The Need for Sensible Concealed Carry Legislation in Wisconsin
With a version of a concealed carry legislation making it's way through the Wisconsin legislature with impressive speed that would allow anyone to carry a concealed handgun without a permit or background check, it's time for the sensible people to get a little more involved on this. We don't need just any old Jane or Bob getting a gun and stuffing it in their pants.
Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn finally jumped into the debate yesterday calling for "adult supervision" from the Governor and explaining just what a disaster the legislation would be for law enforcement, especially in Wisconsin's largest city.
The chief of Wisconsin's largest police department issued his most scathing criticism of the state's proposed concealed-carry bill during a news conference Thursday.
Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn urged Gov. Scott Walker to "provide some adult supervision" and ensure that the final version of a concealed-carry bill outlines a strict permitting process for carrying guns and stipulations including basic training and not being a "criminal, drug abuser or insane." – jsonline.com
As usual I agree with the comments of Chief Flynn on this subject.
First off, I'm a supporter of reasonable gun rights. It may surprise some (because I'm labeled as a "LIBERAL!" after all) but I grew up around guns and regularly use my own to hunt and for the rare round of target practice. I was taught as a kid to respect the power a gun in your hands brings and hope the same for my kids soon.
What I don't support though are people just walking around with guns in their pockets with no training, no background checks and no permit. But that's what some Wisconsin Republicans are trying to ram through the legislature now under the "wrap it in a flag" label of "constitutional carry" and people are starting to take notice of how extreme this proposal really is.
There's nothing unreasonable about asking people to prove they can handle a weapon by taking a training class before they're allowed to put it in their pants and go to the supermarket, a park or an event like Summerfest with it. But this isn't reasonable legislation from a group of lawmakers who've gotten everything they wanted since taking over the state in November. Why simple pass a concealed carry law when you can push it further and just let people walk around with guns without a permit or training?
There's been no massive public outcry after all for this legislation. In fact, there's the beginning of a significant amount of pushback on the issue from law enforcement and I'm surprised to say right wing talk radio (although their motives are more to protect the GOP from the public blowback they know will occur than anything else).
The extremists pushing this legislation may try to harp on the "freedom" and "right" to bear arms. It's my hope that the more reasonable legislators will realize that there is a certain level of responsibility that also comes with any right and they balance out the right of a person to carry a weapon with the simple and reasonable responsibility of having basic weapons training and permitting.
Comments are closed.
Dan, You are on the wrong side of the argument on this one. Quit being so afraid of Americans. Bob and Jane are ok, really. Maybe you don’t trust yourself to carry a gun and that’s fine, but there are many of us who are perfectly capable of safely carrying a concealed weapon.
First off, I’m a supporter of reasonable gun rights.
Right, but your definition of reasonable is unreasonable.
“constitutional carry” and people are starting to take notice of how extreme this proposal really is.
oh yeah – REALLY extreme. Here is the basic law as written: If you can legally own a gun, you can legally carry it. Wow. Extreme indeed. Vermont, which allows constitution carry, must be a hell hole! Or how about Wyoming? I heard there are shootouts at noon every Friday.
There’s nothing unreasonable about asking people to prove they can handle a weapon by taking a training class before they’re allowed to put it in their pants
First off – their PANTS? uninformed. Second, it most definitely is unreasonable to require people to pay for a training class and/or permit.
There’s been no massive public outcry after all for this legislation.
If you leave the Milwaukee area once in a while (and not go to Madison), you will find many people have been seeking this legislation for years. Moreover, a great majority of Wisconsinites are in favor of concealed carry.
The extremists pushing this legislation may try to harp on the “freedom” and “right” to bear arms.
I am glad you think Americans that promote freedom and rights are extremists!
Like a lot of this measures supporters, you’re trying to link “freedom” with carrying a hidden handgun whereever you want with no permit or training.
That’s like saying your first amendment rights are being held back because you don’t have the “freedom” to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.
Then trying to tie in whatever support exists for traditional concealed carry w/ permitting as if there is the same level of support for this (hint: there’s not, even within the GOP).
I get where you’re coming from. You don’t think it’s extreme and because two states with the combined population of metro Milwaukee agree, case closed.
“Quit being so afraid of Americans. Bob and Jane are ok, really. Maybe you don’t trust yourself to carry a gun and that’s fine, but there are many of us who are perfectly capable of safely carrying a concealed weapon. ” Seriously? Yes, as lifelong owner who’s been trained, I don’t trust myself to carry a gun and that’s why I’m against people who have no experience or training! It’s because I’m afraid!!
