Concealed-carry changes would keep streets safer (Wisconsin)

[shadowrider]

Milwaukee police want to take away the right to legally carry a concealed weapon from anyone who has three misdemeanor convictions over a five-year period. This strikes us as a reasonable idea that state lawmakers should embrace. Frequent brushes with the law, even when relatively minor, indicate a pattern of recklessness that doesn't earn one the right to pack a firearm.

The right to carry is now codified in state law. But there is nothing wrong with improving the legislation that passed last year. Carrying a concealed firearm is a great responsibility, and state legislators and gun rights activists should back changes suggested by Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and other law enforcement officials to keep repeat criminals from obtaining a concealed-carry permit.

(SNIP)

Gun rights advocates will argue that tweaking the law in any way will make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. But law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. Flynn's proposals will not affect the vast majority of firearm owners who respect the law and who are responsible.

One of the problems with Wisconsin Act 35 is that it allows habitual criminals to carry a concealed gun with immunity from a potential of a felony charge unless they fire their guns.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/concealedcarry-changes-would-keep-streets-safer-464huf9-142694185.html

Yup, additional laws will keep habitual law-breakers from breaking the law.

[DrDan]

1. why would anyone object to keeping guns out of the hands of law-breakers?

[Indydem]

2. "three misdemeanor convictions"

Do you know what can qualify as a misdemeanor?

You could manage to get 3 misdemeanor convictions from one night of drinking too much.

[rfranklin]

5. If you have a drinking problem you probably aren't qualified to carry...

When you are laying in the gutter in your own vomit, you are not a responsible citizen.

[DrDan]

9. and it's ok that one "drinking too much" is also carrying?

[ManiacJoe]

18. No, it is not. Why would you suggest that?

[shadowrider]

19. Ain't you heard yet?

CCW holders strap a gun or two on, tote them down to the local bar, get all licquored up, then draw and shoot the place to pieces. You can tell from all the stories floating around from this actually happening in a routine basis. Gotta be true, we're told all the time it happens and there's blood in the streets.

(Basically he's looking for someone, anyone, who will say it's ok for a CCW holder to drink while carrying.)

[DrDan]

20. bull roar - read the post I responded to

[shadowrider]

22. I did

He said you can get 3 misdemeanors from one night of drinking. He DIDN'T say you could get 3 misdemeanors while drinking AND carrying.

You brought up the guns, he didn't.

[DrDan]

23. that is what this thread is all about - break the law 3 times in 5 years and you lose your right to

carry

He was making the point that it would even apply during a night of heavy drinking - implying losing ones right to carry.

What do you think he was referring to.

JHC!

[shadowrider]

24. -- Shrug --

DrDan
9. and it's ok that one "drinking too much" is also carrying?

He neither said nor insinuated that. You brought it up.

Drinking AND carrying is never ok.

[DrDan]

29. shrug

anyone cited 3 times for drinking too much has no business carrying a gun

[oneshooter]

30. Just like a DR. who is cited three times for drinking too much

should lose their license.

Right?

[DrDan]

31. I would support that

3 times in 5 years as proposed for gun licenses

[DrDan]

21. pleaase read the post I responded to

[ManiacJoe]

25. I did, right before replying to your nonsense.

Recapping here:
----------------------------
Indydem: You could manage to get 3 misdemeanor convictions from one night of drinking too much.

DrDan: and it's ok that one "drinking too much" is also carrying?

ManiacJoe: No, it is not. Why would you suggest that?
----------------------------

In no way can Indydem's post be interpreted to suggest that carrying and drinking is acceptable. And yet you try to suggest just that. Care to explain yourself?

[gejohnston]

4. one of the comments explains it best

whippedcream - Today at 6:59 AM - Report Abuse

A number of years ago, I was an animal control officer for a village in central Wisconsin. We had one resident who had a very nice lab would get loose constantly. I picked up and returned the dog over six times. For some reason, I believed the family when they said the dog was somehow letting itself off the leash. If I didn't see it for myself, I wouldn't believe it. But after the last return, we watched the dog do a jump and flip to compress the hook with the rope and release himself. A change in hooks and he never ran loose again.
IF I had ticketed them at least three times, they would have these misdemeanor offenses on their records and be unable to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. How sad that this paper, supposedly a bastion of 1st amendment rights, will actively argue against the 2nd

[gejohnston]

3. does that include traffic infractions?

Jon Steward could have a ball with this:

Adding more teeth to the law will not suddenly cause all criminals to put their guns down, but changes are needed to make it less palatable for a criminal to carry a gun. And although classes are required under the state's concealed-carry law, the requirement for a gun permit ignores the reality of plea bargains. Too many habitual criminals can still legally qualify for and could obtain a concealed-carry permit because they have never been convicted of the felony on which they were originally charged. This loophole needs to be closed.

is he seriously saying a thug who gets a good plea bargan is going to apply for a CCW? I understand the intent, but it is theater.

