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 ([email protected]) is a second-year law student.