Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit

[Dan W]

Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-tens-of-thousands-in-wisconsin-apply-for-concealed-carry-permit-20111124,0,2763315.story

 

  A gun shop manager in Tinley Park shows a quick-draw belt holster. (David Pierini/Chicago Tribune)
 

     10:30 a.m. CST, November 24, 2011


    Wisconsin's concealed carry law isn't even a month old, but thousands of your friends and neighbors already have permission to pack heat and they're buying up the hardware to do it.

Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow residents to carry concealed weapons this month. Questions about liability still linger, but gun sales have increased across the state and the state Justice Department has been deluged with so many permit requests it's already scrambling to keep up.

 "Long time coming," said Matt Slavik, 58, of Brookfield. He hand-filed applications for himself and his wife at the Justice Department's Capitol office on the morning of Nov. 1, the first day the new law was in effect. He said he got permit No. 20 in the mail two days later; his wife got No. 86 a day after him. "It's been wonderful, just to put the sidearm on as I start the day. I just keep it underneath my shirt and nobody knows. It's very comfortable."

The National Rifle Association had pushed concealed carry legislation in Wisconsin for most of the last decade but kept running into former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's veto. Republicans took control of the Legislature and the governor's office last year, though, and made concealed carry one of their top priorities. Gov. Scott Walker finally signed a bill this summer.

~Read more at the link

[OnTheFly]

The law grants immunity to property owners who allow concealed weapons in their establishments, but does not address the issue for property owners who bar them. That omission has given rise to a legal theory that owners who ban concealed weapons could be liable for injuries someone suffers in a shoot-out because the owners prevented the wounded from defending themselves.

IMHO that is the way it should be.  A property owner has the right to prohibit weapons on their property, but once they do that, in my mind they become responsible for my safety from others who would do me harm.

Fly

[bkoenig]

IMHO that is the way it should be.  A property owner has the right to prohibit weapons on their property, but once they do that, in my mind they become responsible for my safety from others who would do me harm.

Fly

Amen, brother.

[OnTheFly]

I am surprised my comment has not ignited a spirited debate.  I DO firmly believe in a property owner's or business proprietor's right to control what happens on their property, but when they remove a person's right to defend themselves against a criminal who would likely be armed with more than a stick, how can they not be responsible?

Maybe this has been tested in the courts and failed.  If not, I would love to see this tested on a (preferably large) business.  Though I am not sure if that is something the SAF or other strongly pro-gun organization would want to fund up to the highest court.  Mind you I am not a sue happy person.  I think suits are way over used in the US.  If a robber comes into a gun friendly business and causes someone harm, then the owner should not be held liable since there was nothing keeping the victim from exercising their rights and defending themselves.  On the other hand, if you have said I can not have any means of defense on your property, then you either had better screen everyone entering the establishment or provide full-time armed security.

Other than that...I don't have an opinion.

Fly

[Ronvandyn]

I dont beleive you are going to get a firestorm of comments here because of your view.  I think most of us would agree with it.  I know I do.  Its also one of the reasons that I dont frequent establishments that prohibit CC unless I absolutely must.

Ron

[bullit]

When the the 30-06 law passed in TX, prohibition of CHP signs came down in droves.

[CitizenClark]

IMHO that is the way it should be.  A property owner has the right to prohibit weapons on their property, but once they do that, in my mind they become responsible for my safety from others who would do me harm.

Fly

I think I should always be responsible for my own safety unless someone else has done something to assume that duty. If I knowingly walk into a business run by a damn fool who forbids private carry, I am choosing to assume that risk--I don't see why it should create any duty for the proprietor. I am always free to frequent another establishment or to go home.

I am pro-freedom, even for idiot storekeepers.

[CitizenClark]

I am surprised my comment has not ignited a spirited debate.  I DO firmly believe in a property owner's or business proprietor's right to control what happens on their property, but when they remove a person's right to defend themselves against a criminal who would likely be armed with more than a stick, how can they not be responsible?

Because you chose to enter anyway, knowing that this danger existed. No one has a right to carry a gun on someone else's property against the owner's wishes. A storekeeper who posts a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign is not depriving you of any rights. He is just creating a condition for entry to his property. If you decide to go on in anyway, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

Maybe this has been tested in the courts and failed.  If not, I would love to see this tested on a (preferably large) business.  Though I am not sure if that is something the SAF or other strongly pro-gun organization would want to fund up to the highest court.  Mind you I am not a sue happy person.  I think suits are way over used in the US.  If a robber comes into a gun friendly business and causes someone harm, then the owner should not be held liable since there was nothing keeping the victim from exercising their rights and defending themselves.  On the other hand, if you have said I can not have any means of defense on your property, then you either had better screen everyone entering the establishment or provide full-time armed security.

