![' target='_new'>](http://<a rel="nofollow" href="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/hkmp5a2/pro1.jpg" data-featherlight="image" target="_blank"><img loading="lazy" rel="nofollow" class="secureimg" src="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/hkmp5a2/pro1.jpg" /></a><meta itemprop=){kind=link}
![' target='_new'>](http://<a rel="nofollow" href="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/hkmp5a2/pro2.jpg" data-featherlight="image" target="_blank"><img loading="lazy" rel="nofollow" class="secureimg" src="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/hkmp5a2/pro2.jpg" /></a><meta itemprop=){kind=link}
![' target='_new'>](http://<a rel="nofollow" href="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/hkmp5a2/pro3.jpg" data-featherlight="image" target="_blank"><img loading="lazy" rel="nofollow" class="secureimg" src="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/hkmp5a2/pro3.jpg" /></a><meta itemprop=){kind=link}
|
I applaud Jim's efforts, but believe he is misguided and mistaken on a couple of points: 1) WGO/Corey Graff may be an idiot, but I don't think they/he is an anti-gun organization plant. The "no compromise" stance on CCW is actually one I admire. If only he were willing to put his money towards a legal defense fund instead of spending money to unseat pols that "compromise" (which one's don't?), I could almost get on board. Even I'm not that staunch of an idealist, and that's saying a lot. 2) Lending a gun does not equal a "transfer". The position is absolutely ridiculous... even moreso than the NFA/CLEO signoff position Jim had a year ago. Almost universally in WI statutes, the words "sell", "sale", "purchase", and/or "transaction" are linked with the word "transfer" when applied to real property. Those pertaining to firearms are no different: 
Note that 175.35 does not address loaning or even rental. If it did, every range that does the "try before you buy" thing would have to make everyone fill out a 4473 and wait 48 hours before hitting the range. Now onto "Transfer" as defined and applied to the criminal code:
Emphasis mine on all of the above. 3) The provision for a background check for private sales (IF it passes) would be negated by preemption unless it was specifically a re-write of 66.0409. Since it does not, it can not pass judicial muster. Period, end of sentence. 4) As far as defacto registration, has Jim never seen a 4473?  The record of the transaction already contains a provision for recording of a serial number.SB104 is a bad bill, no doubt. However, I don't think that the Assembly will let it pass - if it even ever gets out of committee. Perhaps our (pro-gun) time and money would be better spent pursuing open carry through the courts? I had high hopes a couple months ago. One last thing, and this is for HKMP5 specifically: I know that Jim's chicken little rant above was sent out to the entire RCLRC membership, on RCLRC letterhead. Was club money spent on its printing and mailing? If so, you can expect a rather angry FMD to be voicing his opinion at the next board meeting.  ETA: Just so we're clear, here's a link to SB 104 |
One last thing, and this is for HKMP5  specifically: I know that Jim's chicken little rant above was sent out to the entire RCLRC membership, on RCLRC letterhead. Was club money spent on its printing and mailing? If so, you can expect a rather angry FMD to be voicing his opinion at the next board meeting
|
|
FMD, I won't get into arguments over whether Jim is right or wrong about SB104. As far as Corey Graff/WGO goes, though, I've long believed that he's either a shill for the anti-gun movement, or a shill for anti-gun Democrats. Please hear me out on this. In 2005, WGO reported spending $84,000 on lobbying expenses, while the NRA reported spending $77,000. 2005 was probably the most active year for lobbying on the CCW bill. Last year, WGO reported spending $63,000 on lobbying expenses, even though the CCW bill died in February of last year. WGO reported 13 hours of contact with legislators for 2005, while the NRA had its lobbyist living in Madison almost full-time in a rented apartment for the year. Plus, the lobbyist--Darren LaSorte--had staff. As a board member of the WRPA, as well as the treasurer for the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Movement political action committee, and the founder of the WCCA (now the WCPS), I can tell you that $84,000 is a lot of money to raise. I can't think of any state level gun group that raises that kind of money, except perhaps the Safari Club. How many people do you know who are WGO members? I've encountered only a couple. So, where does WGO's vast amount of cash come from? Is it conceivable that WGO is getting money from larger groups? Maybe the Joyce Foundation, or even from some groups associated with Doyle? Everything is "conceivable," especially when Corey Graff doesn't disclose anything financially. Corey even created a company--Graff Communications--which bills WGO for all sorts of expenses. It's a sole proprietorship owned by Corey Graff. Why? Why wouldn't he just disclose on WGO's IRS form 990 that he receives X number of dollars as a director? Why the need for a separate company? There's a lot of money moving around here, and I find that very suspicious. Last July, Corey Graff announced the formation of a political action committee, WGO-PAC. On the WGO's website, Corey said that the PAC would be devoted to supporting pro-gun candidates. Months later, Corey changed the status of the PAC to an Independent Expenditure Group. IEG's are groups that