Permit Required?

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Oh I did that too? Only me?

I continued the derailing, yes.

Oh, sorry, I'm a wimp because I admitted I did something wrong. Oops! I said sorry. Should I shred my man card?

 

[Spartacus]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

From my perspective I'm not sure you ever had one. The jury is still out though so keep hope alive.

HA HA! Very good!! You are the coolest! Very snappy comeback. I don't know what to say. :monkey

I thought you said you were done? Don't you have a dog to kick?

 

[Spartacus]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Quoting another user incorrectly

 

[SAK]

Repealing 941.23 is by far the easiest thing (legislation wise) to do. Rather than draft different bills, argue and argue and argue over little points, amendments, exceptions, yadda yadda yadda. Create a whole new government bureaucracy to handle it....ugg

Simply repeal one foolish law and it takes care of things for the most part.

It definitely can be accomplished.

-No new people will be allowed to carry when 941.23 is repealed. Everyone now prohibited from carrying will still be prohibited.

-All repealing will do is allow those who can ALREADY CARRY have the choice of whether or not to put clothes over their gun.

-It's purely cosmetic. To put your coat or shirt over it or not - that's all!!!

-Wisconsin's guarantee of the right to bear arms for ANY lawful purpose means carrying for protection how you want. Open OR concealed.

 

[springfield 1911]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...to-carry-hidden-guns-without-permit.html?pg=2


Repeal Repeal repeal 941.23 Wisconsin matto is Forward is it not? Why should we always follow and stand at the end of the line, are we not considered to be the progressive state?
Lets get our ducks in a row. Repeal Repeal repeal 941.23

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I thought you said you were done? Don't you have a doug to kick?

Yah he should be on here shortly. I'm looking forward to it.

Good job there!!! Changing what I said to what you wanted it to say!

You so realize that is a violation of rule #16, right?

(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

 

[Doug Huffman]

Good point. "... will NOT be tolerated!" Wanna bet?

 

[rcawdor57]

Repeal 941.23

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...to-carry-hidden-guns-without-permit.html?pg=2


Repeal Repeal repeal 941.23 Wisconsin matto is Forward is it not? Why should we always follow and stand at the end of the line, are we not considered to be the progressive state?
Lets get our ducks in a row. Repeal Repeal repeal 941.23

Oh, the article is not good! They want to BAN open carry in Utah.

Snip: Gunn said Utah is going in the wrong direction with gun legislation, saying it should become more, not less, restrictive.

"What is needed is a law that says we should not be able to carry open firearms," he said.

I hope we can JUST repeal 941.23 and a few other unconstitutional laws. No new laws!

So by making concealed carry legal without a permit at the same time they want to ban open carry.

 

[McX]

Oh, the article is not good! They want to BAN open carry in Utah.

Snip: Gunn said Utah is going in the wrong direction with gun legislation, saying it should become more, not less, restrictive.

"What is needed is a law that says we should not be able to carry open firearms," he said.

I hope we can JUST repeal 941.23 and a few other unconstitutional laws. No new laws!

So by making concealed carry legal without a permit at the same time they want to ban open carry.

me thinks this is the upcoming agenda for Wisconsin as well.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Oh, the article is not good! They want to BAN open carry in Utah.

Snip: Gunn said Utah is going in the wrong direction with gun legislation, saying it should become more, not less, restrictive.

"What is needed is a law that says we should not be able to carry open firearms," he said.

I hope we can JUST repeal 941.23 and a few other unconstitutional laws. No new laws!

So by making concealed carry legal without a permit at the same time they want to ban open carry.

The link provided only goes to page 2 of the article. This quote you mentioned is from Steve Gunn (ironic).

Steve Gunn, a Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah board member, calls the proposal "ridiculous."

So, the actual proposal is to go like AZ, AK and VT (and hopefully WI!!).

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Another quote, which ties in with some other threads.

Sandstrom foresees perhaps a few more guns on the streets if the measure passes, but says there hasn't been "a single incident of someone going berserk" as a result of looser gun laws. He said he thinks it would deter crime.

"A gangbanger is going to carry a loaded, concealed weapon anyway," he said. "Maybe a few more people would carry because of (the law), but I don't think that's a bad thing. Most people are law-abiding citizens."

 

[rcawdor57]

I Missed That Paul! Thanks for the correction!

The link provided only goes to page 2 of the article. This quote you mentioned is from Steve Gunn (ironic).



So, the actual proposal is to go like AZ, AK and VT (and hopefully WI!!).

Yeah, I wasn't paying attention and it did jump to page 2. I went back and read the entire thing. Gunn is an anti-2nd amendment "person".

 

[Rich B]

REALLY?!?!?!

So i did NOT actually have to go before the board of firearms permit examiners when the cop took my permint to get it back?

I imagined that?

Cause I was still legally eligable to have a permit , yet the state revoked it.....

In what world is "we can take it for any reason we want" not may issue?


Oh yeah... you can still be denied for "eligability" which you yourself admit..... If you can be denied for some variable standard of eligability not based in prohibited person status, you are not shall issue. PERIOD



BTW... I have not been following it .... did the board of firearms permit examiners ever start meeting again?

The term 'shall issue' regards the issuing of a permit, not the revocation of a permit. I cannot discuss the specifics of your issue here since it is not on topic.

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

 

[Flipper]

me thinks this is the upcoming agenda for Wisconsin as well.

With the current interpretation that some sort of "carry" is a right under the Wisconsin constitution, you may be correct. If so, it will be interesting to see how the following is addressed -

Cop: Do you have a firearm in your possession?
Answer: Yes
Cop: Show me your papers so I can make sure you are not a felon.

or

Cop: Do you have a firearm in your possession?
Answer: No
Cop: I see a bulge that I believe may be a firearm, stand against the wall so I can search you.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Cop: Do you have a firearm in your possession?
Answer: Am I free to go?
Cop: Show me your papers so I can make sure you are not a felon.
Answer: Show me your warrant to violate my Fourth Amendment Right to be secure in my person and papers.

or

Cop: Do you have a firearm in your possession?
Answer: Am I free to go?
Cop: I see a bulge that I believe may be a firearm, stand against the wall so I can search you.
Answer: By your command I understand that I am detained. I protest I will not resist.