Concealed Carry coming to Wisconsin, Dem's are scared out of their minds

[MPI1]

Finally concealed carry is coming to wisconsin!

madison, wis. -- although it's not law yet, dane county leaders are taking a stand against a bill legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons.
Dane county executive joe parisi said he wants to "protect the public" if and when concealed carry is passed. He said there's simply no need for weapons -- legal or not -- inside any county facility.
Under the concealed-carry bill passed on tuesday by the senate, it would be legal for someone to carry a concealed gun in the terminal at the dane county regional airport.
"there's really no good that can come from someone bringing a weapon into an airport," parisi said.
Not only is the legislation not sitting well with parisi, it also worries airport director brad livingston. He said the safety and security of the traveling public at the airport is extremely important and that weapons should not be allowed past the front doors of the airport.
Due to these concerns, a resolution was introduced to the dane county board thursday night prohibiting concealed weapons from county buildings, such as the dane county regional airport, the alliant energy center and the city-county building.

Embed codesave & sharemore videos
"citizens should not have to worry about hidden guns when picking up a marriage license, voting or going to a concert in dane county," parisi said. "we must not leave any doubt regarding concealed weapons in county facilities."
airport officials said federal law bans weapons beyond transportation security administration screening points, but the concealed-carry law would allow weapons in the terminal.
The resolution would allow the airport, and other county departments, to post highly visible signs, prohibiting concealed carry inside their respective buildings.
"it's not a well-thought-out piece of legislation," parisi said. "there's no demonstrable need for concealed carry, and i see no demonstrable need for people to carry weapons inside any county facility."
county leaders pointed to the 1988 shooting at the city-county building, which killed two people, as to why guns should be banned from public buildings. But supporters of the concealed carry law said that incident is even more of a reason why concealed carry should be allowed.
Auric gold from the group wisconsin open carry said the proposed law would protect, and possibly prevent, an incident like the one in 1988. Gold called the county resolution "feel-good legislation," saying he's not sure how signs are going to enforce the county's ordinance and keep criminals from bringing in weapons.
The county resolution is expected to go through the committee process fairly quickly and come back the county board for a vote on july 21.
The concealed-carry bill the senate passed goes to the assembly next tuesday. Legislators will have to pass the same version the senate passed in order for it to head to the governor's desk for his signature.

[JoetheGI]

Good for the citizens of Wisconsin.

[mcsap]

I dont mind concealed carry , it is the open carry wacko's that I am concerned about.

[wavemakersdj]

I dont mind concealed carry , it is the open carry wacko's that I am concerned about.

I wonder, if a private citizen goes through rigorous training (not simply a CCW course), background checks, and feel they have the right to openly display their firearm in public, would it be much different than an officer who also goes through training and background checks? I realize some people are down right insane, but I don't see it as fair to classify anyone who supports open carry as a wacko.

I personally don't espouse to an open carry mindset (more for logistical reasons), but I have no problem with someone doing so that takes the responsibility to train themselves accordingly. As a hopefully non offensive side question, how many law enforcement officers that carry all day every day go to the range to practice and become efficient on a regular basis, above the minimum requirement? The answer is obviously below 100% of officers, so I would argue that there are instances of civilians having more experience and time behind a firearm as some law enforcement personnel. Just an observation.

[Norm357]

I dont mind concealed carry , it is the open carry wacko's that I am concerned about.

I open carry sometimes in the summer. I am neither an attention ***** nor am I a whacko.

[MikeG]

I wonder, if a private citizen goes through rigorous training (not simply a CCW course), background checks, and feel they have the right to openly display their firearm in public, would it be much different than an officer who also goes through training and background checks? I realize some people are down right insane, but I don't see it as fair to classify anyone who supports open carry as a wacko.

AFAIK, AZ has no training requirements or background checks for either open carry or concealed. Both are allowed. I don't see much urban open carry. Not a LEO, but we also don't seem to have a problem with people carrying. I daresay there is a bigger gun violence problem in Chicago and Philly than Phoenix metro area.

As for your other comment, I have a hammer in my garage. A carpenter carries a hammer on his belt everyday. There may be people who use their garage hammer often enough to be as proficient as a carpenter. I'm still going to hire and trust the carpenter more than the garage hammer guy, though.

[retdetsgt]

AFAIK, AZ has no training requirements or background checks for either open carry or concealed. Both are allowed. I don't see much urban open carry. Not a LEO, but we also don't seem to have a problem with people carrying. I daresay there is a bigger gun violence problem in Chicago and Philly than Phoenix metro area.

Gun laws that are directed at law abiding citizens are silly, IMO. A crook isn't going to obey them anyway. What I prefer to see is crimes involving firearms carrying heavy mandatory sentences. They won't change crooks' thinking, but it will take them out of circulation. And cities like Chicago, et al only affect people willing to obey the law, hence high gun crime rates.

