An important Wisconsin bill needs your help!

[LarryO1970]

Dear fellow Wisconsin gun owner:
A few weeks ago we alerted you about an important bill that had just passed in the Assembly.

Assembly bill AB581 would prevent the governor, mayors or other public officials from confiscating guns during declared states of emergency.
Existing state law gives certain public officials the power to declare states of emergency, and to take unusual steps during such declared states of emergency.

You likely recall the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. AB581 would prevent such confiscations from happening here in Wisconsin.

AB581, authored by Representative Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), was passed weeks ago in the Assembly. This past Wednesday, the bill was passed in Senator Robert Wirch's (D-Kenosha) Small Business, Emergency Preparedness, Workforce Development, Technical Colleges and Consumer Protection committee.

The bill is now available for a floor vote in the Senate. There are just a few weeks left in the regular session, so we must be sure that this bill gets a floor vote, gets passed, and that Governor Doyle signs it.

This bill affects every single Wisconsin citizen who owns a gun. Please take a few minutes to contact your state senator and urge him or her to support this bill. Please also tell them to not allow the anti-gunners to water the bill down with amendments.

Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Wausau) has expressed his support for this bill, so please also contact his office to thank him for his support, and ask that he schedule a vote on the bill before the end of session in March.

Senator Decker's phone number is (608) 266-2502.

If you don't know who your state senator is, go to Wisconsin State Legislature and enter your street address.

Thanks,
The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association Chuck Roamer, Chairman Bill Schmitz, Vice Chairman Frank Tower, Secretary Andrew Walkowiak, Treasurer Dick Baker, Founder

[Windwalker]

Good Luck Larry O. Hope this gets through as it is a good bill that will protect all gun owners in Wisconsin.

[jerry]

Hope the support is good

[GlockMeister]

I hope they pass it in your state LarryO as they have in other states, Illinois included. There's still one major thing about it that concerns me in regards to this bill. It concerned me enough that I emailed the NRA-ILA about it and have yet to hear anything back, and it's been about 6 months now. My concern is this, what about if or when Martial Law is ordered or put into effect? Can they still confiscate our firearms during that? Or was it also included in this bill?

So if it is an emergency or other that is covered by this bill that some or many states have now passed, they can't,won't or aren't suppose to confiscate our firearms. But if Martial Law is put into effect, I'm thinking they can still confiscate them. If someone would like to find out, I'd happily and gladly admit I was wrong, if that's the case. I don't believe that this was included in any of the bills the states have passed regarding non-confiscation during emergencies? The fact that the NRA-ILA has never gotten back to me about it, has kind of brought me believe I'm correct in my thinking.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

I hope they pass it in your state LarryO as they have in other states, Illinois included. There's still one major thing about it that concerns me in regards to this bill. It concerned me enough that I emailed the NRA-ILA about it and have yet to hear anything back, and it's been about 6 months now. My concern is this, what about if or when Martial Law is ordered or put into effect? Can they still confiscate our firearms during that? Or was it also included in this bill?

So if it is an emergency or other that is covered by this bill that some or many states have now passed, they can't,won't or aren't suppose to confiscate our firearms. But if Martial Law is put into effect, I'm thinking they can still confiscate them. If someone would like to find out, I'd happily and gladly admit I was wrong, if that's the case. I don't believe that this was included in any of the bills the states have passed regarding non-confiscation during emergencies? The fact that the NRA-ILA has never gotten back to me about it, has kind of brought me believe I'm correct in my thinking.

"Let" them look... they will not find a damn thing in my house. Frankly, I just don't see it happening. Asking the military to confiscate guns is like asking an politician to tell the truth.

[GlockMeister]

I'm not even sure it would be the military would it? I mean if i remember correctly, in New Orleans it was the sheriff or state police and the like. I don't even think the national guard was involved other then for controlling looting and curfew.

I was more or less curious as to whether or not the bills that each state has passed, in regards to NOT confiscating firearms during emergencies, also covers during Martial Law? Correct me if I'm wrong. States determine there own states of emergencies, but Martial Law is or has to be declared by the Federal Government? Yes? No?

