Posted on 12/16/2010 8:20:22 PM PST by marktwain
Last November’s landmark elections are creating historic opportunities for the cause of freedom in the Badger State. With the combined efforts of gun owners and hunters, anti-freedom majorities in the Assembly and Senate were removed from power, replaced by pro-freedom lawmakers. Scott Walker, the NRA Political Victory Fund’s endorsed candidate for Governor, will soon succeed Jim Doyle, who relished his title as the most anti-gun Governor in state history. Doyle’s departure marks an end to a very long and dark chapter in Wisconsin’s history. Longtime friend of gun owners, J.B. Van Hollen, was re-elected Attorney General.
Shortly after the 2010 primary elections, the NRA engaged its members throughout the state in an energetic Vote Freedom First campaign. The response was overwhelming. At event after event, the one issue that candidates talked about time and time again was the Right to Carry. They recognize that the day when law-abiding citizens can discreetly protect themselves from violence outside of their homes is long overdue. It is now time for the candidates-turned-elected-officials to convert their words into action.
Because of Jim Doyle’s distrust of the people, he twice vetoed Right to Carry legislation during his terms in office. Each time, the bills were passed with two-thirds majorities in both houses. This should have been enough to overcome Doyle’s veto pen, but three Assembly members chose partisan politics over personal protection and shamelessly changed their votes from “yes” to “no” during the two override votes in 2004 and 2006.
Past legislative efforts to secure the Right to Carry always assumed that a veto override would be necessary. Attempting to secure two-thirds majorities required the NRA and other proponents to accept amendments during the legislative process that sought to place additional restrictions on the good citizens of Wisconsin and would have impeded their ability to protect themselves. With the makeup of the incoming legislature, these unnecessary concessions should no longer be necessary.
The NRA will strive to make Wisconsin’s 2011 Right to Carry law one of the strongest in the country. The experience of 40 other Right to Carry states has eliminated any question as to whether citizens can be trusted to act safely and responsibly. The laws of Vermont, Alaska and Arizona will be used as the model. The latter two, in particular, will set the standard with systems that recognize the citizens’ constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense along with a provision that will provide for the streamlined issuance of a state permit that can be used for reciprocity purposes in other states while traveling. The primary difference between the open carry provision that has always been part of Wisconsin’s statutes and “Constitutional Carry” is that citizens will finally be able to discreetly carry firearms in public. As we all know, this leaves criminals guessing as to who has the ability to defend themselves against aggression.
With displays of courage and strong leadership from your elected officials; your commitment to be actively involved in the legislative efforts to come; and the NRA’s dedication to this cause, we can achieve an historic victory for Wisconsin gun owners that will last for generations.
ping
Hope your Libtard state has influence on my Libtard state.
Hopefully Constitutional Carry does not turn the right to carry into a permit/privilege to carry. There should be no permits required to carry concealed. Why don’t I need to have a permit to carry openly, but need one to carry concealed? Why does where I have my gun determine if it’s a right to carry or a privilege that government can easily take away? (Ex San Diego sheriff).
Because that is a huge step backwards. States can revoke privileges.
way cool. we can finally have a little fun in this purple state.
Not interested in the NRA anymore.
They became traitors to Conservatives by endorsing Democrats in the last election.
I agree. They endorsed Kagen in the 8th Congressional district. Fortunately, he lost. NRA wants to be a single issue organization, but that isn’t realistic when they endorse statists and collectivists.
Alaska had permits first, then went Constitutional carry, i.e. an unencumbered right for concealed carry, keeping permits for the purpose of reciprocity with other states. I suspect Arizona may have done the same, but I'm not sure.
Where's the damage to the Second Amendment from endorsing rats? Why do you think there's been no serious gun grabbing since the rats took Congress in Nov. 2006? GWB said he would have signed a renewed so called assault weapons ban. IIRC, 64 rats in the House wrote Holder and told him to pound sand after he started talking about a renewal of a so called assault weapons ban. The NRA didn't endorse any rat senator for the U.S. Senate last month.
And you actually believe its because the politicians had a change of heart and/or because the NRA pushed these fights forward?... TOTAL B.S. and you know it!
The reason the anti-gun laws have been falling left and right across the country is due to the activism of SOME gun owners and LOCAL/STATE gun rights groups. Hell the frigging NRA sat on the sidelines most of the time twiddling their thumbs and courting Commie Dems.
I'm glad the NRA finally decided to get back in the fight and I'll give them credit where credit is due, such as this case, but it will take a very long time to win back the loyalty of members... well except for the groupies that are more than willing to look the other way while a NRA shiv is again pushed into the Second Amendments back.
I agree with you. This is the NRA trying to mend fences. Too little. Too late.
"Constitutional Carry" is shorthand for "no permits required to carry open or concealed". The article says they're modeling the legislation after AK and AZ, and that's the case in both states, though at least in AZ, they still issue CCW's for those who want them, in most cases to use in other states that recognize them.
That's correct, neverdem.
Even THAT's a temporary measure. Once all the states you travel to ALSO have Constitutional Carry, you won't even need a permit for that.
Well, they did give Harry Reid $5K and Angle nothing, and probably would have explicitly endorsed him had it not been for the uproar. Reid’s campaign trumpeted the donation as if it were a de facto endorsement. It’s hard to argue with them about that.
If a state has "shall issue" CCW (you get your license automatically if you have not criminal record), there is no justification for not going Constitutional Carry. All a cop should have to do is run your ID through their database, see that you have no criminal record that would debar you from having a gun, and send you on your way.
Not exactly. “Shall issue” != “No pre-conditions issue”. They still have training requirements and so on. I do agree that ConCarry is better, is, well...Constitutional, and is in fact our right, but it’s not the same as Shall Issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.