Posted on 11/02/2003 1:38:15 PM PST by jdege
By Neil Rhines
Herald Times Reporter
MANITOWOC —You might not realize it, but the man or woman sitting across from you in your favorite restaurant may have a handgun tucked underneath his or her jacket.
Is this a cause for concern? Or will the threat of a potential victim legally carrying a concealed firearm be enough to deter a criminal from committing an act of violence?
Ultimately, whether or not the Personal Protection Act (Senate Bill 214) presently coasting through the Republican-controlled Legislature passes — as most analysts predict it could — the question that begs to be answered is whether or not allowing men and women to “strap” will make Wisconsin a safer place.
On Sept. 23, 1998, Manitowoc Police officer Dale Ten Haken was shot and killed with a concealed weapon.
Regardless, Manitowoc Police Chief Perry Kingsbury said has no quarrel with a trained, law-abiding citizen who chooses to legally carry a handgun for protection, though he himself does not carry one off duty.
“Even though this department lost an officer to a concealed weapon, I believe people have a perfectly legal right to have one,” Kingsbury said. “If the bad guys are carrying a gun concealed, why can’t the good guys?”
As to the question of safety, Kingsbury said he has great concerns should a citizen feel they are receiving inadequate protection from the police.
But, response time is an issue, he said.
“In the three to four minutes it could take for the police to get there, it could be longer than that person could have,” Kingsbury said.
Concerning the general opinion of the law enforcement community, however, Kingsbury stands in the minority.
Randy Ammerman, chief of the Two Rivers Police Department, said he agrees with the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association’s stance against concealed carry.
Coincidentally, the Wisconsin chiefs declared their formal opposition on Sept. 23, the fifth anniversary of Ten Haken’s death.
According to Ammerman, in the 30 years he has served the city of Two Rivers, he has never seen a case where someone absolutely needed to defend him or herself with a gun, and doesn’t believe the best choice is to overturn the 130 year-old ban.
“There are a couple of things that cause me a lot of concern on this,” Ammerman said, including the availability of weapons in “the heat of the moment,” and what he sees as the inevitable change in law enforcement tactics should the bill pass.
“It will no longer be acceptable to assume an aggressive individual is unarmed, we’re going to have to be more focused on the preservation of the officer,” he said. “As soon as I’m standing there with my hands in my pockets, what are you going to think?”
Ammerman said he is resigned to the bill’s passage, although he doesn’t see much good coming from a bill with a “check your guns at the door” clause.
Also, he remains frustrated by many provisions in a bill that he believes will further separate the law enforcement community from citizens, and of the hidden costs should the bill pass.
The Department of Justice predicts counties would spend an estimated $32,000 to purchase the necessary equipment to handle concealed carry applications and licensing. Background checks would take at least an hour to complete.
Another of Ammerman’s concerns is that, “guns are hard to conceal, they tend to frighten people when they see them.”
Ammerman said he is worried those carrying could use the presence of a firearm as an intimidation factor.
So does Keely Crowley, community outreach advocate at the Domestic Violence Center in Manitowoc.
“I don’t feel that putting more guns out in our community is going to make us safer,” Crowley said. “My major concern is, there are a lot of victims that aren’t going to feel comfortable with a gun, but their abuser might have a gun, so ‘I have to have a gun.’ You just put firearms in two more households.”
According to Crowley, domestic abuse situations typically involve one individual exerting dominance over another, usually using fear of verbal or physical violence as a means to achieve their goal. Crowley is concerned that even if the gun isn’t used to shoot the partner, the presence of the firearm could be enough to intimidate the victim.
Patrick Blashka, president of the Manitowoc County Fish and Game Protective Association, said he, too, believes legalizing concealed carry will intimidate people, but in a far different way than Crowley contends.
“Yes, the criminals are out there, but if they know the individual is carrying a concealed weapon, they’ll be less likely to attack,” Blashka said.
There are some areas Blashka would prefer guns to stay out of, such as churches, taverns and public buildings. He knows there is controversy in anything new or different, but, ultimately, he doesn’t believe people need be too concerned, because not too many people will go through the legal steps to carry.
“I doubt whether people will rush out to get a license to carry a firearm, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, it’s a good thing for criminals to know (someone might be carrying),” he said.
Who could apply for concealed weapon license?
