CAPITOL REPORT – The Slippery Slope of Concealed Carry
By State Representative, Leon D. Young
Leon D. Young
November 1, 2011 is a date that definitely will be remembered in the annals of Wisconsin state history.
It signifies the date that concealed carry took effect in the Badger State.
Proponents of this misguided measure have consistently made the argument that this legislation was necessary in order “to even the playing field for law-abiding citizens.” Individuals, who have been licensed by the state, after some cursory training in gun safety, are now permitted to carry their handguns in plain view – unless otherwise prohibited.
Concealed carry supporters also made the case that Wisconsin was out of step with the rest of the nation in not permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons.
(As of today, Illinois is the last remaining state that does not allow concealed carry within its state borders.)
As a former Milwaukee Police Officer, I have some major reservations about both the need and applicability of this new law. As we have seen, over the past decade, the crime rate has been on a downward spiral. Moreover, the infusion of more guns in our midst does little, if anything, to ensure public safety or deter crime.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the application of this new law presents a myriad of logistical challenges, and will undoubtedly foster considerable public confusion. The situation at the State Capitol is a prime example. The Senate has indicated that it intends to prohibit concealed carry in its gallery, but visitors to the Assembly would be permitted to carry their weapons.
The State Department of Justice estimates that it will issue at least 100,000 concealed carry permits in the first year, approximately 50,000 in the second year, and may issue more than 200,000 over the 5 year period.
This proliferation of more individuals carrying handguns is bad public policy and has the potential for leading to more heat-of-the-moment consequences.
Community Shout-Out:
I would like to offer my congratulations to Career Youth Development (CYD) as it held its 41st annual Image Awards celebration last Saturday. Moreover, I would also like to recognize Mayor Tom Barrett and Valerie Daniels-Carter for being selected as CYD’s 2011 Man of the Year and Woman of the Year, respectively.
Read More! - Related Articles:
Popular Interests In This Article: CAPITOL REPORT, Leon D Young
(5 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Your comments concerns me greatly. Law abiding citizens should have the right to be armed.
While I do want the police and justice organizations to work – and they do most of the time – the police cannot be present to prevent crimes. There just aren’t enough of them. There are 300,000,000 people in the US and 500,000 law enforcement officers. Assuming three working shifts that means that there are approximately 1,800 Citizens per officer at any given time. When you add to that violent criminals being paroled every month with 50% of them that end up back in jail(there are hundreds of thousands violent criminals on parole walking the streets now), budget cuts for police and prisons, and the lingering recession you have a recipe for more violent crimes against law abiding citizens.
If you don’t allow law abiding citizens to own weapons to protect themselves essentially they become victims (bait) used to identify criminals for arrest. Is that what you really want?
I have read your article and I believe it has been written more out of emotion than fact. If your numbers are correct and in the first year 100,000 people are expected to obtain a permit, then that shows a real demand and that’s what the people want. Please show me where a concealed carry permit holder has committed a felony. If you do a search for news about concealed carry you get two things, articles about what a bad idea it is and articles about permit holders stopping crimes. I truly believe Police will always be the main deterrent to crime but we have to face facts, the police are reactive. The crime has to happen then they can go to work. My home was broken into while I was home and I am thankful that I do own and carry (with permit) my pistol because I was able to stop the intruder. I refuse to live in a state that would not allow conceal carry because they do not listen to the will of the people. Although I think your wrong on this point, I thank you very much for serving the public as a police officer, you guys are over worked and under paid!
Oh, brother! “Crime is in a downward spiral”… And you say you were a police officer? You need to read the crime reports coming out of Milwukee every day. There is at least a murder a day, many of these are shootings. It has only been legal to carry a pistol concealed since Tuesday. Who’s doing the shootings? Could it be that unlicensed criminals are doing these shootings? Why, how could that be? There was a law against carrying concealed! Get with it buddy! You want the crook to continue to have the upper hand? Sure sounds like it!
Regards from Hayward, Wisconsin!
Wow! One could spend a lifetime correcting the misconceptions of those agains concealed carry. However, this has to be one of the more egregious. You say, “Individuals, who have been licensed by the state, after some cursory training in gun safety, are now permitted to carry their handguns in plain view – unless otherwise prohibited.” Hmm, no. That would be open carry and that is legal without training or permit. Carrying a gun in plain view is by definition open carry. You then say, “This proliferation of more individuals carrying handguns is bad public policy and has the potential for leading to more heat-of-the-moment consequences.” What a loaded statement. That’s like saying allowing a person to drive a car is bad policy because they have the potential for hitting someone.
So far, every state that has passed a concealed carry law (shall issue, not “may” issue) has seen a drop in violent crime. Why would you not want that in Wisconsin?
