Wisconsin Senate passes bill to scrap 48-hour wait period for handgun purchases

Yet another in my line up of posts about gun laws becoming geared more towards the people and the law!

Source

The Wisconsin Senate voted on Tuesday to repeal the state's 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases.

The bill now moves to the Assembly. Gov. Scott Walker has indicated he will sign it into law.

Under current law, adopted in 1976, anyone attempting to purchase a handgun cannot acquire it until 48 hours after a background check has been started. If the Department of Justice needs more time to complete the background check, it can extend the wait by up to three days.

Under Sen. Van Wanggaard's bill, people will be able to take possession of handguns as soon as they clear the background check, in many cases, in a matter of hours. An amendment to the bill would allow the DOJ to take up to five days to complete a background check.

Currently, there is no waiting period for rifle purchases in Wisconsin. Wanggaard, a Racine Republican, has noted that as an argument in support of his bill.

He has said the handgun wait requirement is effectively a "time tax." Wanggaard has also noted that 42 other states have no such waiting period.

I see this as a good move. As stated in the article, 42 other states have no such waiting period. There is an initial check, and in most cases those with carry licenses have been thoroughly checked. I find it strange that they had this law in place ONLY for handguns and not rifles, when rifles have been the hot topic of shootings for a long time.

Go Wisconsin!!!!!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I like this as well. If you've already passed your background check, then what is the point of withholding the gun from you in the first place? So you don't use it in a crime? Well you JUST passed a background check, how many first time criminals go out and buy the gun they are planning on using in their crime from a gun store in the first place? And the ones who do, how hard is it for them to wait the two days anyways? This was an unnecessary restriction and it is a good thing it is going away.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
As stated in the article, 42 other states have no such waiting period. There is an initial check, and in most cases those with carry licenses have been thoroughly checked.

I live in one of the most restrictive states in the country. I have to obtain a firearms ID card and then get a separate purchasing card for a ONE TIME use per handgun (you can ask for more but need to fill out a separate line item for each handgun). After that I have to buy within six months and when making the purchase they run my name through the NICS system. This is way more than I should be doing and I think it is absurd if I had to wait another 48 hours on top of that.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because you can conceal a handgun on your person. A long barrel rifle, not so much.

The focus is "assault rifles" (able to penetrate body armor) and "handguns" (can be hidden until close) to protect LEOs and Politicians.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
As stated in the article, 42 other states have no such waiting period. There is an initial check, and in most cases those with carry licenses have been thoroughly checked.

I live in one of the most restrictive states in the country. I have to obtain a firearms ID card and then get a separate purchasing card for a ONE TIME use per handgun (you can ask for more but need to fill out a separate line item for each handgun). After that I have to buy within six months and when making the purchase they run my name through the NICS system. This is way more than I should be doing and I think it is absurd if I had to wait another 48 hours on top of that.

Wow..that is ridiculous to say the least. I understand the importance of a background check, but that seems WAY overboard.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yeah, it is basically three checks for one gun.

Good, in my state you can purchase immediately. After you show your state issued permit to purchase and pass an federal background(NICS) check. I don't see the purpose of waiting 48 hours when there are already ample measure in place.

Then again, most would have you believe you can just stumble into a store. Throw a jar of pennies on the counter and get a gun without any "precautions" in place. But of course, those people are ignorant.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because you can conceal a handgun on your person. A long barrel rifle, not so much.

The focus is "assault rifles" (able to penetrate body armor) and "handguns" (can be hidden until close) to protect LEOs and Politicians.

Any rifle can be an assault rifle. Not arguing your point. Their thinking just amazes me that an AR 15 is deemed so dangerous, when my 30-06 is far more powerful but because it doesn't LOOK all futuristic with all that aftermarket crap its perfectly OK.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
But of course, those people are ignorant.

The same ones that think we all have .88 magnums.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MisterSpock
But of course, those people are ignorant.

The same ones that think we all have .88 magnums.

And .50 Caliber rifles because we can all make kill shots at a mile and need to penetrate engine blocks and manhole covers.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because you can conceal a handgun on your person. A long barrel rifle, not so much.

The focus is "assault rifles" (able to penetrate body armor) and "handguns" (can be hidden until close) to protect LEOs and Politicians.

How does an "assault rifle"(basically a type of design) make it so that any(apparently) bullet(caliber) has the necessary ballistics and physical composition to penetrate body armor?

