Pretzel logic on CCW in Wisconsin

[brimic]

Letters to the editor are generally subject to "editing for clarity and brevity."

I have had several letters so mangled that my point came out almost backwards.

The "stupidity" might have been generated on an editor's desk.

The Journal Sentinel generally prints whatever crazy screed people can come up with.

[230RN]

The Journal Sentinel generally prints whatever crazy screed people can come up with.

Ahhh, but you don't get to see that there screed before it got crazy on the editor's desk.

Aaaaand, guess what?  They don't print letters objecting to the screed-mangling.

("Never start an argument with someone who buys ink by the gallon." --H. L. Mencken?)

Terry, 230RN

[Monkeyleg]

Ahhh, but you don't get to see that there screed before it got crazy on the editor's desk.

The people who edit the letters to the editor at the Journal Sentinel are one step above interns. Nobody seems to even supervise what they do.

I had one letter extensively "edited", and called the young lady who did it. She said she was just editing for punctation and grammar. I called bull, and told her she'd just changed the entire meaning of my letter.

Doesn't matter, at least not years back, as they were the only game in town.

Want to have some fun? Go to Google's newspaper archives here and look at newspapers after January 17, 1989 (the Stockton shooting). It seems like every two or three days there was an article or editorial about banning guns or restricting guns or doing something to gun owners. It was just a daily routine, something we don't see today. The amazing thing is that the Sentinel was considered "conservative" compared to the Journal.

[Perd Hapley]

Ahhh, but you don't get to see that there screed before it got crazy on the editor's desk.

What if the editors are actually toning down the crazy?

[230RN]

What if the editors are actually toning down the crazy?

Possible.

That probably depends on whether you and the paper are on the same side of the fence. 

Actually, what Monkeyleg said.  I've had that happen --an almost complete reversal of intent.  Call the same letter to the editor extension at the paper and it was like 50-50 it was the same person working that desk from monh to month, even week to week --especially in summertime.

"Never argue with anyone who buys ink by the gallon" is a favorite quote of mine.*

I kinda gave up on letters to the editor except for the on-line comment sections of the newspapers when that got to be "the thing."  I even pretty much gave up on that, too, when I started to recognize that printed newspapers were on their way out anyhow, and figured my efforts were better directed elsewhere.

Terry, 230RN

(*It has been attributed to Casey Stengel, Tommy LaSorda, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Yogi Berra, and many other Great Wits. So what the hell, you might as well attribute it to me, another Great Wit.)

[Scout26]

So;

1)  What are the status of the two bills ?

and

2)  What is taking so long ?


I thought this was a slam dunk?

[Monkeyleg]

The last I read was that the constitutional carry bill had gone through committee and is going to come up for a vote (when?), but there's been amendments by both Republicans and Democrats to insert training requirements and permit provisions into the bill. It's still not acceptable to the liberals, though.

Governor Walker seemed to be backing away from the constitutional carry bill, saying he thought there should be training required, but didn't go so far as to say he'd veto it.

As far as I know, the shall-issue bill hasn't gone through committee yet. (AJ, do you know?).

The last three times that the bills went to the floor, they did so at the end of the year. The first six months of session are usually tied up with the budget.

[AJ Dual]

Me? I don't know what the hell is going on. 

I think we've got three bills running around. A Senate shall-issue and a Senate permit-less/constitutional bill, and an Assembly shall-issue bill. One's gotten through the Senate Judiciary committee.

I think they plan on getting this all done by the end of June I thought to beat any Republican recalls that might cost them the Senate. A long shot, but better safe than sorry.

Honestly, I'm so tired of it, anything demonstrably better than the PPA (Personal Protection Act) CCW bills vetoed by Doyle will make me very happy at this point.

It's all going kind of crazy. Milwaukee conservative talk-radio pundits are all screaming and ranting that they want training and permits, I think it's because they're worried that Constitutional Carry bills or bills without training might cost the GOP the state Senate. The WI NRA guy LaSorte is fuming mad about what Belling, Sykes etc. have been saying over the air in Milwaukee.

Gov. Walker is waffling a bit, stating publicly he thinks that any CCW bill should have permits. However, he has not retracted his promise to sign whatever CCW bill reaches his desk.

What I think has happened that the initial strategy of proposing permit-less/Constitutional carry as the stick, with a very clean shall-issue CCW bill as the carrot has backfired a bit. RINO's and moderates who initially were OK with this plan were shocked to find out a fair number of people actually are SERIOUS about Constitutional Carry, including the NRA.

My gut feeling is right now that we'll wind up with Indiana style shall-issue. Permits that are relatively cheap/long-lasting, background check, but no training requirement.

Honestly, what I'd have liked to see was a well written and sever-able bill with three tiers.

1. Constitutional AZ/AK carry.
2. Optional Shall-Issue CCW's for WI residents to get more leniency with GFSZ's.
3. Optional Shall-Issue CCW's with a training endorsement for max reciprocity across the U.S.