spend money supporting or attacking a particular candidate. An IEG must state in its filing which candidates the group is going to attack or support. In WGO's case, Corey filed to oppose Jim Doyle, Dave Zien, and Scott Gunderson. By law, the IEG must spend some of its money on every candidate it has registered to support or attack. In WGO's case, Corey spent a few dollars for a cartoon attacking Jim Doyle on WGO's website and in its newsletter. The rest of the money was spent on attacking Zien and Gunderson, with the majority of the money used for radio ads in Zien's district attacking him. I have every piece of information that's publicly available on WGO: tax returns, ethics board filings, election board reports, and more. When I got the report from the elections board for WGO's IED, I contacted some people who had contributed $100 or more to ask them why they contributed money to be used to attack Dave Zien. They didn't know that was what their money was being used for. Corey didn't tell anybody that he had switched the status from PAC to IEG. I never saw any announcement on WGO's website. Did you or anyone else see such an announcement? And, if not, why not? Ask yourself this: why would a group that claims to be pro-gun go after the most pro-gun member of the state senate? Zien was already having a difficult re-election campaign, and WGO helped his opponent. WGO in Corey's own small way helped turn control of the state senate over to one of the most anti-gun members of the state legislature, Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson (D-Beloit). Why? Instead of having a chance of getting a concealed carry bill passed, we're now in the situation where we will likely see passage of a bill banning the private sales of firearms in Milwaukee county, a ban that will go statewide. While the Castle Doctrine bill passed the assembly the other day, it won't survive in the senate. Judy Robson will never allow it out of committee. What kind of "pro-gun" group works to hand control of the state senate over to the anti-gunners? I've thought about this over and over and over, and I can't reach any conclusion except that WGO is working for the anti-gun side. If anyone has another explanation, I'm all ears. |
Dick, the only thing I've ever personally seen from WGO was that alarmist piece after the door-to-door gun confiscation in Oshkosh a few years back. Their position was pretty much the same thing that was coming out of GOA and JPFO at the time, and I couldn't really disagree with it (although my tinfoil hat wasn't on tight enough for me to get really worried). Remember also that I substantially agree with their public position that CCW is a right, and should be treated by Wisconsin as such. Hear me out...  I'm not a moron. I know that while Vermont-style carry should be the law here, it's not for a variety of reasons...the least of which is the support of the WGO. To be honest, even if WGO is some sort of "plant" group, they're NOT getting our money, or at least not a substantial amount of it (thanks in part to Mr. Fendry running on about them every time he makes a statement). If everything above is accurate, Corey Graff is running a front group to line his own pockets. It's possible his mystery donors are Dems seeking to split us, and he's okay with that as long as he earns a buck - I don't know, nor do I really care at this point. I guess the bottom line is that we (that's a collective "we") have bigger fish to fry, which brings me back to Jim, the WPGM, and SB104. <Note, this is for HKMP5A2, Rogue1, Batch114, and any other Board members or voting members of RCLRC just as much as I'm directing this at monkeyleg> If Jim spent 1/2 his time (and the money that we give him [again a collective - RCLRC gives some substantial money to Mr. Fendry - better than 10%, and probably closer to 20% of last year's WPGM spending, if I'm reading the numbers correctly]) on the fights that matter to Wisconsin's active pro-RKBA constituents (things like open carry, clarification through the AG, a legal defense fund to bring the issue before the courts, removing the MV restrictions on non-sporting loaded guns), and didn't spend his time chasing Corey Graff's shadow puppets and every single anti-gun bill that will die an eventual death due to existing laws (and common sense); then Wisconsin's gun owners* would be much better off. Wisconsin's gun owners* (right along with RCLRC) give way too much money to WPGM to get nothing more than hollow victories against phantom legislation for their donated dollars. Whatever happened to the state-level merger idea? This is proof positive to me that we need it sooner rather than later. *ironic, isn't it. 
|
|
FMD: "To be honest, even if WGO is some sort of "plant" group, they're NOT getting our money, or at least not a substantial amount of it (thanks in part to Mr. Fendry running on about them every time he makes a statement). If everything above is accurate, Corey Graff is running a front group to line his own pockets. It's possible his mystery donors are Dems seeking to split us, and he's okay with that as long as he earns a buck - I don't know, nor do I really care at this point. I guess the bottom line is that we (that's a collective "we") have bigger fish to fry, which brings me back to Jim, the WPGM, and SB104." WGO is getting somebody's money, and Corey isn't using that money to further our rights. WGO was more of an obstacle in the last two sessions to get concealed carry than groups like Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, or even the Brady Campaign. Somebody ought to care that there's a group out there claiming to be 2nd Amendment purist(s), but who are stabbing us in the back. And somebody should take seriously what I posted above. I've known Jim for nearly 30 years, have known him well for the last six to ten years, and I also know the complaints and criticisms about him. Some are founded, others are not. If you and other members of RCLGC have a complaint about how Jim is spending the money the club donated, that's certainly legitimate. But there's a great big difference between WGO and Jim Fendry. Rather than have this thread drift back and forth, I'm just going to copy what I posted above in another thread, so that you and others can talk about Jim. |
