DougB.

Good news. We are one step closer and it looks as though it is going to happen!

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online...........


By Patrick Marley and Bill Glauber of the Journal Sentinel

Updated: June 14, 2011 6:34 p.m. |(133) Comments

Madison - The state Senate passed a concealed-carry measure by a 25-8 margin Tuesday.

"This is a great victory for the people of Wisconsin and for the 2nd Amendment," said Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). "The right to protect oursevels by legally carrying a firearm is long overdue and I'm glad we're joining 48 other states with this law - finally."

The measure now goes to the Assembly, which is expected to pass it. It would then go to Gov. Scott Walker, who supports the bill.

The measure would require people to get training and permits to carry concealed weapons, after some Republicans earlier pushed a measure that would let people do so without training or permits.

Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states that have outright bans on carrying concealed weapons. Gun rights advocates for years have pushed allowing concealed weapons in Wisconsin, but they were thwarted by then-Gov. Jim Doyle or Democrats in the Legislature.

Under the bill, the state Department of Justice would have to issue permits to state residents 21 or over who got training and cleared background checks that showed they were not felons or otherwise prohibited from carrying guns.

Republicans have said the law is necessary to ensure people have the right to protect themselves, while many Democrats have decried the plan because they say it would make the public unsafe.

Training required permits would cost a maximum of $50 and be good for five years. Renewing a license would cost $25. To get a permit, people would have to offer proof they have passed a course on firearms training, firearms safety or hunter safety.

People with permits from other states could carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin as long as they had gone through training and a background check.

Guns would be banned from law enforcement offices, prisons, jails, courthouses, secure mental health facilities, school grounds and the areas of airports past security checkpoints. Private businesses could post signs banning guns; similar postings could be put up in city halls, the Capitol and other public buildings.

Guns would be allowed in all city and state parks, an issue that raised concerns among some opponents of the bill.

Permit holders could carry guns in taverns and other places that sell alcohol, provided they were not drinking. Democrats said they saw a loophole in the bill because people would be able to drink in some parks while carrying guns.

Under current law, guns are banned in schools, on school grounds and in school zones - the area 1, 000 feet beyond school grounds. The bill would keep in place the ban on carrying guns in schools and on school grounds, but would allow permit holders to carry guns in areas just off school grounds.

Private businesses could post signs to keep guns out of their buildings. Those who allowed guns in their businesses would be immune from legal liability, but the bill does not provide immunity for those who post signs barring guns from their properties.

Signs could also be posted in government buildings, such as city halls and the state Capitol. But guns could not be banned from government-owned grounds, meaning they could be carried on the Capitol lawn or the Milwaukee Public Zoo.

The money would from the permits be intended to cover the cost of staffing and building a database of permit holders. Those costs are estimated to total about $3 million over two years.

Whenever carrying concealed weapons, people would have to have permits and photo IDs with them. If they did not have their permit with them, they could be fined $25, though the fee would be waived if they presented their permit and ID within 48 hours.

Those who carried guns without a permit would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Police would have just limited access to the database of those who hold permits. They could check it only to confirm the validity of a permit that someone produced or to investigate whether someone lied in applying for a permit. Police could not routinely check the database when pulling someone over.

The names of those who hold permits would not be available under the state's public records law.

The bill would also allow people to carry loaded, uncased guns in their cars. Under current law, guns are allowed in vehicles only if they are unloaded and encased.

Those who got permits would also be able to carry Tasers and other electric weapons, which are banned under current law.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill allowing "constitutional carry" - that is, the ability to carry concealed weapons without training or permits. But Republican Gov. Scott Walker later said he wanted the bill to require permits and training, and lawmakers rewrote the bill to require that.

Walker supports the current version of the bill.

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm have sought changes to the bill to stiffen penalties for those who illegally carry guns or buy guns for felons.

Lawmakers passed bills to allow concealed weapons in 2003 and 2005, but Doyle vetoed them. From then until recently, Democrats were able to block such bills because they controlled at least one house of the Legislature.

My feeling is that this is a good start!

About time!!!!!

cayugad

Having been in law enforcement this is an important issue. I can see both sides of the argument. Personally I do not have a problem if a RESPONSIBLE law abiding citizen wants to carry a concealed weapon. If it makes them feel safer, then so be it. People should be safe in their homes and their person (as it is usually stated). But all who decide to carry better understand the responsibility that this burden places on them. The training part is good, if the local Sheriff (who I am guessing will be responsible for the training and permit issue) has a good standard that they demand the people follow.

Another little tip.. you might want to consider some kind of insurance coverage for that rare instance you might ever need to pull that weapon and use it. I can assure you, the attorneys of anyone involved with or injured in the incident, will be hunting your head. With no insurance, you risk your savings, personal property, even future earning potential in any civil liability law suit.

Now I would like some feedback from those that intend to carry. One of the points is, This point bothers me. Like I point out. I have dealt with people. And I know people, and how they react. Many are going to be of the mind set, one or two drinks is not going to bother them... right? So what penalty should be evoked for the person that does go to a tavern, has one or two beers lets say, and is then in possession of a firearm? What of the person that was not armed at the tavern, and had one or two beers, returns to his car and there arms themselves. Should this be regulated? Lets say, a person goes armed to a tavern. Has a couple drinks. And is then checked and arrested by police for the violation. How many violations should this person get, before his CCW permit is pulled? Should a past OWI have a bearing on ones ability to obtain a permit?