This way, tiers one or one and two could be lopped off if it was looking like they were going to prevent passage.

Other factors I'd have liked.

- No duty to inform LEO's.
- Bars restaurants OK for carry. Just can't be drinking/drunk. (perhaps a .08 standard like DUI/OWI)
- Permit holders can skip the two day WI handgun wait.
- Strict Sign requirements. Size, color, font, wording. And then they only have trespass authority. You must have a sign AND be told/asked to leave.
- Secure zones must have lockers for CCW'ers.

[Scout26]

No chance of a Non-resident permit, then ....   [/kicks rocks]

[AJ Dual]

No chance of a Non-resident permit, then ....   [/kicks rocks]

No idea... Maybe. Reciprocity, the early drafts of these bills had nothing about these issues in them. Part of which made me think they weren't serious.

Then I heard that the strategy was to pass ALL these bills. Actually producing something like the three-tiered system I had outlined above. So maybe reciprocity and out of state non-resident permits were in some other bill. Or the plan is to merge them all in a conference session.

All I really know is that it's crazy right now, the Constitutional Carry people are pissed off at anything less than 100% support, and that it still looks like whatever stitched together Frankenstein bill comes out of the amendment/conference/merger process will probably still be pretty good. At least, no worse than the PPA's of previous years that would have all made us very happy back then.

Some are griping that there's a chance nothing would pass, because of everyone supporting the "other" bill, leaving none with a clear majority of support, however I find it unlikely. While there's lots of hard-liner talk about the bills amongst the public in various gun forums, none of the legislators seem to be a hard liner over their particular bills yet.

[brimic]

While there's lots of hard-liner talk about the bills amongst the public in various gun forums, none of the legislators seem to be a hard liner over their particular bills yet.

Mine are- contacted them both. Both Sponsored Constitutional Carry. Of course not everyone is going to have a Glen Grothman in their district.

It does seem that the waters are pretty muddied and noone seems to know what's going to happen.
I heard Mark Belling's rant about Constitutional Carry, and I was quite disappointed with him. His stance was that CC was going to screw up elections because of a few people who want to 'have a right to carry hand grenades into churches and schools'- what a nitwit.

[AJ Dual]

Mine are- contacted them both. Both Sponsored Constitutional Carry. Of course not everyone is going to have a Glen Grothman in their district.

It does seem that the waters are pretty muddied and noone seems to know what's going to happen.
I heard Mark Belling's rant about Constitutional Carry, and I was quite disappointed with him. His stance was that CC was going to screw up elections because of a few people who want to 'have a right to carry hand grenades into churches and schools'- what a nitwit.

Yes, I know. However, what I mean is that I've heard nothing stating that Glenn or the other sponsors would refuse to vote for the alternate shall-issue bill should the Constitutional one appear DOA etc.

What Belling said was disappointing, and I don't agree with it. Although, as a conservative policy wonk who's concerned about the whole spectrum of issues, I can understand his ire. If I legitimately believed that hardlining on Constitutional carry would cost us some recall elections, and then subsequently screw up all the tax and budget reforms WI so desperately needs, I'd be worried/pissed off over it too.

While I think Belling and the other talk show hosts who have been blasting anyone who wants more than a shall-issue bill with training are wrong, I do have sympathy for the idea that in the larger picture WI has to be a state worth living in to exercise concealed carry.

Having the RKBA feather in our cap and going from no-carry to Constitutional Carry would be great, but it would be a rather Pyhrric victory if it also meant it halted all the other conservative reforms in this state, and we started going down the path of IL or MI. 

Honestly, it SHOULD be easy enough to explain that VT, AK, and AZ (and MT... sorta) have this with no problems, and that IN has shall-issue without training too. Nor should you tailor our rights or pending legislation just to deny the libtard MSM talking points, because they're not interested in giving any conservative a fair shake anyway.

[brimic]

What Belling said was disappointing, and I don't agree with it. Although, as a conservative policy wonk who's concerned about the whole spectrum of issues, I can understand his ire. If I legitimately believed that hardlining on Constitutional carry would cost us some recall elections, and then subsequently screw up all the tax and budget reforms WI so desperately needs, I'd be worried/pissed off over it too.

While I think Belling and the other talk show hosts who have been blasting anyone who wants more than a shall-issue bill with training are wrong, I do have sympathy for the idea that in the larger picture WI has to be a state worth living in to exercise concealed carry.

I get that.

Unfortunately (most of the times fortunately) he has a large audience and quite a bit of influence. Having him spout off some garbage that looks like it was plagiarized from the Shepard Express doesn't look good for any of us.

[Monkeyleg]

Belling is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Constitutional carry could present political problems at a time when Republicans are going to need all they can get to carry WI. The "union-busting" legislation has already hurt them.

No idea... Maybe. Reciprocity, the early drafts of these bills had nothing about these issues in them. Part of which made me think they weren't serious.

