State Sen. Lena Taylor
Press Release

Sen. Taylor stands with 91% of Wisconsinites and against GOP repeal of training and permits for conceal carry gun owners

GOP legislators seemed determined to move forward regardless of the will of the people.

By - Jun 1st, 2017 03:35 pm
Gun

Gun

(MADISON) – On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety held a public hearing on Senate Bill 169 – repeal of permits, training, school zones and more for gun owners.  While hundreds of Wisconsinites emailed, called and showed up for the public hearing on the bill that would allow individuals to carry weapons without a permit into school zones, GOP legislators seemed determined to move forward regardless of the will of the people.

Repeatedly in the committee, Taylor asked speaker after speaker if they believed constitutional rights should be unfettered, using freedom of speech and voting rights to expose the hypocrisy of the authors, committee members, and proponents of the bill. Senators Risser and Taylor not only exposed the bill’s elimination of ALL training requirements, the state’s protection of school zones, but also prohibitions at hospitals, and police departments. Taylor insisted:

“The issue is not about anyone being against the right to self-defense, or one’s second amendment rights, but instead about reasonable regulations as our state and nation have always supported.”

In committee, Taylor discussed the regulation balance in our nation, from those created in Colonial Boston, when storage of gun powder was established; to the Supreme Court’s refusal to provide individual’s an unfettered right to bear from 1876 to 1939 four times, to what seemed to be the constant quote of the day,  Justice Scalia in the Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision, where he said, “we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

Senator Taylor left the hearing to attend the Joint Committee on Finance executive session, but said, “let me make it clear, I STAND WITH THE 91 percent of OUR PEOPLE who support our present training, requirements unlike my Republican colleagues!”

Mentioned in This Press Release

Recent Press Releases by State Sen. Lena Taylor

Sen. Taylor to GOP “Get it Together!”

"The budget is late, lacks leadership, and, above all, offers no responsible solutions to the problems plaguing education and transportation, institutions Wisconsinites depend on."

Sheriff Clarke Should Withdraw from Public Service

"It was absurd for the Trump Administration to have offered Clarke any position in the first place."

“Safety First, Correcting Corrections by Limiting Overtime”

This motion would prohibit a corrections employee from working more than two consecutive shifts.

37 thoughts on “Sen. Taylor stands with 91% of Wisconsinites and against GOP repeal of training and permits for conceal carry gun owners”

  1. Rich.... says:

    where are other comments posted?

  2. Rich.... says:

    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is: https://vimeo.com/60944105

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of h ell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the free sample of heroin.

  3. Rich.... says:

    moderation is censorship

  4. Rich.... says:

    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

  5. Jay Eimer says:

    So I have to have training on legal self defense laws to carry a gun in public or else I’m not safe, huh? NEWSFLASH – I don’t need a permit to defend myself from a home invader, but otherwise all the same laws apply!

    I can’t be the aggressor.
    I can’t use more force than necessary
    The threat must be real (reasonable – a rational person (or a jury) must think it is credible.
    And it must be immediate – the guy screaming at me from across the street with a baseball bat is a threat, but not an immediate one until he charges me.

    If I shoot him AFTER I yell and he runs, I’m going to jail.
    If I shoot the pizza guy delivering the pizza my roommate ordered, I’m going to jail.
    If I pick a fight with my neighbor, then pull a gun when he starts winning I go to jail.

    It’s my RESPONSIBILITY to know all this, and how to put shots on target under pressure (because I will be held responsible for every bullet I fire, whether it hits or not)!

    But all of this can be learned for free, and most responsible gun owners do so, even if they never get a permit and never carry in public. There’s no reason for the state to charge a fee for it.

  6. Vincent Hanna says:

    Yeah they can watch a YouTube video! Now let’s get rid of a driver’s license too.

  7. Rich says:

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

  8. ExNuke says:

    If 91% of the people wanted to reinstate slavery would that make it permissible?

  9. Rich says:

    The Gun Control Lie – The Firearms Coalition..

    Gun Control advocates are compulsive liars..

    Let’s dissect some of the lies:

    1. Over 90% (almost 90%, close to 90%) of Americans support “universal background checks,” as do various large percentages of gun owners and NRA members.

    Gun control groups are based in lies. They call themselves “violence prevention” and “gun safety” groups even though the only violence prevention and gun safety policies they espouse are restrictions on legal access to firearms. They lie about who they are, what they stand for, and what they want. They use lies to press their agenda, and they lie about what that agenda is and what impact it would have. They are liars through and through, and it is ridiculous that the media and politicians promote and parrot the lies.

    The truth is, Gun Control Doesn’t.

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php/knoxupdate/670-gun-control

  10. Vincent Hanna says:

    Rich that site appears straight out of 1998 and looks as credible as an Alex Jones story.

  11. Rich says:

    Hmm…time to switch to UM membership and get a real user name here. My “pseudonym” for posting has just been hijacked by a gun nut.

  12. Armatus Rebellio says:

    It’s amazing there are ANY GOP legislators in office with 91% against them.

    Me thinks one doth speak from ones anus.

