Right to carry is on the way to the Governor’s in Wisconsin. Signature is expected. Sadly his is without Constitutional Carry, which got removed in the Senate, but it’s a good bill with not much in the way of off limits places. There is a provision for reciprocity, but it’s not universal. It suggests the AG may enter into agreements, but in no way suggests he or she must. In that way it is weaker than Pennsylvania.
For Constitutional Carry, unfortunately Wisconsin is much like PA in that for gun rights, it has a much softer body in the Senate. I am not really going to complain much. Going from one of the two remaining states without any CC provision straight to constitutional carry would have been miraculous. As it is, it’s pretty good.
Not sure if I misread, but I thought one of the articles said the 1000 feet around schools free kill zones remain.
No… only school grounds. The 1000 ft zone was eliminated by this bill.
While concealed carry is good, I disagree with your belief that Constitutional carry would have been a miracle. Going from nothing to Const Carry is probably the ONLY way const carry would pass. You have to go for the gold in your first attempt because any attempt to introduce Const Carry from now will be met by “We all ready have concealed carry and that means lawful citizens can carry but const carry would have criminals with guns and blood in the streets” arguments by antis.
While we, as gun rights proponents, have overcome such “blood in the streets” arguments the general populace and the Milquetoast gun supporter will be mollified by the “concealed carry is enough” argument. Is think Wisco definitely dropped a perfect opportunity to go with constitutional carry.
Great news! CCC will eventually come, just as it did in Alaska and Arizona.
In all of the 50 states, there’s never been one to go from no-issue or even may-issue to Constitutional Carry. All have gone from shall-issue to Constitutional Carry. If miracle is too strong, unprecedented certainly isn’t.
The permits and training are annoying but tolerable, but the WI bill has a ridiculous special police database in it for concealed-carry permit holders. Hopefully the voters will remember who jammed that in during the final weeks.
The Milwaukee police chief Flynn is a piece of work from Massachusetts. It’s too bad he will get the credit when Milwaukee’s crime rate goes down due to concealed carry.
I tweeted about this but forgot the exact timespan, but I think it was over a decade between AZ going from shall issue to Const. Carry.
“All have gone from shall-issue to Constitutional Carry. If miracle is too strong, unprecedented certainly isn’t.”
While I 100% agree with your sentiment, not sure about Alaska, but Vermont never really gave a shit one way or another about Conceal carry, so it went from lawless frontier land to lawful land that didn’t recognize the carrying of arms for self defense one way or another.
The only time the state of Vermont takes an issue with you carrying a gun is if you’re hunting, then the laws set in.
As I recall, Vermont had a test case a century or so ago that went up to their state supremes that, in that very different time, said regulating carry was unCon in Vermont, the precedent has held since. While in theory ideal, it has had the practical effect of screwing them in terms of reciprocity since they can’t have a permit option.
Alaska went from (effectively) no CCW in 1993 to shall-issue in ’94 to Con Carry in ’04.
Wyoming and AZ got shall-issue about the same time as us -if I recall correctly from the last time I pointed out the reality of incrementalism.
Alaska’s law started out with “action type and caliber” qual restrictions, signage, no restaurant carry, no parking lot carry and a few other negatives, It took a decade of legislation to get to where we are now and there is still room for improvement.
The extant evidence is clear, incrementalism and gradual desensitization of the vast middle is the effective way to get to ConCarry.
It is in fact the incremental and hard-fought precedents of early adopter shall-issue states loosening their laws with no negative societal repercussions that has gotten the “default” for shall-issue to include things like restaurant and parking lot carry, the idea of no signage and default reciprocity.
To ignore that and complain about not getting Con Carry out of the gate seems short-sighted.
Prophet, I think your analysis is wrong for one primary reason….ANY proposal backed by the NRA, GOA, or any gun rights group will automatically be met with the cries of “blood in the streets”. They’re liberals. They don’t think, they just recycle their standard playbook.
I think it is kind of nice we have the same tired arguments thrown against us every time we push for more of a restoration of our rights. We can shoot holes in their theories (pardon the pun) because it is the exact same argument they used last time, and they are still wrong. Only now, we have empirical evidence in the state to back it up.
As others have pointed out, several states have gone from shall issue to constitutional carry. I think our incremental, “here’s the facts to back up our claims and show the falsehood of our opponents claims” approach to constitutional carry is great.
It may not be as quick as we’d like it to be, but we’re winning.
One interesting thing about incremental advancement is that a lot of places with restrictive licensing laws is that there is nothing backing them up. When NJ is forced shall-issue, for example, there is nothing blocking carry anyplace but grounds of an educational institution.
The reciprocity provision is not described as accurately as it could be. The bill has what is, in effect, a full recognition provision. Wisconsin will recognize licenses issued by all jurisdictions that require a background check as part of the issuance process. The language related to the AG having discretion to enter into reciprocity agreements is only for those instances where another state requires a formal agreement in order to recognize Wisconsin licenses. We expect that all of the states that recognize Florida’s license today will recognize Wisconsin’s. Darren, NRA-ILA
Hey, Darren’s here! Good job!
Darren,
Thanks for the hard work.
I just had to update the Alaska DPS (for their reciprocity page) about Iowa’s unilateral reciprocity change in January and linked to their DPS site for evidence, it would be handy if the Wisconsin AG’s page makes that unilateral recognition clear as well.
After all, at signing Wisconsin will make 38 reciprocal states for us up here.
I’ve thought about Vermont’s licensing dilemma, and have concluded it’s not as bad as we think it is. A Vermonter can get a license from Utah or Florida, and will be able to carry in a wide number of states.
It might not be the best solution, but until we get Constitutional Carry in all states, it’s viable for now. (Hopefully, Utah will go Constitutional–and when they do, they’ll still have a carry permit, for those who need reciprocity.)
Alpheus,
That’s why I think Alaska’s example should be the goal, not a true “Vermont-style” ConCarry.
“No permits at all allowed” warms the cockles of my absolutist heart as much as anybody but reciprocity then ends up with a citizen of one state depending on the benificence of another state, in which they do not get a vote, continuing to extend them a privilege and protecting the information they voluntarily gave them.
Better to keep your info, and permit fee dollars, in the same state in which you vote, pay taxes and have a way to hold the government accountable.