My original email:
++++++++++++++++++++
Hello,
I live near Beloit - a city that has weekly incidents of "shots fired".
I've been a proponent of Constitutional carry ever since I can remember. I base this on a reading of the basic law of our country, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment thereof. The wording of this is very clear - government shall make no law infringing upon Americans' right to keep and bear arms.
This law worked just fine for our country until lawmakers in New York in 1911 passed the "Sullivan Act", which was intended to deny the Second Amendment right to anyone the lawmakers disapproved of, including "swarthy immigrants". Ever since, the elite of New York have been able to carry for protection, while the great majority of New Yorkers are prohibited. This is a "may issue" concealed carry system.
Many veterans returning from World War One brought home "war souvenirs" that included machine guns and grenade launchers, and no wave of mass destruction ensued.
Further encroachments occurred at the end of Prohibition, fueled by a need to keep Treasury agents employed, and by media created furor over "automatic weapons" used by organized crime associations. At the time the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed, one could purchase a fully automatic "Tommy" gun at many local hardware stores for under $100, and dynamite was similarly easily available. Despite these facts, violent crime and destruction was rare and isolated. The 1934 law required registration and purchase of a federal tax stamp - $200 - on regulated weapons. This immediately made most automatic weapons too costly for the common man. It also resulted in hearing damage for millions of American shooters, as "silencers" (which don't actually "silence" the shot, just muffle it a bit) were also subject to this tax.
Firearms were sold without other restrictions at all - no background checks, no age limits, up until 1968, when more media furor over the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King prompted a new law - the Gun Control Act of 1968. This created the firearms dealer licensing and record-keeping system we have today, and banned "mail-order" sales of firearms. Still, there were no background checks, and guns could still be purchased by anyone of any age.
There was never a huge increase in violent crime until the federal government decided to "crack down" on drugs, with the shiny new "War on Drugs" begun as a reaction to the hippies in the 1960's - again, largely due to hype and hysteria, not because of any real danger to society. With drugs now available only from the most powerful pusher on the street, and the huge profits available to those willing to break the law, a new wave of organized crime occurred, along with the gun battles turf wars brought. The violence was isolated to the areas where drug dealing was worst - the inner cities and poorest areas. Places where the honest citizen is at greatest risk and needing of the greatest freedom in protecting themselves.
Politicians intent on demonstrating their concern for the people kept pushing for more and more regulation of firearms, oblivious to the fact that criminals do not obey the law, and all their regulations would do is disarm the law-abiding.
In 1991, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp was in Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, with her parents. She normally had her handgun with her, but left it in her truck, as Texas law prohibited carrying into a restaurant. When a deranged individual, George Hennard, decided to drive into the restaurant and start shooting, she was defenseless, and had to watch her parents shot down. She went on to become a driving force in Texas' creation of a true "shall issue" concealed carry law. This law, requiring licensing, was the first of many state laws finally allowing, with varying levels of bother by the law-abiding, carrying a defensive firearm concealed on the person.
Concealed carry laws have unintended consequences, among them the fact that allowing the weapon to become visible is a crime in some states - even the hint of the gun's outline through clothing can result in arrest, and that people in immediate need of protection have to jump through legal hoops to get a license. In several states, the concelaed carry law is similar to New York's, in that only the politically favored get licenses. California is notorious here. "Shall issue" laws also create new bureaucracies and cost millions of dollars to administer, as well as costing the applicant fees that effectively deny the Constitutional right to the poorest.
We in Wisconsin now have a chance to follow Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming in partially returning to adherence to the Constitution, allowing citizens to carry a weapon for defense if they feel the need, without any interference by the government. This will cost the state of Wisconsin nothing, create no new bureau charged with tracking who is carrying, and will not further infringe on our rights.
Face it - criminals will be armed or not based on their own desires, regardless of what laws are passed or not passed. There has been no case of the "rivers of blood" or "return to the Wild West" that the gun banners have claimed concealed carry would usher in. We need to give the people of Wisconsin back their Constitutional rights - remember it's not just the federal Constitution that is being violated here - Wisconsin's Constitution also recognizes the right of all Wisconsinites to keep and bear arms for lawful use.
