Law enforcement: Concealed carry law needs training, background checks

[villager]

Law enforcement: Concealed carry law needs training, background checks

Winnebago County law enforcement officials are concerned that a state Senate bill authorizing residents to carry concealed weapons doesn't adequately protect police, citizens or those who would carry the weapons.

Law enforcement officials contacted by The Northwestern all said they are not against legislation that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons, but the law needs to require background checks and training before a permit is issued.

A Republican bill heading for a full Senate vote doesn't require any training or permits, a nod to gun advocates who believe they have the absolute constitutional right to bear arms without restrictions, but Assembly Republicans are pushing a second bill that would require instruction and licenses.

<snip>

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110528/OSH0101/105280366/Law-enforcement-Concealed-carry-law-needs-training-background-checks?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|FRONTPAGE

[eqfan592]

1. Based on what evidence did they come to this conclusion?

Given the various states that have constitutional carry on the books and the lack of any of the sort of issues that concern the officers, exactly what evidence to they have that such requirements are necessary outside of conjecture?

[cleanhippie]

2. Then provide the training and the background checks.

at your expense.

Here in WA, we do get a background check, Im ok with that, as my CPL is proof of my background check and I can purchase a handgun with no waiting period.

The training, I also agree with, but unless it is free or the charge is nominal, and classes are READILY available, its a hindrance.

[RSillsbee]

42. I'm not OK w/ that

Because you shouldn't have to have a waiting period

[cleanhippie]

43. Certainly not an arbitrary waiting period.

But if one has to wait for a background check?


That the main reason I got my CPL, so that I could purchase "on demand", as I already had proof of my background check.

Maybe I am missing what you are objecting to.

[RSillsbee]

47. When you say "waiting period"

I hear "10 mandatory cool off period" before you get to take the gun home. I think that's absolutely stupid and more so if you already own guns

[cleanhippie]

48. Ahh, yes, I see what you are talking about.

And I agree.

[Katya Mullethov]

49. Offer to do 10 push ups instead

And when they refuse , raise it to 100 !

[DonP]

3. Ooooh! Our masters have spoken - we heed and obey

So, a bunch of cops in a state that has never had concealed carry and has an extensive track record of abusing the existing Open Carry laws are the best possible source for what the laws should be?

Isn't that kind of like relying on the advice of a priest or a nun on family matters?

I have a number of cops in my family at every level from the street cop to senior command in Chicago. At no point have I ever given their political views any more credence than the guy I buy coffee from. I see no reason to give their opinion on this any more weight than another citizen just because they are cops.

Based on the track records in 48 other states CCW permit holders are NEVER a major crime issue, if an issue at all.

[villager]

5. you mean -- like you heed and obey rightwing extremists on this issue?

;-)

[eqfan592]

7. Nope.

I look at the DOJ and FBI crime statistics, compare them to the relevant laws, and see clearly how full of shit the gun control orgs are. Not to mention applying basic logic to the problems involved. No extremists required.

[DonP]

9. No, I don't follow the Brady Bunch - that's your gig

The only high profile and relatively memberless gun control group is a GOP right wing led organizations. Frequently quoted and referenced here by gun control "fans".

[eqfan592]

10. Ya know, I'd love to find out...

...what other organizations that are also headed and controlled by Republicans the gun control supporters listen to without question. Is it just this one because they happen to support their prejudice about guns and gun owners, or are there others?

[sharesunited]

6. Law enforcement has every reason to keep you disarmed, and you have no reason to arm yourself.

The mere fact that you want guns and ammo is evidence of your unsuitability to have them.

[Straw Man]

12. Because "they" know what's good for "you."

The mere fact that you want guns and ammo is evidence of your unsuitability to have them.

A classic: I suppose that sounds logical to you. The police want guns and ammo. Is that proof of their "unsuitability to have them"?

[sharesunited]

13. It's a social compact. The People voluntarily disarm to reduce harm to each other.

The People delegate the police as the primary holders of deadly force.

This is a cornerstone of civilization which 2A enthusiasts feel a compulsion to reject.

Because 2A enthusiasts think they are going to war with the police or the government.

(They aren't.)

[eqfan592]

14. Actually, The People delegate the police...

...as their primary law enforcement arm, dealing with criminals almost always AFTER the crime has been committed, not during it. They do NOT delegate the police as their primary line of personal defense against individual criminals, as no police force in existence could possibly accomplish such a task.

But hey, nice try though.

[sharesunited]

16. All you're saying is you'd better be the one to shoot first. Not a healthy societal incentive.

[eqfan592]

23. .....right.

So really what you're saying here is you have no counter to my point, so you're just going to pull shit out of your ass and fling it. Fair enough.

[spin]

32. If it is legitimate self defense, it doesn't matter who shoots first...

I have no requirement to wait until the bad guy shoots first or stabs me with a knife. I do need a legitimate reason to fear for my life.

[PavePusher]

41. But, but, but....

how do you know the threat is real until you're actually dead?

That seems to be the criteria some Anti's use...

[Straw Man]

56. In other words, "Just give it up."

Maybe they won't shoot. If they do, repeat vigorously, "Not in the face, not in the face!"

[PavePusher]

17. Delegation=/=abrogation

You may choose what ever path you prefer. I will not interfere with your personal choice.

Neither will I let you interfere with mine.

[spin]

34. You totally ignore the concept of self defense which is an actual cornerstone of civilization ...

THE NATURAL RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE

***snip***

As Heller pointed out, the 1689 English Declaration of Right (informally known
as the English Bill of Rights) was a ―predecessor of our Second Amendment.‖3
According to the Declaration: ―he subjects which are Protestants may have arms for
their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.‖4 The Convention
Parliament which wrote the Declaration of Right stated that the right to arms for defense
was a ―true, ancient, and indubitable right.‖ Yet as Joyce Malcolm has detailed, 1689
was the first time that the right to arms had been formally protected by a positive
enactment of English law.5
The explanation is simple. The Convention Parliament did not believe that it was
creating new rights, but simply recognizing established ones. Although previous
Parliaments had not enacted a statute specifically to protect the right of armed selfdefense,
British case law since 1330 had long recognized an absolute right to use deadly
force against home invaders.6 The right to self-defense itself, along with its necessary
implication of the right to use appropriate arms for self-defense, was considered to be
firmly established by natural law.
http://www.nationalshootingassociation.org/reports/Natural_Right_of_Self_Defence.pdf

Of course you can go back to the Old Testament

Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.

There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal jewelry and tools. In the dark, you have no way of knowing if someone is coming to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in that situation. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft or worse (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to prevent the commission of the crime).

In the second case, it says "if the sun has risen on him", and you kill the intruder, you are guilty of his bloodshed. The understanding is that in daytime, there is light, and you can discern the intentions of the home invader. The crime in question here is theft ("if the thief"). It is not legitimate to kill someone who is merely stealing your property. In creating civil laws, we see here that not all crimes are worthy of death.

In the daytime, it is assumed that the intention of the intruder can be discerned. If he is a thief, he may not be killed by the defendant. However, if the intruder is there to commit a different crime—assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.—different laws/rules would apply. Though the crime of theft is not worthy of death, kidnapping was worthy of death (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) as was murder.
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

[cleanhippie]

52. Do you even READ what you write?

The People voluntarily disarm to reduce harm to each other



SOME people voluntarily disarm to reduce harm to each other, not everyone. And until you get the criminals to comply.....well, you don't have an answer for that.

[Straw Man]

53. Nice switcheroo...

Because 2A enthusiasts think they are going to war with the police or the government.

Not me: no such plans. The topic was armed self-defense, in case you forgot. Until/unless the social compact provides me with my own personal bodyguard, I will choose to attend to my own needs. No social compact worth its salt should require me to take one for the team.

[PavePusher]

15. Advocating a police state again, on a Progressive website?

Foul and disgusting.

[sharesunited]

18. You're going to war with the police and the government? Ok, I have you down for that.

If you think it's "progressive."

[PavePusher]

20. It is, if the government makes it neccesary.

So far they have not done so, and I will work to keep it that way.

You are the one advocating actions that would precipitate a Civil War.

[sharesunited]

21. You're going to decide when it's time? You and how many of your friends?

Upon what grounds which you feel are righteous enough?

What makes that attitude any more justifiable than the kook militias which are ready to go there right now?

[PavePusher]

22. Yes, that's what Citizens do.

Decide when it's time.

You do not seem to have a grasp on the concepts of "democratic republic", "freedom" and "liberty".

But you certainly seem determined to find a way to control free-thinking people. This is vile beyond all belief.

[sharesunited]

24. The renunciation of armed rebellion isn't vile. It's the basis upon which Grant paroled Lee's army.

Grant let them immediately return home as long as they pledged to behave themselves.

That's a heart warming story from your history book, Pave.

[rrneck]

25. How many ways

can someone be a closed minded repressive fearful authoritarian and not actually admit it?

You are a gushing fountian of innovation.

[PavePusher]

27. Not really.

This LP has been scritching for some time now.

[sharesunited]

28. Over the counter access to morphine and over the internet access to child pornography.

Are you open or closed minded about these?

Is public policy which seeks to prevent these repressive or sensible?

[rrneck]

31. How often are those items used for self defense? nt

[PavePusher]

26. No-one ever claimed that the decisions of the Citizenry would always be correct...

or succesful.

That in no way supports a case for removing the right/ability to make those decisions.

In point of fact, we make those decisions every two, four and six years, with varying degrees of success. You must hate that.

[sharesunited]

29. To the contrary, voting is PRECISELY the means. Reserving some claimed right of violence is not.

And claiming that any such "right" exists is patently absurd.

[PavePusher]

30. No-one is proposing using other means...

until voting doesn't work.

And yes, resorting to violence in desperate times is a Right, reserved to the people or their delegates operating under their control. Says so right there in the Second Amendment.

Your denial of reality is well past the border of dubious mental health. I fear for your sanity and well-being.

[Katya Mullethov]

33. Dont be afraid

chickeeeeeeen !

[PavePusher]

37. Mmmmmmm, chicken...... nom-nom-nom....! 8>) n/t

[Oneka]

35. Armed Rebelion

is how this country gained self rule, from England.

Now that, is a heart warming story from my history books,tragic as it most certainly was, for many involved.

[spin]

39. Not wanting to live in a police state and attempting to get our representatives ...

and President to revoke laws which violate the Bill of Rights is not the same as "going to war with the police and the government."

Many people who post on DU are opposed to the Patriot Act, our War on Drugs and our War on Terror as such activities have led to a serious erosion of our freedoms. Opposition to government policies in no way means the person plans to "go to war". In fact when a person faces punishment for expressing concern about government policies, then we are approaching a police state.

It would be progressive to overthrow a tyrannical government that was oppressing the rights of all the citizens. That's exactly how and why our country came to be. However, we are nowhere near the point where taking up arms is necessary.

I am, however, sure that if we lived in the 18th century during the American Revolution, you would have been a Tory.

[Logical]

4. I have no problem with this actually. I think the class is helpful about state laws and.....

what is a good shoot and a bad shoot.

[PavePusher]

8. If it is that beneficial, it can be paid for by everyone's tax dollars.

After all, if it protects everyone... all should share the costs.

[Logical]

11. Maybe partially. Not the full cost. n-t

[PavePusher]

19. Why not? We do the same with other government programs.

If it benefits society as a whole, then society as a whole can pay for it. Whether anyone chooses to then utilize the program is a personal choice.

[Logical]

36. People pay for their own drivers training and pilot training. n-t

[PavePusher]

40. Neither of which is a Constitutionally enumerated Right.

Note also that both cars and aircraft are much more complex than firearms, both in construction, operation and physical principals. Where the line should be drawn between the two extremes I can not say right now. But I'd personally err to the side of liberty, with the stipulation that one be held accountable for any non-defensive harm, with penalties increasing for demonstratable negligence, ignorance of safe operating principals being classified as negligence. This would encourage formal training, without requiring it for those who can demonstrate such knowledge to a court when required as above.

[Logical]

44. All rights have limitations. I think the limitations on the 2nd is training for CCW. Even...

the scotus says that some restrictions are OK.

And I trust more people more with a car than a gun. There are many considerations that I think the CCW class points out.

I also like CCW holders being tracked to prove how lawful they are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. But statistically, guns are safer than cars.

There are about nine guns for every ten people in the US.

There are about five cars for every ten people in the US.

Yet cars kill more people in the US than guns do.

[Logical]

46. Cars are used much more than guns are. n-t

[benEzra]

38. But you oppose carry laws that DO include training and background checks, don't you?

Or are you OK now with the carry laws of most states, which include those things?

Here in NC, a CHL involves a Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, a training class, and demonstration of competence on a shooting range. Yet you still view us as uneducated, incompetent/bloodthirsty criminals-in-waiting, do you not?

[Taitertots]

50. Why don't they produce some evidence that the change will endanger them or anyone else?

Oh yeah, because the exact opposite has happened every other place it has been tried.

[benEzra]

51. And which side were you on when Doyle twice vetoed laws that DID have the requirements you want? n/t

[Pullo]

54. I find it amusing opponents of CCW in WI have been reduced to advocating Shall Issue permits .....

..... instead of Constitutional carry. Opposing WI concealed carry in all forms is a losing battle and the antis know it.


Looks like yet another state is about to turn blue, or possibly even green.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. 'May Issue' is now Constititutionally indefensible, and they know it.

California will be forced into becoming a 'shall issue' state.