The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Concealed-carry not right for Wisconsin

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by J. S. Ebin:

by J. S. Ebin

Monday, February 6, 2006

Whatever side of the concealed-carry debate you land on, we should all be thankful that Wisconsin's legislators can move on to other issues … or can they?

Many Wisconsin legislators have not only vowed to make concealed-carry an issue in the upcoming elections but insist that they will continue to reintroduce the legislation until qualified Wisconsin residents are allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

After four years of this debate, I can't take it anymore. Concealed-carry, you win! National Rifle Association, go bother some other state. Criminals, you had better act now before I get a gun.

After all, 46 other states have some form of a concealed-carry law. And anyway, in Wisconsin, the Personal Protection Act would allow only "qualified" Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons. Also, to "qualify" to carry-concealed, one would have to complete training (with exceptions), not have committed a crime in the last three years (with exceptions) and not go into a house of worship, school zone or building on campus (on campus, though, would be allowed, with exceptions).

Governor Doyle, thank you for twice vetoing this flawed legislation and for strong-arming your fellow Democrats to uphold your veto. State Senator Zien, R-Eau Claire, thank you for promising to keep reintroducing concealed-carry until it's the law. To both of you, put aside your differences: Let's deal. But let's do it right, making sure that Wisconsin is going to be even safer than it is now.

However, Governor Doyle, before compromising (if you so choose to), I think it's important to give Wisconsin residents some form of assurance that if they get into an "unfriendly encounter," even if the other person is carrying concealed, they are responsible enough to control their anger. For example, take car accidents, which happen every day. Suppose that an accident occurs where the person lawfully carrying concealed is the victim, and sitting next to him/her is a wife/husband/child who is badly injured in the accident. Wisconsin residents need to have some measure of assurance that the people carrying concealed won't flip out and pull a gun, regardless of how badly their car might have been damaged or their loved ones injured.

Further, Senator Zien, before agreeing to a compromise, Wisconsin residents should be assured you understand that those who would be excluded from carrying concealed (felons, or persons who have committed a misdemeanor crime in the past three years, with exceptions) might once have been Wisconsin residents who had never been convicted of a felony. After all, future felons are not born with a note that says, "This person will commit a felony in the future. Never issue this person a weapon."

The first situation, the "unfriendly encounter" scenario, and the second, to steal a line from Ronald Reagan, the "trust, but verify" situation, address both the prevention of car accidents, high school sporting events, Summerfest, etc. from turning into assaults with a deadly weapon and the potential that every human has, when armed with a weapon, to flip out and end another person's life. Reconciling these possibilities with legalizing carrying concealed and making Wisconsin a safer state is not easy, but it can be done and should be done.

I propose limiting issuance of a concealed-carry license to a "need" basis. That is, people who would like to carry concealed would have to demonstrate their need to protect themselves from an identifiable danger.

For example, if people fear for their life from someone whom they already have a restraining order against, and the person violates the restraining order and threatens him or her with serious physical harm, grounds for carrying concealed would be justified. Many other "need" situations are possible, and it should be up to local law enforcement, which knows its communities best, to make a determination if a "need" is warranted.

Further, meeting the "trust, but verify" requirement for carrying a concealed weapon, local law enforcement should have the responsibility to follow up, at least on a weekly basis, with those who they have issued a license to carry concealed. This would mean that local law enforcement should be allowed to talk to neighbors of the permit holder, enter the permit holder's residence or whatever they need to help protect the permit holder and identify the danger.

Further, the permit holder should have to re-apply every two weeks.

Lastly, I think since Senator Zien of Eau Claire is so supportive of carrying concealed, the Governor and Senator should get together before this session closes to hash out a temporary compromise.

The compromise would be a test run, for five years, strictly limited to Eau Claire, under Senator Zien's guidance. After five years of data from Eau Claire, the people of Wisconsin would then have enough information to decide for themselves whether or not they really need to carry concealed.

I'd also like to see signs around Eau Claire, informing visitors (and potential criminals) that Eau Claire allows carrying concealed. Something like, "Welcome to Eau Claire, Drive with Care, Criminals Beware, We're Carrying Concealed, So You'd Better Shoot First, Because If You Give Us the Chance, We'll Pop A Cap in Your Ass, And You'll Go To Jail, Thanks To The Personal Protection Act."

Jason Ebin (ebin@wisc.edu) is a second-year law student.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 4:55pm):

Mr. Ebin, your article is distressing in its short sightedness. I find it
disturbing that you feel someone should judge another person's need for
self defense, or be required to give us constitutionally guaranteed rights
and allow officers to search their home at will if they chose to arm
themselves. How many women do you know that were raped were notified
before hand that they might be raped and got a restraining order? Victims
of armed robbery that got a confirmation call the morning before to
schedule the assault? How many people killed in school or mall shootings
got a post card in the mail telling them of their potential threat they
faced. I can only hope it won't take the harm to yourself, friends, or
family members to wake you up to the ideal that bad intentions often don't
come announced.

