Reply from Mark Spreizer

Got this from him in response to my email to the Beloit City Council earlier. At least he responds - none of the other board members bothered.

Chuck,

Thanks again for your comments and the information you brought to the discussion. While it is always possible that someone could bring a loaded gun into city hall with the intent of using it, those instances are exceedingly rare across the country, and we have to weigh that possibility against the day-to-day desire of employees, members of the Council, and the general public to avoid the routine presence of guns in city hall and other city buildings. This isn't about making sure there is never a weapon in city hall. As was noted, the ordinance provides no way of doing that. I see this as being about community norms. I was open to the possibility of allowing weapons, but it became clear to me from the comments I received that most residents support maintaining a community norm that discourages carrying guns in public places. It may be fair to say that all the signs do is provide that discouragement, but that's what most people I heard from wanted. If someone chooses to violate the ordinance and risk the fine, and the gun is truly concealed and causes no problems, then nobody will be the wiser, no fine will be imposed, and nobody will feel uncomfortable. I'm not suggesting it, but people are always free to take calculated risk when it comes to their choices of obeying any ordinance. Honestly, I think people who are concerned about self-defense should be more concerned about it while walking down the street along at night than walking into city hall in broad daylight to pay a parking ticket. City Hall would also seem like a rather poor choice of locations for someone who wishes to burglarize a car, for a variety of fairly obvious reasons.

I did attempt to make the ordinance as sensible as possible and reduce unnecessary burden created by the ban on park bathrooms and the ambiguous language that had some people concerned we would ban pocketknives or nail clippers. I felt those were reasonable changes and that to do otherwise and merely ban everything we could to the fullest extent of the law would be reactionary. I am glad that the three amendments were approved and that made me comfortable enough with the ordinance to support it. I believe Beloit's ordinance is now less restrictive than Janesville or Rock County's. That said, if I become aware of any instances of problems caused by this ordinance, I'd be happy to look at any further modifications that might be necessary, and I trust you'll bring any issues to my attention if they occur.

One other thing I would note is that a more regulated training requirement at the state level to receive a concealed carry permit would probably help with some of the concerns that Councilors and residents have about these issues. The current requirements make it almost impossible for the state to verify anything about the training, since instructor signature, training location, and other relevant information is not required. I would also submit that from my perspective, a hunter safety course is inadequate. While knowing how to safely carry a gun is certainly part of the issue, the kind of gun one uses while hunting and the kind of gun one carries for self-defense are not often the same. More importantly, I think any training should include a thorough discussion of when and why and how it would be appropriate to draw and fire a concealed weapon in a situation to defend self or others. Nobody should carry a weapon if they aren't willing to use it, and nobody should be willing to use it if they haven't gamed out the scenarios in which they might use it. I feel that a different sort of training is required if one is learning to safely shoot deer or to potentially shoot a criminal in the middle of a firefight. I hope you will let your representatives in Madison know that more robust training requirements, not more lax ones, would make it easier to municipalities to consider allowing concealed carry permit-holders to carry in city buildings.

Thanks again for your comments,

Mark Spreitzer

My first reply:

Hi, Mark,

It really irritates me when intelligent people cannot see the difference between "feeling safe" and actually being safe.

You strike me as an intelligent person, and I appreciate the efforts you made to remove some of the worse aspects of this law.

However, your first sentence says it all - "we have to weigh that possibility against the day-to-day desire of employees, members of the Council, and the general public to avoid the routine presence of guns in city hall and other city buildings.". How, exactly, does allowing concealed carry affect the desires of these persons? As soon as they leave the loving arms of their gun-free zone, they will be amongst people who COULD BE CARRYING LEGAL GUNS! If they go to such dens of iniquity as Wal-Mart, the same applies. You could have achieved the same feel-safe zone by simply prohibiting open carry of weapons in City buildings - anyone open-carrying would simply have to pocket their gun, and enter - no infringement, and those hoplophobes among us could go right on ignoring reality and feel safe.

This is what I was trying to get across - it's a feel-good law that has no effect on safety, that infringes on the rights of all Beloit citizens and visitors, and could conceivably end up costing the City of Beloit tourist money and business.

Your position on when someone should be concerned about safety brings to mind what I was taught at the concealed carry course I attended last Saturday. There are several conditions of human awareness. Most people go through life in "condition white", oblivious to the world around them and numb to potential dangers. They assume their surroundings are safe because nothing has ever happened where they are, and they don't keep alert to danger. These people are victims waiting for a criminal to find them.

People who realize the world is a dangerous place live in "condition yellow". They are continually staying alert to other people, possibly dangerous areas and situations, and are prepared to focus on danger should it arise. Police officers and firefighters are trained to be in condition yellow when on duty. It's not paranoia - just staying alert. The Boy Scout motto - "be prepared".

I live in condition yellow. People who are disturbed by the thought of guns being in the area are living in condition white, and will be easy prey for the wolves.

I would recommend that you take the same course I took - it will open your eyes, and perhaps make you realize why some of us are so vocal about laws like this. The course I took was taught by Dominic Ferraro, President of Advanced Protection Group. His website is http://www.apgwi.com. Money well spent, even if you don't ever own a gun.

I would also opine that the "feelings" of any group never trump the rights of all. The Constitution was not written to respect "feelings" - just natural rights.

Regards,
Chuck

A second reply, as I got interrupted by a call to eat dinner:

Hi, Mark,

I got interrupted before in my reply. Sorry for this second reply.

Addressing your concerns about training - first, this is an issue of inalienable rights, and the State actually has no interest in whether or not a citizen has completed some arbitrary level of training before exercising those rights. Requiring at least a college-level reading level before being allowed to write to city council members would be an exact parallel.

Every person must be responsible for his or her actions. Reasonable people seek to learn about things before doing them. Unreasonable people do not.

As far as Beloit's ordinance being more or less restrictive than that in another locale, this is really not the issue. Whether there should be any restrictions on the right of free people to protect themselves is the issue - and the basic laws of our country, and of the State of Wisconsin both state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Making people forgo their rights in order to access their governmental agencies - and they do own those agencies - you and the council are only caretakers - is obviously an infringement. No ordinance should ever be considered solely on the basis of some other place having done something stupid first. You are supposed to be leaders - not lemmings.

I agree that one should not carry a weapon unless one is prepared and willing to use it. However, my feelings on the subject do not affect the rights of you or any other American, and they should not. You are free to carry a gun or not, with or without training, with or without being prepared to use it - I dare say, without even ever having thought about the responsibility. Because, when all is said and done, you and you alone must answer for anything you do with that weapon.

It's all about freedom - and personal responsibility. You do not achieve freedom by restricting people lest they act badly or stupidly - you allow them to do so, and then hold them responsible for the results of their ignorance or stupidity.

Regards,
Chuck


Think any of that will do any good?