We need Constitutional Carry, and we need it now.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Wagner's reply, as published on the WTMJ website:
++++++++++++++++++++
Fire, ready, aim!
By Jeff Wagner
Recently I've heard from a couple dozen people who are unhappy with my position on the concealed carrying of firearms. That's nothing compared to the thousands of people I heard from during the debate over the budget repair bill. Still, with a handful of hard-core gun guys calling me "a liberal" (of all things), I thought I'd take this opportunity to inject some common sense and political reality into the debate.
For almost twenty years now, I've advocated for a reasonable expansion of firearm rights in Wisconsin. I've argued against gun bans when some municipalities tried to enact them. I've argued against prosecutions of individuals who used firearms in the exercise of self-defense. Most importantly, I've argued continually for legislation which would allow Wisconsin to join 48 other States in allowing some form of the concealed carrying of firearms.
Now that it appears Wisconsin finally has a Legislature and Governor who are sympathetic to the rights of firearms owners, it's depressing to see that a fringe element of the pro-gun movement is prepared to seize defeat from the jaws of legislative victory.
When I think about concealed carry laws, I think about the laws that exist in most States.
Concealed carry laws vary somewhat from State to State but basically work like this: An individual applies for a permit so that the cops can make certain that the person is legally able to possess a firearm. Assuming no problems with the background check, the citizen then takes some form of training course that may or may not contain a proficiency component (to make sure they know how to use the gun). The end result is a permit that allows a law-abiding and qualified citizen to carry concealed firearm for a set period of time (usually several years).
Most people don't own firearms - and most firearms owners don't choose to carry a concealed weapon. Still, with these checks in place, I believe most fair-minded people see no problem with concealed carry.
Unfortunately, a small - but vocal - segment of the gun lobby is trying to get the Legislature to go beyond traditional concealed carry legislation. The so called "constitutional carry" movement claims that the government has no business regulating the possession of handguns and that people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons without any permits, any training or any government oversight. Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont and Arizona are the only States that allow possession of concealed weapons without permits.
First, "constitutional carry" is a misnomer. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. That's why felons and the mentally ill can't legally own firearms. It's also why, as a general rule, private citizens can't own machine guns or bazookas or silencers. There simply is no "constitutional right" to carry a concealed firearm under any and all circumstances.
Second, it strikes me as being absurd to legally allow someone to carry a concealed weapon without some basic assurance that they know how to use it. After all, you wouldn't take someone who has never driven a car and send them out on the Interstate at rush hour! Why would let someone legally stick a Saturday Night Special in their pocket without some basic assurance that they know one end from the other?
A lot of the same folks who are pushing "Constitutional carry" are also pushing the "open carry" concept. These are the people who, seizing on some language in a recent State Supreme Court opinion, have taken to wearing sidearms in public as an expression of their "rights".
It seems to me that if you have to wear a pistol while you're cutting your lawn, you need to move to a better neighborhood. If you need to carry a gun into a coffee shop to get the attention of the waitress, you should tip better.
And if "open carry" adherents think pulling stunts like this helps win the general public to their cause, they're dead wrong.
Walking around the streets with a gun on your hip is to the pro-gun movement what those folks who hang out on street corners and waive photos of aborted fetuses at passing cars are to the pro-life movement.
Unfortunately, the more mainstream elements of the pro-gun lobby have done little to rein in those pushing these more extreme ideas. This isn't surprising because most special interest groups get a ton of support from their more zealous and ideologically pure members. Still, if we want to get meaningful firearms legislation passed anytime soon, it's time for the grown-ups to come to the table.
Many of us have been waiting a long time for some form of concealed carry to come to Wisconsin. A rational bill in line with the laws in most other States will undoubtedly have the support of a majority of citizens and the law enforcement community. A proposal that imposes no restrictions pretty much guarantees the end of concealed carry if and when Democrats come back into power - and paves the way for that precise thing.
After all, when you fire before you've aimed, you often end up shooting yourself in the foot!
++++++++++++++++++++
My response to him:
++++++++++++++++++++
Hi, Jeff,
Thanks for the response.
I think you've missed the point here = actually, there are several.
