AmmoLand.com

Related Articles:

• Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Launches New Attack On Your Gun Rights
• Obama & Justice Ginsburg on America’s “Rather Old Constitution”
• Obama the Enemy of Conscience & Gun Rights
• Chicago’s New Mayor Calls for Statewide Registration of All Handguns
• Issa, Meehan, Grassley To Holder: Unseal Fast & Furious Wiretap Apps

1. Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?

   The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

   The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.

   Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)

   In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.

   In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can’t punish you, folks!)

   To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, “Permits? We don’ need no steenking permits!”

Neil Evangelista on February 12th, 2010 at 8:34 AM

2. So evidently, the historically anti-gun Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is willing to support allowing citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and carry a firearm concealed. What is the motivation for this turn of events? Could it be that recent data by the FBI in its Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, indicated that the volume of violent crime in the nation decreased 4.4 percent? This is in light of the fact that guns and ammunition sales have been through the roof in late 2008 and all of 2009. States that issue “right to carry” permits reported dramatic increases in permit requests and reductions in violent crime. No, it can’t be based upon facts that more guns legally possessed, in fact, does result in less crime. Could it be that the JS wants to reduce crime so badly that they are willing to capitulate with gun rights proponents in order to get provisions that, in fact, statistically do not reduce crime? No, it’s much simpler than that.

   I believe that the Journal Sentinel editorial board and the Milwaukee Police Chief and District Attorney see the writing on the wall and, knowing that concealed carry in Wisconsin is a forgone conclusion, is trying to make the best out of what they feel is a bad situation. You see, two upcoming federal court cases are most likely about to make Wisconsin’s state statutes prohibiting concealed carry unconstitutional.

   McDonald v. Chicago is currently before the Supreme Court, and both sides believe that the court will rule before the end of June that the second amendment falls under the “protection” of the 14th Amendment, and the ruling will most likely state that the right to keep and bear arms is among the privileges or immunities of individual citizens of the United States. Also, Plamer v. District of Columbia is a follow up to the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and will affirm the court’s definition of “keep and bear arms” as an individual right to possess firearms on their person covered or not.

   Wisconsin’s Governor Doyle has twice vetoed reasonable concealed carry legislation. If the aforementioned court cases proceed as expected, Wisconsin will be caught with their proverbial pants down with no legislation requiring training or permits to carry a concealed firearm. Therefore, the proposal to make carrying concealed without a permit a felony would be a moot point. You would think that the Governor would have learned his lesson when Attorney General Van Hollen issued the April 2009 memo stating that open carry of firearms was legal, per the Governor’s own words.

   The growing movement across the United States is in recognizing that citizens lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights does not increase violent crime, but is proven to reduce it. There are neither gunfights in the street as liberals predicted, nor road rage shootings because people are carrying concealed. In the arena of Second Amendment rights, Wisconsin, like Illinois, is so far behind mainstream thought, that it is laughable.

   I don’t know who authored this article, “Wisconsin Concealed Carry: Is a Sell-Out in the Works?”, unless WGO’s Corey Graff interviewed himself again, purporting himself to be some sort of expert on the subject. He and his “leaders of Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO)” allegedly have been “warning” gun owners about the tough fight for CCW? Really? I guess I’ve missed them, as there has been absolutely nothing proposed legislatively regarding CCW in Wisconsin. In fact, I have spoken with pro-CCW state legislators who confirmed that there will be no GOP sponsored legislation relating to CCW until Governor Doyle is out of office in November. Putting any legislation forward now would be futile as it would be watered down and filled with the kind of poison pills requested by the anti-gun crowd. Graff’s article is short on facts, details, and references, and long on anti-gun hysteria.

TJ David on February 12th, 2010 at 11:21 AM

3. Do not fear, Cheeseheads. Your rights will be restored. If Jennifer Granholm can become a pro-gun rights person, anyone can. With the proper education, of course.

snapswivel on February 16th, 2010 at 10:56 AM

4. here’s another trickey dick solution to denying the rights of the people of wisconsin the right to carry for protection.flynn,gets his way and he can pick and choose who has the right to carry a gun.second,the police chiefs in the other districts of wisconsin can also play this pick and choose lottery for right to carry.compermise,open and conceal carry for wisconsin.dont let police chief’s become hitlers of the peoples rights to carry for protection.for now,open carry.

gene willis on March 3rd, 2010 at 9:23 PM

5. Corey Graff, executive director of WGO ???

   Who is this guy? Where was he during the micro-stamping fiasco?

