Doyle Veto Stands for Concealed Carry - Good or Bad for Wisconsin Gun Owners?
The veto override vote today in the Assembly failed by 2 votes - Democrats (Steinbrink (D-65) and Terry Van Akkeren (D-26)) caving in to partisan politics and voting to sustain Doyle's veto when they initially supported the bill.
Is this bad news? Maybe, but not necessarily.
Supporters of the bill claimed that putting "concessions" (more on that later) to the anti-gun left into the bill was necessary in order to pass any type of concealed carry. These concessions included things like a list of permit holders held by the DOJ, access to the list by law enforcement, excessive (in my opinion) fees, and more. Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) lists at least 8 major anti-gun provisions in the bill.
The strategy, supporters claim, is to get something - anything - passed regardless of the anti-gun concession involved. Later, work can begin to gut the bill of anti-gun provisions, and eventually end up with a Vermont style carry law (no permits, fees, etc.).
Those against passage of this bill as it was written claimed that there should be no anti-gun provision whatsoever. As Corey Graff, Executive Director of WGO, wrote in the latest WGO news (Winter 2006, Vol II No. 1), in order to compromise, you need to be giving something up. Every time the pro-gun side "compromises" by accepting some of the anti-gun demands of the left, they are in fact giving up some of our Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. What does the left give up in this compromise?
NOTHING! They gain ground every time.
So anyway, although I want Wisconsin to legalize concealed carry, I would rather wait until such time as we can get legislation passed that is not loaded down with fees, mandatory training, DOJ registration lists and other such anti-gun provisions. Once lists get started (my biggest objection to the bill as written), they can be very hard to get rid of later.
If you really think about it, why burden the honest citizens of this state with red tape and fees when the criminals running around are already carrying concealed? I mean really, it's not like the criminals are going to apply for a permit if this would have passed...
Is this bad news? Maybe, but not necessarily.
Supporters of the bill claimed that putting "concessions" (more on that later) to the anti-gun left into the bill was necessary in order to pass any type of concealed carry. These concessions included things like a list of permit holders held by the DOJ, access to the list by law enforcement, excessive (in my opinion) fees, and more. Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) lists at least 8 major anti-gun provisions in the bill.
The strategy, supporters claim, is to get something - anything - passed regardless of the anti-gun concession involved. Later, work can begin to gut the bill of anti-gun provisions, and eventually end up with a Vermont style carry law (no permits, fees, etc.).
Those against passage of this bill as it was written claimed that there should be no anti-gun provision whatsoever. As Corey Graff, Executive Director of WGO, wrote in the latest WGO news (Winter 2006, Vol II No. 1), in order to compromise, you need to be giving something up. Every time the pro-gun side "compromises" by accepting some of the anti-gun demands of the left, they are in fact giving up some of our Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. What does the left give up in this compromise?
NOTHING! They gain ground every time.
So anyway, although I want Wisconsin to legalize concealed carry, I would rather wait until such time as we can get legislation passed that is not loaded down with fees, mandatory training, DOJ registration lists and other such anti-gun provisions. Once lists get started (my biggest objection to the bill as written), they can be very hard to get rid of later.
If you really think about it, why burden the honest citizens of this state with red tape and fees when the criminals running around are already carrying concealed? I mean really, it's not like the criminals are going to apply for a permit if this would have passed...
posted by Paul | 3:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment |
<< Home