Wisconsin just passed CCW!

[Riflemanz]

The state of Wisconsin just passed Concealed carry! What a wait! It's modeled after the Florida ccw.

[georgiaboy]

Congrats cheeseheads!!!
Now go out and getcha one!!!!

[strum]

Congrats cheeseheads!!!
Now go out and getcha one!!!!

yeah then get yourself a under the coat holster for your excal

[DirtyGun]

Wish we had this happen in Canada. Sadly, pigs would fly, Hell would freeze over and the Leafs would win the Stanley Cup first.

[Riflemanz]

I got my laser on my Glock 19.

[strider23]

Glad that Wisconsin saw the light with CCW. Now I hope that they will see the light with crossbow inclusion.

[GaryM]

That leaves my state, the People's Republic of Illinois, aka Madiganistan, as the only state in the Union left that doesn't have CCW. With socialist (democrat) contolled Cook Co. (Chicago) now having a higher population and rampant voter fraud, the more conservative downstate area will probably never have the votes to pass CCW here. As soon as my wife retires we are moving!

[j.krug]

Congrats on the CCW!
Nice little Glock you got there too...although I'm not to sure Bambi agrees!!

[FLA-XBOW]

Thats one of the only things our law makers(Florida) did right is they are really laid back with gun laws, un like Chicago who actually banned hand guns(got turned over of course cause it was unconstitutional). So congrats! and go exercise your second amendment right to bear arms!

[badredbird]

i bear legs too!!!glad to see it, wv has good gun friendly laws also, my favorite is the castle law like fla , you dont have to etreat to furthers coner of the house , alls ya got to do is reload whe they break in so you can finish the job!!!!i feel for those canadiens , think a place like that would be gun friendly, could be worse in aussie they trying to take out xbows

[j.krug]

I like the sounds of the castle law.
Here in Canada there is no such thing and you have to do everything possible to avoid having to resort to physical or deadly force to protect yourself.
Even then you need to be worried about being charged if you do defend yourself.
Kind of silly and sad I think.

[philman]

I like the sounds of the castle law.
Here in Canada there is no such thing and you have to do everything possible to avoid having to resort to physical or deadly force to protect yourself.
Even then you need to be worried about being charged if you do defend yourself.
Kind of silly and sad I think.

Agree 100%!

[jgforestry]

CCW is a great option to have available. Nice to be able to carry in every state. One key thing to remember is that there is a lawyer attached to every bullet.

[DirtyGun]

I like the sounds of the castle law.
Here in Canada there is no such thing and you have to do everything possible to avoid having to resort to physical or deadly force to protect yourself.
Even then you need to be worried about being charged if you do defend yourself.
Kind of silly and sad I think.

And every court case that comes up with a homeowner defending their home and being charged tends to lead to dropped charges, such as in the recent case of one Ian Thomson, from Port Colbourne, who defended his home against three individuals throwing moltave cocktails at his house by firing rounds over their head and was charged with Dangerous Use of a Firearm.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... criminals/

The charge was dropped. In fact, all charges were dropped, except for the ones regarding unsafe storage. Why were they dropped, you might ask? Well, the law has something called 'precedent'. The last thing the Crown wanted was Thomson to go to trial and be found innocent on the charges regarding using a firearm, especially a handgun, to defend his home. It would have opened the door to changing the legislation in order to allow all citizens to protect their home, in the case of being faced with serious harm or death, without penalty.

Rarely do you see a homeowner convicted after being charged in such cases. But, that doesn't stop the hassle of being charged and paying lawyer's fees to protect yourself.

[j.krug]

I like the sounds of the castle law.
Here in Canada there is no such thing and you have to do everything possible to avoid having to resort to physical or deadly force to protect yourself.
Even then you need to be worried about being charged if you do defend yourself.
Kind of silly and sad I think.

And every court case that comes up with a homeowner defending their home and being charged tends to lead to dropped charges, such as in the recent case of one Ian Thomson, from Port Colbourne, who defended his home against three individuals throwing moltave cocktails at his house by firing rounds over their head and was charged with Dangerous Use of a Firearm.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... criminals/

The charge was dropped. In fact, all charges were dropped, except for the ones regarding unsafe storage. Why were they dropped, you might ask? Well, the law has something called 'precedent'. The last thing the Crown wanted was Thomson to go to trial and be found innocent on the charges regarding using a firearm, especially a handgun, to defend his home. It would have opened the door to changing the legislation in order to allow all citizens to protect their home, in the case of being faced with serious harm or death, without penalty.

Rarely do you see a homeowner convicted after being charged in such cases. But, that doesn't stop the hassle of being charged and paying lawyer's fees to protect yourself.

I had been following that story a bit but had not yet heard that the charges were dropped.
Good to hear that, but as you mentioned it was a huge hassle for him to go through.

For those that are interested there is some great reading on gun laws and our rights on the Canadian Shooting Sports Association website.