..You’d fail freshman debate with that line of argument my friend.. anyways. You support it and find it completely reasonable and think everyone else is just like you, great. I disagree.
Everything in the Bill of Rights has limitations–you don’t have a first-amendment right to libel someone or print pornography where children can see it or to stand in the middle of 1-94 to protest the budget or to perform ritual animal sacrifice in a district not zoned for slaughterhouses, even if your sincerely held belief requires it. Time/place/manner restrictions have been upheld by courts at all levels for decades.
If I need a permit to exercise my freedom of speech and assembly (which you often do, for demonstrations involving more than a few people or amplified sound or whatever) why would it be any less constitutional for me to need a permit to exercise my freedom to bear arms?
This “constitutional carry” thing is a frame, not a fact.
Dan, I agree with the fact that there should be some limitations on concealed carry. Felons should not be able to obtain and possess handguns. Mentally ill people should not be able to obtain handguns. I also believe there should be some sort of training required to obtain and possess a handgun. The problem is, when a concealed carry bill was introduced several years ago it had many of the requirements you state in your post. Problem was Democrats railed against it and it was eventually shot down. Now that Republicans are in office and can push this legislation through, actually HAVING concealed carry isn’t being debated; it’s the requirements (or lack thereof) that is the issue. If it is the right thing to do now, why was there such partisanship a few years back?!?!? Also, would those on the left, that would like to put restrictions on this constitutional right, be willing to accept restrictions on voting (ie: voter ID)?!?!?! Somehow I doubt there would be a consistent opinion on that (honestly on either side of the aisle – since some Republicans do not want any restrictions on concealed carry, yet yell voter fraud every election). I am a proponent of having REASONABLE “restrictions” on both, as there is for every constitutional right we have…..
Dan, the reason it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater is because it is fraudulent. Liberals love to parrot this point, but it is not analogous. Case in point, Stacie parroted a similar point regarding libel.
That said, I would never patronize a gun store that does not require proof of knowledge before agreeing to sell a gun to a customer. We can argue over whether the government can or should mandate such things, but in principle I agree with you regarding training.
As for the “background check”… assuming that is specifically for criminal convictions, I have no problem with that either. If it’s more than that, I of course would object to it.
So you would object to a background check that might exclude permits for people with domestic abuse restraining orders, or mental illness?
@xoff As for the “background check”… assuming that is specifically for criminal convictions, I have no problem with that either. If it’s more than that, I of course would object to it.
Why do some of you support mentally ill people being able to carry hidden handguns? Arizona last winter anyone???
And of course there should be restrictions. While yelling “fire” may be fraud, it’s still a restriction. Same with permits for protests or demonstrations.
Yeah boy, your marker for what’s reasonable in this debate is exactly what makes you and those on your side unreasonable to the general public
How about a background check for people who are on heavy antidepressant medication or being treated for schizophrenia? You’re good with them carrying hidden handguns in large crowds?
@James No one “supports” mentally ill people carrying concealed handguns. But for those of us who are capable of thinking beyond talking points, we recognize that in that scenario there is no trial. There is simply a declaration by government. That is problematic. You cannot remove rights from someone without due process.
And it seems you still don’t get it with regard to yelling fire in a theater. There is no restriction on free speech in that scenario. There is a restriction on committing fraud. I am free to move, but I am not free to move my hand holding a knife into your chest. And the restriction of murder is not a restriction of free movement. They are entirely different acts with entirely different intents.
I find myself in the same place as always on this blog… entirely confused as to whether you people are just blinded by your own partisanship, or whether there is truly a genuine lack of understanding.
The “fire” in a crowded theater example is a poor example. Perhaps a more analogous example would be restrictions on the right to protest. After all, the 1st amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people to peacably assemble.” However, no one here would argue that it should be lawful for protesters to amass outside the house of a private individual at odd hours, loudly protesting and keeping the neighbors awake. In the same vein, no one would allow a group to protest on the interstate during rush hour, disrupting everyone’s commute. These are time, manner, place restrictions, and are totally constitutional and common sense.
The 2nd Amendment is not even as articulate as the 1st. Instead of a specific requirement that “Congress shall make no law” (Which, as I demonstrated, it can), the 2nd Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Even reading the Heller decision, it is obvious that this right is not absolute. Just as there are time, manner, and place restrictions on your right to free speech, there are similar restrictions to keeping and bearing arms.
