Gov. Walker says training should be required for gun carry

MADISON, Wis. (WTAQ) - Governor Scott Walker said today that Wisconsinites should be required to get training and state permits before they can carry concealed weapons.

But spokesman Cullen Werwie would not say if the Republican governor would veto the so-called “constitutional carry” bill if it gets to his desk.

That measure would let law-abiding adults carry guns with neither permits nor training.

A Senate committee has endorsed that measure – which was drafted by freshman Republican Pam Galloway of Wausau. There’s been no committee action in the Assembly yet. Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald has said most of his GOP majority supports a bill with permits and training – just like Walker now favors.

http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2011/jun/03/gov-walker-says-trianing-should-be-required-for-gun-carry/

I actually agree with him on this & probably in minority on this forum among pro-carry here.

Last week I picked up my PA renewal - my state requires no training - and permit was only $20. Was talking to the clerk about our cheap fee - would've been $25 except legislature hadn't passed something. Clerk said she wished it was more expensive & I mentioned I thought training should be required from what I've seen of unsafe practices on the range. She said you ought to see some they have to deal with.

begged him to be a "grown up" last night with an article in the morning Milwaukee paper.

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/123048453.html

Now the space that had that article has been changed to the new party line.

Because they thought they might need to go to war with their government some day.

Been there, done that. It was called the Civil War.

The 2A is quite completely obsolete now.

...if you're will to surrender all ten of yours you might have a basis for discussion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...is a welcome and lighthearted deviation. Thanks for that.

But you'll have to do better than implying that abstracts have volition and autonomy.

It seems the mods may have "$hot" a stubborn hide.

it was a confederate government versus the union government.

...there is no evidence showing training programs for CCW having a solid positive impact. However, if the programs were free and offered at all times of day and week I wouldn't have a major problem with it.

Half of that goes to the FBI though.

Florida's about $150

In fact, I would have no problem with requiring safety training before being allowed to purchase a firearm or a weapon.

I remember one time I took a lady who was interested in shooting to the range. She showed the range master a little cheap .25 caliber pistol that she had owned for years. He asked her, "Is it loaded?" She not only didn't know but she had no idea of how to check it. The range master had seen a number of people like her who owned firearms but had never shot one and had no knowledge of firearm safety.

Of course the cost of the course should be free or extremely reasonable.

I am taking an additional home defense class in a couple weeks. If I learn something and I like the facility offering the class I make take more their firearm training classes.

I don't see why people have a fear of actually having to learn something about firearms when they want to carry them. It ridiculous. I would expect them to show some interest and enthusiasm for learning about something they are supposedly interested in.

...people are against a training requirement because of fear? Many are against them being a requirement because they can represent another expense to getting a permit, may not be offered during times that allow people working odd shifts to attend them, and have not been shown to actually have a significant statistical impact.

Like I said earlier, I don't have a problem with training classes being offered for free and at times that work for everybody, but chances are it wouldn't work that way.

Or learn it the old fashioned way - by yourself in the school of hard knocks.

I concede that 'afraid' is bit inaccurate. People are always ready to makes excuses as to why they can't do something. Fear is not always at the root.

As far as free permits? Another pipe dream. Kind of like free roads and gas and schools and military. Just ain't gonna happen. MA charges $100 for five years. And my class was on a weekend. Both a bargain.

...is kinda like a "free" permit, and that's passed in 3 states, with a Wisconsin and one other working on them as well.

I view safety class requirements in a similar light as I do ID requirements for voting. I don't have a problem with that so long as you offer a free state ID that somebody who is impoverished can still get a state ID and exercise their right to vote.

And for the record, I did pay for a firearms safety class in Wisconsin when I lived there. Not for a permit (which we didn't have at the time and still don't technically) but so that I could make sure I was handling my firearm (and now firearms) safely.

If they can do that they can afford a class and $20 for a permit.

Doesn't seem to be a problem, does it?

Nor in Alaska or Arizona, and soon Wyoming....

them. We don't pay a poll tax, and we don't pay for the right to express our views or protest, etc. Eventually the anti-gun groups will be fighting to keep the CHL system as states move toward constitutional carry. The right to defend yourself should cost you nothing except for the cost of the gun and ammo. If you want to require training first, how about in high school just before the age at which one would be allowed to start carrying, require everyone to learn gun safety in high school.

The cause for concern is the possibility that some government person with an anti-gun agenda will use a training requirement to impose a de facto gun ban by making the requirement practically impossible to achieve. By way of example, just look at how Chicago is working on a requirement that you have to do live fire at a city-approved range, while simultaneously prohibiting firing ranges within the city limits.

I understand how the business in Chicago may be disturbing. But I don't see what it has to do with individuals getting a permit for ccw.

Personally I would welcome a decent range of any type closer to where I live. Most of the local indoor club ranges are pretty sad. The larger commercial ranges are pretty far from me.

I just like to vary my choice of words.

The situations in Chicago, and DC, are pertinent to training requirements for CCWs because they're examples of how requirements that are difficult to impossible to meet can be (ab)used to turn a "reasonable, common sense" gun law into a de facto ban. And it's because of those kinds of shenanigans that gun rights organizations like the NRA tend to fight such requirements tooth and nail; not because they oppose them in principle, but because they don't trust the prohibitionists in local or state governments not to try to exploit the measures. And they're absolutely justified in that distrust, because it's happened a few times too often.

for a ccw permit is not unreasonable in my mind.

These classes (and other classes around the use of firearms) are a cottage industry around here and I would even go as far as saying they are helping the economy a bit. Typically taught by ex-leo's.

I guess no CCW permit for you then? And yes, I would in fact fall into that category myself. Even the NRA safety class I took a few years ago would have been impossible for me given my current work schedule.

