• 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.

Misinformation Abounds

vermonter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

Now on the many posts I have seen about how "we have been lied to" about Constitutional Carry.... That bill would only have been good if it a a CCW permit option attached. Once again, I am from Vermont and it is a nightmare for the reasons I outlined in other posts. I have been called a troll for stating the facts. I am a realist! GFSZA is VERY real, and there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy". Unless you are a shut in you will still have to "ask permission" from Florida in the form of a non-res and pay $177 to boot to get any reciprocity! I would love to see Constitutional Carry the law of the land, but they have set this up in many states to "set you up" for harassment by the heavy hand of the police state! Thank goodness for states like AZ, WY, and MT..... OC will NEVER be accepted in states where it is LEGAL, but the libtard mentality exists!
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

I am a realist! GFSZA is VERY real, and there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy".

Two points:
1. In Wisconsin (and Illinois) there was NO WAY for a LAC to legally carry concealed. PERIOD!! It looks like there will be a way!!

2. To date, how many people have been arrested, prosecuted and jailed/fined for carrying in a Vermont GFSZ (without any other criminal activity). I want the REAL numbers and a cite to those numbers, please.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

Now on the many posts I have seen about how "we have been lied to" about Constitutional Carry.... That bill would only have been good if it a a CCW permit option attached. Once again, I am from Vermont and it is a nightmare for the reasons I outlined in other posts. I have been called a troll for stating the facts. I am a realist! GFSZA is VERY real, and there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy". Unless you are a shut in you will still have to "ask permission" from Florida in the form of a non-res and pay $177 to boot to get any reciprocity! I would love to see Constitutional Carry the law of the land, but they have set this up in many states to "set you up" for harassment by the heavy hand of the police state! Thank goodness for states like AZ, WY, and MT..... OC will NEVER be accepted in states where it is LEGAL, but the libtard mentality exists!

Did you even look at the original bill SB93?
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Got to love it when a user from Vermont comes over to tell us what we should do...

Thanks for your "help", but I don't think we need it.

In time we will follow AZ, as the fire we have started in Wisconsin is not going to just die out.
I can't wait to join the other 48 states!
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Vermonter, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Let's talk logic.

You say you're a realist by pointing out that a few states don't issue the permits which, in theory, they could issue. In other words you're saying that the practice of not issuing permits means in reality they're no-issue states. You're saying the practice determines the reality.

At the same time you claim that the GFSZ is real. But if one uses your standard of proof, the fact that it is not enforced in practice ought to mean the GFSZ isn't real. Does the practice determine the reality or not?

So which is it? If you're going to use a certain type of argument to make a point, you ought to be able to apply that type of argument elsewhere. Unfortunately for you, the logic you use in your first point turns around and contradicts the second point you are trying to make. Inconsistency is the lowest level of hell to a logician.

In reality, the states you list do in fact issue some permits. They may only go to a few lucky or well-connected individuals, but still permits are issued by each of these states.

If you want to get technical, currently 47 states issue permits. Vermont, Illinois and Wisconsin do not. The reality is that the consequences are different in each of these three states. In Vermont, the consequences are minimal as long as one remains in Vermont. If you want to carry in another state, you obtain a permit from another state, just as many of us in Wisconsin have done. The consequences in Wisconsin are that, until the CCW bill is passed and in effect, we're limited to open carry, and its handful of restrictions, except in our homes and places of business. The consequence in Illinois is that they're left with no practical manner in which to carry a gun for protection outside of their homes.
 

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
I keep seeing "join the other 48 states" when it comes to CCW issue. Let's get the facts straight people.... New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii may have a process to obtain a permit, but the are strictly NO ISSUE. Massachusetts, New York and California ARE may issue and do in fact issue a lot in many jurisdictions. In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do....

If they have concealed carry, then it's not skewing. It's not Wisconsin's fault some states have permits to issue but then suck at issuing them.
 

vermonter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
Just making a point that NJ, MD, and HI are NO issue to ANYONE for self defence. NJ and MD ONLY issue to security, HI as far as I know has only ever issued 2 permits. For Joe citizen that makes them no issue. My error in choosing how I worded that. But security guard or professional issue only is no issue in my book. VT is not no issue, it is no lic needed or Const Carry.

As far as GFSZA I do not know of any arrests. Do you trust the "nice policeman" considering how the police have fought your efforts in WI? I would bet anything that if Const Carry was passed the Milwaukee Chief would issue an order to arrest anyone found carrying in a GFSZA. In fact didn't he order his officers to make OC'ers "kiss the pavement" until they were cleared or something to that effect?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
Just making a point that NJ, MD, and HI are NO issue to ANYONE for self defence. NJ and MD ONLY issue to security, HI as far as I know has only ever issued 2 permits. For Joe citizen that makes them no issue. My error in choosing how I worded that. But security guard or professional issue only is no issue in my book. VT is not no issue, it is no lic needed or Const Carry.