I have to agree with Dan on this one. I have been around firearms my entire life and carry one often, either for duty or for hunting (and always keep a 12-gauge in the house, not loaded, but with three in the magazine). However, I can’t trust every Tom, Dick, and Harry who lives next to me to be (1) Safe in how they handle their firearm, (2) Proficient, both with their aim and their judgment, and (3) Knowledgeable of how their firearm actually operates. When teaching others how to hunt, I often inform them that the first rule of hunting is to treat every hunter as if he were loaded. The same goes for concealed carry. A drunk guy carrying a gun, with a Clint Eastwood fantasy, can be far more dangerous than a criminal. To prevent such problems, some simple training, tests, and background checks seem a small price to pay.
@JB Baby I mostly agree with what you have said. A key point here is that telling someone they need to understand how to use arms responsibly before they can bear arms (if this training requirement is not abused) is not infringing on anyone’s right to bear those arms, just like telling a protest group they can’t protest tonight but they can protest tomorrow does not infringe on their right to protest.
The “mentally ill” provision is very different. You’re going to get the people, like I did here, who yell “OMG how can you support giving mentally ill people guns!!!”, so it is not a politically safe thing to say, but ultimately the point is that telling someone they cannot ever bear arms is certainly an infringement on their rights. And the course of action that must be taken in order to do that is a trial, or some similar due process. I could go on about how our definition of “mentally ill” has changed radically over even the last 50 years, but it’s not necessary to do so. The bottom line is that you cannot take rights away from someone because you want to.
Personally, I find most voters to be unwise, irresponsible, and behaving in a way that negatively affects me. I would love to tell them all they can’t can’t vote unless they meet my personal standards of intelligence and responsibility. Luckily I don’t have the power to do that, and neither does the government, without due process.
I don’t understand what the rush is to flood the state with more guns. The concealed carry movement has been out there for a long time. Fortunately under Governor Doyle we had some common sense leadership. But now with Stupid Man Walking we are facing all the bad ideas that Republicans have been storing the past 8 years. I am glad that the Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn spoke up about this. Guns for all is a bad idea.
@mwarden
I concur with your requirement for some kind of due process, something the current system does not entirely take into consideration. For example, a Dr. could tell the DMV that you are no longer fit to drive, but you would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing to dispute such a claim, although in the meantime your license would be invalid. However, a “mental illness” list seems to currently be an unadjudicated roster of people who have been, at some point, diagnosed with an illness or prescribed certain medication. A reasonable solution would be to merely follow the standard used in the DMV/TSA no-fly list; that is a rebuttable presumption that prevents one from buying a gun when put on the list, but once cleared, they are ok.
However, that would require a system, funding, and workers to man it. As we all know, such things are totally wasteful, likely to be corrupted by union (thugs!), and an infringement on states rights.
Of course, I am being fasicious, but the likely result would be an under-funded and therefore poorly managed and staffed system that would likely exacerbate, rather than help the problem. Like the DMV example, where it can take a court order to get a driver’s license back, since the Dr.’s computer won’t talk with the DMV’s, which won’t talk with the court’s, which won’t talk with the police’s, all resulting in unnecessary and wasteful delays.
Minnesota has a fairly good (not the greatest) system, whereby one applies to their local police/sheriff for a pistol (or certain types of rifles) permit, and the police need a reason not to issue a permit. Is it a bitch to fill out the paperwork? Yes. But it does a fairly good job of forcing would-be criminals/insane people to purchase from other than reputable sources, where they will hopefully get guns obtained by other than reputable smiths.
@JB Baby I would be fine with a warrant-like process, where the government needs to show some threshold of evidence to an impartial judge before any action is taken, and of course the decision could be appealed. This does have a cost associated to it, but theoretically no more than today, as I can sue the government if my rights are violated without just cause. It would use processes that mirror those that already exist, so we’re talking about rounding error on an otherwise bloated government that spends a few million dollars to study which brand of toilets to buy in their tax offices. A small price to pay to respect one of those few rights that are constitutionally guaranteed.
The reason the DMV process is not appropriate is because driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed right, so you do not need due process before taking action to infringe on the privilege to drive. When taking away rights, the burden of justification is on the government; the burden is not on the individual to justify why he or she should have rights.
The problem with systems like Minnesota’s is: when the police do not have a valid reason not to issue the permit, but still don’t want to, then they will sit on the application for as long as possible.
Anyway, as with most interactions with you, I appreciate the sane, logical discussion.
