Althouse: No concealed carry in Wisconsin.

February 1, 2006

No concealed carry in Wisconsin.

The Assembly fails to override Governor Doyle's veto. "Two Democrats who had voted for the bill when it originally passed changed their votes."

32 comments:

Gahrie said...: I disagree. Some of the safest places to live nowdays have concealed carry laws, and the unsafest places to live have draconian gun control. It can never be said enough, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.; 2/1/06, 8:18 AM
al said...: What a shame. I had hoped that Wisconsin would finally pull ahead of Illinois and allow the law-abiding the right to legally carry.; 2/1/06, 8:33 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Interesting. The previous two posters have summerized the two sides of the CCW debate rather nicely. Don't know what anyone can add to either.; 2/1/06, 8:40 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I should have said, the first two posters. (nothing against what al said third, of course).; 2/1/06, 8:42 AM
goesh said...: yeah, put a sign up on the front door that reads " Smoke free, firearm free environment" and see what happens. The folks that believe guns kill, not people, really need to show their true colors and display their convictions in this manner, especially those living in non-affluent areas. I have a shotgun gathering dust in my closet and I suspect that more than one lass from the Dells has a pistol in her purse - you know, for when rapists in those dark parking lots at night pounce and all the screaming in the world is not going to bring the police with their evil guns. The old adage better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 still rings true.; 2/1/06, 8:44 AM
individ said...: To not allow law-abiding folk to carry a firearm in self-defense is a violation of basic human rights. If you look at the history of gun control, you will find that many of the 22,000 gun laws (those that limit freedom, anyway) were passed with racist intent (e.g., the current "May Issue" law still in effect in CA). If you want an example of "effective" gun control, see many of the major cities Like DC). And note that many with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest minority populations: Racism.; 2/1/06, 9:05 AM
DaveG said...: Allow me to make a prediction: if/when concealed carry gets approved in Wisconsin, the requirements put in place for licensing will be burdensome and onerous.; 2/1/06, 9:36 AM
goesh said...: I think requirements for the CWP should be very strict with some hurdles to jump. I'm all for enforcing gun laws and closing loopholes for instant purchase of guns at flea markets. That is flat out irresponsible for anyone to be able to go to a flea market and buy a firearm. I urge women in particular, especially single women, and if they are comfortable with it, to get training in the use of a handgun by a qualified professional, purchase one and keep the darn thing on their nightstands beside their beds. Ain't it a shame vicious criminals have no respect for the Law and locks?; 2/1/06, 10:01 AM
Michael said...: Abraham,

I wish I had read your comment before I entered into this debate.

In one sentence you summerized everything I was trying to say.; 2/1/06, 10:40 AM
Beth said...: Burdonsome and onerous requirements for a legal practice? Is this the abortion thread?; 2/1/06, 11:26 AM
Beth said...: goesh: "lass from the Dells" cracked me up. Your comment on gun shows reflects my own views. I support CWL, and own weapons, but I'm opposed to a complete lack of regulation.; 2/1/06, 11:33 AM
Gaius Arbo said...: Regulation yes, outright banning, no. I live in a state that DOES allow CCW. In fact, I am getting a permit next week (you have to take a class).

States that have passed CCW laws do not see a sudden outbreak of blood running in the streets.; 2/1/06, 11:54 AM
Danny said...: Being a UW-Madison student, I've been following this case closely and I am extremely disappointed by the outcome. I always tote my piece to lectures in Humanities and it's a direct infringement on my basic human rights that I can no longer defend myself in a room full of 350 freedom-hating Al-Qaida lovers.; 2/1/06, 1:13 PM
Dan from Madison said...: I find it interesting that Governor Jim Doyle, who is soooo against conceal carry was seen in and around the Outback Bowl in January when the Badgers played there. Doesn't he understand that Florida is a very unsafe place since they passed their conceal carry law? You would think that those who are so against conceal carry would stay away from the 46 states that have it.; 2/1/06, 2:17 PM
Gaius Arbo said...: anon,

Start here:

http://armsandthelaw.com/

Defying anyone is an interesting way to shift the burden - why don't you cite proof that armed citizens (as opposed to armed criminals) are making the streets run red with blood? I have been hearing (sorry, no citations) that crime rates are dropping in states with carry laws.

Regarding your mention of a case where someone shot a criminal stealing a car, that would be illegal in my state - unless the criminal tried to run the shooter down, but may or may not be legal where they were. I am not familiar with the law there or the case.

As for rule of law, I agree law is important, but the right to defend yourself is basic. You cannot rationally believe that it is the duty of a citizen to not defend himself if attacked.