Furthermore, making straw purchases a felony on the state level may be enough to stop someone from purchasing a gun for another person who cannot legally purchase a gun.

or how about getting US attorneys to prosecute straw purchasers instead of bothering medical pot dispensaries? If they ATF isn’t doing it, maybe they should be disbanded and enforcement be given back to the IRS. That did not work out very well either. Maybe state penalties are a good idea, since the feds are not doing their job.

These are small changes that will have no impact on responsible citizens. But the changes could go a long way toward keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not be packing a firearm.

I probably agree with the first sentence, but not the second.

[ellisonz]

34. Jon Stewart doesn't really care about the whining of "gun rights" activists.

Maybe as a spoof, but certainly not in support. I've been a regular watcher of the Daily Show for over a decade and I've never seen him do anything by make fun of gun nuts.

[gejohnston]

35. No, but his writers know absurdity when they see it

Did you see his "Daily Show" piece and Fast and Furious? It was very spot on.

[ellisonz]

36. This is a bit different.

For real though, carrying a gun is not a right in this country, the Supreme Court in Heller made that very clear. Want to tote, don't break the law. It's not that hard.

[gejohnston]

37. OK, neither is driving

one speeding ticket, lose your DL. Your dog got loose, lose your DL. Forget to use your blinker in front of a cop, lose your DL. Forgot to buckle up, lose your DL. Wrong race or taste in clothes, no DL for you.
Ideological pettiness is wrong regardless of who does it.

[ellisonz]

38. Do you understand the difference between civil citations and misdemeanors?

Without knowing the exact statutes in Wisconsin, I would more than imagine that none of those things are misdemeanors. Maybe excessive speeding - like 20+ mph over the speed limit in some jurisdictions.

[gejohnston]

39. I don't know about Wisconsin but

in Florida and Wyoming (the two states I concern myself with) they are civil citations. But hey, if you want to go with the zero tolerance, why not?
Seriously, it should depend on the offense. Misdemeanor domestic violence is obvious because possessing a gun is a federal felony. One strike and you are out.
Simple assault, petty theft, vandalism etc. that are crimes against persons, sure. Victim-less crimes like pot possession or prostitution, not so much.

Oh yeah, if stuff like dog fighting is a misdemeanor there, that should be a one strike.

[jeepnstein]

6. It's too soon to start tweaking the law.

Unless, of course, your intent is to try to gut the law altogether. I have no problem with them looking at the issue in a couple of years to see what the real issues are, not what someone thinks might happen maybe if it all works the way they think it will.

[shadowrider]

7. Politicians rarely, of any party, see past the end of their nose

and see that sneaky "law of unintended consequences" coming down the road.

[DrDan]

11. and I have no problem with them keeping guns out of the hands of law breakers

maybe it saves a life

after all, isn't that what a lot of laws are all about?

[jeepnstein]

13. Neither do I.

You do know why we have some offenses classed as misdemeanors and others as felonies, don't you? It would seem that some localities are letting serious offenses slide as misdemeanors after a plea deal and their answer to fixing that is to clamp down on everyone. If you really want to see the court systems get clogged, turn a misdemeanor into an offense that can have serious repercussions with regard to your Civil Rights. Let's restrict misdemeanor offenders from voting and see how that works for us, too.

Misdemeanors are handled quite differently than felonies. That's why it's OK for a felon to be denied certain rights like even owning a firearm, much less carrying one concealed.

[DrDan]

17. I have no problem with the proposed law

[Atypical Liberal]

8. We should only concern ourselves with violent crimes.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with this proposed law, because I doubt it will affect very many CCW permit holders. As the Texas conviction data shows, covering everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide, CCW permit holders are just hardly ever convicted of crimes.

But if you want to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, really the only crimes we ought to be considering are violent or otherwise serious offenses - offenses that call into question their judgement with a deadly weapon.

I don't really worry too much about people carrying a firearm if they have a criminal record of only jaywalking, or parking tickets, or other trivial offenses.

[DrDan]

10. well I guess that resolves that, then, doesn't it . . . you are ok with it

[Atypical Liberal]

15. It's just another internet opinion.

[X_Digger]

12. Jaywalkers, litterers, parking ticket scoundrels- they're daaaangerous people!

[PavePusher]

14. That's why they need to be on the Group W bench. n/t

[shadowrider]

16. Mother rapers, Father rapers

ROFL. I love that song.

[Callisto32]

27. But how does Alice feel about it?

[shadowrider]

28. You can get anything you want, at Alices Restaurant (Ceptin Alice)

[Logical]

26. So three PROTEST arrests, like Contempt Of Cop and no gun. Stupid idea.

[lastlib]

32. one-and-done would be better

One strike, you're out.

[Clames]

33. Because zero-tolerance policies...

...are so effective...

[ileus]

40. So why don't we ban guns already?