|
I forgot to reply to one of your questions. "Whatever happened to the state-level merger idea? This is proof positive to me that we need it sooner rather than later." Scott Taetsch, our NRA Field Rep, has been busy putting together a group that would be the umbrella group for gun owners in Wisconsin. He has said that the group will be up and running by October of this year. Given his enthusiasm, plus the support of the NRA for this project, I believe him. |
|
Jim Fendry lost the last bit of credability he had left which wasn't much with me at the last RCLRC anual meeting. I start to wonder about people who's job is to fight for 2nd amendment rights then stand up and say Vermont style carry is not the way to go because you never know who would have a gun in southridge. I will be bringing this to the RCLRC members when I publish my editorial in the news letter. The bill of rights can not be compramised or negotiated. I believe the people who represent our 2nd rights should not give in ever. Any gun law is one the founding fathers never wanted why should we be any different? Brian |
No no no. It was any gangbanger at Southridge could have a CCW. (not that they don't already) |
|
Brian, the issue of Vermont-style carry is one where Jim and I have agreed to disagree. He is also opposed to open carry. I think his opposition to both stems from his days as a cop. Jim also looks at things through the prism of the practical and uses his experience with the legislature as a guide. I also strongly believe in Vermont-style carry. Actually, I don't believe in any sort of gun control at all, because I have yet to see a gun control law that does anything but inconvenience gun owners and infringe on our Second Amendment rights. But I can't say that to a reporter without being written off as a nut. So, I'll talk about trained and licensed citizens being able to defend themselves and their loved ones. We've all heard the analogy of gun control being like boiling a frog. Wisconsin is never going to go from being no-issue to Vermont-style, and a push for Vermont-style carry will only serve to hinder us. It's better to boil the anti's frog by getting shall-issue first, let the public become more comfortable, and then start going after Vermont-style carry. (After several other states have followed Alaska's example). Jim knows that people have serious issues with his positions. He also knows that he's not going to be around forever. He's been looking for someone to take over for him for years. When the new statewide umbrella group is formed, there will need to be a political spokesman. And that spokesman won't be able to talk in absolutist terms about Second Amendment issues. Remember that, when someone is representing gun owners, he's not talking to the gun owners. He's talking to the people who think we're nuts. |
|
FMD, I just re-read your post, and wanted to offer a couple more comments. "...a legal defense fund to bring the issue before the courts..." The NRA is fully funding the State vs. Andres Vegas case. I contacted the people I know at the NRA, but Jim knew exactly who to contact, and how to get things rolling. He deserves some credit for that. "...things like open carry, clarification through the AG..." Jim's not going there, as I explained before. He doesn't believe that people should be able to carry openly or concealed without some sort of proof of training, background checks, etc. Again, I disagree with him, but I can see how a cop (or even a former cop) would have concerns. "...every single anti-gun bill that will die an eventual death due to existing laws (and common sense)..." If you're referring to SB104, the bill to ban private firearms sales in Milwaukee county, do not presume that it's going to die. Based upon the talks I've had with legislators and staffers, I'd say there's a good chance that bill will pass. The backers of that bill are going to wait until the very last days of the legislative session in June, when the weather gets warm, and gang-bangers will be celebrating the advent of summer by shooting each other. And the newspapers will do non-stop coverage about the shootings. And legislators will then be hard-pressed not to vote for SB104. Jim has sounded false alarms before, but they were only false alarms because gun owners stopped them. |
Won't happen. Democrats are in control. Our priority must be stopping the bill discussed above. Unfortunately, I see us on the defensive, not the offensive. I mean, Zien--the guy who proposed CCW legislation for years--got tossed out. 
|
Why exactly are the wasting money on that case? He's covered under Hamdan. |
As proof of our legislature's bass-ackwardness, I offer the fact that we are one of 2 states without CCW. I don't think the sky is falling, but I believe our legislature is capable of passing this bill unless opposition rises to oppose it. Where am I wrong in the above opinion?