First, and foremost, like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is not limited by law. For instance, you are perfectly free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the First Amendment protects that right. What you need to remember is that actions have consequences, and that by doing so, you are liable for any injuries, death, or damage caused by your irresponsible action. Similarly, anyone carrying a weapon needs to be held responsible for their actions. Since the bad guys do not, and will not, follow the law, a permit system at the least limits the ability of the law-abiding to exercise their rights in a timely fashion. If someone misuses their weapon, let that person be held accountable. The laws to do this are already in existence, and will cost us nothing if we elect "Constitutional carry".
Secondly, being required to apply for permission to exercise your God-given rights negates those rights, since now some unelected bureaucrat may arbitrarily deny your rights, and now you have to take legal action to obtain that permit, which is expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment. Judges rule, true, but they do not always rule correctly, and any judges' ruling can and has been be overturned. If Wisconsin elects to follow the true meaning of the Constitution, rather than a politically charged "narrow" interpretation, we are ahead of the game, having saved Wisconsin many years of wrangling over the "permit" system we would otherwise have, if these laws are ever signed by the Governor.
An aside - "open carry" is already the law in Wisconsin, and people mowing their lawns with sidearms are making a political statement, and possibly trying to illustrate the fact that it's not the gun that causes problems, it's the use the gun is put to. If enough people open carried, perhaps more Wisconsin residents would be desensitized to the simple sight of people exercising their rights, and the general level of tension would drop. Also, many people living in areas where they feel the need to open carry while doing daily chores do not have the financial resources to simply "move to a better neighborhood". Open-carry advocates are not attempting to draw attention to themselves - quite the opposite - they are trying to make the existence of a gun - or not - something people don't notice.
A compromise law based on the fear of the Democrats regaining the reins in Madison is a disservice to our citizens. There is no assurance that future Democrat politicians will not modify a license law to move the right out of the hands of the poorest of us. Witness Washington DC and Chicago, IL for examples of how the Supreme Court's rulings are responded to bu Democrats. In DC, you are "allowed" now to buy a gun - IF you can find a dealer, and dealers are effectively banned by law. In Chicago, you can own a gun once you meet all the requirements, such as passing a course in a Chicago firing range, of which there are none, again by law. Registration of guns is required by many "shall issue" states, and that opens a huge can of worms for many.
Do the right thing. Follow the Constitution, as written, and give Wisconsinites back their rights.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
++++++++++++++++++++
Now, we see how effective my argument is...
For almost twenty years now, I've advocated for a reasonable expansion of firearm rights in Wisconsin. I've argued against gun bans when some municipalities tried to enact them. I've argued against prosecutions of individuals who used firearms in the exercise of self-defense. Most importantly, I've argued continually for legislation which would allow Wisconsin to join 48 other States in allowing some form of the concealed carrying of firearms.
Now that it appears Wisconsin finally has a Legislature and Governor who are sympathetic to the rights of firearms owners, it's depressing to see that a fringe element of the pro-gun movement is prepared to seize defeat from the jaws of legislative victory.
When I think about concealed carry laws, I think about the laws that exist in most States.
Concealed carry laws vary somewhat from State to State but basically work like this: An individual applies for a permit so that the cops can make certain that the person is legally able to possess a firearm. Assuming no problems with the background check, the citizen then takes some form of training course that may or may not contain a proficiency component (to make sure they know how to use the gun). The end result is a permit that allows a law-abiding and qualified citizen to carry concealed firearm for a set period of time (usually several years).
Most people don't own firearms - and most firearms owners don't choose to carry a concealed weapon. Still, with these checks in place, I believe most fair-minded people see no problem with concealed carry.
Unfortunately, a small - but vocal - segment of the gun lobby is trying to get the Legislature to go beyond traditional concealed carry legislation. The so called "constitutional carry" movement claims that the government has no business regulating the possession of handguns and that people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons without any permits, any training or any government oversight. Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont and Arizona are the only States that allow possession of concealed weapons without permits.
First, "constitutional carry" is a misnomer. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. That's why felons and the mentally ill can't legally own firearms. It's also why, as a general rule, private citizens can't own machine guns or bazookas or silencers. There simply is no "constitutional right" to carry a concealed firearm under any and all circumstances.