Should there be an absolute sobriety clause with the CCW laws (what are your thoughts)? After all we hope our police officers that protect our society are not doing so under the influence (although there have been cases of such). Also they are trained in many departments monthly and then once or twice a year they attend shoot don't shoot schools. So should someone with a CCW be required to be sober? I can assure you, any time that CCW is in my possession, I will be sober.

Do you feel it should me mandatory that in the event you are stopped by any law enforcement personal for any reason that you are required to tell them you are armed, and where such weapon is located? Perhaps this is a provision.

What about the person that is armed. Parks his car, walks to the store and claims he does not see the sign restricting him from the CCW restrictions. What should be done in this case? Notice is says, the business if posted is free of "legal liability" should an incident occur. So if someone lets say is robbing the 7-11 you are in, and you draw down on them and a gun battle occurs. In that battle, the perpetrator shoots and kills an innocent bystander. And let me point out. You did not shoot the bystander. But your actions did cause the gun battle. Are you liable?


Some things to also consider... the decision to shoot or don't shoot falls on many factors. A good example, Madison had a person walking on the west side that was robbed by two young men. There was no weapon involved, only the threat of (and I understand they did assault him) strong armed robbery. Do you feel the person attacked with non deadly force, would have been justified in shooting? If you answered no ... What if he did not resist, and during their robbery, his weapon is taken from him. That same weapon the next day is used in the commission of a crime and an innocent killed. Do you feel the original owner bares some responsibility for that weapon getting into criminal hands?


I am going to guess, but I believe all the weapons you intend to carry with, will need to be registered. Are you ready for that? What if they discover one of your weapons as listed NCIC/CIB. Are you ready to surrender that weapon to authorities?

In summery, the decision to carry is a personal one. But with that decision are many responsibilities that the carrier must understand, face, and be accountable for. There are places I would like to have a CCW, like in my car, or when I go for a walk. But I can not stress enough the need to know when to shoot and not to shoot. Also you might want to consider a very safe place to keep that weapon when you are not going to carry. Cars are broken into all the time. Is your weapon going to be secure? Believe me, under the front seat is a poor place to hide a weapon. Homes while safe, have dangers more so with the occupants we live with. Do you have a safe place for that loaded weapon?

I agree Wisconsin needed this law. And I fully intend to carry. I've done it safely for years. But if you have any doubts while armed that you might not want to engage an attacker, then please listen to your gut feelings. Its better to scare someone off then to shoot them. That criminal element will surface and be caught another day. Last thing and then I will end this rant... if you have any doubts (and believe me I have seen trained brave people freeze up) that you can not pull that trigger and take someone's life, then do not carry. Its not a toy to be pulled to scare someone away. Or to even threaten with. By the implementation of the CCW law, you are telling the public that you are ready to take someone's life.

What is your feelings?

JW

good points C - did not think about extra insurance and that is a must now.

I don't agree with the tavern portion and thought that entering a tavern drinking or not it was illegal to carry in there. But I have not read the whole bill as of yet and it looks like it won't be until October or November before the bill will be signed.

Wisconsin does have open carry now to my understanding.

And th enews there are a few who are posting in their store window banning open carry on their premises.

I can understand that too.

So we will see what all ensues. I wonder how the courses will be set up as I teach Hunter Education now and am an instructor.

JW

Bukmastr

Cayugad,
I personally feel that there is not much difference between a law abiding person who does not have a criminal history and a police officer carrying guns.
Both follow the laws that govern them.
The issue is that up till now, the only people allowed to carry guns are cops and criminals. Criminals could care less if the law says they can's carry.

Provided the permit holder is not drinking, I have no problem with it... If a permit holder who is carrying does drink in a tavern and thats against the rules he will risk loosing his/her permit for life.

If OWI becomes a felony... Yes. Otherwise not unless there is a gun crime or felony.


I can assure you the same.. As I believe most CCW holders can.

This is not anything new... We are the second from last state that is allowing concealed carry. Look at the facts. I looked at a few cases where people had guns in gun free places. In one case a woman forgot to remove her handgun from her purse and went to the post office. No guns allowed in that state in a federal building. When she got her check book out someone saw the gun and called police. She lost her permit permanently.
Every place across the country where they have allowed CCW its gotten safer. Guns don't jump out of pockets and shoot people. Criminals kill people. Not guns. Guns are just tools. Being in law enforcement you should know that if someone wants to kill somebody no law will stop them, and not having immediate access to a gun will stop them. However, an armed law biding citizen just might.

I would be ok with that...
I would say yes... The CCW permit if for life defense, and more so for self defense. Not so much to protect the local 7-11 from loosing $200. If a person chooses to pull his gun to do something other than protect his or someone else's life they will likely have legal issues if anyone gets hurt.
CCW is meant for defense, not for crime intervention.
Agreed.