   Why was/is he late to the OC debate.

   Have no idea who he is, but he doesn’t represent THIS gun owner.

Support The 2nd on March 8th, 2010 at 4:21 PM

6. I am an active duty US Marine stationed in North Carolina, though my home is in Wisconsin. I have a legal concealed carry handgun license in NC. Here is the process I had to go through to receive that permit:

   1) Take a course given by the state police on the legal ramifications of using deadly force, carrying a firearm, places firearms are not permitted, and escalation of force (cost= $80);
   2) Perform with a pistol at a private firing range, at various distances (with holster-drawn firing mandatory to pass);
   3) Get a certificate from the state health department stating that you have never been admitted to a mental hospital;
   4) Go to the sheriff’s office and get fingerprinted, perform a national background check, and get entered in the police database as a legal concealed firearm carrier (fee= $90)
   5) Wait three to five weeks, then pick up license in person.

   Now, while I do not agree with the $90 fee they charge for the booking, the other requirements are completely understandable, and I, as a strong gun-rights advocate, encourage them. I think it should be every person’s right to carry a concealed firearm for protection, but not if that person, for instance, has a felony record of aggravated assault or a history of mental illness to include shchizophrenic delusions. I don’t believe concealed-carry laws infringe upon the second amendment because open-carry is legal. You can protect yourself and your families with a visible weapon just as easily as with a concealed one.

   Should we make it a felony for anyone caught carrying concealed without a permit? No, silly rabbit. But for those people who already have felony convictions on their criminal record, I say most definitely YES.

   Being entered into the police database: does this make me a criminal? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite: the police now know there is another law-abiding citizen who is trained in the proper use, care, and legality of firearms who may be able to help them in a situation. It helps protect the police, who are also law-abiding citizens, most of whom have families that they would like to see when they get home from work. For example, if my car gets stolen while my weapon is inside it and a state trooper pulls the thief over, he will know that the vehicle may have a firearm inside, and be better prepared to defend himself. Personally, if I were a police officer, I would welcome that information.

   All of the measures North Carolina enforces serve to protect the citizens and keep weapons from the hands of criminals. I would be happy to go through the same process for a concealed carry permit in my home state (minus the ridiculously expensive booking fee), IF it were offered. But while my home does not allow a war veteran like myself to carry my firearm concealed in accordance with the law, I am not coming home. I will stay in a state that does allow its citizens to protect themselves.

Legal Concealed Carrier on August 14th, 2010 at 12:35 PM

7. Make sure you own a gun that will defeat police armour. A 9mm will not, do get a rifle. Steel core ammo works best, or a gun powerful enough that their armour will not matter. A good deer gun will work. They are trying to keep the police more powerful than the people. Do not let this happen. The 2nd amendment was written so that the state militia can not over power the people. This isn’t about protection from criminals but from the government. Make sure the police fear kicking in a door and pointing guns at people that are not criminals. They should fear kicking in my door.

Gun owner on August 26th, 2010 at 7:14 PM

8. Kick in my door………………………

Gun owner on August 26th, 2010 at 7:15 PM

9. Tougher laws lke what – No newborn shall be issued an AK-47 at birth without parental consent? Give me a break already!

   Hey I love guns, shooting and being able to protect myself from bad guys as much as the next guy, but come on already. How about some give and take? Concealed carry is a big step forward for WI in my opinion, but we should also consider gun safety and responsibility as well. Well regulated militia does not mean a bunch of yahoos with weapons running around shooting anyone who looks at them cross wise. How about mandatory courses in in the safe use of the weapon you buy. No one questions the driver testing and licenses, so why should it be any different with firearms? Stop worrying about what might be and deal with what is.

Al G. on January 4th, 2011 at 9:02 PM

10. Al: I just need to correct you on your points. A drivers license is a privilege provided by the state that they can regulate at will.

    To keep and bear arms is a god given right as pointed out in the constitution and which the state has no authority to regulate as they would a privilege, in other words should you have to take a test to participate in free speech? Well it is exactly the same?