|
You mentioned "priority", but don't think the sky is falling (that's good). If we want to kill the bill, perhaps the best thing we can do is to talk to someone on the Labor/Elections/Urban Affairs committe into never letting it see the light of day. As far as priorities, I think there are others. Without being too cryptic, I think that with the right phone call and the issue of a single memo, we could have open carry recognized as the excersize of a legitimate right, unprosecutable under the DC statutes. So easy, a caveman could do it. So why haven't we done it yet*? *Note to Monkeyleg and MGLouie: I am NOT asking for a public discourse or discussion on it. I just remember hearing discussion of a "late spring" timetable, and Summer starts in a month... |
If he was covered clearly by Hamdan, it'd not be an issue for the courts.  Mike |
|
"Why exactly are the wasting money on that case? He's covered under Hamdan. " Well, the Milwaukee DA doesn't think so. Vegas was carrying his gun in his car; Hamdan was carrying his gun in his store. If the Vegas case does go to the supreme court, I expect the court will chip away a bit more at the state law banning concealed carry. Ideally, the court would say to the legislature, "we suggested in the Hamdan case that you enact some sort of permitting system for concealed weapons, but you didn't. So we're striking down the entire law as unconstitutional." Hey, a guy can dream, can't he? "So easy, a caveman could do it. So why haven't we done it yet*?" Next year. |
Mike, you are mistaken. The Hamdan ruling states that it an affirmative defense to prosecution if you meet the criteria. Note that you actually have to be prosecuted first in order to raise a defense based on Hamdan. The NRA will be paying for a lawyer to request a pretrial hearing of the evidence. At that point, the judge (or the Milwaukee DA) will have to dismiss the CCW charge. ETA: Dick, if the NRA is trying to bring Vegas to the WISC (and bypass a Hamdan ruling), then they're insane. The guy clearly meets the Hamdan requirements, almost as if it were the opinion was written for his situation. If they push it too far, we just may end up with a Fisher type loss. Oh, and NEXT YEAR? You're kidding, right? |
|
Okay, so we've got a few facts. Work with me here... 1. Corey Graf/WGO had $84,000 in lobbying expenses in 2005. Nothing to sneeze at, especially when the NRA itself spent only $77,000. Corey Graf/WGO only had 13 hours of lobbying while the NRA needed to obtain an apartment for their lobbyist because that lobbyist was working full time. Furthermore, the NRA's Lobbyist needed staff due to the number of hours worked. Question: Does this disparity seem odd to anybody? 2. Corey Graf/WGO spent $63,000 on lobbying in 2006. Oddly, the CCW bill died in February 2006. Question: Where did that money go the other 10 months out of the year? 3. Okay, so Corey Graf spent nearly $150,000 in 2005 and 2006. Where did these funds come from? Donors? Sale of goods (bumperstickers, t-shirts, mags, ammo...)? Grants? Gifts from Foundations? I'm not going to speculate that they came from anti or pro gun folks, but it'd be nice to know where and how Corey Graf/WGO gets its funding. Question: Where is that funding come from? 4. Let's talk about transparency. Transparency is all about being able to see the workings of a business or other entity to be sure there's no funny business or fraud. That's sort of hard to do with Corey Graf/WGO because Corey Graf's own company, Graff Communications, gets all sorts of money from WGO for a multitude of expenses. Question: How does anybody know that these expenses are legitimate? Does Graf Communications provide products and/or services at a better rate than other providers? Or, is Graf using gun rights in Wisconsin as an excuse to line his own pockets? Let us remember that a shell business is a great way to hide a ridiculous salary. Furthermore, Graf Communications isn't even a corporation; it's a sole proprietorship. In plain English, Graf Communications is Corey Graf- and WGO is paying Corey Graf directly for unknown good(s) and/or service(s). Question: Does this sound like funny business, or at the very least highly questionable? 5. Let's talk about doing what you said that you're going to do. In July 2006, Corey Graff announced the formation of a political action committee, WGO-PAC. On the WGO's website, Corey said that the PAC would be devoted to supporting pro-gun candidates. However, Corey later changed the WGO-PAC to an Independent Expenditure Group. IEG's are groups that spend money supporting or attacking a particular candidate. An IEG must state in its filing which candidates the group is going to attack or support. In WGO's case, Corey filed to oppose Jim Doyle, Dave Zien, and Scott Gunderson. Question: Is it proper to solicit donations saying that you're going to do x when you are really going to do y? There's also the question of why Corey Graf/WGO never made this change public. 6. So how was this money spent? Sure, Corey Graf spent some money for a cartoon attacking Jim Doyle on WGO's website and in its newsletter. The rest of the money was spent on attacking Zien and Gunderson with the majority of the money used for radio ads in Zien's district attacking him. Question: Does it sound odd to anybody that Corey Graf/WGO would use the majority of the money to attack some of our best friends in office? 7. Individuals who donated $100.00 or more were contacted and asked if they donated to Corey Graf/WGO to defeat Zien and Gunderson. They had no idea their money would be used in that fashion, much less that the PAC they donated to became an IEG. Question: Does this sound right? ----- We've got a group that raised more money than the NRA but we don't know how, outspent the NRA on lobbying but hardly lobbied at all, spent money on the director's own outside business, raisded money as a PAC but quietly changed to an IEG, used that IEG to work against some of our best friends in office, and those that were found who donated money to Corey Graf/WGO had no idea their money was being used like this. The big question: Does ANY of this sound right? |
|
Prospects for CCW? Thats pretty funny! We don't have a Pro CCW governor or a pro gun majority in the state senate. The leader of the "Wisconsin Pro Gun Movement" doesn't have a email address or website. It's 2007 not 1977. Many in "pro gun" leadership positions here in Wisconsin don't believe in CCW much less open carry. Way too much time and energy by the above is spent worrying about goofy Corey Graf and WGO. But wait............there is a super secret special effort under way that will probably maybe revealed sometime in the near or far future which won't have any effect on the issue. But I can't talk about it now. OPSEC you know. Prospects for CCW in Wisconsin are zero and will remain so until we get real leadership on this issue in place.  Jeff |
Prebans, check your IMs (and edit your post).
