Wisconsin legislature fails to over-ride veto--so no concealled carry

[HereSince1628]

here. Rs wanted this although the people of the state were opposed to it by a big majority.


No link they just announced it on the tube.

[Superfly]

1. Shit on a stick...

There's always next year, I s'pose.

[Fescue4u]

2. Criminals in Wisconsin are safe for another year.

Thats shame that Wisconsin cannot join the majority of states in allowing citizens to protect themselves against criminals.

[MrBenchley]

6. What a pantload....

Mary Rosh's big lie: "More guns = less crime"

[slackmaster]

9. False analogy and gratuitous scatological remark

Fair-issue != more guns.

[TheMightyFavog]

3. w00t!

Screw you, John Gard!

[sybylla]

4. My Sen. Zein-R(Retarded) can take his "shall issue" and shove it up his...

I guess he'll just have to strap that revolver to his thigh instead.

[Romulus]

20. sounds great

Just like how Bush & Co. hate shall-issue protest permit systems.

Enjoy your First Amendment zone.

[MrBenchley]

5. Way to go, Democrats!!

[RoeBear]

48. Way to go Democrats!

Except for the fact that some number of Democrats are going to be unemployed next November. It comes back to pissing off gunowners, they are going to be looking for pay back.

[MrSandman]

7. Keep an eye on WI

It should be tell whether the gun issue is significant in an election...either way.

[HereSince1628]

8. Update: vote was 65 to 35...one vote short of that needed

This was after twice post-poning the vote in the past couple of weeks.
Local news channel says sources indicate they may try again next year.

[MrBenchley]

12. Of course they will....

Losing the referendum in Missouri didn't stop the GOP and the corrupt gun industry there either....

Guess next time they'll have to round up more gun nuts to pretend to be from Wisconsin.....

[MrBenchley]

13. Speaking of Missouri...

"JEFFERSON CITY - Three Democratic congressmen have asked for a Defense Department investigation into why a Republican Missouri lawmaker received only a light punishment for violating military rules by voting while on active duty.
State Sen. Jon Dolan, a major in the Army National Guard, returned on leave from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last September to cast the deciding vote overriding Democratic Gov. Bob Holden's veto of concealed guns legislation.
U.S. Reps. William Lacy Clay and Dick Gephardt, both Missouri Democrats, and California Rep. Henry Waxman wrote a letter Thursday requesting Defense Department Inspector General Joseph Schmitz investigate whether Dolan received special treatment.
The congressmen note that Dolan voted despite being told by Brig. Gen. Dennis Shull, the head of the Missouri National Guard, that his action would violate military rules. According to military records, Shull was asked to study the issue by Holden's office. "


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Missouri+State+News/900D3538F02DAD8B86256E2D005313DB?OpenDocument&Headline=Lawmakers+urge+investigation+of+state+Sen.+Dolan&highlight=2%2Cguns

[leanings]

10. Near thing, too

They barely avoided the sky rocketing crime rates and Wild West style shootouts in the streets that have broken out in all the other states that have adopted shall issue CCW. Just like the VPC and the rest predicted. I mean, that's right, isn't it fellas?

[MrSandman]

11. Don't ya know it...

[alwynsw]

14. Yup. I'm meeting Liberty Valance on Main St. at noon tomorrow.

I had to juggle my shootout schedule, but when it's Liberty, you pencil him in.

[beevul]

15. You mean like in this map?

The blue must be the bloodbath spreading, right?:evilgrin:

Its the V-GIC - pronounced VEE-JIK. (vast gun industry conspiracy):evilgrin:


For WI, theres always next year. Meanwhile, the direction the tide is flowing is clear.

[RoeBear]

16. Per my comment in a different thread:

when you piss off gun owners some politician is going to get bit in the ass. Who's it going to be this time?

[RoeBear]

17. Threatening e-mails sent to legislators...

...word on the street is that they were sent by anti gun loons.

"The concealed weapons bill has been such a controversial topic at the Capitol that some lawmakers received threatening emails. Capitol police say the same message was sent to about 30 legislators. It reads, "Don't you think that passage of the concealed weapons bill increases the chances of your being assassinated?" "

[MrBenchley]

21. Wow, another RKBA "quote" with no link

Wonder why that is? Perhaps because the "word on the street" also contained this?

"The man who sent the email signed a name to it and Capitol police learned he lived in Fort Atkinson. An investigator paid him a visit, and the man said he didn't mean the email as a threat. The Dane County district attorney won't be filing any charges against him."

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=1627252&nav=51s6KZWz

And this...

"Late Monday afternoon, members of 20 organizations announced they plan to rally Tuesday at the Capitol against concealed weapons. The noon gathering is expected to include law enforcement and victims of gun violence."

[RoeBear]

22. According to your theory...

...the police, who were against the passage of the CCW law, had a chance to arrest and prosecute a gun owner making a threat. But they didn't do that. I, and others who know more, say it's because he was an anti-gun loon making the threat. They didn't want to arrest someone that they saw as on their side.