    This is a desperate bid to normalize the lies.
    “The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

  13. Rich says:

    Armatus and Vincent are nothing less than gun confiscating marxists
    who were drawn out and into the open….

  14. Vincent Hanna says:

    Yes that’s me I’ve already confiscated some guns today and I’m rereading The Communist Manifesto for the thousandth time.

  15. Wisconsin voters already voted for Constitutional Carry in 1998. It passed with 74% of the vote. Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution:

    “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

    Rights do not require mandatory permits with fees and training.

  16. Barry Hirsh says:

    First pass literacy and reading comprehension training requirements in order to exercise the right to vote, then get back to us.

    Do that, and maybe we’ll listen. *yawn*

    [crickets chirping]

  17. Rita Reinke says:

    Wow; hard to read all the above posts…It seems people really want to carry guns…lots of fear out there. Seems to me the constitution mentioned guns, but the purpose was not for personal safety; it was to protect citizens from the British ?. To quote the Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (muskets), shall not be infringed.” In 1792, just four years after ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Madison and Washington two key Framers of the document saw nothing wrong with mandating Americans to buy certain products in the private market, including muskets. It was simply a practical way for the government to arm militias to put down insurrections and defend against foreign enemies.I didn’t realize we were a militia, and if we are, we need to be “well- regulated”…I don’t see that happening in our day if there is no training, etc. Basically, with no license, training, etc, we are really just a bunch of trigger happy ruffians.

  18. Tom D says:

    Rich (post 7):

    If you believe that “The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary,” that means you believe that:

    • Mississippi could legally re-institute slavery

    and

    • Illinois could legally prohibit all privately-owned firearms

    and

    • “Sanctuary Cities” are legal if approved by their State

    Do you really believe all these things???

  19. Adam says:

    Wow. Reading through these comments- the gun humpers sure are a touchy, paranoid lot.
    Read @Rita Reinke’s extremely sane, rational analysis of the constitution regarding guns.
    That the right for citizens to form militias and defend themselves with muskets against foreign invaders or a tyrannical government back in the 18th century; has been twisted into I shall have the freedom to brandish a fully automatic assault rifle when I walk into a crowded Starbucks in the 21st century- is literally insanity.
    Contrary to these John Wayne delusionists beliefs, packing heat does not make a better citizen or a patriot. It makes you an increased risk to the rest of civilized society.

  20. Vincent Hanna says:

    Not to mention that less than a week before the attack in London there was a mass shooting in this country that claimed more lives, and it’s already long out of the news. The mass shooting in Florida yesterday will also be out of the news by the weekend.

  21. Rita Reinke says:

    Thank you Adam…and for those who say “It’s not guns that kill people; it’s people”..I have to respond, “It’s guns AND people who kill people.” The only conclusion I can make is that with few guns, we will have fewer murders and woundings. And think of all the folks who now suffer from medical problems and PTSD after murders and woundings…

  22. Rich says:

    Tom..slavery is now part of this debate…..please

    Can States Stand Against Federal Tyranny?

    First and foremost, The John Birch Society advocates states stand against federal tyranny to protect its citizens in areas that the Constitution has not granted power over to the federal government. A state needs to merely point to the Constitution as a foundation for its act of nullification. Others are placing teeth in their efforts through legislative means to officially notify Washington, DC.

    http://www.jbs.org/mobile/jbs-news/featured-news/item/18208-can-states-stand-against-federal-tyranny

  23. Rich says:

    the gun grabbers live on Urban Milwaukee..

    Rita baby…..what dont you understand about “SHALL NOT INFRINGE”
    you should have been defenseless on the London Bridge…
    youre a commie mental health gun grabber!!

    Rita and Adam – hang GUN FREE SIGNS on your home!!
    ————————————————————————————
    There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”

    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

    BEWARE, BEWARE

  24. Rich says:

    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

  25. Rich says:

    Well regulated is an adverb which modifies the militia. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is applied to the people. How it works is simple. We do not serve in a militia to be able to exercise the right. We exercise the right to be ready to serve in a militia should the need arise.

    BTW, the Oxford English Dictionary of 1690 defines “regulated”, when in regards to troops, as disciplined and well trained. That is how the militia clause should be read, as a well trained, disciplined militia.

    William Rawle, appointed to be PA United States Attorney in 1791 by Geo. Washington, also wrote a book which became the Constitutional Law textbook for West Point Military Academy, as well as other institutions. Concering the term “well regulated”, he said this.

    “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A DISORDERLY MILITIA is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such REGULATION as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.”

    Concerning the right to arms, he said the following:

    “The prohibition is general. NO CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION COULD BY ANY RULE OF CONSTRUCTION BE CONCEIVED TO GIVE TO CONGRESS ANY POWER TO DISARM THE PEOPLE. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

  26. Rich says:

    Ask the 40 million or more slaughtered, or starved/worked to death ethnic members of the Soviet Union murdered by the Soviet Communist regimes from 1917 through 1991, or the 70 million or so Chinese who were also murdered or starved to death by “Chairman Mao”, and the nearly 50% of Cambodia’s population (its teachers, government officials, etcetera), murdered, worked to death or starved to death by the Pol Pot regime after it seized control of Cambodia about 1975-1976.