[LarryO1970]

That is true. Martial Law cannot be declared by a state.

[GlockMeister]

So all I'd like to find out now is if these bills that are being passed, where they WON'T confiscate our firearms during state declared emergencies, if they also cover or prohibit them from being confiscated if Martial Law is ever declared?

Again, I had called the NRA-ILA in regards to it and sent them an email. That was at least if not more then 6 months ago and I've yet to get a reply. My concern is that since I didn't get a response, not confiscating our firearms during or if Martial Law is enacted is not guaranteed under this same bill, if at all. In asking or saying that, I'm not saying that the military would come around taking them. I'm just curious if they left themselves an out when it comes to taking our firearms...

[LarryO1970]

I know that currently, there is a bill being pushed through the state denying the state rights to confiscate guns during a state emergency. Most likely, the Gov. (Liberal Democrat) will attempt to scuttle or veto anything in our favor. We all know which way the Democrats will vote on this...

[GlockMeister]

Yea, you got that right, especially with recent events.

[Lng Rng]

Larry0, seeing as I live a state over from you, I would like to see it passed, with some form of reciprocity between the two states. As you know, you Gov. is a very complete moron, and will probably veto the bill.

Does Wisconsion have the right state senate to over turn a veto? If I am right, this isn't the first time that the bill has hit Doyle's desk?

[LarryO1970]

Everything pro-gun, Doyle will veto, yet the hypocrite surrounds himself with an armed protective detail. Typical Democrat...

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Everything pro-gun, Doyle will veto, yet the hypocrite surrounds himself with an armed protective detail. Typical Democrat...

I sent this to the new REPUBLICAN Attorney General a few days ago:

Honorable J.B. Van Hollen,


As a Wisconsin resident, I understand the challenges of local law enforcement agencies. I have been an Air Force Security Policeman for over 14 years and have experienced more than I care to admit. I appreciate your service to the DOJ and the state of Wisconsin.


My contacting you today is concerning the ability of Wisconsin residents being able to exercise their right to self defense. This is about the availability of (CCW) concealed carry permits and the right to the “Castle Doctrine”.


A LOOK AT CONCEALED CARRY NATIONWIDE


Currently, 44 states have some form of legal concealed weapons carry (CCW) for persons other than police officers. On July 1st, 2001 Michigan became the 32nd shall issue state; shall-issue means that a person who passes training and background
checks as determined by state law shall be issued a CCW permit. Additionally, 11 states have may-issue CCW permit legislation; may-issue means that the issuance of a CCW permit is at the discretion of local officials. (Oftentimes, may-issue permits are granted as political favors). Lastly, Vermont has had no restrictions on either concealed or open carry since the state was founded in 1791.


Based upon contacts with the issuing authorities in the 32 shall-issue states, we estimate that there are nearly two million permit holders in those states. Estimates from other sources put the number as high as 3.5 million.


Only six states--Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin--have no provisions for any type of legal concealed carry for their citizens. As of this writing, though, Ohio is on the verge of becoming the 33rd shall-issue state.


Training requirements in the 32 shall-issue states vary. Florida requires a few hours of classroom and range time. Texas requires a day of classroom time explaining legal and ethical uses of force, followed by another day of range time required to demonstrate proficiency.


Every shall-issue state has slightly different restrictions on where a permit holder can carry. Nearly all bar the carry of weapons in government buildings, schools, police stations, airports and correctional facilities. Most prohibit carrying a weapon in an establishment that derives more than 51% of its revenue from on-site alcohol consumption. Utah and Idaho are the exceptions, allowing carry in taverns as long as the permit holder is not intoxicated.

