Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

Wisconsin Legislature nixes four-hour handgun training rule

(GunReports.com) -- Applicants to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin will no longer have to complete four hours of training, after a Republican-controlled legislative committee voted Monday to do away with the requirement arbitrarily put in place by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's Department of Justice.

Van Hollen testified this week in support of the rule, saying it was necessary since the Legislature had said only that training was required but didn't say how much. He said four hours was the industry standard and not having a minimum requirement would make it impossible for the DOJ to verify that applicants had completed any training.

Republicans who control the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules ignored Van Hollen's concerns and voted to suspend the rule effective immediately. The committee also removed a requirement that applicants have a signed statement from the instructor verifying that the course had been successfully completed.

As of Monday afternoon, 1,669 licenses to carry concealed weapons had been approved and 339 had been rejected, DOJ spokeswoman Dana Brueck said.

Also in Wisconsin, homeowners who shoot intruders would receive strong legal protection, under a bill recently approved by the state Senate and the Assembly.

GOP Gov. Scott Walker has said that he supports the bill in principle but will still review it before deciding whether to sign it.

Under the bill, courts in most criminal and civil matters would presume that property owners using deadly force had acted reasonably against anyone unlawfully inside their residence, business or vehicle, whether the trespasser was armed or not. The proposal is sometimes known as the "castle doctrine," a reference to the saying that one's home is one's castle.

Read more here: www.TwinCities.com.

Tweet

Reader Comments

In Michigan it's 8 hours. 4-on laws and 4-on the range. Based on my CPL class, there are some people who shouldn't even handle a firearm, much less carry one, concealed or otherwise... 4 is VERY reasonable.

Comment by: Slipstick | November 10, 2011

But is also sets up the need for bureaucratic sets of education laws, infrastructure, course materials, instructor training, vetting instructors, etc. ALL of which the State can control. Wisconsin can ill afford more Communist inspired control.... let nature weed out the incompetent.

Comment by: Gregory David Budzenski | November 10, 2011

@Greg: Horsepuckey. Our instructors are all private businessmen, not affiliated with the state, and all use the NRA Personal Protection In the Home course. Law section informs you about where/where not to carry and allowable shoot/no shoot scenarios.

I'd rather be informed than incarcerated.

My only gripe is the $105 state 'processing fee' to get the license paperwork done. Actual cost is more like $15, as everything is electronic, now, even the fingerprinting.

Comment by: Slipstick | November 10, 2011

@Greg - hope you're kidding. The guy who doesn't know how to shoot won't be weeded out -- the person he shoots by accident will.

Comment by: warprints | November 10, 2011

Well, I personally think nobody should carry a gun unless they are somewhat trained to use it. But without a requirement many people wouldn't bother and some might get themselves killed from their ignorance, or worse - kill someone they didn't intend to shoot. Also, many of the people most at risk (e.g. women, elderly) may be afraid of a gun even after getting a permit - which can only be corrected with familiarization a.k.a. training. So I think some requirement is appropriate - but I'm not sure how much training, or how it could be handled without creating some amount of bureaucracy. Maybe we should just make gun skills part of the high school curriculum?

Comment by: david b | November 10, 2011

Another tidbit for Greg: One of the people in our 'class' of 10 was refused certification and asked, (rather pointedly) to leave the range for repeated safety infractions.

My daughter, son-in-law and I came in 1-2-3 in range scores. That felt SO-O-O good!

Comment by: Slipstick | November 10, 2011

Thanks a lot Wisconsin. Now I probably can't carry my concealed weapon in your state and you certainly can't carry yours in Ohio. Ohio recognizes other state permits if, and only if those states have similar restrictions on who can get a permit and require equivalent training. Lacking reciprocity, will Wisconsin (and Arizona for that matter) still recognize my permit from Ohio?

Comment by: Chris C | November 10, 2011

There are some interesting and quite serious points to consider in this argument. I believe there should be some standard of proficiency that should be met if a license is to be issued. If, however, on the other hand we advocate a Constitutional Carry wherein no qualification is required, how can the states, in which that is law, ensure that safety and criminal background concerns are dealt with? Sometimes our fondest, most Utopian dreams give rise to the thought.....Be careful for what you wish. You might get it.

Comment by: canovack | November 10, 2011

@canovck: Amen! If we are going to have any permits, some limits are necessary. Otherwise anarchy reigns. If anarchy reigns, we don't need standards, as it's every man unto himself.

Comment by: Slipstick | November 10, 2011