In Florida there have been 1.1 million concealed carry licenses issued
since 1987, and 157 (0.01%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees.
You talk about people "flipping out", I would challenge you to quit
speculating and show me that it happens. With 46 other states allowing
concealed carry, many for decades, you have an ideal sample.

It is offensive to even suggest someone should have to have a documented
threat on their lives and be treated like a criminal if they chose to
carry a gun to defend the lives of themselves and their loved ones.
Perhaps you will do some research with the law library you presumably have
access to and quit using speculation to support restrictions on life
saving measures.

Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 6:04pm):

No wonder the legal system in this country is in
such sad shape, with "law students" such as this.
I thought the ability to reason & argue coherently
were prerequesites for the practice of law.

Why is he (and many others who share his view) allowed to imagine scenarios that might turn dangerous, such as his examples of an automobile accident or an enraged parent of a high-school athlete "flipping out and ending another person's life", but those who want to defend themselves must prove why they need to do so based on a specific real event or threat? And then
be required to surrender other Constitutional rights
(hint - unreasonable searches) as well?

I can count on my fingers the number of "post-car-accident road rage handgun murder" and "violent parent of high school athlete slays opposing fan" headlines, while I'm going to need more body parts to tally up all of the WalMart shootings, mall shootings, armed robberies, muggings, rapes, etc.

Leave it to a law student/lawyer to advocate violating someone else's rights.

Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 9:01pm):

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Wisconsin residents are unaware that we are only 1 of 5 states in the Union that doesn't have a Concealed/Carry law. If this is such a bad proposal, then why don't we hear of daily reports of shoot outs involving people that were legally carrying weapons in other states? I do believe that citizens should go through a government regulated certification/training class before being able to carry a weapon. The whole problem with the opposers to this law and those who want to eliminate our nation's gun carrying rights is that they believe that the everyday citizen is entity that we need to worry about. The fact of the matter is that with or without this law, the true criminals in this state will carry a weapon and use it in criminal fashion if they want to. It is hard to debate that a criminal might think twice about robbing a conveinience store, for example, if there is a possibility of that clerk having a weapon. This is a perfect example once again of liberals trying to prevent meaninful and important legislation without having any sort of understanding of the details surrounding it. They all think that they know what's better for the citizens of this great nation than the citizens themselves. I believe that is what we call a "nanny state"

Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 12:24am):

This is a RIGHT... granted by the US Constitution, not unlike the RIGHT you have to write such a biased opinion. The last time I checked you didn't need to "prove" that you should be able to write whatever you want, so my Mr. Law Student... why would you need to "prove" a need for a carry license when it is in the Constitution?
The right to bear arms doesn't mean short sleeves sir.

Just because the right to free speech comes first doesn't mean it is more important. Oh, and these so called crimes that might be committed over traffic accidents or some other stupid thing... look at the other states that have passed this law, nothing of the sort has happened. Even if it did, people are going to be stupid whether or not they are given the right to be stupid.

More people are killed by cars every year, so I guess we better outlaw those too. At the very least we should make them "prove" they have somewhere to be.

Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 12:50am):

Under the Wisconsin State Constitution, business owners have the right to maintain guns at their place of business; homeowners also have this right.

Additionally, the statistic of almost all other states allowing concealed weapons is very misleading, as the majority of those states have severe restrictions, like California. In California, though the state has a carrying concealed law, in reality a permit to carry is almost impossible to get.

Unfortunately, the concealed-carry debate in Wisconsin has bee misplaced. Realistically, concealed-carry is not the problem; the problem is the introduction of legislation aimed more to win political points than to actually help Wisconsinites further protect themselves.

Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 10:15am):

Jason, what open mic night are you rehersing for, you are a must see comedian.

Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 1:39pm):

Please,I want to know,the States with concealed weapon license,and the rules.
Thanks.
psnsally

Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 7:16pm):

An earlier anonymous poster wrote:
"This is a RIGHT... granted by the US Constitution, not unlike the RIGHT you have to write such a biased opinion."

WRONG!!

Rights are NATURAL and INHERENT to being human beings (to all men, self evident, endowed by our Creator, etc), they are not 'granted' by any manmade constitution, government, body of legislators or anything else.

This is an exceedingly important point to this debate and all other debates of human rights.

The right to self defense is a natural human right. It is taken away from people most frequently by denying access to effective means for self defense.