Validation "etuumg" - what Caesar actually said.....; 2/1/06, 8:50 PM
Gaius Arbo said...: Well, we disagree then. I will not willingly allow someone to take my life - or the life of anyone else that I can defend - if I can stop it. I would willingly die trying to defend my family, but I would go down fighting. If I had to kill, I would. I would prefer it not come to that, but there it is. As an aside, I am fully trained in the use of firearms and legitimate use of deadly force - not a minimal course, either(long story, but I am).

So - we disagree. I do not believe the State can or should defend me in all situations. You obviously do. Good luck on that belief, I honestly respect that. I do not think it realistic for me, and I would rather you did not take away my rights based on your beliefs.; 2/1/06, 9:49 PM
P_J said...: Anon,

Are you really saying that nobody has a right to defend themselves against a determined attacker if the only way to avoid your own death is to kill the assailant?

If an armed intruder breaks into my house with intent to kill me, you don't think I should have the right to live, but the assailant should?; 2/1/06, 10:18 PM
Gaius Arbo said...: anon,

I suspect - admittedly with no proof whatsoever - that you do not have children.

I can tell you that there is no possible scenario you can think of where I would not fight to my last breath to save any one of my children (or my wife). Even if that meant killing another.

Would I have to live with that for the rest of my life (and possibly longer than that) - yup. Doesn't change a thing for me at all. I'd do it, and I would not even think about it while it was happening.

I seriously hope you (or I) never have to face that.; 2/1/06, 10:47 PM
Gahrie said...: anonlawstudent-

You asked: "What is a "right"? Is this a constitutional right to be armed?"

Yes. It is called the Second Amendment.; 2/1/06, 10:52 PM
Gaius Arbo said...: anon,

Well, let's see how you feel after the first time you hold your child. It may change your outlook.

Regardless, Please get your studies prioritized. Law is a subject I'd personally not be happy in. Engineering is much easier - we have laws that are actual LAWS - not subject to interpretation or precedent.......

But I do believe I have the right to life (Locke's view, too) and an agressor does not have a right that trumps mine. I'd surely never let anyone hurt one of my family if there was anything I could do to stop it. I'm funny that way. It goes without saying I'd have to live with myself afterwards. I hope I never have to exercise that right, too.

Good luck with the studies.; 2/1/06, 11:26 PM
Gahrie said...: When you examine the Second Amendment, you have to look at it in the context of two facts.

1) The nations of Europe had controlled their citizenry for centuries by outlawing the possession of weapons. Regulating and banning weapons was,(and is), seen as a way for the government to control the populace. An armed citizenry prevents the government or an elite from instituting tyranny.

2) The Founders oopsed a standing army. The language about a well regulated milita is in the amendment because the Founders anticpated that that would be the only defence the US had from foriegn attack. The Founders fully anticipated and expected that private citizens would own military grade weapons. (similar to modern day circumstances in Switzerland and Israel)

3) There is a reason that the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment. That is because without the right to bear arms, the First Amendment doesn't matter.

4) what other "self-destructive" clauses in the Constitution are you opposed to? Free speech? Freedom of religion? The veto?; 2/1/06, 11:43 PM
Gahrie said...: That should be "opposed a standing army."; 2/1/06, 11:44 PM
Dan from Madison said...: Anon - I would be interested in knowing if you ever venture outside the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska - as those are the only four states that don't allow conceal carry at this time. If so, I suppose this argument (with you, anyways) is over. Why would you expose yourself to such potential violence if you really believed in your cause?; 2/2/06, 6:06 AM
Dan from Madison said...: Anon, interesting non sequiturs. All I am saying is that if you really believe in your cause, I would expect you to stay away from places that allow conceal carry. And if you really do plan on spending time in "gang-occupied municipalities" all the more reason to be armed - because THEY ALL ARE. Really, you are only one mugging from being a conceal carry proponent.; 2/2/06, 10:07 AM
al said...: Interesting that anon went from concealed carry of a handgun to defend ones self from bodily harm to pocket nukes... typical gun-grabber nonsense.

WRT the use of deadly force - since you don't have kids and have already decided that you won't defend yourself I hope that those words don't come back to haunt you someday esp since you claim to go to places that are potentially dangerous.

As for myself I avoid dangerous places. But if danger comes calling and places anyone in my care in harms way I'll respond with the same level of force. I just wish my wife would agree to moving to a hospitable state.; 2/2/06, 10:08 AM
Gaius Arbo said...: anon,

Well, I certainly won't fault you for your beliefs - provided you don't try to make me conform to them.

