Our wonderful (D) Governor, Jim “Veto” Doyle, has once again vetoed a bill.
This time it happened to be a piece of legislation that the people of Wisconsin want, that a democrat actually sponsored, that 46 other states have, and that the US Constitution and the Wi. State Constitution both allow.
It passed the state legislature and then was promptly vetoed by the Gov.
An override was passed in the state senate and now the thing hangs in the state assembly, one vote short of an override. One of the Democrats voting against the bill (veto override) is the actual sponsor of the bill himself. Huh??
I havent heard one good reason why a non-felon, properly instructed, over the age of 21, registered gun owner shouldnt be allowed to carry a concealed weapon (CW). Remember, that if the law passed there would be a plethora of places that CWs would be banned, like schools, churches, govnt buildings, banks, bars, etc., and any place that posts a "no gun" sign. Anyone with a permit would have to pay the fee, take the 20 some hour training course, not be a felon, register the weapon, follow the tight guidlines of the law, etc. Our beloved Constitution allows us to keep and bear arms, but we just cant take them with us when we move about, why?
As a CCW-having, Glock-carrying citizen of Michigan, I feel your pain. But I’ll play Clinton’s Advocate, and list a few reasons:
The more firearms you have on the streets, the greater the likelihood that a firearm will be used in a shooting. Simple statistics, lower the number of guns, and the number of shootings will drop.
Even though there may be a ‘training requirement’ to get a permit, it is still not enough to prevent the irresponsible use of firearms, as there is not enough ‘shoot/dont shoot’ training. Also, marksmanship levels are not enforced, so the chance of a bystander being hit during a shooting are high.
Even though the 2nd Amendment enumerates our right to bear arms, it doesn’t say anything about bearing them concealed, in public.
You shouldn’t be shooting people, you should be calling the cops.
Well, what about the complaints of the Sherriff’s associations? That it will be too expensive for them to do the background checks that the law requires, and that because of current Wisconsin medical confidentiality laws, they have no way to check if applicants are mentally ill or have a history of drug addiction, which the bill requires them to do?
Let’s assume you’re correct, and it says nothing about an individual’s right to “carry guns around.” Would this automatically mean I don’t have this right? Are you saying that, for a right to exist, it must be explicitly enumerated in the Constitution?
This would seem to be an argument for taking guns away from the police.
See above, plus I think you’d have to back this up with statistics.
Irrelevent. Just because you don’t have a right to do something specifically enumerated in the constitution, does not mean that it is undesirable for you to do it. Think of all the things the constitution does not specifically give you the right to do.
Who will of course appear instantly, much in the manner of a genie summoned from a bottle. Well, no…there might be a slight delay, 5 or 10 minutes perhaps, but nothing really bad can happen to you in such a short span of time. Right?
Of course, which is why the Article reads: “The Right of the States to have Well Regulated Militias shall not be infringed.” If they had wanted to protect the “right of the people” to “keep and bear arms”, that’s what they would have written.
That notwithstanding, I think Crafter_Man asks a very good question…
I can’t think of one reason that a responsible, law-abiding citizen would want to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. One good reason against this law is that a mentally ill felon could easily grab a gun from someone who was carrying one.
My advice is to hang out with a better class of people and you won’t need to be constantly armed.
The current level of illegal gun ownership will never decrease with or without this law. The bad guys already have the guns, this law will simply allow the good guys to defend themselves and others. There is no proof from the other 46 states that point 1) is the case.
The likely hood of a person, who goes throught the hoops to acquire the possession permit, using the gun in a careless manner is almost non-existent in places where the CW law exists. On the other hand, the bad guys now know that Joe Public may be packing heat. Return fire engagements between citizens are extremely rare. Almost always, the gun is used to foil a crime without it being discharged. It`s the “possibility” that the average guy might be packing that will enter into the head of and deter the criminal.
Exactly.
Right, but discharging the weapon is the last thing anyone wants to do. Unless your the criminal. Cops usually report to the scene after a crime has occured, not during.
What if you`re a delivery driver in the inner city? A real estate broker showing homes in a poor neighborhood? An elderly person who likes to go for walks, or take the bus places? Any myriad of people who has to do business in seedy locations. Or a businss owner, who frequently gets robbed?
