Carry Legislation Introduced in Wisconsin

Gun rights are moving fast in the upper Midwest. Minnesota is pushing for self-defense reform and now Wisconsin is pushing to give the citizens there the right to self-defense. What’s most interesting through is how this legislation was introduced:

State Representative Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz) and Senator Pam Galloway (R- Wausau) wrote two bills, one requiring licensure and one without a licensing component.

One bill would enact what is usually referred to as constitutional carry while the other would be more akin to Minnesota’s law which require a license in order to practice your “right.” Wisconsin’s House and Senate have passed carry legislation before but it was vetoed by their previous scumbag governor Doyle:

The Wisconsin measure has a good chance of becoming law, as Republicans control both the Senate and Assembly and Republican Gov. Scott Walker has indicated his support for the idea. Republicans passed it in 2004 and 2006, but both times then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, vetoed it.

That asshole is gone and Walker has said he supports the idea of carry in Wisconsin so there is a good change that those living in Wisconsin will have the right to defend themselves with the best tool available. Of course the police aren’t in support of this bill at it would allow the peasants to defend themselves and erode the police’s government granted monopoly on the use of force:

Police organizations in both states have vociferously opposed legalizing carrying concealed weapons, saying it puts public safety officers and the public in danger. But the National Rifle Association and other supporters of the legalization argue it’s needed for people to protect themselves from criminals, many of whom do not obtain firearms legally.

Unless the various police organizations can demonstrate numerous situations where carry legislation has lead to dangerous situations for police officers this claim is completely bogus. We’ve learned through having carry legislation in 48 states that nothing bad has come of such laws and in many cases the rate of violent crime has dipped. Let the police organizations continue to make their false statements, they’re baseless.

On the legislation itself I will note that the Wisconsin bill requiring a license sounds similar to Minnesota’s although it would be cheaper:

Under the bill creating the licensing system, people 21 years old and over could apply to obtain a license valid for five years at a time from the state Department of Justice. Applicants would have to pay a $13 background check fee and an application fee of up to $52.

Likewise the legislation would have similar restrictions:

Concealed weapons would not be allowed in police stations, jails, courthouses, beyond the security checkpoint in airports, or on school grounds. Homeowners, businesses and governments could also prohibit concealed weapons on their property. Likewise, convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers, anyone with a restraining order against them and anyone committing a crime could not legally carry a concealed weapon.

But the definition of a weapon would be more broad than we have in Minnesota:

Concealed weapons are defined as a handgun, an electric weapon, a billy club, or a knife other than a switchblade.

In Minnesota those of us given permission by the state to carry a gun can do so but carrying one of those horrible switchblades is still a gross misdemeanor. It’s nice to see the authors of Wisconsin’s bills realize the type of weapon being carried isn’t really relevant.