Rep. Young:
Your arguments are weak. They didn’t carry the day in the legislature, and they don’t carry the day here. They are refuted by the experience in the myriad states where concealed carry has been law for years, and in some cases decades. Finally … and this is what you primarily don’t accept: the people have the right to bear arms for defense and other lawful purposes. That right is fundamental, and cannot be taken away because you think it’s bad policy. You simply must accept this, Rep. Young. After all, it’s mandated in the constitution you swore to uphold.
The same old tired arguments. “Heat of the moment” shootings by permit holders have been rare in other states where concealed carry has been legalized. People who get permits go through a thorough background check, and commit crimes at a rate far lower than the general population. Criminals with no compunction about breaking the law won’t hesiate to carry a handgun illegally, and the passage of this law gives law abiding citizens the opportunity to have a means of defending their own and their loved ones’ lives against criminal assault.
Armed citizens shoot and kill more criminals each year than police, and while police shooting error rates generally run around 10%, for armed citizens the rate is about 2%. Homicide rates in most areas of the U.S. have been generally falling, and they will continue to fall after the passage of this law.
And the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. While Mr. Young may disagree with the exercise of this right, it’s very clear that the majority of the public disagrees with him.
You state that crime has been on a downward spiral. What you omit in presenting that fact is that the issue of concealed carry permits across the nation and firearm sales have been on an upward spiral at the same time. Some say this suggests that increased gun ownership by peaceable citizens has a deterant effect on crime. If it doesn’t, it strongly suggests there is little to no relationship between crime rates and gunownership. Having spent my life living in states where firearms ownership is highly un-regulated, and concealed carry permits are easily obtained, and most who have them do actually carry,(as opposed to having a CCL “in case they need it”)I have found no reason to fear a peaceable citizen and his firearm. So the question really comes to “What are you afraid of?”
It doesn’t matter what effect concealed carry has on the crime rate. Public officials don’t have any authority to restrict our rights. They work for us. We don’t work for them. This includes both legislators and police. In particular, the capitol building belongs to the people. Our employees who work there have no authority to restrict our rights to carry weapons. It’s not like a privately owned store, where the owner can decide who enters, and what they do when the enter.
Mr. Young has failed to examine the successful experience of the 35 states that have adopted “Shall Issue” concealed carry in the past twenty years. He is focused on what could go wrong instead of what the benefits will be as indicated by these states. The six states with the lowest murder rates have ALL adopted shall issue concealed carry.
Washington DC is the city with the most extreme gun control. In 2010 DC had twenty seven times more murders than the larger city of El Paso, Texas. Twenty seven times more murders! Concealed carry is a huge deterrent to serious crime.
Chicago has a murder rate nineteen times higher than El Paso’s. This is a result of eliminating self defense. According to the Brady Campaign Scorecard California is the state with the most gun control laws. Their murder rate is over 400% higher than the state with the LEAST gun control.
Mr. Young’s believes safety comes from giving up freedom. He could not be more wrong. And I am….. E. Zach Lee-Wright
First, the presumption that a fundamental right is subject to any “reasonableness” analysis is facially flawed. The fact is that while regulations to insure public safety are permissable, outright restriction of the right is not.
Therefore, your opposition is noted, and dismissed.
As a former police officer, this Mr. Young is permitted to carry a pistol across the nation, yet he thinks of police officers as “only ones”, that they are the only ones who should be able to wield lethal force? What about the criminals that prey on the weak?
Here’s a wakeup call to this politician: the people have spoken. Time and again, in every state of the union. Concealed carry is good policy, if it wasn’t, wouldn’t at least *one state* have repealed their CCW legislation? There are none. What is Mr Young afraid of? Gun control in the USA started out as attempts to keep slaves, freedmen and finally the recently emanicapted from owning or carrying firearms.
All police officers know that they cannot be everywhere, to stop every crime before it’s been committed. Everyday people need to be able to protect themselves against the criminal element that is present in our society. Wisconsin is to be applauded for joining the rest of the USA in providing an avenue for self-protection without criminalization.
If concealed carry is so bad, why haven’t all the other states that have it bothered to repeal it? Typical ‘blood will blow in the streets’ hysteria, it never happens.
Mr. Young, I dare say that the folk of 48 other states have, to varying degrees, enacted similar measures in their States with no tangible increase in problems. I fail to see how the Citizens of the State of Wisconson will do markedly worse, unless you can explain why they are so inferior to the rest of the nation?
Are the police ARMED?
Why?
The police seldom arrive in time to even arrest a suspect, much less USE their guns.
If a police officer actually NEEDED a gun for a call, doesn’t logic suggest that the victim the call was made for, needed a gun as well?
Add to this the fact that: THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS.
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it . . . not Barney Fife.
But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
Connect With Us
Follow Us On Twitter
Advertisement
Sections
Popular Interests
newest articles
Most Commented
Most Viewed
We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.