I got news for you, the criminals don`t need to steal the guns, they already have them.
I would except harsher penalties for illegal use of weapons but our society hates to actually enforce the laws already on the books. The poor criminals… If we would really come down hard on the criminals who violate gun laws then this wouldn`t need to be an issue, as it is, our liberal courts are letting too many off the hook.
These may or may not be valid arguments against that specific law, but not against the principle of liberalized concealed carry laws.
And, added on preview:
I won’t dignify this with a response.
“Could easily grab a gun” from a person carrying concealed, “concealed” meaning, of course, “out of sight”, meaning that in the ordinary course of events a “mentally ill felon” will not even be aware of the gun’s existence, or “could easily grab” a gun from a cop, who would be wearing a gun openly, in plain view, in a holster?
Not to mention…“could easily grab”? Have you ever tried to grab a gun from someone? Was it easy? Or have you only seen it done on tv and in movies?
I will also not dignify this with a response, except to point out that it belongs in the Pit.
Yeah, those damn liberal courts filling up our jails with non-violent offenders guilty of possession.
You want more room in prisons and better enforcement? Make mandatory sentencing for possession go away. Then maybe we could actually lock up some people who are real ‘dangers to society’.
Well, if we assume that the typical gang member involved in a driveby shooting has not taken an NRA-approved marksmanship course and look at the number of innocent bystanders who are hit instead of the targeted person I don’t think we need do a LOT of research to conclude that an inexperienced person in a stressful situation couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn, at least on purpose.
I, personally, have no problem with sane, highly-trained, experienced people with demonstrated proficiency packing heat. My only problem with the concealed carry laws is that the requirements may be too low or poorly enforced and there is no follow-up. Even with (ir)regular testing of drivers’ skills we have an awful lot of drivers who have no business driving.
Please excuse the hijack, but will someone back up and answer a question I’ve always had about this whole debate? What’s the deal with concealed weapons? Why is that somehow better than wearing it on your hip John Wayne style? I’m not trying to be a smart ass. I really don’t know.
Why not respond to the points raised by your own governor?
“We’ve learned that the bill prevents officers making a traffic stop from knowing if the person they pulled over is carrying a concealed weapon - putting the brave men and women of law enforcement in greater danger every single day.”
“We’ve heard from Sheriffs across Wisconsin who say they don’t have the resources to implement the law, and would have to divert their staff away from real investigations of real crimes.”
“We’ve heard from victims of domestic violence, who worry that the bill will give abusers one more tool to terrorize and harm their victims.”
“And just recently, we learned from the Wisconsin Association of Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs - one of the many law enforcement groups united in opposition to this bill - that the bill weakens penalties on carrying concealed weapons while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. It reduces the jail time by a third, and cuts the fines by 90 percent.”
"Not only does it weaken penalties for those with concealed weapons permits, but it also weakens penalties for intoxicated individuals without permits who are caught carrying other dangerous weapons like knives, and stun guns. "
It seems the governor had some decent reasons for not signing that particular bill into law. I’m fairly ambivalent about the overall issue of concealed carry (excepting concerns about how the law may be implemented), but if a state is going to pass a law to allow more folks to carry a weapon for the sake of public safety, then bill ought to be drafted to gain the support of the police and sheriffs – whose profession is pubic safety. Don’t you agree?
I’d like to expand on bnorton’s question. Most states now allow you to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. My understanding is that in most states, or at least my state of Texas, you can walk around with a weapon unconcealed without a permit. Right? If that’s so, then Uncommon Sense, why don’t you just get yourself a belt holster?
The presumed purpose for carrying a concealed weapon is defense.
In MOST cases, it’s not effective. Most attacks are not announced in advance, what’s the chances you could use the gun effectively if surprised?
Second, concealed weapons have almost no deterrent value. If a potential attacker can’t see the weapon, how will he know not to select you to attack.
(Actually, many if not most victims aren’t selected, they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time).
I carry a concealed weapon because it gives me a fighting chance against someone bent on harming my family or me. I do not have to justify this to anyone, nor do I have to seek permission from anyone, including the government. Furthermore, while there is evidence CC lowers crime, I would still carry if the statistics proved the opposite. In other words, the statistics don’t matter to me. I will carry because I want to. And I have a right to do it.