    FYI

AmmoLand on January 5th, 2011 at 8:31 AM

11. To AmmoLand: Not exactly, you may hurt someone’s feelings with speech but it is not fatal. Guns are fatal and unfortunately, many people do not understand use of force and escalation of force. Law abiding citizens who get their idea of the law from television may not understand the restrictions on using deadly force and the legal tests for justification of the use of deadly force. Should the government protect people from their own ignorance? I’m not sure, but I prefer to err on the side of caution and to require those carrying loaded firearms to at least be required to hear the law; we cannot necessarily require them to understand the law. I heard one idea that J.B. Van Hollen would create a DVD about use of deadly force and it would be a requirement for all handgun training courses that led to a permit (assuming we have or need permits) such as the NRA Basic Pistol course.

    To all: The JS article that seems to have started this thread had a couple other scary things in it. For example, “[reasonable access…to the database] to the public so it can gauge whether the law is resulting in more death or injury;” They want to make public the list of permit holders. No, I think not. Publishing a list of permit holders simply gives the bad guys a list of houses and vehicles to scope out and potentially rob. I am OK with the police having access to the list for reasons stated above and because I want them to know that I am carrying legally. Saves both of us the time it takes to do a check; if they run my DL, I’m fine with a flag that says “permit holder.” I understand those who do not want this, but that’s what makes this a democracy – we can disagree and debate the issue and compromise on our terms, not on the terms of those who would unduly restrict our rights. Compromise is not bad as long as it does not require surrender.

    I think their true intent is illustrated in the text “Something drastic needs to change in the state to make people rethink carrying handguns”. So ‘compromise’ to the JS is to make everyone so paranoid about carrying a gun that they won’t. Flynn tried that as well. No, I think not.

    I highly recommend that people look at MN. I lived there for 9 years and carried for 6. I like background checks; people forget that a background check is very useful in proving that you are a law abiding citizen and that you are who you say you are. I like permit to purchase, it’s like pre-approval of a home or car loan. If I am a MN resident and I have a permit to purchase or a carry permit I can purchase a firearm and walk out with it – no 48 hour rules. A permit to purchase is not registration of guns, it is proof that I am not a criminal – just like my permit to carry. You could also look at NH. In NH a permit is $20 and also is based on a background check. If you do not have a permit, you can open carry (I did for 5 years). I don’t like open carry; it makes people nervous (yes, they should get over it but they don’t) and it changes the tactics of criminals because it takes away the guesswork.

    There are a few things in the article that to me are worth discussing, but they are also easy to resolve as pointed out by the Marine from NC. “closing the gun show loophole” and “making it a felony to act as a straw buyer” may not be popular, but we need to promote and support public safety. I wish the government did not have to be involved, but obviously there are unscrupulous people who buy guns and sell them to felons. I can’t remember the statistics, but there is one buyer from one gun store who accounts for an incredible percentage of guns used in crimes in Milwaukee. The percentage could be as high as 20%; maybe 10%. Whatever the percentage, it appears obvious to the casual observer that this person makes money legally buying guns and selling them to criminals. We need to be responsible citizens and help solve this problem. I like permit to purchase/permit to carry. I would never sell a firearm to anyone who did not have a background check and the permit to purchase or permit to carry is the pre-approval that would satisfy me.

    Now that the election is over the good news is that we can discuss compromise on our terms (me being a conservative) rather than on the terms of the liberals as was attempted by the JS and Chief Flynn when they saw that they were going to lose the upper hand. I understand those who want no restrictions, but I do not agree. I worked with law enforcement for 15 years and am aware of how easily criminals can obtain and use multiple identities. I am aware of people who are mentally unstable who are roaming our streets; I don’t want them to have guns. I am aware of repeat offenders who demonstrate through their actions that they are not responsible citizens even if they are not felons; I don’t want them to have guns. In MN if you have 3 DWIs, you lose your permit to carry. I like that; people who are irresponsible with alcohol should be treated as criminals just like people who are irresponsible with guns. If you don’t have permits, how to you take their right away? I think business owners should have the right to ask people not to carry loaded firearms on their premises (they have that right today, so maybe it’s a moot point) – I have the right to not buy their goods and services.

    My $.02

Gary P on February 7th, 2011 at 12:34 PM