Jeff, Out of respect for Dick, I'll address this a bit. There has been some closed-door discussion about open carry. It should probably stay that way for OPSEC sake, despite how silly that sounds. If you've read anything I've posted in the last 3 years here, you will know that I don't like the back-door dealing crap, and think most everything should be transparent. Unfortunately, there ARE some anti-type folks that glean what they can here at Arf, and some of what "we" (again, the collective) plan should be a suprise, rather than known to Jim Doyle before it has a chance to make it on it's own. What I was referring to is one of those things. If it's going to take more than a few months, I will be SORELY disappointed, as I think it's something that should be sprung sooner than later. |
|
Quoted: Prospects for CCW? Thats pretty funny! We don't have a Pro CCW governor or a pro gun majority in the state senate. Admittedly a HUGE hurdle and a large stumbling block for at least two years, probably more. The leader of the "Wisconsin Pro Gun Movement" doesn't have a email address or website. It's 2007 not 1977. Fair enough. I agree that some updating, modernization, and organizational changes are in order. At the same time..... Many in "pro gun" leadership positions here in Wisconsin don't believe in CCW much less open carry. Then they need to be replaced. Way too much time and energy by the above is spent worrying about goofy Corey Graf and WGO. I highly disagree based upon some of the details posted by Monkeyleg. This guy is taking money from pro-rights people and spending it in ways they never intended, worked to harm Zien and Gunderson, and is otherwise working in a way that is more dangerous to us than avowed anti-rights groups. Frankly, based upon the facts, he's either a VERY misguided ally that needs to be brought on board or an anti-rights type in disguise. I'd call that a cause for concern. If nothing else, what could we have done with nearly $150,000.00? That's what Corey Graf/WGO spent in 2005 and 2006... But wait............there is a super secret special effort under way that will probably maybe revealed sometime in the near or far future which won't have any effect on the issue. But I can't talk about it now. OPSEC you know. I dislike the secrecy also. At the same time, can it be said that Milwaukee and Madison are filled with anti-rights types? Could it be argued that many of the state's largest newspapers are actively against restoration of our carry rights? Does anyone recall how Journal-Sentinel columnists Spivak and Bice successfully stopped the MG shoot fundraiser? Transparency is good. Openness is good. Unfortunately, due to the atmosphere and the power of those aligned against firearms (much less carry of any type), some discretion is also good. Prospects for CCW in Wisconsin are zero and will remain so until we get real leadership on this issue in place. Jeff Fact: We didn't get a 48 hour waiting period overnight. Fact: We didn't get state-wide preemption overnight. Fact: We didn't get the mayor of Wisconsin's largest city attempting to tear apart preemption overnight. (Note: The following is not directed at any one person in particular.) I will agree that more changes will need to be made, but some of those changes will also need to come from those not involved in the leadership. If anything, I also cast a questioning eye toward those who are quick to offer criticism but are short to offer solutions to existing problems. I don't know what it is, but far too many Wisconsin "firearms enthusiasts" are all too quick to whine about what they don't like and all too quick to flee when it comes time to put up and to get something done. ...and no, I assure you that it ISN'T like this everywhere else in the USA. Yeah, things suck right now. Yeah, we've got unfriendlies in high places. Yeah, we're going to be in a holding pattern for at least two years. So what? This is the time to lick our wounds, learn from our mistakes, and to plan our future. This is the time to start fattening those bank accounts. This is the time to get the word out to other friendly pro-rights people that we're not dead and we're not going anywhere. This is the time to recognize that we came close and that we're going to have to keep fighting if we ever want to win. Do we want to accomplish anything? Last time I checked, that means that we have to do it ourselves- meaning as pro-rights gun owners standing tall against a strong enemy who is willing to fight to continue to deny Wisconsinites their right to safety through self-defense. Perhaps it comes from living on the outside for nearly 5 years, but I've got more fight in me than just rolling over and complaining. |
 This is NOT the case here. No secret, just not openly discussed on the intarweb. If you have any doubt, find MGlouie or MGHenry. Both were at the meeting where some future plans were discussed. Hell, at this point Louie is the Chairman of the Board of the group that's been formed from ETA: Forgive me bad choice of words.
|
Big deal if the DA thinks he's not. It doesn't matter. It only maters what the judge decides when after the guys lawyer files a pre-trial motion to dismiss based on Hamdan. having the gun in a car or in a store is a moot point here because all he has to do is be able to answer yes to these two central questions.
He can say yes to both these questions, thus Hamdan applies. Now to the chance for this to "chip-away" at 941.23 IF it gets to the WSC. No. Fisher was a better chance. And look what happened with that. Fisher's argument revolved around the word security as used in art. 1 sce 25 of the state constitution. It's the very first reason give as to what we have the right to keep and bear arms for. The WSC went to far as to define the term in Hamdan. They defined it and noted that
That part in red is the important part. because in Fisher the court said that
Now go and actually read Fisher and you'll read that they didn't think that the could show there was a reasonable fear of an immediate threat to him that made his interest in CCW in a vehicel outweigh the states interest in him not. They completely ignored their own definition of security to not have to strike down 941.23 And BTW this is a case Jim is telling people opened up more areas for us as far as CCW goes. |
They didn't stop it. Jim opened his mouth an spouted off some shit that wasn't true and they got wind of it somehow. It was killed because of a lack of understanding and knowledge of NFA laws in Wisconsin by one of our "leaders" |
It's being worked on (a statewide umbrella group). At the same time.....