[MrBenchley]

23. No theory, just ACTUAL FACT...

The cops were opposed to this imbecilic law, and the threat was not really a threat....and the RKBA crowd again put up a quote and omitted the source of that quote....perhaps because the "word on the street" in context turned out to be something other than the assassination threat depicted .

Ain't google a wonderful thing?

"I, and others who know more"
Tell us, roe, do they know why you didn't include a link? I have my own "theory" about why but I'd be amused to see other input.

[RoeBear]

27. The only fact you have...

...is that an threatening e-mail was sent and the police tracked it down.

Why would the police not have arrested the guy?

[MrBenchley]

29. "Word on the street" is....

"The man who sent the email signed a name to it and Capitol police learned he lived in Fort Atkinson. An investigator paid him a visit, and the man said he didn't mean the email as a threat. The Dane County district attorney won't be filing any charges against him."

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=1627252&;nav=51s6KZWz

[CO Liberal]

18. Sanity Prevails In Wisconsin!!!!

Way to go, Cheeseheads!!!!!

:toast:

[FeebMaster]

19. I'm with you CO,

that bill sucked. What Wisconsin needs is Alaska/Vermont style concealed carry. As if an honest, hard working American should have to get a permit to exercise a right.

[CO Liberal]

24. What They Really Need...

...is no CCW at all, IMHO.

[Superfly]

25. What we all really need is

a world free from criminals and where beautiful women bring you free beer. You give me that, I will gladly surrender every single firearm I have...

[Liberal Classic]

28. Peace on earth, while we're at it

Then we won't need weapons.

Until then, however...

[MrBenchley]

26. More Democrats would help

and reminding voters of the disgraceful way the GOP tried to get pistol permits for whoever couldn't be stopped, over the objections of police, would help...

[CarinKaryn]

30. Why would Repugs even want to overturn the will of the people?

:shrug:

The people were opposed, the repugs did not care and tried to ram an unsafe bill down their throats. The people won...this time.

[RoeBear]

31. Prove it...

...you call CCW unsafe, prove it.

[MrBenchley]

32. The GOP is beholden to special interests

And yes, the people won this time.

[MrSandman]

33. Prove CCW unsafe

[MrBenchley]

34. Happy to....

Florida passed its idiotic CCW law in 1987, when it had 123,030 violent crimes...by 1993, there were 161,789 violent crimes, a 31% increase.

In 1993, violent crime bagan to decrease all acroos the country due to the Brady law.....but it declined at a slower rate in Florida than it did in states with sane laws.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/1996/trends.asp

Next ask me if I want every neurotic with a Chuck Norris fantasy running around with a pistol in his pocket. Or paranoid imbeciles with handguns wandering around churches, stores, restaurants and workplaces.

[MrSandman]

35. Innumeracy On two Counts:

1:
1987 Crime Rate: 8,479.9
1996 Crime Rate: 7,491.3

2:
No causal relationship shown for crime and CCW or lack therof.


Play again soon:-)

[MrBenchley]

37. Typical RKBA innumeracy and evasion

Imagine that...three years after the Brady law passed, the crime rate declined...just as I said.

"No causal relationship shown for crime and CCW"
It was the gun nuts who claimed their hiddenn popgun trick would CUT crime...which turrned out too be horseshit, as the record clearly shows.

[MrSandman]

38. Wrong answer...

It began to drop in 1989. This was probably in anticipation of the AWB though.
"...as the record clearly shows."
Which record would that be?

See post 15, there are sooo many states to choose from.

[MrBenchley]

39. No, it was the right answer....

[MrSandman]

45. Then this revelation need to be forwarded.

I am sure Sarah Brady, VPC, AGS, and a Million Moms will want this irrefutable statistical analysis to present to repeal the AWB sunset.

on edit...I can't argue with logic that denies reality.

[MrBenchley]

49. Hell, EVERYBODY already knows

more guns = less crime is horseshit.

The only exception are those benighted souls still trying to pretend Mary Rosh is a real scientist.

[MrSandman]

51. The question was whether CCW increased cirme...

I say it has no measurable effect.

more guns = less crime is horseshit

less guns = less crime stinks, too.

[RoeBear]

36. Ask me if I care...

...what you want.

[-..__...]

40. "Will of the people"?

What if the "will of the people" decides that same sex marriages should be against the law?

What if the "will of the people" decides that flag desecration should be outlawed; via a Constitutional Amendment?

What if the "will of the people" decided that there should be limits to abortion or reproductive rights?

Will you support the "will of the people" then?

Democracy is a beautiful thing, until you disagree with it.

In the case of CCW, Democracy worked in 37 states (45 if you count states where Democracy is at the discretion of your local sheriff).

And it just wasn't the Republicans. There were 5 Democrats who voted for the override... that takes a lot of balls and earns my respect.

The override fell one vote short of passage. That one vote (a Dem), was one of the original sponsors of the bill.

Apparently that person originally believed that law abiding citizens could be trusted carrying a concealed weapon, but when it came down to putting-his-money-where-his-mouth is, caved in to party pressure.

The people won...this time.

Did they? What did they win?

[MrBenchley]

41. For one thing

the people won the right not to have armed nutcases lugging pistols around in their pockets.

[-..__...]