[G35 Mass]

You private citizens need to keep your crap concealed

Officers:
1) Carry in multiple-retention systems designed to minimize people being able to complete a gun-grab.
2) Are EXPECTED to carry a firearm, therefore hiding it is useless. They're in uniform.
3) Must be able to very quickly draw, reholster, repeat, as use of force rises to/from deadly force.
4) Are always uber-aware of their surroundings and the people near them
5) Are trained in weapon retention tactics

Citizens:
1) Carry in (at best) single retention holsters
2) Can hide it to maximize the surprise / minimize the "shoot me first"
3) Have no reason to be escalating up/down the use of force models. If your gun comes out, you're not going to be rapidly re-holstering to draw a baton, go hand-to-hand, foot pursuit, etc..
4) Are distracted by life.
5) Have zero training in weapon retention tactics.


Keep your stuff concealed. It's for everyone's own good.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Officers:
1) Carry in multiple-retention systems designed to minimize people being able to complete a gun-grab.
Citizens can as well. Several manufacturers make civilian holsters with several different retention devices.
2) Are EXPECTED to carry a firearm, therefore hiding it is useless. They're in uniform.
uhhhh...can't argue that
3) Must be able to very quickly draw, reholster, repeat, as use of force rises to/from deadly force.
Same for civilians.
4) Are always uber-aware of their surroundings and the people near them
Uhhhhh....lol not even. Careful with that "always". Coppers are always having people sneak up on them, or can be distracted just like anyone else.
5) Are trained in weapon retention tactics
Most of that is a single class during the academy which is practiced for about 30 minutes if you're lucky. "Trained"? I'd say "educated".

Citizens:
1) Carry in (at best) single retention holsters
Doesn't really matter what retention level it is so long as they maintain control of their firearm.
2) Can hide it to maximize the surprise / minimize the "shoot me first"
I still have yet to see an actual account of a civilian openly carrying a firearm get snuffed by a bad guy.
3) Have no reason to be escalating up/down the use of force models. If your gun comes out, you're not going to be rapidly re-holstering to draw a baton, go hand-to-hand, foot pursuit, etc..
They still need to be able to holster the gun quickly and get it back out quickly for any number of reasons. Just because they don't carry batons and radios doesn't mean they should be deprived of quickly accessing and securing their lifeline.
4) Are distracted by life.
I can't even guess how many uniformed personnel I've seen texting and utterly absorbed in those things.
5) Have zero training in weapon retention tactics.
Those without the ability to carry openly or have severe restrictions in place to obtain a CCW don't need that training. Come out to AZ and you'll see a number of people do take the classes and spend the time learning. Not as many as we'd like, but we don't have blood running in the streets like people said was going to happen.

Keep your stuff concealed. It's for everyone's own good.
I don't much care one way or another. I've done and still do both and it's situation-dependent.

I disagree. My personal opinions are embedded. Of course, I'm from a gun-friendly state, too.

[G35 Mass]

I understand.

While I'm from a state that literally won't allow some of its police officers to carry firearms, I'm very pro-gun and pro-citizen-gun.

Maybe my anti-open carry is because I have no desire to deal with the frantic sheeples calling 911 reporting an armed person in a bank, etc..

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I understand.

Hey, every now and then someone wanders over from California and experiences a bit of culture shock. ;-)

I doubt you'd get many calls. It's such a big deal when the laws are passed that it's all over every bit of news media.

[Norm357]

You private citizens need to keep your crap concealed

Officers:
1) Carry in multiple-retention systems designed to minimize people being able to complete a gun-grab.
2) Are EXPECTED to carry a firearm, therefore hiding it is useless. They're in uniform.
3) Must be able to very quickly draw, reholster, repeat, as use of force rises to/from deadly force.
4) Are always uber-aware of their surroundings and the people near them
5) Are trained in weapon retention tactics

Citizens:
1) Carry in (at best) single retention holsters
2) Can hide it to maximize the surprise / minimize the "shoot me first"
3) Have no reason to be escalating up/down the use of force models. If your gun comes out, you're not going to be rapidly re-holstering to draw a baton, go hand-to-hand, foot pursuit, etc..
4) Are distracted by life.
5) Have zero training in weapon retention tactics.


Keep your stuff concealed. It's for everyone's own good.

Whatever.

[Norm357]

Also G35, I hate to break it to you, but you are a private citizen too, just like me.

[wavemakersdj]

I understand.

While I'm from a state that literally won't allow some of its police officers to carry firearms, I'm very pro-gun and pro-citizen-gun.

Maybe my anti-open carry is because I have no desire to deal with the frantic sheeples calling 911 reporting an armed person in a bank, etc..

Me thinks Illinois is likely with California or New York in the running for state being described?

In my area, while open carry is legal, it simply isn't practiced all that often. When you see someone with a gun on their hip, your immediate thought is "cop." While I agree this can lead to issues and especially irritate officers, I don't think it has anything to do with training and such. 30 miles away from our city center, people open carry many times, but in the city they don't because of your reason for others calling 911. Heck, I still get nervous reaching up on shelves at stores that someone will see my weapon and call the police, but it's the mindset that's been driven into people for years.

[greg72982]

Someone get Norm a PBR before we have a shots fired situation in here