While one would think so, on this, I have my doubts. I'm gonna pick on Mark (HKMP5A2) for a minute. Here's a guy that believes in "carry". Open, Concealed, Duck-Taped to someone's head, it doesn't matter. He also owns NFA weapons... Yet he still continues to toe the line and promote Mr. Fendry, despite Jim being opposed to Vermont-style CCW, any open carry proposals, and has said AND I QUOTE "No one needs a machinegun - they're only used for killing." Mark, I love ya bud, but shit like that is unacceptable from a "Pro Gun" organization. Period, end of sentence. I don't care if he was a cop back in the day, I don't care if he has a "practical" eye towards the legislature. The dude is supposed to be the watchdog protecting OUR (there's that collective again) RIGHTS. Guess what: If we keep sending him money, he'll keep parroting the same lines. Vote with your wallet, or in the case of RCLRC, our MEMBERS wallets. It's YOUR responsibility.
Dingdingding! Don, tell him what he's won! 
In some respects, I feel like "that guy". At this point, I've offered my opinions and some of my research on open carry during the WCCA strategy meeting a couple months ago, and to MGLouie in the interim. I never heard back, and Dick just said that the plan is to wait until next YEAR in order to implement some of what we came up with at that meeting. THAT is the type of thing that discourages folks from participating.
Fixed, as far as I am concerned.
See previous statement. <Edit: I split off a couple of my responses about WGO over to this thread> |
|
Who's the moderator for this forum? I just posted a reply that I thought addressed as many points previously brought up as possible. Don't like the idea that the open carry issue may have to wait a year or more? Take it up with Democrat Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson. She's a real sweetheart. Don't like the idea that we can't get a concealed carry bill voted upon in this legislative session? Take it up with Democrat Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson. I'm sure that she'll "consider" your point of view. It would take me another hour to write the post that was apparently deleted for language. So, here's the high points: We don't control the situation anymore, gentlemen. We are not in power. We don't even have enough votes to get a bill passed that says that, if intruders violently invade your home, you have the right to use whatever level of force necessary to stop or kill them. That's the Castle Doctrine bill, and my prediction is that it will never see a vote in the senate. We probably don't have the votes to stop SB104, the bill that would ban private firearms sales in Milwaukee. Senator Bob Wirch of Kenosha is the key vote in the committee. He's been with us in the past but, if he votes for the bill in committee, it's going to be very hard to defeat the bill on the senate floor. Most Republicans will rush to embrace it, even though it means that all private gun sales in the state will eventually be banned. In prior posts, I read criticism of the WCCA (now WCPS). I don't take such criticism personally, as much as I take offense to those who've never bothered to help. If you don't like what we've been doing, suggest changes. But don't expect your suggestions to have serious consideration if you haven't put in the time. Don't like Jim Fendry? Offer to take over the WI Pro-Gun Movement. You can reach him at 414-588-5515. He knows that not everyone agrees with him, so you can expect a polite conversation. Just don't expect to make much money. Over the last 5+ years, there have been WCCA (WCPS) volunteers who are worth their weight in gold. Chuck Roamer, for example. If something came up at the last minute, and I couldn't get up to a gun show in Shawano or Antigo, Chuck would gladly volunteer to drive up, set up the tables, and work the shows until other volunteers showed up. Lloyd DeJong, Jr. Despite having serious back problems, he stood at the tables at many shows. And he even drove to shows like Shawano or Antigo, hours from home, and worked the shows for two or even three days straight. Craig Hill was a recent emmigrant from Massachusetts. He was amazed that people could actually buy guns at a gun show, and walk out the door with them. At the WCCA's first gun show in Onalaska, only a few volunteers who'd said they'd show up actually did. But Craig did. And, when he saw that I'd be working the three days by myself, he volunteered to stay for the entire three days. I'm very grateful to Craig. Without him, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the number of hand-written postcards to legislators as we did. He really knew how to work the crowd, and we got more postcards to the local legislators than we did from any other gun show I can remember. That's what it takes, folks: committment, and time. Chuck Roamer, Lloyd DeJong, and Craig Hill have some bragging rights when it comes to our cause. What are yours? |
|
Whats wrong with Wisconsin's self defense laws that we need a castle doctrine law? We don't have a duty to retreat. I mean if someone violently invades my home don't I already have the right to defend my home? Last I checked I do. What we need more than a castle doctrine law is a law that protects people who lawfully defend themselves from criminals from civil action after the fact. That does more than a law that says I can use the force nessesary to stop a home invasion because I already can. |
I tried to make it to the secret meeting a few months ago but could not. Possible do to health reasons I don't remember. I have had all kinds of time on my hands lately and I vuagely remember asking to help. I have never been contacted yet. I'm not trying to make enemies here, but damn, I tired of hearing this lets sit around and talk bs, when I feel there is something that can be done. I guess I should be content with being lead around by the nose until the powers that be tell me when I can do something. As for Jim Fendry. I have never met him. With statements like he has made about CCW, open carry, and machine guns. He does not represent me as a gun owner. How about you get your good ol' pal Jim to create an account on AR15.com so he can have a chat with all of us. Or maybe we as a group should just get together 20-30-40+ strong and go have a chat with Jim. I get tired of all the bs. Now I will curl up in a ball until next year when we will get our chance to be defeated again. |
If something was deleted, it would show up: either as an empty but edited post, or in the "trash" (dunno if you can see it, but doing a search as a Team member comes up empty). It's possible that your post didn't "take". The moderator here in the HTF is Bulletcatcher, but any senior Mod or Site Staff can edit or delete things here... and it doesn't appear that they did. Doing a search of your user name comes up with exactly two topics here in the HTF. This one, and the dedicated WGO/CoreyGraff thread. Honestly Dick, I don't think anything was deleted. Really and truly.