CCW MYTHS

"If a concealed carry law is passed in Wisconsin, the state will turn into the Wild West." The statement makes for eye-catching editorials, but has no basis in fact. Every state that has passed shall-issue CCW laws has seen a reduction rather than an increase in violent crime, and that reduction has in many cases been dramatic. According to FBI crime data, states with shall-issue carry have a 21% lower violent crime rate, 28% lower homicide rate, 33% lower firearms homicide rate, 3% lower rape rate, 33% lower robbery rate and a 35% lower firearm robbery rate than non-issue states like Wisconsin.


In every state where concealed carry laws were being considered, opponents trotted out the “Wild West” argument. Perhaps the best refutation of that argument is that no state that has passed CCW legislation has later sought to repeal it. Even officials who initially opposed CCW laws now admit that they were wrong.


"If Wisconsin passes a CCW law, there will be shootouts at every stoplight." Again, a catchy phrase, but one that is contradicted by the experiences of the 44 states with legal concealed carry. Implicit in the myth is the idea that an otherwise peaceful and law-abiding citizen who owns a gun will, if given a permit to carry, turn into a hotheaded killer. Frankly, the idea is an insult to those of us who work hard and play by the rules.


Of the two million or more CCW permit holders in the US, and over the decades that CCW systems have been in place nationwide, we are aware of only two permit holders having shot someone in an incident of “road rage”. In one case, the permit holder was found guilty of manslaughter. In the second case, the grand jury decided that the shooting was in self-defense, given that the permit holder was being beaten savagely and was being pulled out the window of his car by his assailant when he fired.


"Legalizing concealed carry will put police officers lives at risk." Police officers are trained to approach every encounter with a citizen with the assumption that the person is armed. A licensed concealed carry system allows the officer to find out, based on the license plate number, whether a person has a permit, and to do so before the officer even leaves his squad. Further, many states require a permit holder to inform the officer that he has a permit and is carrying a weapon. This gives the officer complete control of the situation, and reassures him that he is dealing with a person who has no criminal background. We are unaware of any police officer having been shot by a citizen who was legally carrying a concealed weapon.


"The average citizen doesn’t have the training that police officers do." A concealed carry permit is not a badge, nor is it intended to be. It is not a citizen’s job to chase down criminals, to make arrests or to flush out barricaded suspects. The duty of a permit holder is to try to escape a confrontation by any means possible, and to use deadly force only as the absolute last resort.

The US Department of Justice estimates that citizens defend themselves with firearms against criminals over 500,000 times a year. An ongoing study by the Florida State University criminology department indicates there could be as many as 2.5 million defensive uses annually.

The data show that 86% of the time, no shots are fired at the criminal; usually displaying a weapon is a sufficient deterrent. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that, for the most recently analyzed year, just 137 criminals were killed by armed citizens, including CCW permit holders.

During the commission of crimes, the only persons present are the criminals and the victims. Usually police officers arrive in time to write up a report. The above data shows that, not only are citizens capable of defending themselves with firearms, but that they do so with remarkable restraint.

"Over 3,700 CCW permit holders have been arrested for crimes including murder in Texas." This argument is the result of a study by the Violence Policy Center released, perhaps not coincidentally, prior to the 2000 presidential election. The VPC is a gun control advocacy group that releases dozens of studies annually.

In this instance, the VPC’s numbers are correct. However, the group did not break out the data provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety into violent vs. nonviolent crimes. Most importantly, the VPC did not compare the department’s data to the public at large.

There are 217,000 CCW permit holders in Texas. This figure gives us our control population for permit holders in that state for the period 1996 to 2000.

The VPC study asserts that the licensees were arrested for violent crimes at a rate of 194 per 100,000 population, but did not mention that the rate for the rest of the public for those same crimes is 730 per 100,000. Nor did the VPC mention that 55% of those licensees arrested were later cleared of the charges.


Let's look at the VPC's numbers for non-violent crimes, which constitute the majority of the arrests. They report an arrest rate for Texas licensees of 639 per 100,000, but ignore the rate of 5,212 per 100,000 for the general public. Included in the VPC offenses are crimes such as marijuana possession, drunken driving, credit card abuse, and even hunting with an artificial light.