Those 21 years of age or older who are interested in carrying a concealed weapon would be required to submit to a background check, for which applicants would be charged no more than $113, undergo an approved training course, may have no felony convictions on their record and cannot be addicted to drugs or alcohol.
The Department of Justice suspects about 35,000 of Wisconsin’s 5.5 million residents will pay a maximum cost of $113 so they can carry a weapon. Counties do not have to offer the permits. Residents in those counties would be required to acquire their permit from another county.
Counties can deny individual permits.
It is predicted that less than 1 percent of all people in Wisconsin will “strap,” should the bill pass the Assembly and override a promised veto from Gov. Jim Doyle.
Wisconsin would be the 46th state to allow concealed carry.
Neil Rhines: 920-686-2105 or Nrhines@htrnews.com
Local lawmakers share viewpoint on weapons bill
And I'm quite certain that the killer was legally carrying concealed, wasn't he?
The weasel who wrote this story is counting on the sheeple to overlook his subtle lie and conclude that legal CCW is a bad idea. It probably worked.
The Department of Justice predicts counties would spend an estimated $32,000 to purchase the necessary equipment to handle concealed carry applications and licensing...
Horrors!! This certainly is a good reason to stop this "strap" nonsense! (*BTW, anybody ever heard that term "strap" used before? I haven't.*)
... about 35,000 of Wisconsin’s 5.5 million residents will pay a maximum cost of $113 so they can carry a weapon.
Uh, wait a minute. That totals $3,955,000. That should easily cover the $32,000 in "necessary equipment", shouldn't it?
Ah, well. I suppose the antis will have to find something else to bitch about....
Damn! I'm moving to Two Rivers! Not a single rape or murder in 30 years!
Missouri has passed shall issue as well as overriding our idiot dem (yeah I know.....redundant) govenor. Now we're just waiting for the eventual failure of the anti's appeal to the supreme court.
This infuriates me. I'm a lady, the mother of two children, and I have a stalker. Law enforcement hasn't been successful in getting him to back off. I have good reason to believe I'm in danger from this lunatic. But if I hold him off with (let's say, as an example) a 9 mm Browning HP, I'm in more trouble than he is, even if I don't have to actually give him a chestful of hollowpoints. Just having it in my bag puts me in big trouble. The logic of this system escapes me.
Notice how they're about to define-"the law enforcement community":" Randy Ammerman, chief of the Two Rivers Police Department, said he agrees with the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association’s stance against concealed carry. Coincidentally, the Wisconsin chiefs declared their formal opposition on Sept. 23,"
Seems like they left out the bulk of the community and only acknowledge the "chiefs". Indians don't count I guess.
" the fifth anniversary of Ten Haken’s death.
Killed by a criminal resisting arrest for a crime he committed. Of course the implication is that anyone that wants a gun, or shows interest in them, is a criminal at heart that just wants to kill cops and other folks.
A gun is a tool, there are legitimate reasons for having and using it. The chiefs' reasoning for opposing it remains hidden in these articles and that reasoning amounts to control, job security and enhancement and prestige as someone annointed with special talents and training that elevates them above ordinary folks. Barf!
This chief is foolish - ". . . he does not carry one off duty." Incredible. Hower, this guy is typical of one segment of police officers who don't want to carry guns AND he doesn't see a threat to himself when he's off-duty.
Don't "hold him off" - - finish him off. If the situation is severe enough (life-threatening) for you to point your gun at him, pull the trigger as many times as it takes. Dead men tell no tales, and the police obviously have a record of the existing threat to you and your childrens' lives.
Take your chances being judged by 12, instead of carried by 6.
I'll keep you in my prayers.
That is the same policy in California as well. It's a cynical policy. The "they's" claim you can have a permit, "if you need it". Unfortunately, "they" are the ones that decide your need. Usually, a permit is denied, unless you're famous, like Sean Penn or a politician as is State Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland). Sen. Perata has introduced so many gun control bills that he claims he gets "death threats" and "needs" a concealed cary permit.
If, somehow, this policy and illegal aliens rights could be linked, maybe CA would get "Shall Issue" permit statutes. As things are now, not likely.
That practice goes well beyond foolish. I would think that he should be prepared to carry out his sworn duties regardless of whether he's on duty or off.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.