We both know that there is an "end run" around the Legislature, the Judicial Branch, and the Governor's office on this one. Why aren't we exercising that option as discussed at the planning meeting?
We also do not have a statutory duty to retreat. You may do the ride, but if the shoot was justified, you won't do the time. This topic has been covered extensively here in the WIHTF at least once - with input from current LEOs.
I addressed this position in my first post. I don't believe the sky is falling for a variety of reasons.
Dick, I don't know if this is addressed at me personally, but I'll internalize it anyway. While I have spent very little time doing anything for WCCA over the last few years, I did attend the strategy session and make suggestions. Note that my suggestions were, in essence, the same ones made by Louis and Gene German. Both guys know me, so I'm not exactly a total outsider. Lou knows how much time I've spent on my own looking into the efficacy of various "end arounds" through the courts... specifically because no one else would take the suggestions seriously. Together, your long-time volunteers came up with a strategy a few months ago. A strategy that was sure to allow the exercise of our Open Carry rights unfettered by arbitrary DC arrests. Action over reaction. Now, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that we'll "wait and see what happens with X legislation, and get to it sometime next year". Were you at the same meeting I was? Everyone was pretty excited at our prospects. What's happened to change that? Lack of support from Jim?
I can see the conversation now: "Hello Jim? Yeah, I'd like to take over your organization and shift its focus to getting Vermont-style CCW, or at least Open Carry for Wisconsin. We'd also like to raise money with an NFA shoot. Are you cool with that?" I apologize for the sarcasm, but consider your audience here. We're a bunch of those "Evil Black Rifle" enthusiasts, many of whom have multiple tax stamps, and a decent amount who have trained (some extensively so) for multiple out-of-state permits and the responsibility that comes with legally defending oneself with lethal force. Many of us put more aimed rounds downrange in a single month than most cops do in a year... or even a lifetime.
Evidently not near as much, or at the very least my "bragging rights" aren't worthwhile to WCCA. Personally, over the last 3-4 years I've spent my time and money consulting with attorneys to get their opinions on a "test case" to take to the WSC. I've done enough research that my wife's boss (a lawyer) has jokingly suggested that if I took the state bar, I'd probably pass. I've been to each of the WSC oral arguments dealing with a CCW issue (the last one while Jim was busy spouting off about you, MGs, and what a stupid idea an NFA fundraiser was to the JS, and all the NRA guys were setting up for their fundraiser in Oconomowoc). I've done some minor work looking into an Open Carry march, educated myself and tried to educate others in person and online on the issue. Throughout it all, any attempt I made to get that research and those ideas to through to you, Jim, or Zien's office have been ignored - right up until that strategy meeting. I'm surprised I was "invited", to tell you the truth. In the end, it didn't matter - as it seemed as if my squeaky wheel was finally getting some notice. If you remember, I didn't say much in that meeting, other than to clarify a couple of finer points of the law. The funny thing is that I didn't have to say anything else. Gene (one must admire his charisma) had the right idea, and he, in essence, said everything I've been saying for a while. Louis was educated right here on Arfcom, in this forum, and HE also gets it (he was also there with me, GlennR, Photoman, and Rogue1 at the Fisher arguments). I'm not much of a public speaker. I stutter a bit till you get me going, and then I won't shut up and get off on rabbit trails. Need something written out coherently and I do OK. Personally Dick, I don't want "bragging rights" or a pat on the back. I'd settle for being able to defend myself from the goblins of this state with a lawfully carried firearm. I guess that's what this is all about. We have plenty of volunteers, all willing to do their part -- as long as they understand and believe it's a worthwhile goal. I had high hopes after the strategy session. The idea of a fresh start and new structure where a volunteer leadership has a proactive focus on our rights (as opposed to what scheme they could get past a 2/3 majority of politicians) was a breath of fresh air poised to take us on to good things. Somehow, "proactive" has turned into "wait and see".