The 2001, 2003 and 2005 bills had instant reciprocity in them. I just glanced through this year's bill and didn't see it, but neither did I see anything prohibiting licensees from other states from carrying. I suppose that wouldn't work, though.

I find it fascinating that Darren LaSorte is back in WI for this. He was assigned elsewhere after the 2005 bill, and Austin Jordan took over. Darren (IMO) is the more experienced lobbyist. I wonder if they brought him back because this time it's for real, versus the past four years, which were not?

[Perd Hapley]

I get that.

Unfortunately (most of the times fortunately) he has a large audience and quite a bit of influence. Having him spout off some garbage that looks like it was plagiarized from the Shepard Express doesn't look good for any of us.

Marc Belling? The guy with the annoying voice? Why would anybody listen to him? 

[Monkeyleg]

Marc Belling? The guy with the annoying voice? Why would anybody listen to him?

It's Mark Belling, but that's besides the point. He's filled in for Rush Limbaugh often. He's also one of the best B-level talk radio hosts in the business. I've listened to Laura Ingram, J. Gordon Liddy, Hugh Hewitt, and a long list of other well-known hosts, and Belling is much better at keeping an audience engaged.

He may not have Limbaugh's sonorous voice, but he has a real talent for keeping listeners interested. Some of the better-known hosts I've listened to put me to sleep.

[41magsnub]

He may not have Limbaugh's sonorous voice, but he has a real talent for keeping listeners interested. Some of the better-known hosts I've listened to put me to sleep.

Is he capable of refraining from talking about himself more than the topic at hand unlike many of the hosts on AM radio?

[AJ Dual]

Mark Belling is far from perfect, and yes, I can definitely see how some (many?) could find him incredibly annoying. 

However, he's been as instrumental in holding back liberalism in Wisconsin, as Rush Limbaugh has been on the national front.

Here's the latest on what seems to be settling out over the various CCW bills.

1. permit required
2.  training required
3.  open carry protected
4. transport rules changed to allow carrying in cars
5.  no public database
6.  uses florida model of training/licensing
7.  5 year renewal period.
8.  military, hunters safety participants, law enforcement, former law enforcement, and anyone who has already received licensed instruction will be exempt from training requirement
9. no felony for carrying w/o permit
10.  no fingerprinting for permit
11.  training classes will be one day, and not require live-fire range (meaning sim-training will suffice)-- cost expected to be around $50 for training
12.  1000 ft school zone will be lifted for permit holders
13.  no changes to long gun rules
 

This is from Vicki McKenna, a conservative (and extremely pro-gun) talkshow host out of the even more hostile market of Madison, interviewing Darren LaSorte the lead NRA lobbyist on the ground here in WI.

[Scout26]

J. G. Gordon Liddy,

FTFY
His full name is George Gordon Battle Liddy.   Or Uncle George for short. 

[Monkeyleg]

Sorry about that, Scout26. I know it's "G", but I typed "J".

As for the way the bill is shaking out in AJ's post, the Journal Sentinel is lobbying heavily to have permit holders names part of the public record, and every elected and appointed official in Milwaukee is lobbying to have carrying without a permit made a felony.

I'll bet $10 (as much as I'd ever bet with real money) that any reciprocity gets stripped from the bill.

[Perd Hapley]

It's Mark Belling, but that's besides the point. He's filled in for Rush Limbaugh often.

Far too often. I have this crazy idea that people without sonorous voices should stay the heck off the radio.

[Monkeyleg]

Back to the OT. Here's another doozie from today's Journal Sentinel. Free moccasins to the person who can find the most cliches, outdated arguments, and specious logic.

*******
Making everyone armed, dangerous

First, the much-misused Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So once we are all walking around with cute little pistols in purse or pocket, we will be members of this militia?

Well, for starters, it would not be well-regulated, since no one would be checked, licensed or trained. We'd all be freelance shoot-'em-uppers. It would be quite the opposite of security; bring 17 items to the 15-only checkout line and the irate citizen behind you with 14 could drill you and your watermelon.

Free? Well, yes. Every one of us would be free to, at the very least, scare each other to death.

Remember the old notion that the freedom of my fist stops at the tip of your nose? If my fist has a gun in it, your nose can be a whole lot farther away.

We should be working to get weapons off the streets - and out of stores and restaurants and post offices - rather than making each one of us armed and dangerous.

Patricia Nakamura
Muskego

[kgbsquirrel]

Back to the OT. Here's another doozie from today's Journal Sentinel. Free moccasins to the person who can find the most cliches, outdated arguments, and specious logic.

Two Hundred One. The stupid was so concentrated I just counted the total words used, including their name. When do I get my moccasins?

[MicroBalrog]

That person. Does she understand basic English grammar?

[AJ Dual]

I don't even worry about it.

Every state that's passed CCW in the past 20 years has gone through the same thing.

After a year or two of people going through their daily lives of not seeing the CCW'ers guns, everything returns to normal.