42. Did they?

They still have "armed nutcases lugging pistols around in their pockets
"... they're called "criminals". Think Wisconsinites are sleeping any safer tonight?

(edited to correct spelling: "Wisconites" to "Wisconsinites"... even then, I'm not certain if that's correct). :)

[MrBenchley]

43. Yeah, they did

And yeah, I think the people of Wisconsin are sleeping better tonight...while a tiny knot of gun nuts who were pretending to be Badger state citizens to pressure legislators are tossing, turning and gnashing their teeth.

[MrBenchley]

44. A Democrat sums it up....

"Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, one of the plan's authors, warned lawmakers who voted to sustain Doyle's veto or ever voted against the legislation that gun supporters would kick them out of office in November's elections.
Senate Minority Leader Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, said Zien is obsessed with gun issues.
"Dave Zien is the most one-dimensional legislator I've ever met," Erpenbach said. "If he applied half the passion to health care he does to guns, two-thirds of the state would be covered. The shallowness of Dave Zien is kind of disturbing.
Zien, Gunderson and LaSorte all promised to bring the bill back when the new legislative session begins next January. They all said the new bill won't contain the list of exemptions they tacked on to the old version to placate opponents.
That bill included bans on concealed weapons in police stations, courthouses, schools, taverns, churches and hospitals."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/states/wisconsin/7877683.htm

"Shallowness" understates these Republican asswipes....they're pathological.

[grower]

46. after all of this gnashing

of teeth lets try this

The Wisconsin supreme court overturned a law banning concealed weapons on constitutional grounds.

in that decision the court recommended the legislature write a law giving law enforcement and the courts guidelines used to govern CCW.

The Governor vetoed this bill.

Today you can get a permit to carry but have to show proof of need to the court. People in the court system say they will be much more agreeable given this latest show of support by the elected representatives.

The senator that wrote the bill voted no to overturn the veto, and now knows that with all of the support shown by the voters the bill he introduces next year will not be as restrictive as the bill that was vetoed. The vetoed bill had a lot of language in it that was there due to the necessary negotiation that enabled this bill to clear both houses. After the govenors veto the response of the voters showed that a bill with less restrictions is now going to be easier to pass

[MrBenchley]

47. The Wisconsin Supreme Court on this planet....

"Our Supreme Court backs a general prohibition against concealed guns.
In July 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wisconsin's prohibition against carrying concealed weapons. The court supported keeping weapons concealed only for persons in their own residences and private business owners in their own premises. The court also said that the general prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in public is supported by our state constitution. The majority decision was crystal clear as quoted directly: "Wisconsin's prohibition of the carrying of concealed weapons is, as a general matter, a reasonable exercise of the police power, and serves many valuable purposes in promoting public safety."


http://www.waveedfund.org/Concealed.htm

[Dolomite]

50. Not sure if you were referring to Wisconsin...

But the following is unfortunately not true:

"Today you can get a permit to carry but have to show proof of need to the court. People in the court system say they will be much more agreeable given this latest show of support by the elected representatives."

Yes, that's the way it works in California, New York and a very few other States, but only the rich and the famous are allowed a permit - people like: Bill Cosby, Joan Rivers, Cybill Sheperd, Senator Diane Fienstien, Howard Stern, Donald Trump, William F. Buckley, Robert DeNiro, Representative James Scheuer, Sean Penn, and most importantly, Uri Geller – they all currently have, or have held, state permission to carry a gun. What about the guy that owns a jewelry store, the pharmaceutical sales rep, or the single mother working a night shift job in a bad part of town? – well – fuck them.

Here in ‘sconsin, no one, save for current, fully sworn Federal and State of Wisconsin peace officers may carry a concealed weapon. No judges, no reserve police officers and no out of state cops. Nobody can have one (although there are rumors of some of our Governor’s closest people having “authorization” from him to carry concealed).

The WI Supreme Court came just one justice away from changing that radically last summer - with the Munir Hamdan case.

Here’s what Chief Justice Shirely Abrahamson wrote in the sole dissenting opinion of State v. Hamdan:

“anyone who must walk home from a bus stop every night after work through a high crime neighborhood can surely argue that his or her need to exercise the right to bear arms is high, concealment is necessary, and that his or her interests in self-protection substantially outweigh the State's interest in regulating concealed weapons… The number of individuals who can fit under (this) umbrella is large.”

And that came from the one person on the WISC that had the power to vote with the other 6 justices and nullify the current 134 year-old Jim Crow-era ban completely. But, she knew what that would mean, and instead pretty much begged our Legislature to make things right for the people. In turn, what the WISC got with the Assembly upholding the Governor's veto, was another chance at restoring Wisconsinite's unrestricted, lawless carry privelages.


Oh, and more thing, in Wisconsin, the Supremes are elected - not appointed by the Governor, therefore he has no power over them whatsoever.


Edited to add: the case quoted on the WAVE website came before State v. Hamdan and involved an individual carrying concealed while conducting an illegal activity. In State v. Cole, the defendant was looking to get off on one of many charges against him - they found that restricting the "right to defense" clause in our State constitution was a reasonble excercise of the State's police powers when one was transporting large amounts of drugs.