|
|
A few random thoughts: "If not Jim Fendry who?" Thats too easy.............Dave Zein or Jon Wilcox or anyone with a hint of of real marketing / politcal action experience. Someone who knows HTML does not mean How to make lemonade. How about a simple interview question for our "pro gun" leaders...Can I see a copy of your out of state CCW permit? JIM? SCOTT? BUSTER? et al? Why do these posts always seem to devolve into "I did more than you!" or "what have you done?" Instead we should be benchmarking what has worked in other states..........Ohio, Minnesota, Missouri. While I deeply appreciate the time and effort of the various volunteers it is improved results which we all seek not a test of who can put in the most hours at a gunshow. Here are a few suggestions: How about a email alert everytime there is a successfully resolved confrontation by a lawful CCW holder to all the members (with an email) address of every gun or sportsmans club in the state or perhaps the media or the DA's or Sheriff's or Police Chief's or even politicians. A continued stream of like messages will open a few eyes. How about a dedicated fundraiser / swap meet. Everybody brings their old holsters / ammo, magazines and do dads - we sell / swap them and give the cash to someone who will promote our cause. How about sponsoring a local media type in the next DE or Bill Schmidt class. How about hosting a NRA class just for the media? Finally, Dick suggested talking to Judy Robson about open carry - Personally I would rather do lunch with JB Van Hollen. Jeff FWIW, Yes I worked the gunshows and contributed both cash and guns. For what? |
|
Or maybe we as a group should just get together 20-30-40+ strong and go have a chat with Jim. Come to the next MFR&G club meeting in sussex wi at 7:30pm on 5-21 and we can all hear what he has to say!All are welcome. |
|
I am going to interject here with a few comments. I also tried to make the secret meeting but had prior commitments. Though I had lunch FMD a couple days latter to get low down on what happened and I was stoked but still skeptical. I am willing to help but don't know what to do or when I never get any contact from this new group. I also have a hard time giving money or time to a group when I'm not sure what direction they are going in. Maybe some one here can fill me in on what their plans are. I know things take time but lets get the ball rolling, or maybe it already is and we don't know because we haven't earned bragging rights. I stand with FMD on most of his alternative views concerning this issue and also believe their are other means to the end on this matter. Why would I want to call a liberal anti-gun senator about an issue when we already know the end result it would be wasting my time. My final thought on this matter is if we all put in as much time fighting for what we all really want instead of wasting our time arguing on the internent we would be farther ahead. I know everyone here gets all hard about outdoing the last guys post because no one here is ever wrong and that is the main reason we have not reached our goal. We defeat ourselves everytime. Brian |
|
I wasn't directing my comments at anyone in particular, or even members of this forum in general. The January meeting wasn't a secret. And I'm not calling the shots all by myself anymore. Every board member of the WCPS knows the reasons why we need to wait and year, and has agreed. The only one who doesn't know is MGLouie, and that's only because he hasn't called me yet. I'm sure when I lay it out, he'll be in agreement. I don't want to broadcast the reasons on a public forum. If you want to know, give me a call at 414-543-1916, late afternoons. I mentioned the three volunteers, but not to say, "Chuck is doing more than you are, so his opinion is worth more." I mentioned them because they're examples of people who are willing to do as much as they can to achieve the goals they want. I haven't ignored or shot down ideas in the past. The problem has been that someone says, "You know what you should do? You should do X, Y and Z." Not, "You know what we should do? We should do X,Y and Z, and I'll go ahead and take care of it." The WCCA was as effective as it could be with the volunteers we had. One problem we had was that, every time we lost in the legislature, we also lost volunteers. People just gave up. I can understand that, to an extent. Anyway, as soon as the board can agree on a date and a place, we're going to have another meeting open to anyone who wants to attend. We'll explain what we've been doing with the new group, and ask for input. And now I'll shut my mouth before I tick off more people. |
Again with the waiting thing. I'll get back to this when I get home from work. |
|
Yup Annual meeting 2k6. He said anyone that lets someone else even shoot their NFA gun is a felon so is the person shooting it.What else........ Renting one is the same as transfering one That you have to have CLEO permission to transport anywhere(as in to and from the range). Thats just three off the top of my head. Is That under 941.26 Please walk me thought that statute
|
|
If I had to make a guess I believe that 80% of the gun owners in this state think the 2nd Amendment is about HUNTING and the same amount think that if you own a Glock or a AR15 you are a problem for all of the gun control. Jim was expressing his point of view on current gun laws Its no secret that some of you have a hard on for Jim that's your right God Bless that but I ask again Who wants to take over for him I am sure he will had you the keys right over. Jim has done many great deeds for gun owners over the years that would not be in place now if he was not on the job. With the new rash of mass shootings over the country and the summer has not even started in Milwackee its going to get ugly Dem's in Washington Dem's in Wisconsin the feel good laws are going to get passed Two Times we had ccw two times it got the veto two times they backed Doyle this State is fucked up and its going to be this way for a long time to come I don't have a clue on how to fix it but slamming Jim ain't the answer Who wants to put on a suit shave and go to Madison and take over now I hear some good ideas here why don't you people call Jim out on them pick up the phone get the 411 on what the fuck the plan is Just Remember we are living in a fucking communist state with a fucking criminal as a Governor the sheple put him back in the drivers seat for four more yearsCCW is a God Dam Dream it ain't going to happen unless its FEDERAL AND WHAT IS THE CHANCE OF THAT? If I had the ways and means I would D ASS this state in a heartbeat but I don't so Im stuck here. End Of Rant  |
|
You guys are still at it I see. The conversation I'm reading here is the same as it was two years ago when I moved out of WI. You have completely exhausted the legislative approach, as I said we did two years ago, and yet no one wants to consider an open carry march. Maybe when I go back to law school in 20 years and get my law degree, I'll be able to convince you that open carry is legal in WI. Until then, good luck
|