If I fire a 223 through a "assault rifle" it will penetrate body armor but if I fire it through a bolt action hunting rifle it will not?

I'm not too familiar with these types of things so I'd love a bit of help, if you could.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because you can conceal a handgun on your person. A long barrel rifle, not so much.

The focus is "assault rifles" (able to penetrate body armor) and "handguns" (can be hidden until close) to protect LEOs and Politicians.

How does an "assault rifle"(basically a type of design) make it so that any(apparently) bullet(caliber) has the necessary ballistics and physical composition to penetrate body armor?

If I fire a 223 through a "assault rifle" it will penetrate body armor but if I fire it through a bolt action hunting rifle it will not?

I'm not too familiar with these types of things so I'd love a bit of help, if you could.

That's kinda the point. Its all ridiculous and most of us wonder how theses people can burn so much time and money on dumb sh*t. Idle hands I suppose

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because you can conceal a handgun on your person. A long barrel rifle, not so much.

The focus is "assault rifles" (able to penetrate body armor) and "handguns" (can be hidden until close) to protect LEOs and Politicians.

How does an "assault rifle"(basically a type of design) make it so that any(apparently) bullet(caliber) has the necessary ballistics and physical composition to penetrate body armor?

If I fire a 223 through a "assault rifle" it will penetrate body armor but if I fire it through a bolt action hunting rifle it will not?

I'm not too familiar with these types of things so I'd love a bit of help, if you could.

Doesn't make a difference what it is fired from. And it also depends on the body armor as far as what rounds it can take a hit from. It is more about how many rounds can be fired in succession from an "assault" rifle.

a reply to: MisterSpock

If I fire a 223 through a "assault rifle" it will penetrate body armor but if I fire it through a bolt action hunting rifle it will not?

There you go, the red herring of "assault rifles". Designed to get everyone on board how 'evil' black plastic military looking rifles are to be banned, but really in the end, any thing that fires hi velocity projectiles (including hunting rifles).

In other words they ban 'assault rifles' and then go, "Hey, this gun fires that bullet, too."

"Then we should ban them all!"

Get it?

Are any facts used when they try and come up with these reasons.

I don't see how an assault rifle firing multiple rounds would change the fact that the caliber being fired won't penetrate body armor.

a reply to: intrptr

That sounds like a plausible argument, if everyone you want to believe it has no knowledge of firearms in general.

I guess I'm just amazed they can find so many anti-gun supporters that have so much passion, but apparently don't bother to actually learn the first thing about what they are trying to change. Unless they just take everything they are told by their puppetmaster(politician) and consider that their "knowledgebase".

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because you can conceal a handgun on your person. A long barrel rifle, not so much.

The focus is "assault rifles" (able to penetrate body armor) and "handguns" (can be hidden until close) to protect LEOs and Politicians.

Any rifle can be an assault rifle. Not arguing your point. Their thinking just amazes me that an AR 15 is deemed so dangerous, when my 30-06 is far more powerful but because it doesn't LOOK all futuristic with all that aftermarket crap its perfectly OK.

Exactly. Focusing on military style weapons first so as not to piss off the whole of gun owners all at once.

After they make military "style" weapons illegal, then they focus on hi velocity bullets. Again carefully avoiding main stream American gun owners.

They constantly remind citizens they are not after your guns but really, they are.

a reply to: MisterSpock

That sounds like a plausible argument, if everyone you want to believe it has no knowledge of firearms in general.

Exactly. And the average American is reassured. After all the government has our best interests at heart… (coughs)

The 2nd amendment isn't just about protection from criminals. It was initially for citizens to have the capability of defending themselves from a corrupt government. To stand a chance against tyranny. Should there be a time period that people have to wait through in order to purchase a weapon? Absolutely. Let's be real here, people get angry and do stupid things. A waiting period could change the outcome.

Should assault rifles be legal? Absolutely. Considering the 2nd amendment was created in the case that we have to defend ourselves from tyranny, we would need those types of weapons and is our right to own them. Are background checks necessary? Absolutely. I went through all of that to purchase my Ruger .9mm here in Tennessee. Didn't bother me a bit.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Unless they just take everything they are told by their puppetmaster(politician) and consider that their "knowledge base".

Easy enough for those familiar with firearms to see. That and terms associated with them, like gun "crime" and gun "violence"…

"Hand" guns

"Assault" rifles

"Lethal" weapons

Those and others being repeated over and again to wash our minds clean of the need to associate crime with people rather than with the instrument they choose to commit crime.