@mwarden
What do you mean MOST!? LOL just kidding. I am the first to admit that I am not always the most logical. Something I blame (liberal!) on my friends Miller and Coors ;)
I see your point on the DMV process, as driving isn’t a constitutional right (after all, there were no cars back the, that we know of). I haven’t experienced the problem with the police sitting on a file, though I have heard of it. To cure such a defect, there is no simple answer. While I immediately thought “Writ of mandamus (i.e. a court compel a civil servant to carry out a ministerial function),” there is obviously some discretion involved in furnishing a permit to carry. So I’m not sure what the answer would be for a normal Joe. After all, who wants to sue the gov’t for something that might not happen, and then still be liable for costs!
I can’t really think of a simple answer to this complex problem. Do you have a suggestion or answer, as I am swamped.
I think we can agree with several issues, however. If you are a (1) convicted violent felon/misdemeanor, a (2) incompetent or mentally deranged individual, or (3) a person who will not verify that such purchased weapons shall not be used against government officials carrying out their official duties, under additional penalty of law; then you should not be able to legally purchase a firearm.
This is a sticky-wicket, as most complex problems are and can’t readily be solved with a two-page Congressional-bill. So I am always open to suggestions.
The main point here is that by mandating a permit or training program it opens the door for later gun registration,and then something else ,Etc.in States where there is no permit/training mandate such as Florida The vast majority of carry residents get training on their own. and as for the Chief of police in Milwaukee,he first needs to look at who is commiting the crimes in his city You can bet it is not legal gun owners.We must not open the door for further regulations by giving in at the onset.And remember if you buy a handgun legally like a non criminal would do, there are already background checks done why make the taxpayer pay again!
@Dan .. I think you have completely given up formulating a reasonable argument. You just call names like freshman and say things like “You …. think everyone else is just like you”. Nice.
Traditional concealed carry
Traditional concealed carry is without permit or training, Dan. The concealed carry you are in favor of allows for more government bureaucracy, which I am fundamentally against.
Permit and training will do nothing, really. The only thing it will do is allow for the state to play games with permit fees and costly training.
I get where you’re coming from. You don’t think it’s extreme and because two states with the combined population of metro Milwaukee agree, case closed.
Umm .. I don’t understand the population argument because you know I can just add more states that have constitution carry which will push the population above Metro Milwaukee. Does that somehow prove my point? Disprove it? The population argument is irrelevant. The point is that constitution carry is alive and well and in those places there are not the problems you fear.
@James Yeah boy, your marker for what’s reasonable in this debate is exactly what makes you and those on your side unreasonable to the general public
My marker is this .. if you can legally purchase a handgun, you can carry it. That’s unreasonable to you?
What do you think a permit and training will accomplish?
Permit and training will do nothing, really.
Except ensure that those who are allowed to keep hidden handguns in public are trained on how to use a gun and checked to make sure they should be allowed to do so (felons, mentally ill, etc). But heaven forbid “government bureaucracy” get in the way of that! Some of us actually understand the role of regulation for certain things like this, and it’s to make sure that someone who shouldn’t be carrying a hidden gun into a park, supermarket or highly popularized area isn’t. That’s MY right too, and something that apparently has no impact on this discussion.
I mean heaven forbid (again) that we allow bureaucracy to get in the way of licensing people to hunt or drive on the road or walk around with a hand grenade in their hand or be able to buy C4 or fly a plane or put a power plant in their yard or raise cattle or sell milk or run a business or transmit a tv station or dump sewage into the lake or put jet engines on their cars!
About Wyoming: Your argument that because small states with small urban populations have X problem/success means that it should apply to states with large urban populations is misguided. It’s the reason that sparsely populated states like those have 75MPH speed limits and those with larger amounts of people don’t. Just because something works in one state doesn’t mean it will or should work in another.
As to your final question, “What do you think a permit and training will accomplish?” I think it will prevent people who shouldn’t be able to carry a hidden handgun from doing so. And yes, that means tighter restrictions on the sale of handguns, especially if you can put one in your pocket and walk to a playground with it.
” Just because something works in one state doesn’t mean it will or should work in another.”
Agree. I am glad to hear you are such a federalist and supporter of states’ rights.
I think it will prevent people who shouldn’t be able to carry a hidden handgun from doing so.
There’s our disconnect. Permits and training will not prevent that.
Some of us actually understand the role of regulation for certain things like this,
I could have done without the passive aggressive tone of your sentence, but I still disagree with your point that you actually understand something that we supporters do not. We both understand the issue, but disagree on the consequences. You accept government intruding in your life and we do not. It is a fundamental difference of opinion, not lack of “understanding” the issue.
Just because something works in one state doesn’t mean it will or should work in another.
mwarden answered how I was going to answer, albeit more succinctly.