I have tremendous respect for the Society of Friends and their uncompromising stand against war. Sadly, I also believe they can only continue to exist as long as someone else is willing to defend them. But, I digress.

As for me, I shall continue to believe that I have an absolute right to NOT surrender my right to life to another person.; 2/2/06, 10:28 AM
P_J said...: Anon,

Thanks for your consistently polite responses. If I understand you correctly, you believe personally that there is no moral basis for the taking of human life, and that while we may have the right to self-defense we are not obligated to use it. Please correct me if wrong.

I would be interested to understand what has shaped your thinking in this area. What has led you to this belief?

Also, you wrote earlier:
"I do not buy into the theory that an individual forfeits (sp?) a right to life because of some conduct or another."

Wouldn't that also apply to the person minding his own business at home? By denying him the right of self-defense, you are in fact forcing him to forfeit his right to life.

While non-violence can be a moral choice for an individual, it's a suicide pact for communities and nations. People willing to commit violence will oppress, terrorize, and kill those unwilling to defend themselves. In seeking to maintain a moral principle, you have created outrageous injustice.

Were the Allies wrong to fight Nazism in WWII and end the Holocaust? Should every country have laid down arms and allowed Hitler to take over the world?; 2/2/06, 10:35 AM
Dan from Madison said...: I think the better question is "would I shoot back at an assailant" - and if the answer is no, you die. If the answer is yes, you possibly live. I like the odds of the latter better than the former.; 2/2/06, 11:05 AM
Gaius Arbo said...: Sebastian makes a point that I have also heard elsewhere (and personally agree with). Non-violence only works in a society that respects the fundamental right to life. It sometimes takes time to work properly - for example during the struggle for civil rights in theis country - but it does work.

However, in a culture that does not recognize the individual's right to life, non-violence does not work.

Does violence automatically beget more violence? I don't know for certain that that logic applies. Sometimes violence is a terrible choice, but may also be the only proper response. Judicious use of violence may very well head off worse violence. The example would be what if the Allies had not stopped the Nazis? How many more would have died? I don't know, but I suspect the number would dwarf what actually did happen.

I see I may have hit pretty close to the mark mentioning the Friends. You have every right to continue to stand by your beliefs.

By the way, nice, reasoned responses make for a good discussion. Thanks for that.; 2/2/06, 12:03 PM
P_J said...: Anon,

Thanks again for your polite and well-considered reponses. I appreciate the honest interaction and the humility with which you are approaching these profound issues.

My Christian faith tells me that one day Jesus will return to destroy evil, sin and death. In the meantime, we live with the tension of the Kingdom of God having already come in part, but not in full.

Jesus refused to retaliate and called us to pray for those who persecute us. But he (and his disciples) also recognized the authority and legitimacy of the state wielding the sword as a terror to evildoers.

The end of history will not be inaugurated by the gentle coming of Jesus' reign of peace, but by the bloody and violent destruction of evil and evildoers. Jesus is gentle and humble, but also a warrior who will shatter his enemies with a rod of iron - precisely because he hates the evil, oppression and injustice inflicted on those he loves.

That doesn't mean we engage in vigilante justice. But it does inform how we see God and what it means to reflect the character of Christ. God reserves the right to take life; but he also expresses that divine prerogative through worldly authorities.

Anon, what I truly appeciate in your comments is the implicit recognition that if we've erred in one direction, it's been towards the cheapening of human life. That should give us all pause.

These are indeed serious questions deserving mature reflection. Thank you again for a great discussion.; 2/2/06, 1:01 PM
Gaius Arbo said...: Well, anon, this has been one of the better comment sessions I have been involved in, thanks for the conversation.; 2/2/06, 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Wisconsin is one of only two remaining states that have NO opportunity for concealed carry. Our constitution DOES give us the right to bear arms for security and defense, but we have a statute that expressly forbids concealed carry. We have some Supreme Court judges up for election in April, which might change the view on the court, but as it stands now, the court will not declare the "NO CARRY" law unconstitutional. Further, we have a VERY liberal Governor who will NEVER sign a concealed carry bill. He is an EXTREME anti gun Democrat. In the fall election, the balance of power shifted in one of our state houses to Democrat control, so there will be NO concealed carry in Wisconsin any time soon (4 years at least).

The court has ruled two or three times now URGING the legislature to take action to rectify the discrepancy between the statute and the constitution. It is obvious to everyone in the state that the legislature cannot take any action because of the governor. So as more of these cases come before the court hopefully the court will rule that ten (10) years has been enough time for the legislature to act and that the court now needs to act and declare the current NO CARRY statute unconstitutional.; 2/12/07, 10:23 PM