That is the point we are trying to make, but that you don't seem to be understanding. People should not be bared from their right to carry simply because of their work schedule. If you are going to have a class, make sure the cost is none or low and it is offered at times that accommodate different work schedules. You do those things and I think the vast majority of us wouldn't have a problem with it.

They rules game the requirements like a poll tax was used to deny black people from voting. Oh they can afford the tax now? Ok, pick up them goal posts guys, we're going on to a literacy test.

If the motivation were public safety, I would support it. Every effort to apply limits to permit applications like these, smacks of disenfranchising, or discouraging permits.

I basically have to take a day off work every time I renew my permit, because of the way they structured the process you get your fingerprints taken with. It's ridiculous. I've been fingerprinted at least 10 times in my life. It's getting old, dealing with this shit, especially since my prints DON'T CHANGE. (not significantly anyway)

What? You have been fingerprinted!?

Welcome to the club. My first (foot) prints were taken the day I was born. I have since lost count.

See the follow-up requirements implemented in DC, for firearms possession in the home after Heller vs. DC.

...for all the bullshit the BPD deliberately puts applicants through.

Inevitably, Boston will get a big legal hammer dropped on it thanks to its "probably-won't-issue" practices.

or administrative barrier in any way. If nothing else, it would be a good way to ensure that CCW practitioners had all the latest info on where/when carrying was still prohibited, requirements during police interactions, and so on...

nor a "Constitutional non-slavery" fan as well....?

We really should have strict training requirements for all Civil Rights, so that fewer people would abuse them.

"We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

(training, background check, fees and a licence) for all other Civil Rights, amIright? After all, all Civil Rights are equal...

Carrying a gun in public is not the same as making a speech. And where speech is harmful they have limited it also just like CCW can be harmful.

Thus the SCOTUS has not ruled that CCW licensing is unlawful!

Look up the following to realize the 1st has major limits also......

Campaign finance
Free speech zones
Obscenity
Taxation of the press
Etc!

and licencing requirements? You seem to avoid that point at all costs...

hazard to society. Thus it needs more regulation than speech, which also has regulations.

My "pursuit of happiness" right might be wanting to fly a plane. But I need lessons and a license.

Same for driving my car.

I would call you a gun rights extremest!

No-one has demonstrated a clear causation or even a vague correlation between training/licencing and safety/crime.

If you can do so, then you may have a valid point.

I will note that flying a plane is several orders of magnitude more difficult than operating a firearm. The most complecated man-portable firearm I can think of has a maximum of 6 levers/buttons, only three of which are absolutely required for safe, effective operation.

And if you don't plan to fly an airplane over inhabited areas, I don't see the need for any training/licencing. Evolution will take care of any problems.

CCW instructor about when NOT to shoot was as important as any WHEN to shoot information he gave us.

I also think covering the state laws and also a 20 minutes about gun safety in the home was extremely helpful. He had a few home safes there to demo (and did not sell them, so no motive to make money) and I think it was extremely important.

You are an experienced shooter and so you know all this information but many new CCW people do not.

I see no downside except the cost. I do not feel like it is infringing on my gun rights.

We will just need to disagree on this I guess. But I appreciate your information.

But I don't think it is a neccesary requirement to exercise Civil Rights. And if you think gun ownership is the most dangerous Civil Right, I would ask you to think about how many people have died in unneccesary ways under Republican governments.

As for legal information, the classes I took for my Utah and Arizona permits went over stuff I already knew, simply from doing my research in advance. I was not a particularly experienced shooter prior to coming to Arizona, despite my previous 17 years in the military. Almost everything I know about shooting I've learned from research, sought-out training on my own dime(s), and talking to other, more experienced people, both face-to-face and on-line. Some basics were instilled by my father, growing up with a pellet gun and a .22 rifle that belonged to my grandfather as a boy, with occasional visits to an uncle who hunted and grandmother who still has several rifles.

Noteably, for my New Hampshire permit, I needed no evidence of training, just a letter from my home state of Vermont's Dept. of Justice that I was not a felon/domestic violence convict. Neither state seems to have large issues due to lack of training.

At the same time, I can vote, hell, am encouraged to vote, for the person who will have arguably the position with the most power in the free world, without having to provide any evidence of sanity, education, criminal record, fees paid, taxes remitted or any common sense what-so-ever.

If that doesn't make you wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night, I really don't know what will.

I know we are for the most part in agreement on gun issues, but if our differences mark me as an "extremist", I'll wear the badge proudly.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater, later quoted by Charleton Heston. Yeah, I know, Republicans. Whatever.

Do you have to pay a fee to the government in order to protest or put a bumper sticker on your car or vote?

The concealed carry permit system needs to become free of charge and the shooting/gun safety training can be placed in high school or offered for free by the police. The constitution isn't something we should shit on with our opinions and there is a solution to any problems our rights can cause. If you don't want gun rights to cost you money, the alternative is to just accept a lack of training and a permit-less system like constitutional carry. If you want some controls placed on the 2A then I'm sure you are also willing to help pay for them (taxes) but the individual wanting to practice his/her civil liberty should not have to pay a fee to do so.

are somehow equatable?

I can say anything I want on bumper sticker- ANY THING! And the most that might happen is I pay a fine for using obscene speech in public - maybe - and that's a big maybe. And no one gets hurt.

If I want to carry a gun - I expect (as a concerned citizen) to know how to use it, when to use it, and when not to use it. State laws around safety requirements (ie: no shooting targets on the sidewalk or in the back yard) and state laws around where it is permitted to carry. I may not agree with those laws but they are on the books and it is my interest to know them and to heed them.

I also expect the other people who carry to know how to safely handle and use their firearms. I don't think that's a lot to ask.

some would have to disagree with training and permits.