    As George Mason commented in the Virginia state ratification convention of the US Constitution in 1788, “…the most effectual way to enslave the people is to disarm them.”

  27. Rita Reinke says:

    Your comment :”That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A DISORDERLY MILITIA is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such REGULATION as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.”
    Well, we are not regulated, disciplined, or good soldiers. I’m sorry you are so vehement in your statements.

  28. Rita Reinke says:

    PS; all the guns and mayhem ARE “dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country.” I probably won’t be posting anymore about this…I’ll just agree to disagree with you.

  29. Rich says:

    Rita….oh, you are not vehement….please
    “lots of fear out there. ”

    then you thank Adam who posted
    “the gun humpers sure are a touchy, paranoid lot.”
    “Contrary to these John Wayne delusionists beliefs, packing heat does not make a better citizen or a patriot. It makes you an increased risk to the rest of civilized society.”

    Rita ……. SHALL NOT INFRINGE

  30. Rich says:

    Rita: PS; all the guns and mayhem ARE “dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country.” I probably won’t be posting anymore about this…

    post the above pile of crap to the unarmed women whose throats were cut on the London Bridge!!

  31. Rich says:

    There is no such thing as “gun violence”. This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.
    And, since the term “gun violence” is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue – controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.
    Anyone who doesn’t realize and/or acknowledge this isn’t thinking, s/he is ‘feeling’, and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody ‘feels’.

  32. daniel golden says:

    The 5 to 4 decision by the late Justice Scalia creating the individual right to bear arms was not absolute. Even Scalia recognized the right and necessity for reasonable regulation of weapons. There is no right granted in the Constitution that is absolute. Even the fundamental right of free speech does not allow its unrestricted exercise. Those who advocate even more guns with less restrictions in an already violent national culture are responsible for making many of our urban areas dangerous and uninhabitable. The Second Amendment does not give every insecure loony the right to parade around in public and destroy the peaceful environment for families with children who simply wish to enjoy a public outing in peace. Guns are not allowed in the U. S. Supreme Court chambers, and never will be.

  33. Rich says:

    Daniels words: “The Second Amendment does not give every insecure loony the right to parade around in public and destroy the peaceful environment for families with children who simply wish to enjoy a public outing in peace. ”

    Daniel tell that to the disarmed peoples of Europe who had their throats slashed over the weekend!
    This site is loaded with gun confiscation Hoplophobes……….

    Gun Free Zones are killing zones..
    Mindless gun-free zones are what mass shootings have in common. They are killing zones, free from good guys with guns. That’s why the Aurora movie theater killer chose the more distant theater where guns were not allowed and thus where he wouldn’t have to worry about his plan being foiled.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    “Second Amendment right is not unlimited… Scalia’s comment ”

    Anti-gunners interpret this “limit” statement to be a green light to ban any firearms they don’t like. Another interpretation is that if you misuse a firearm or kill someone illegally you can be denied your right to own any firearms and be put in jail or executed. By the way, this “comment” was not part of the legal ruling – it was Scalia’s personal opinion (i.e. a dicta)

  34. Rich says:

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!!!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

  35. Tom D says:

    Rich,

    Do you REALLY believe in an absolute right to bear “arms” (whatever “arm” means)?

    For example, do you believe in a Constitutional right to own ANY kind of “arm”? Machine gun? Surface-to-air missile? Atomic Bomb? After all, each of these is an “arm”, isn’t it? (Of course the founders couldn’t conceive of any of these, but then again they couldn’t conceive of a semi-automatic rifle either.)

    And what exactly does “bear” mean?

    Does it mean you get to keep one at home? Or does it also mean you have a right to carry it with you everywhere?

    And why stop at mere carrying? Do you believe that you have a Constitutional right to point it at others (provided you don’t actually pull the trigger)? Isn’t pointing a weapon part of “bearing” it??

    Finally, what does the 2nd Amendment mean by the word “people”? Does it mean every human being within the US? Even the certifiably insane? Do you believe every 3-year-old has a Constitutional right to carry a loaded Glock to pre-school?

  36. Rich says:

    Tom….i refuse to play word games with a gun grabber……many on this page would collect every gun out there but dont have the stones to admit it! Your little exercise is juvenile..

    but i will play your game to a point…

    1 – “insanity”…crazy, insane, a loon, batshit, you name it.. – that is a declaration of complete severance, and should be reserved only for those sad, sad cases for which it is true.

    2 – Your reference to 3year olds and glocks continues to prove what you are!!

    3 – for the reading impaired:
    Gun Free Zones are killing zones..
    Mindless gun-free zones are what mass shootings have in common. They are killing zones, free from good guys with guns. That’s why the Aurora movie theater killer chose the more distant theater where guns were not allowed and thus where he wouldn’t have to worry about his plan being foiled.

  37. Rita Reinke says:

    Just a note to say Thank You to Tom and Daniel’s comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *