by the sounds of it wisconsin is about to get its conceal carry law passed. it has passed the legislature and need only the gov to sign it, which he has said he would. that will leave only Illinois without some sort of a ccw law

Wisconsins law seems a bit better then MN's all non residences who have a vaild permit that had a back ground check and some training well be vaild in Wis.

Come and vist we well enjoy all legal carriers.

Here's a case that will probably make it to the Supremes. Could have a significant impact on that one remaining state.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news...-case-123840469.html

What we need is a Federal Law, that makes ANY CC Permint, from ANY State, Valid ANYWHERE in the USA, including PR, and our other island possessions.

Congrads to Wisconsin, The commies in Chicago will never let CCW into Illinois.

quote:

Originally posted by Lapidary:
The commies in Chicago will never let CCW into Illinois.

Are you sure it isn't the commies, mob AND cops.?
CC would level the playing field with the gangs/mob and also take some action away from the union cops. You know how some love a monopoly.

quote:

What we need is a Federal Law, that makes ANY CC Permint, from ANY State, Valid ANYWHERE in the USA, including PR, and our other island possessions.

Maybe something like this?

Urge Your Representative To Cosponsor H.R. 822, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

Friday, April 08, 2011

Updated 6/3/2011

Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have introduced vital legislation that will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

There are now only two states that have no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Thirty-nine states have shall-issue permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems.

H.R. 822 would make a major step forward for gun owners’ rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized.

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

As of this writing, H.R. 822 has 236 cosponsors. Click here to see if your Congressman is a cosponsor. However, more support is needed to make this bill a higher priority.

If your Congressman is not yet a cosponsor, respectfully urge him or her to support the fundamental right to self-defense by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 822. If your Representative is already a cosponsor, please offer your thanks for his or her support. To read our fact sheet on H.R. 822, please click here. And remember to watch this alert for updates!

You may contact your Representative here.

As much as the idea of total CCW reciprocity among the states appeals to me, I do not want the Federal government overriding what is strictly the purview of the states.

The strongest argument against a federal ban on CCW is that it is a states' rights issue.

George

George, I understand your argument, but if the Feds can prohibit you from growing wheat and feeding it to your own cattle because you will not have to buy wheat to feed your cattle, they can already regulate anything they wish. Afterall, if someone gets a concealed carry permit, they might buy a gun that was manufactured across states line. This would "affect commerce", and the second ammendment be dammed.

AS,

That is yet another example of Federal intrusion, something I am trying to avoid with regard to CCW.

George

I have to agree with George on this one. If the Feds "take over" what is allowed, or reciprocal, for CCW in all states, then they can just as easily deny it, given a different climate. They need to stay out of it.

http://www.wisn.com/r/28774396/detail.html

Maybe this incident will have some influence in the decisions.

Remember it took some presure from the feds to get all the states to reconize each others drivers Lic and registrations on vehicles.

Depending how it is worded it good be a good thing or not

One doses have to be wary of the Feds involment

George, you couldn't be afraid that Barbra Boxer would propose something like this:

Federal carry law would be bad for gun rights and Constitution

Across the river in Illinois, the argument is being made that the carrying of defensive firearms should be regulated at the federal level. Says Tim West, writing for the Naperville Sun-Times:


What it seems to me to be the best solution would be a federal concealed carry law that would apply to all the states.

That way, someone who travels from one state to another with a legal firearm wouldn’t have to worry that he or she might be breaking the law in some state to which they may travel, even though they are in compliance with the law in their own state.

That many Illinois residents are frustrated at living in the only state* to outright ban defensive firearm carry, whether open or concealed, is quite understandable. The "choice" of being unequipped to defend oneself and one's family from violent attack, on the one hand, or of becoming a "gun criminal" on the other, is a grim one indeed.

Still, Mr. West's proposal threatens to be a "cure" worse even than the disease of mandated defenselessness. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced a federal concealed carry bill. Sen. Boxer's S. 176, the "Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011," would basically make California's "may issue" system of issuing concealed carry permits a matter of federal law. The biggest problem with a "may issue" system, of course, is that it is also a system of "may not issue," for whatever reason (or no reason) the official(s) in charge of granting (or not) the permits wishes. In fact, Boxer codified that into her bill, with one of the requirments to be met for issuance of a permit being that the applicant . . .


(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;

In other words, no "shall issue," anywhere in the country, and just don't even think about Constitutional carry, whereby one who wishes to equip oneself for defense of self and family has no need to humbly (abjectly is probably more accurate) ask for (and pay for) a permission slip granting him what has been reduced from a right to a privilege. Sorry, Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming--you're out of luck.

Granted, no federal firearm carry law nearly as restrictive as Sen. Boxer's is likely to pass, and indeed, S. 176 has yet to attract a single cosponsor in the approximately six and a half months since its introduction. On the other hand, no concealed carry law as progressive as Constitutional carry is likely to pass at the federal level, either, meaning the final product would be somewhere in between. Basically, residents of some forward-thinking states would lose ground, and be placed under the thumb of more restrictive gun laws than are inflicted on them now.

Perhaps more fundamentally, such a law would be an utter surrender of the Constitutional high ground. Even without the Second Amendment (and how would one reconcile regulation of firearms carry with shall not be infringed?), what Constitutional authority would be cited as empowering Congress to impose such regulation? The interstate commerce clause (which is used and abused for just about every other usurpation Congress can't justify in any other way)?

Illinois residents are entirely justified in their resentment of (mostly Chicago-area) politicians who hold hostage their Consitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, but not justified in trying to dilute their oppression, by distributing it across the entire country.

*It should be noted that some "may issue" states, such as Hawaii, are so unwilling to issue permits that they are the functional equivalent of a "no issue" state (a category that now officially includes only Illinois). Still, that Hawaii at least theoretically provides a process by which private citizens can legally carry a defensive firearm puts it in a slightly different category.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Federal carry law would be bad for gun rights and Constitution - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri...tution#ixzz1UjeG9tcS

Heaven forbit that a CA Pol would want to take carry rights away from then entire country?