Thursday, August 29, 2013

Wisconsin Republicans Support Gun Laws

Wisconsin Watch
In early August, amid a wave of carnage in Milwaukee, something remarkable occurred: A Republican state lawmaker called for new legislation to address gun violence, and Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the measure, sought by Milwaukee’s mayor and chief of police, had his support.
“I’m more than willing to talk with law enforcement here or anywhere else about creating mandatory minimum sentences for people who illegally possess a firearm,” Walker said, so long as the rights of others are not curtailed. “I’m all for that.”
At issue is a bill now being drafted for state Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, to mandate a three-year prison term for illegal firearm possession. Darling said she acted after talking with law enforcement officials in Milwaukee, where 23 people were shot, seven fatally, during a single week in early August.
Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn “couldn’t be more pleased with the apparent bipartisan support” for tougher gun-related penalties, says chief of staff Joel Plant. Flynn wants tougher rules for habitual criminals who carry weapons or commit gun crimes. A habitual criminal, by state statute, is anyone with one prior felony or three misdemeanor convictions within the past five years. 
Plant says this will mean amending the state’s concealed carry law to bar persons who meet this test from obtaining a license to pack heat. Currently, most kinds of misdemeanor convictions cannot be used to deny a concealed carry license.
In fact, even if the change Barrett and Flynn want is adopted, a person with two misdemeanor convictions for carrying a concealed gun without a license could still obtain one on request.
Imagine that having two or three misdemeanor convictions DOES NOT prevent one from getting a concealed carry permit.  And the gun-rights fanatics wonder why we're skeptical about the supposed safety record of permit holders.
Wisconsin seems to be on track to make some improvements.
What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. Misdemeanors cover a long list of offenses, many of which are non-violent. But the point remains that you've been shown the records from state police agencies that demonstrate the truth of our claims. When you reject facts, what else can be done?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about we make violent and gun-related misdemeanors a disqualifier?

      Delete
    2. Maybe. I'd like to see details before saying I'd support it, but I'd be open to discussion.

      So how about non-violent felonies no longer being a disqualifier?

      Delete
    3. How about no deals until you learn logic and come to defend gun rights?

      Delete
    4. Wait, Are you offering to negotiate, Mike? To make a deal with us?!?

      I thought you had determined that no deals were ever to be made? That "negotiation" was a horrible tactic that should never be undertaken?

      Delete
    5. Good point, Tennessean. If the gun control freaks ever wanted to make deals, both sides could actually do some things that would make sense. Required training for carry on campuses, for example, or a background check system that I've outlined in the past. We could even do what Mikeb was talking about in response to me.

      But he won't offer anything in return for his proposals. He wants to take and take and take, all without even a promise of giving.

      Except suppressors.

      Delete
    6. That wasn't a negotiation so stop trying so fucking hard to find the gotcha.

      My suggestion was a tightening up of the lax laws.

      Delete
    7. But you were also suggesting that we not disqualify people for non-violent, white collar felonies. It sounded like a loosening here and a tightening there--some type of balanced deal.

      Of course, we know that you still wouldn't like to get that deal or support it if it came up because the loosening part would be "a step in the wrong direction." Even thought the people don't need to be disarmed, we might as well keep them disarmed since we've already managed it!

      Delete
  2. Mike, for some reason, the link to this article doesn't seem to be working, so here it is, http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2013/08/28/a-gop-backed-anti-gun-bill/

    Not surprisingly, some DFL'ers are opposing the bill. Likely just because it was proposed by a republican.
    "State Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, immediately dissed Darling’s initiative, saying it would do little to keep criminals from getting guns. Berceau instead touted a Democrat-backed bill requiring background checks for nearly all state firearm sales."

    A state level group chairman made and interesting observation:

    "Nik Clark, chairman and president of Wisconsin Carry Inc., calls imposing mandatory sentences “a complete distraction from the real problem” that he says involves district attorneys and judges letting violent offenders off too easy. And he believes “one more law” wouldn’t make any difference."

    I believe that Mr. Clark has a very good point. And I believe that Make has made similar observations here regularly. However, this bill seems to be an attempt to counteract that perception by the voters. I personally believe that the real problem lies in the officials mentioned seem to believe that they don't have to worry about being reelected and the best cure for that is, as the old, old saying goes, "throw the bums out"

    ReplyDelete