Other than that...I don't have an opinion.

Fly

Just to be clear, I am not making a prediction about how such a case would turn out in the courts. "Should do X" and "will do X" aren't necessarily related when it comes to the workings of the legal system.

[Dan W]

I have to agree with Citizen Clark.

Choices are made and stuff happens

[OnTheFly]

Because you chose to enter anyway, knowing that this danger existed. No one has a right to carry a gun on someone else's property against the owner's wishes. A storekeeper who posts a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign is not depriving you of any rights. He is just creating a condition for entry to his property. If you decide to go on in anyway, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

I believe this same comment has been made before, and I am sure that would be the defense.  It may very successfully in defending the property owner.  Regarding what right is being taken away, do we not have the right to protect ourselves? Is that not what DC vs. Heller decided, at least in part?

Fly

[DaveB]

I have to agree with Citizen Clark.

Choices are made and stuff happens

That's all fine and dandy until it happens to you or your own. I would hate for my wife to have to leave her gun in the car to go take care of business and have something happen because she couldn't defend herself. But other people that don't know her would just say that stuff happens.

[NENick]

That's all fine and dandy until it happens to you or your own. I would hate for my wife to have to leave her gun in the car to go take care of business and have something happen because she couldn't defend herself. But other people that don't know her would just say that stuff happens.

At that point your wife should decide to go to a business that doesn't force her to make that decision. I make that decision every day... grrr, fricken UNO. My only choice there is to use the guy next to me as a human shield.

[DaveB]

Unfortunately, the court house, post office, and banks are all part of her daily routine. Guess she could just quit working and attempt to find another job.

[Dan W]

Unfortunately, the court house, post office, and banks are all part of her daily routine. Guess she could just quit working and attempt to find another job.

Court House will never be in the list of places to take a gun...

As for the other 2, there are plenty of ways to bank and mail/ship stuff without ever setting foot inside a post office or bank, so in my opinion it is still a choice to enter one.

I understand we want all the freedom we can garner, but your rights end where another's begin, and taking the right of land and business owners away is not something I will ever support

[DaveB]

It's not a matter of taking rights away from property owners, it's that legal gun owners don't have the right to protect themselves in some places. And no, some things have to be done inside banks and post offices, it's not all about buying a stamp or making a withdrawal. A lot of papers have to be filed in person. And those places are the ones that have the most problems because they are also the ones that only allow criminals to have the automatic advantage.

What I am talking about is that people just think crap happens in those places when it is crap that happens to someone else, when it happens to their own, it's a big deal. And if I see something happening in one of those places, I'm forced by their own will to walk on and think about helping them out by being a witness, but I may have to just keep walking.

[Dan W]

Listen Dave, I have buried one of my children,  I know how bad things can happen.

It is a choice to get a CHP.

One can always choose to carry under 28-1202 with no restrictions.

One could choose to ignore the signs.

As for me I would never choose to walk away, because I have had someone die in my arms

 

[Dan W]

On a brighter note, there is a lawsuit somewhere challenging the US Postal service ban on  CCW.

In the meantime, let's work  together to get banks removed from the banned places list.

And to remove the penalty for violating a " NO LEGAL CCW" sign, and failing that, at least get a consistent and  conspicous sign  law enacted, so we can make a choice to support those businesses that don't see us as a threat.

These, and more, are all on the NFOA's agenda for this next legislative year

[DaveB]

I agree with the post office lawsuit, I don't understand why they are anti anyway except for a few of their own that have caused the problems.

I know a lot of other states also have no problem with carrying in banks. As far as banks, they should have a law against covering your face when inside a bank, those are the ones robbing at gunpoint.

[OnTheFly]

If at all possible, I will spend my money in places that will allow CCW.  The post office is one of those places I have begrudgingly entered sans handgun.  But now that I have finally realized that HyVee provides most all the postal services I would need, I just go there. 

Fly

[Dan W]

If at all possible, I will spend my money in places that will allow CCW.  The post office is one of those places I have begrudgingly entered sans handgun.  But now that I have finally realized that HyVee provides most all the postal services I would need, I just go there. 

Fly

Office depot also has a full postal office inside.

I got a safety deposit box, otherwise I may never need a brick and mortar bank again