the following:"
(What immediately follows is a listing of various types of training, like the Hunter's Safety Course, which are acceptable, but ends with the following paragraph)
"Documentation of completion of small arms training while serving in the US armed forces as demonstrated by an honorable discharge or generaal discharge under honorable conditions or a certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of small arms training and certification."
I don't see anywhere where this new ruling by the AG and the Gov changes any part of this.
I plan to get my application and send in my fee, along with a copy of my DD-214.
We shall see ....
i live in michigan and 8hrs training is required. im poor but i scraped up the $125 for the class to be honest its the $105 application fee i have problems with. $125 for an application really??? what the heck did i pay the county for and to whom did the money go?
all they do is send my prints to state police to get the ok to give me the license right?
all they do is send my prints to state police to get the ok to give me the license right?
Kaeto
Member
No the prints go to the feds for the ok.
we are not amused
Member
I have been reading the postings, and have to just shake my head in awe of the ignorance of some people.
While I agree and support the notion that the Second Amendment, properly interpreted. would mean that no gun laws that restrict the freedom of an individual Citizen to own, possess or carry (bear arms) firearms should be permitted, BUT... We live in an imperfect universe and a flawed legal system that has systematically permitted the disarming of the Citizenry. The mere fact that Wisconsin is now the latest State to allow the Right to Carry, even if it is defined as a "Privilege" and one must pay for the "Privilege", is still a huge step forward. Especially considering how hard and long the struggle was in that State.
Four hours of training is not an unreasonable burden, and is much less than some States. Neither is the requirement for the Instructors Signature on the Certificate. The Law did mandate training after all, and proof of such training.
Another consideration is "reciprocity" with other States. Quite frankly, most other States will not honor Wisconsin's permits without some training requirement.
Many States which have recently enacted "Concealed Carry" legislation are considering changes which will loosen the restrictions that were enacted in the original law. Hopefully, more States will follow the example of Arizona, but it takes time and experience to change the hearts and minds of Liberal anti-gunners. We didn't loose our Constitutional Gun Rights in a single court case or law, we won't get them back all at once either. It is a long fight, and attacking allies because they aren't "ideologically" pure enough or lack the courage of our convictions, isn't going to keep winning those battles.
Besides, as a lot of people have pointed out, a little knowledge isn't a bad thing. When I took my training, there was little about the handling of the gun that they could teach me, that I didn't already know, but there was a lot of legal "niceties" of the Law that I was insufficiently aware of. Most of which common sense and what I did know of the law would have probably kept me out of trouble, but there were scenarios and circumstances and legal conventions, which was unaware of, and I am darn glad I now know of.
While I agree and support the notion that the Second Amendment, properly interpreted. would mean that no gun laws that restrict the freedom of an individual Citizen to own, possess or carry (bear arms) firearms should be permitted, BUT... We live in an imperfect universe and a flawed legal system that has systematically permitted the disarming of the Citizenry. The mere fact that Wisconsin is now the latest State to allow the Right to Carry, even if it is defined as a "Privilege" and one must pay for the "Privilege", is still a huge step forward. Especially considering how hard and long the struggle was in that State.
Four hours of training is not an unreasonable burden, and is much less than some States. Neither is the requirement for the Instructors Signature on the Certificate. The Law did mandate training after all, and proof of such training.
Another consideration is "reciprocity" with other States. Quite frankly, most other States will not honor Wisconsin's permits without some training requirement.
Many States which have recently enacted "Concealed Carry" legislation are considering changes which will loosen the restrictions that were enacted in the original law. Hopefully, more States will follow the example of Arizona, but it takes time and experience to change the hearts and minds of Liberal anti-gunners. We didn't loose our Constitutional Gun Rights in a single court case or law, we won't get them back all at once either. It is a long fight, and attacking allies because they aren't "ideologically" pure enough or lack the courage of our convictions, isn't going to keep winning those battles.
Besides, as a lot of people have pointed out, a little knowledge isn't a bad thing. When I took my training, there was little about the handling of the gun that they could teach me, that I didn't already know, but there was a lot of legal "niceties" of the Law that I was insufficiently aware of. Most of which common sense and what I did know of the law would have probably kept me out of trouble, but there were scenarios and circumstances and legal conventions, which was unaware of, and I am darn glad I now know of.
Steve CT
Member
This particular response does not strike me as appropriate for THR
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
Personally, I believe poor voting does far more damage. And voting is harder than shooting a gun.
Consider the time and thought needed to sift through the B.S. and lies politicians present to find a half-way decent candidate to vote for. Think of the convoluted wording of propositions and misleading phrasing.
Plus, you have to start over fresh with every election. The manual of arms of my guns are the same every time I use them. But candidates, bills and propositions are ever changing.
But, there is NO requirement for training to vote.
Consider the time and thought needed to sift through the B.S. and lies politicians present to find a half-way decent candidate to vote for. Think of the convoluted wording of propositions and misleading phrasing.
Plus, you have to start over fresh with every election. The manual of arms of my guns are the same every time I use them. But candidates, bills and propositions are ever changing.
But, there is NO requirement for training to vote.
I agree with those who advise people to get training, but don't think it should be mandated. Colorado required me to take a course, and I enjoyed it so much I took an advanced, combat pistol course, and actually learned something. I have also lived in states that did not require a course, and prefer that.
Carrying a firearm is a Constitutional right, driving an automobile is a licensed privilege. The two can not be compared.
Carrying a firearm is a Constitutional right, driving an automobile is a licensed privilege. The two can not be compared.
Prince Yamato
Member
Wisconsin finally got the right to carry and the first thing everyone does is complain. Baby steps everyone, baby steps. Get your permits and THEN in couple of years, when there is a record in state of no massive crimes committed by folks with CHLs, THEN petition for constitutional carrying. You'll look a lot less ungrateful and you'll look constitutionally savvy to boot.
wally
Member
I'm all in favor of adding this requirement, in fact I'd add a multiple choice test associating the candidates and their position on the issues, and the requirement that you pay income taxes. We are approaching the point of 50% of the population paying no income taxes, When it hits 60% "I vote the government take your money and give some to me" becomes unstoppable.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
.....and it's not the Wisconsinites that are complaining.
We've been waitin' for this a long time. I'm happy. If one does not have the $10 and the time to take a DNR sponsored course, they probably won't have the $125 application fee. The other option is, they'll just have to comply with open carry.
OldTman
Member
What is wrong with you people? A driver’s license is a privilege. The Second Amendment is a right... or was supposed to be. If people on this forum are saying that it's OK to require training and other hoops for us to jump through, then we've lost!
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,083
The required training for Wisconsin CCW has no impact on one's right to own and to use firearms. It only affects those that want to carry concealed. Is this any different than having to be 18 to purchase a long-gun and 21 to purchase a handgun, or do you think kids six years old with the cash should be able to buy 1911s?
OldTman
Member
Well, now that you mention it I do. I've run into some stupid dealers in my time but I can't think of one of them that would sell a six year old a 45 even if his parents were stupid enough to give him the money. He shouldn't have it. He shouldn't have a blow torch either. If you want to see 18 year olds being issued handguns, rifles quirt guns and shot guns go to Camp Lejeune or Pendelton. They may not be able to buy one without permission but they're sure being issued to them. ...and it does restrict their right to carry concealed.
LeonCarr
Member
Here in Texas we have a training requirement. Constitutional issues aside, any training is good training to me. One thing I have seen, and several of my CHL Instructor buddies have seen, is people walking in to their CHL classes who have never shot a firearm of any kind in their lives. Some people wake up, decide to refuse to be a victim and take a CHL class. This is a great thing except they have no idea what the law says about when to shoot or when not to shoot, how the firearm works, or how to employ the firearm when the situation dictates it. Folks like these NEED the CHL training, and I found it very beneficial even though I have a pretty strong working knowledge of the law. What is not to like about a class where you get to shoot?