But it is the murder arrest suggestion that is the most serious. If a person kills another, even in self-defense, that person is going to be arrested for murder. Police officers do not have the power to dismiss charges. This is the job of the district attorney, who can decline to press charges, convene a grand jury, or go to trial.



From 1996 to 2000, 27 Texas permit holders were arrested for murder. Of these, 8 had the charges immediately dismissed. The remaining 19 went to jury trial, where 16 were found to have acted in self-defense. Three were convicted, which gives us a homicide rate of .35 per 100,000 permit holders annually. Compare this to homicide rate for the general public of 5.5 per 100,000.

Florida also provides detailed data on permit holders. From 10/1/87 through 9/30/01, Florida issued 780,840 CCW permits. During that period, only 1,396 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure. As of 1996, the Florida Secretary of State’s office reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a conviction for a violent crime.

A group as large as the permit-carrying population is bound to have a few miscreants in its midst. That is simple human nature. However, data from every shall-issue state shows that permit holders are overwhelmingly more law-abiding than the average citizen.

WHY DOES WISCONSIN NEED CONCEALED CARRY?


While our law enforcement officers in Wisconsin are among the best, they cannot be everywhere at once. It is the rare officer indeed who is able to stop a crime of violence while it is occurring. With one police officer for every 400 citizens, the odds favor the criminal in non-issue states like Wisconsin. Criminals know their victims are unarmed and defenseless.

It is not the number of permit holders that changes the equation, but rather the knowledge on the part of the criminal that his potential victim may be armed. While the number of permit holders is small (on average 1.7% of a state’s population), permit holders serve as a deterrent to crime, encouraging criminals to engage in non-confrontational endeavors.

Nowhere was this phenomenon more highly publicized than in Florida in the year after the state passed its CCW laws. Criminals, knowing that Florida citizens might be armed, turned to robbing tourists in marked rental cars. Once the state offered CCW permits to non-residents, and the rental companies removed the stickers, the attacks on tourists stopped.

As the Attorney General, you have an important decision to make regarding concealed carry. And that decision boils down to a simple but fundamental question: do you trust your own law-abiding constituents?

Respectfully,

Larry Oliver

[Rem 742 30-06]

Thank you Larry O for sending that letter I can only hope that it will get us a step closer to CCW my fingers are crossed I think I will also give him a shout too.

[TexasD]

In Texas we have this

SB 112

(effective April 27, 2007) protects the right to bear arms during a declared disaster or
emergency by prohibiting law enforcement officers from confiscating firearms during such emergency periods

says nothing about martial law just declared emergencies

[LarryO1970]

In Wisconsin, we have a Governor (Doyle) who is completely anti-gun ... you know, a Liberal Democrat.

In the past, he has manipulated the system to scuttle every single piece of legislation for legalizing CCW permits.

The people of Wisconsin want our firearms freedoms... it is the politicians who are denying us our rights. Doyle needs to go away...

[Paper]

Only six states--Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin--have no provisions for any type of legal concealed carry for their citizens. As of this writing, though, Ohio is on the verge of becoming the 33rd shall-issue state.

Larry, your info is a bit old. The only states that are left of this group are yours and mine.. IL and WI are the only two states left without a form of Concealed Carry, and in IL, if you're caught doing it, you've commited a felony and will never be able to even legally OWN a gun again..

Current map of states

Doyle needs to go away...

Amen Brother, and he needs to take Blagowhateveryhisnameisovich with him...

[Rem 742 30-06]

I just thought of a good name for Doyle, Doyle the Boil and that is now trademarked.

[LarryO1970]

Maybe pressure from all of the other states in the union with the added pressure from the NRA and GOA, Wisconsin and Illinois would buckle? Knowing Doyle... it would be something he would try to scuttle at the last minute too, he's done it before so it would not surprise me.

What about the state leadership in Illinois?

I'm waiting to hear back from the Wisconsin A.G. regarding my letter advocating concealed carry and the Castle Doctrine... we may have a better chance, he is a Republican.