Concealed carry news

| May 13, 2011

Wisconsin moves towards allowing their citizens to legally conceal and carry firearms reports the Sheboygan Press;

Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states that prohibit concealed weapons. Republican legislators have been trying for a more than a decade to lift the restrictions, but former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle twice vetoed bills that would have permitted the practice.

Now, though, Republicans control both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office, clearing the way for easy passage. GOP lawmakers, backed by the National Rifle Association, are advancing two measures allowing concealed carry. One version requires permits. The other requires nothing.

Not everyone is happy about it;

If more guns equal more protection, then let’s go for it and quit watering down the rules. Maybe we can even start handing out firearms like we do bike helmets and smoke alarms.

It’s time for Wisconsin to join the rest of America and allow us to walk around with powerful guns in our pants. We may need to change the license plates to America’s Carryland.

Republican legislators are moving quickly to make it happen, and this time they don’t have to worry about Jim Doyle getting all prudent and reasonable and vetoing the thing. Lawmakers pretended to care what the public thinks at two hearings on the issue Thursday.

Meanwhile the Ohio Legislature moved to simplify their rules for concealed carry;

House Bill 45, which was jointly sponsored by Johnson and Rep. Danny Bubp, R-West Union, related to the carrying of firearms in vehicles. According to Johnson, the bill would eliminate the micromanaging provisions that dictate where a gun must be stored in a vehicle. “which allows law-abiding citizens to avoid accidental violations. It retains the current procedures that are followed when a licensee is pulled over and approached by a law enforcement official.”

Johnson said the legislation would also permit license holders to carry in establishments that serve alcohol provided the individual is not consuming alcohol. He said it does not change the current law prohibiting an individual from possessing a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Also, establishments would still have the authority to prohibit concealed carry.

In Minnesota, Old Trooper sends that cops and prosecutors oppose citizens’ right to use deadly force there;

They ramped up their opposition on Thursday to a bill moving through the Legislature that would dramatically expand Minnesotans’ ability to use deadly force in self-defense without facing prosecution.

Flanked by police chiefs, prosecutors and DFL legislators, Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul, said the bill “will increase danger to the public and increase danger to the police.”

Harrington, a former St. Paul police chief, also called the bill “a broadly misguided piece of legislation that should be pulled.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, said he “was totally aggravated to see those chiefs stand up there to violate people’s rights. They’re just scaring the public.”

When he was a beat officer “chasing bad guys,” Harrington said, “I didn’t have to look over my shoulder to find out whether the homeowner had me in their sights, too.”

Category: Guns

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old Trooper

The funny thing is; they chiefs and prosecutors are using the same claims they did when the carry law changes were being considered from a “may issue” to a “shall issue” state. Unfortunately for them, they were wrong then and they’re wrong now. Another thing that Harrington isn’t right about is what the beat cop thinks. In the comment section there were several beat cops that stated they were supporters of the change in the law. They claim that those chiefs haven’t been on the line in over 20 years, so they really have no idea what’s going on out on the street. Plus, the prosecutors are politicians, so they really aren’t interested in letting the average citizen have any more control over their own safety than they have right now and would really love to see the “shall issue” permits go away entirely.

Sponge

When he was a beat officer “chasing bad guys,” Harrington said, “I didn’t have to look over my shoulder to find out whether the homeowner had me in their sights, too.”

I’m getting a little tired of those that think they’re better than me telling me I’m to stupid to do stuff. I mean, I can choose what I want to eat and what I want to feed my kid. I can choose whether I want Health Insurance or not and what kind. I can drive whatever car I want and I can buy whatever kind of lightbulbs I’m comfortable with.

Just because I own a gun doesn’t mean I’m going to shoot everything and anything that moves. Excuse me, Mr. Harrington, but SCREW YOU and the police car you rode in on. Jackwagon.

Old Trooper

Well, Sponge, think about what he said: When he was a beat officer “chasing bad guys,” Harrington said, “I didn’t have to look over my shoulder to find out whether the homeowner had me in their sights, too.”

Does he really think we will believe that made up bit of tripe, aka a lie? How many cops are chasing bad guys through a person’s house, especially when the homeowner isn’t the perp? That is the only scenario a person can conclude he’s talking about with that analogy. I can bet you that Harrington, nor any other cop, has had to worry about the homeowner when chasing the bad guy through a house. In a home invasion, the cops are there to write the report AFTER the fact, not chase the bad guy through the house with the homwowner in hot pursuit, blasting away at the both of them.

Sponge

Right, OT. It’s all about the narrative. Just like when Congress members compare our troops to Nazi’s and Guantanamo to concentration camps. That should be very very offensive to those that actually suffered at the hands of the Nazi’s and the fact that there is NO COMPARISON in any way shape or form that can be made doesn’t matter. It fits the narrative. It truly sickens me and I grow weary of the shock value that is attempted in situations like this.

Claymore

Yes, because when I call the cops to come take care of the piece of shit thug in my home, I’m really hoping to rid the community of the officer as well. Flippin’ retard.

UpNorth

Chiefs are to street cops, as Admirals(in general) are to SEAL’s, or generals are to Rangers. They might have been one once, but they’re so far removed from the realities that they have no points of reference.
The chiefs and many prosecutors made the same statements when Michigan went from “may issue” to “shall issue”. All of them wrong. And, they probably knew it, but it didn’t stop them from making asses of themselves.

David!

It’s “allowed” in California… meaning if you are a celebrity or politician you get one…. complete bullshit.

Elric

Well, we wouldn’t want our law enforcement officers to feel in any danger when the serve their “no knock warrants” and ventilate the home owner. Try explaining that to Cpl. Guerena’s family.

When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. At which point they will cuff you, seize your weapon, and force you to fork over thousands of dollars worth of defense lawyer fees because you stood ready to protect your family from an unknown threat.

Toni

My niece is a St. Paul PD commander, she has the same views as Harrington. It’s endemic in many PD’s in MN. Took the GOP leg 15 yrs to change the carry language from ‘may’ to ‘shall’. You had to be either connected or a LEO to get a permit. The rhetoric was at a high doomsday when the change was passed. There was going to be killing in the streets like Mogadishu. They’ve got more problems with the Hmong and Somali gangs than with any legal carry citizen. But that won’t stop the controllers.