How Dumb Can You Be

Pam Galloway (R Wausau) came out today saying that JB Van Hollen had over reached in his interpretation of the concealed carry law because he was requiring a 4 hour training period. She went on to say that no where in the law does it talk about a 4 hour training period. That is because Pam, it says that training is required, no specifics given. Keep in mind Pam, That the Gov. said that he would not sign any legislation that did not have a training component in it. So Pam, if you don't want the people charged with enforcing the law legislating from the bench maybe the next time you write a law that is so incredibly vague that it must be interpreted you'll do a better job. Your constituents would probably in the future actually really appreciate clear, concise legislation instead of the overly broad and vague law that is concealed carry.

Concealed Carry

Wisconsin has begun debate on concealed carry again. But, unlike last time we now allow (or at least have ruled) extensive open carry. There are 2 competing bills. One would require a license the other would require nothing. As we all know there are 3 clauses in the 2nd Amendment and as far as I can tell the issue of licenses can't possibly be inferred from it. So, the correct bill is the one that allows concealed carry with no restrictions. One sheriff has gone on record as saying that we need licenses so that we now who is carrying. Doesn't that defeat one of the arguments that the NRA (who supports licenses, go figure) uses to fight gun control? The NRA believes that the Government can't know who has guns in case we start a revolution but yet they support allowing Government to know who is carrying a gun. I don't understand the sheriffs wanting to now who is carrying when these same sheriffs were all for open carry. If you are going to allow open carry without documentation why be restrictive on concealed carry? Of course, this gets us to the point of why do you need to concealed carry when you can open carry with no restrictions?