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Autolycus
Member
It does have an impact on peoples rights to own and use firearms. I don't think you are familiar with the 2nd Amendment. Do you know what "Bear" means?
As far as 6 year olds, I think they should be allowed to carry as long as their parents support the decision and are OK with it.
Sorry but why not make the training cost $100,000,000 to qualify for the right to teach the training and get issued a trainers certificate so that people could then be state qualified to teach the course? Is that cost prohibitive?
Or why not raise the class cost to $100,000,000 for those who feel it is not a burden? Where does it end?
Steve CT
Member
A six year should carry a gun as long as their parents support the decision?
Really?
What if one parent supports this action and one does not?
What about an orphan that has no parents? Why infringe on that six year old's rights just because she/he has no parents?
This is getting pretty silly IMHO
langenc
Member
Why are gun people so eager to make all kinds of restrictions on themselves and other gunners.
I suppose those are the same ones that elected Obama-1/2 of all gunners voted for him or didnt bother to vote at all..
""The required training for Wisconsin CCW has no impact on one's right to own and to use firearms. It only affects those that want to carry concealed. Is this any different than having to be 18 to purchase a long-gun and 21 to purchase a handgun, ....." posted from above.
With double talk like this-you should run for Mayor of Chicago!!
I suppose those are the same ones that elected Obama-1/2 of all gunners voted for him or didnt bother to vote at all..
""The required training for Wisconsin CCW has no impact on one's right to own and to use firearms. It only affects those that want to carry concealed. Is this any different than having to be 18 to purchase a long-gun and 21 to purchase a handgun, ....." posted from above.
With double talk like this-you should run for Mayor of Chicago!!
exavid
Member
I agree that training is a good thing. I don't agree that it should be mandatory. Once training is made mandatory it is a restriction on a constitutionally guaranteed right. Oregon's required CCW training is mostly a review of the law which is a real good thing and should be taken or at least studied by anyone carrying a concealed firearm but that shouldn't be required either. I obtained a non-resident FL CCW by mail since Oregon has no reciprocity at the moment, I liked the fact that though FL required firearms training I could attach a copy of my DD214 as proof of training. Kind of a 45 year delayed GI benefit.
Gato Montés
Member
Good on Buck and others who understand the reality of the situation. Wisconsin was never, NEVER going to go from a non CCW state to full blown constitutional carry with one election. I should know, I live here.
It doesn't matter what progress other states have made with CCW; this is still very much a foreign topic to most folks here, including many of those who were responsible for putting Walker and the Republicans in power. If they would have pushed for constitutional carry outright, there is a very good chance we wouldn't have concealed carry at all. Once this first bill passes and the people realize that all that doomsday talk is much ado about nothing, then Wisconsin will be ready for constitutional carry. Right now, it's just too much of a culture shock for most folks, including many conservative voters, to handle.
It doesn't matter what progress other states have made with CCW; this is still very much a foreign topic to most folks here, including many of those who were responsible for putting Walker and the Republicans in power. If they would have pushed for constitutional carry outright, there is a very good chance we wouldn't have concealed carry at all. Once this first bill passes and the people realize that all that doomsday talk is much ado about nothing, then Wisconsin will be ready for constitutional carry. Right now, it's just too much of a culture shock for most folks, including many conservative voters, to handle.
My State, Kentucky is one of the most Pro Gun States in the U.S. We also have a training requirement. Our cost for the training is around $75-$80 and it consists of a film, instruction, written test and range test. This is on top of the $60 Concealed Carry Permit.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
I guess in your opinion that the people of "FREE" states that require no permit or training for carrying a gun are all ignorant?
Frankly those who put and those who believe that restrictions should be put on our ability to exercise our rights are more dangerous as you have no idea what a right is and its meaning.
You folks have gotten so brain washed by government wanting to regulate everything under the guise of "if it only saves_______(fill in the blank)".
Never mind the remarks that you should bow down and kiss the shoes of your masters because CCW was even passed with these restrictions.
Gun owners are their own worst enemies.
- Status
