The Beloit Daily News just published an editorial castigating the NRA for suggesting that the new Wisconsin concealed carry law's training requirement might be onerous and an infringement of the Second Amendment:
+++++++++++++++++++++
Posted: Saturday, October 8, 2011 10:00 am
Reasonable rules should accompany ‘carry’ law.
SOMETIMES ONE JUST has to wonder: Are these guys ever satisfied?
With Wisconsin preparing to implement a new law allowing concealed carry of weapons, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has a key role in developing the plan to make it work as safely and efficiently as possible. The Department of Justice is required to establish rules for obtaining a concealed carry permit, and while those rules remain a work in progress the National Rifle Association already is taking aim.
In a letter to Van Hollen, obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a top NRA official harshly criticizes a rumored proposal to require at least four hours of firearms training before granting a permit.
“WE ARE FRANKLY disappointed with the grudging attitude (DOJ) has taken toward this law. ... We are increasingly concerned that we are at odds with DOJ in this regard,” the letter states.
Why, because Van Hollen’s DOJ — the attorney general, by the way, supported allowing concealed carry — may insist that permit-holders are properly trained and demonstrate the ability to safely handle weapons?
Absurd.
Such criticism smacks of sour grapes over the fact that Wisconsin enacted a more reasonable law than the so-called “constitutional carry” favored by purists. Under the “constitutional carry” concept, basically, anybody could pack a weapon without training or permits or even a database available to law enforcement officers. The rationale by supporters holds that the Constitution allows government to place no real limits on people and their guns. The U.S. Supreme Court would beg to differ, as its rulings often have demonstrated.
AS READERS KNOW, we did not favor concealed carry for Wisconsin. But if it had to pass, we’re pleased the Republican-controlled legislature and Gov. Scott Walker exercised sufficient common sense to require minimum training and proficiency.
If that’s a bitter pill for the absolutists at the NRA to swallow, so be it.
Do what’s right, Mr. Van Hollen, not what the NRA says.
+++++++++++++++++++++
My response:
I agree that people who want to carry weapons should know what they are doing, but this subject has an aspect that needs to be considered before legislation requiring such training is enacted.
It's too late here in Wisconsin, where a Constitutional carry approach was rejected in favor of a "shall issue" permitting system. Constitutional carry would only have required repeal of some existing law prohibiting concealed carry, it would not have required any new bureaucracy or expenditures by the State of Wisconsin.
The Second Amendment is very clear - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Requiring a permit to carry a gun is an infringement. Requiring training at the expense of the person wanting to exercise his Constitutional right is very definitely an infringement on his right to self-defense.
Before this law was enacted, any Wisconsin resident who cared to could carry a loaded gun openly, and be in full compliance with the law, as long as he stayed out of certain prohibited areas. No training, no permit, no bureaucracy.
What is the difference between open carry, and concealed carry that raises safety concerns? Before the law, the only people carrying concealed were criminals, people who don't care what the law says. Everyone else carrying openly was a law-abiding citizen.
Just because the gun is hidden legally does not make carrying it more dangerous, nor does it relieve the carrier of the responsibility carrying a weapon entails.
Passing a training course will not make a person safe or careful. It will just take the cost of the course in time and money away from him. The criminals will keep on carrying as they wish.
To drag out a hoary cliche, would you be in favor of a permitting system that required a set time spent in the classroom learning the responsibilities of writing editorials, and a set time typing copy for review by the instructor before you were allowed to print an editorial about concealed carry?
Thought not. Self defense is everyone's inalienable right, not subject to legislation. Says it right ther in the Bill of Rights, Amendment #2. Just because "everyone" has ignored the law up until now is no excuse to go on ignoring it.
Update: ANother comment posted:
Training gun owners is the best we can hope for with this law...and it only makes sense. Guns are for cops - cops get training before they use them, right? Hopefully the thugs won't get them away from the gun owners and use them on them! It could end up putting more guns on the streets. That's the general outcome in the states that have concealed carry laws...too bad noone wants to pay attention. They just want to shoot and ask questions later !
Of course, I responded:
Could you post some evidence for your speculations?
CCW licensees have much more practice with their weapons than the average police officer. Look up or read the newspapers about how many accidental shootings are committed by police officers. For "trained professionals", it is sad how many cannot effectively and safely use a gun.
http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/05/police-accidental-shootings-of.html
The number of CCW holders who lose their weapons to criminals is vanishingly small. The number of CCW holders convicted of using a weapon during a crime is also vanishingly small. There is no reason to suppose that Wisconsin's experience will be different than that of the other 48 states with some form of concealed carry.
Here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
http://www.ironwordranch.com/
http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html