Second, it strikes me as being absurd to legally allow someone to carry a concealed weapon without some basic assurance that they know how to use it. After all, you wouldn't take someone who has never driven a car and send them out on the Interstate at rush hour! Why would let someone legally stick a Saturday Night Special in their pocket without some basic assurance that they know one end from the other?
A lot of the same folks who are pushing "Constitutional carry" are also pushing the "open carry" concept. These are the people who, seizing on some language in a recent State Supreme Court opinion, have taken to wearing sidearms in public as an expression of their "rights".
It seems to me that if you have to wear a pistol while you're cutting your lawn, you need to move to a better neighborhood. If you need to carry a gun into a coffee shop to get the attention of the waitress, you should tip better.
And if "open carry" adherents think pulling stunts like this helps win the general public to their cause, they're dead wrong.
Walking around the streets with a gun on your hip is to the pro-gun movement what those folks who hang out on street corners and waive photos of aborted fetuses at passing cars are to the pro-life movement.
Unfortunately, the more mainstream elements of the pro-gun lobby have done little to rein in those pushing these more extreme ideas. This isn't surprising because most special interest groups get a ton of support from their more zealous and ideologically pure members. Still, if we want to get meaningful firearms legislation passed anytime soon, it's time for the grown-ups to come to the table.
Many of us have been waiting a long time for some form of concealed carry to come to Wisconsin. A rational bill in line with the laws in most other States will undoubtedly have the support of a majority of citizens and the law enforcement community. A proposal that imposes no restrictions pretty much guarantees the end of concealed carry if and when Democrats come back into power - and paves the way for that precise thing.
After all, when you fire before you've aimed, you often end up shooting yourself in the foot!
++++++++++++++++++++
My response to him:
++++++++++++++++++++
Hi, Jeff,
Thanks for the response.
I think you've missed the point here = actually, there are several.
First, and foremost, like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is not limited by law. For instance, you are perfectly free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the First Amendment protects that right. What you need to remember is that actions have consequences, and that by doing so, you are liable for any injuries, death, or damage caused by your irresponsible action. Similarly, anyone carrying a weapon needs to be held responsible for their actions. Since the bad guys do not, and will not, follow the law, a permit system at the least limits the ability of the law-abiding to exercise their rights in a timely fashion. If someone misuses their weapon, let that person be held accountable. The laws to do this are already in existence, and will cost us nothing if we elect "Constitutional carry".
Secondly, being required to apply for permission to exercise your God-given rights negates those rights, since now some unelected bureaucrat may arbitrarily deny your rights, and now you have to take legal action to obtain that permit, which is expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment. Judges rule, true, but they do not always rule correctly, and any judges' ruling can and has been be overturned. If Wisconsin elects to follow the true meaning of the Constitution, rather than a politically charged "narrow" interpretation, we are ahead of the game, having saved Wisconsin many years of wrangling over the "permit" system we would otherwise have, if these laws are ever signed by the Governor.
An aside - "open carry" is already the law in Wisconsin, and people mowing their lawns with sidearms are making a political statement, and possibly trying to illustrate the fact that it's not the gun that causes problems, it's the use the gun is put to. If enough people open carried, perhaps more Wisconsin residents would be desensitized to the simple sight of people exercising their rights, and the general level of tension would drop. Also, many people living in areas where they feel the need to open carry while doing daily chores do not have the financial resources to simply "move to a better neighborhood". Open-carry advocates are not attempting to draw attention to themselves - quite the opposite - they are trying to make the existence of a gun - or not - something people don't notice.
A compromise law based on the fear of the Democrats regaining the reins in Madison is a disservice to our citizens. There is no assurance that future Democrat politicians will not modify a license law to move the right out of the hands of the poorest of us. Witness Washington DC and Chicago, IL for examples of how the Supreme Court's rulings are responded to bu Democrats. In DC, you are "allowed" now to buy a gun - IF you can find a dealer, and dealers are effectively banned by law. In Chicago, you can own a gun once you meet all the requirements, such as passing a course in a Chicago firing range, of which there are none, again by law. Registration of guns is required by many "shall issue" states, and that opens a huge can of worms for many.
Do the right thing. Follow the Constitution, as written, and give Wisconsinites back their rights.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
++++++++++++++++++++
Now, we see how effective my argument is...
