• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Permit Required?

S

SprayAndPray

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
177
Location
, ,
Rich B said:
It is a shall issue state. It shall be issued unless you are deemed to not be eligible.
Click to expand...

Wholly fail....

Shall issue means they have a statutory requirement to give it to you unless you are a prohibited possessor....

Feel free to show me that statute in Connecticut....... If Connecticut was shall issue , I would not have spent 2 years without my permit cause some cop didn't like my attitude, and have to go before the board of firearms permits examiners and beg for it back .... Connecticut is may issue , always has been,

It is shall issue unless they don't want to give it to you or feel like taking it away and making you go before a board that does not ever meet, last I knew..... Last I knew they could (and were) still pulling permits for anything they felt like doing it for. Got a link for your new shall issue law?
 
Last edited:
S

SprayAndPray

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
177
Location
, ,
Rich B said:
There is nothing that needs to be changed. There is nothing in state law that allows them to use your statement as grounds to reject or approve your application.

CT is shall issue.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the laws that disbars it either.....


What are we wagering?
 
Last edited:
Rich B

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
SprayAndPray said:
If Connecticut was shall issue , I would not have spent 2 years without my permit cause some cop didn't like my attitude, and have to go before the board of firearms permits examiners and beg for it back .... Connecticut is may issue , always has been,
Click to expand...

If you were made to wait past the statute dictated limits, the local police department has violated state law. The state laws very strictly define what time periods may pass between each stage.

The state does not become 'may issue' just because you did not express your rights and hold the PD to the letter of the law.

CT permits are not the topic here, so I invite you seek more information here:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?90-Connecticut


It is shall issue unless they don't want to give it to you or feel like taking it away and making you go before a board that does not ever meet, last I knew..... Last I knew they could (and were) still pulling permits for anything they felt like doing it for. Got a link for your new shall issue law?
Click to expand...

You don't understand the law if you believe any of what you are saying. This is equivalent to the people in CT who ask me for where in the law there is an OC statute if OC is legal.

There is a 'suitability' clause in the law that makes things messy (and likely unconstitutional), but it by far does not make CT a may issue state.
 
johnny amish

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
Wisconsin Carry said:
Its funny I've thought the same thing. Like maybe a little "more" time and we would have more time to get people who want to carry out there carrying now.

I believe it really does all start with getting people exercising their right to carry.

When you don't have something, when you are hungry, you'll eat anything.

When you aren't starving, you want something GOOD to eat.

TOO many Wisconsinites are STARVED for the right to carry. As such, they are too likely to grasp at any opportunity to carry the state affords them and call it success.

Too many people would say "permit fee?, ok fine, government mandated training?, ok fine, anything so I can carry"

Too many would be happy to accept expensive mandatory training, fingerprinting, expensive permit fee's (taxes) that have to be renewed every few years because its SOMETHING more than they have now and now they are starved for the right to carry.

When we get people out OC'ing, they are exercising a right, not starving for one. As such, though they still REALLY want CC, they aren't as desperate for it as they were when they thought they couldn't carry at all. They've had a taste of true freedom and they will want more of the same. Then the scenario is "I've been carrying for years, NOW you want me to pay a tax and go through government mandated training to do something I've already been doing?

I think back 5 years ago when I got my Florida non-resident CC permit. I was HAPPY to go through the hassle of going and getting fingerprinted. I was happy to pay the fee to Florida for my CC permit. NOW this year I get my renewal notice and I have a bitter taste in my mouth having to go get fingerprinted AGAIN and pay $50 to Florida just to renew my permit.

I think with the recent explosion of awareness, thousands more people who sat in the "starving for the right to carry" category are beginning to OC. I do still think repeal of 941.23 is entirely possible especially with the turnover in Madison with the anti-incumbent sentiment. The national wave of "less government all around" will play to our favor here in Wisconsin as well. So I am entirely convinced repeal of 941.23 is possible, but it has crossed my mind that another summer getting people out and OC'ing before this comes up in the legislature would really fortify our position.
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom here. Why should we be so eager to comprimise? After the election in Nov. it will be up to all of us to band together and scream from the roof tops and let every lawmaker in this state know that we want. NO PERMITS.
 
AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Spartacus said:
I come to everyone's house eventually...
Click to expand...

Let me just take a moment to ask that you NOT come to my home. I have no use at all for your "bat" poop (Milwaukee has all the poop that it needs).
Please don't get me wrong, I will still be happy to sit down and have a cup of joe with ya though (just not at my home). ;)
 
P

Packer fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
399
Location
Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
Did not read all of the thread

I haven't read all of the thread so if the question I am going to ask has already been answered forgive me.

If Wisconsin already has constitutional OC and blood hasn't flooded the streets how will implementing a CC permit system going to make one safer or not? If you can already be trusted to OC without a permit why then can't you be trusted to CC?

IMHO I would make it law that if a person is CC that he/she declare his/her firearm to a Police Officer upon detainment, but other wise a person should carry however he/she feels.
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Packer fan said:
If Wisconsin already has constitutional OC and blood hasn't flooded the streets how will implementing a CC permit system going to make one safer or not? If you can already be trusted to OC without a permit why then can't you be trusted to CC?
Click to expand...


Ding! Ding! Ding!! :banana:

Packer fan said:
IMHO I would make it law that if a person is CC that he/she declare his/her firearm to a Police Officer upon detainment, but other wise a person should carry however he/she feels.
Click to expand...


On detainment, maybe, but not on just contact. Bad guys don't declare, why should we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top