As far as GFSZA I do not know of any arrests. Do you trust the "nice policeman" considering how the police have fought your efforts in WI? I would bet anything that if Const Carry was passed the Milwaukee Chief would issue an order to arrest anyone found carrying in a GFSZA. In fact didn't he order his officers to make OC'ers "kiss the pavement" until they were cleared or something to that effect?
A city officer has no jurisdiction over federal matters though.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
vermonter said:
In reality only 45 states have some form of issue. Wisconsin will be the 46th! Stop skewing the numbers for your agenda like the Lib's do...
It's less confusing to say "48 other states have some provision for citizens to lawfully carry concealed"

than to say "IL prohibits it completely, 3 other states are "may issue" but never do unless the person is rich &/or well-connected, 3 other states are "may issue" but again most of the people getting permits are rich & well-connected, X many other states are may issue & are fairly liberal, and X many states are shall issue".

The provision is in the law; the state just never follows the law, or the requirements are so strict or burdensome that the standard is impossibly high. Wonder why there aren't more suits in those states?

That bill would only have been good if it had a CCW permit option attached.
It did. It was a perfect Constitutional Carry bill, with even the school zone taken care of, and an optional carry permit.
Now we're back to concealing requires a permit, carrying in a state park requires a permit, being within 3 blocks of a school property needs a permit, & the only way to get a permit is be over 21 + show proof of some training (still possible the training issue could change in the Assembly).

there is a huge chance if you OC or CCW without a permit in SOME states you will lick pavement until the officer "runs" you on NCIC to make sure you are a "good guy".
OC will NEVER be accepted in states where it is LEGAL, but the libtard mentality exists!
Yeah, we've had a few documented instances of improper police activity here in WI.
The worst examples went to court for 1983 suits.
Racine paid for it.
West Allis paid for it.
Brookfield paid for it.
Madison is going to pay.

I'd add Milwaukee, but that's more a 4A issue than a 2A issue, even though it involves a pistol.
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
It Is Important to Understand

A city officer has no jurisdiction over federal matters though.

When somebody makes this kind of statement, it's hard to resist the temptation to prove him wrong. Maybe it's a definitional issue. In the simplest form, I contend:

1. A non-federal LEO may arrest for a violation of federal law.
2. A federal LEO may arrest for a violation of non-federal law.
3. A non-federal court may try a violation of federal law.
4. A federal court may try a violation of non-federal law.

Now, I am not saying that these statements are ALWAYS true but that they MAY be. A definitive statement like "has no jurisdiction" without any qualification must be read as "never" or "may not." Such a statement is false. One counterexample is all that is needed and I'm sure most people can come up with a few.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
Is there a point to this thread besides starting a silly argument?

I was wondering this, too. Vermonter has never had to fight for his 2nd amendment rights. He is certainly in no position to be preaching to anyone. If it smells like a turd.....
 

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
When somebody makes this kind of statement, it's hard to resist the temptation to prove him wrong. Maybe it's a definitional issue. In the simplest form, I contend:

1. A non-federal LEO may arrest for a violation of federal law.
2. A federal LEO may arrest for a violation of non-federal law.
3. A non-federal court may try a violation of federal law.
4. A federal court may try a violation of non-federal law.

Now, I am not saying that these statements are ALWAYS true but that they MAY be. A definitive statement like "has no jurisdiction" without any qualification must be read as "never" or "may not." Such a statement is false. One counterexample is all that is needed and I'm sure most people can come up with a few.

I agree with 1, 2,... but not #3 & #4. A State court goes by State statutes. Any prosecutions of fed law violations must be referred to the U. S. Attorney's office, and vica-versa. But yes they can arrest someone for violating fed law.
 
Last edited:

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
The count of how many states actually have a reasonable concealed carry law is subject to peronal judgement. What is shocking is how so many state legislatures and law enforcement agencies totally ignore their state constitutional rights, specifically the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Something the Wisconsin legislature and law enforcement has done for 13 years. Of the fifty states only six have no specific right to keep and bear arms amendment in their constitution, California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Except for a handful of states those constitutional rights are largely ignored. The legislatures and law enforcement preferring to maintain a police state and morph the right into a state issued privilege. A glaring example is Illinois. It has what appears to be a simple black and white amendment in it's constitution yet it adds the phraise "Subject only to the police power" a phase that in reality negates the whole amendment. Another case of the politicians "pulling the wool over the public's eyes". Fortunately Wisconsin does not have scapegoat phrases in it's amendment, Art I section 25 and some politicians are finally beginning to understand it's significance and holding to their oath of office. By maintaaining power at the voting booth hopefully we can continue to turn the tide in our favor.

What is it with politicians that forget their oath of office five minutes after they utter the words?

The Illinois amendments is:

Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Just making a point that NJ, MD, and HI are NO issue to ANYONE for self defence. NJ and MD ONLY issue to security, HI as far as I know has only ever issued 2 permits. For Joe citizen that makes them no issue. My error in choosing how I worded that. But security guard or professional issue only is no issue in my book. VT is not no issue, it is no lic needed or Const Carry.

As far as GFSZA I do not know of any arrests. Do you trust the "nice policeman" considering how the police have fought your efforts in WI? I would bet anything that if Const Carry was passed the Milwaukee Chief would issue an order to arrest anyone found carrying in a GFSZA. In fact didn't he order his officers to make OC'ers "kiss the pavement" until they were cleared or something to that effect?

A better point to be made is that 40 something(don't have the exact #) states allow law abiding citizens to carry a firearm in public without a special showing of need. The 48 state thing is slightly misleading.
 
Top