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!
Three to four minutes? Where does he live. Try 20 minutes on a good night. I once had to wait TWO HOURS to report an accident involving an impaired driver who missed two vehicles (mine and one other) and took out two mailboxes. Fortunately, no one was walking there at the time. The impaired driver had of course long since driven off, on a flat tire!
Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin I can understand (they have large cities with lots of crime) but I have never figured out why Kansas and Nebraska, which are very rural, are no-CCW states. Anyone know?
Actually, the logic is quite simple. It is based upon a worldview that has existed for thousands of years in hundreds of societies. It works like this: A freeman (or woman) is allowed to carry weapons, and is allowed to use those weapons to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. A slave is not allowed to carry weapons, and is not allowed to defend themselves, their loved ones or their property. When a free person actually uses a weapon to defend themselves, their loved ones or their property they are not subject to any legal prosecution whatsoever. If a slave dares to strike back against anyone attacking them, their loved ones or their property they are subject to severe penalties as administered by the law.
In other words, your state views you as being a slave. I hope I have cleared this up for you.
Personally, I live in Washington State, which is a "shall-issue" state for concealed weapons permits. I know we have a reputation for being a crazy liberal state, that's why I can legally carry a gun, and don't have to pay a state income tax. Sometimes perception and reality are two different things.
So? If one has a lick of sense, they'll be packing heat too.
Consider the lawyer shot, but not seriously injured, outside the courthouse in California where Robert Blake is being tried. A courthouse full of uniformed and plain clothes police, yet by the time they got their, the guy would have been dead if not for the fact that his former client was one p*$$ poor pistol shot. As usual, the police did nothing, and could do nothing because they weren't there until the shooting was over, to protect the guy, but where at least able to stop the shooter. The guy, reportedly an off duty reserve policman, who tackled him was armed but chose not to shoot him. The lawyer himself sure could have used a gun though.
It should be noted that while Illinois is listed as a "no carry" state, there are provisions in the state law for licensed private detectives and various other people to carry concealed.
Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois and Ohio, plus Wisconsin of course (plus DC but thats not a state, no matter how much the Dims would like it to be) Eight allow it under various degrees of restriction, wereby the government can refuse to the issue the license without justification. Actual varies accross those and even with each state. Some places, New York City, urban areas of California, it's efectively impossible to get the license, unless you name is O'Donnel or Cruse or somesuch.
Check out packing.org
Missouri just passed a CHL/CCW law, but it is under a restraining order becuase of a lawsuit alleging the law violates the RKBA provision of the MO constitution which *allows* but, IMHO, does not *mandate* prohibition on concealed carry. The provision is:
Section 23.
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Oops, nine I forgot about Hawaii. Two states, Vermont, and recently Alaska, allow conceal (or for that matter open or any other way you want) carry without any governmental permission being required. Vermont never has a ban or a permit / license system, Alaska had license system, and still does, but recently droped the requirement to have the license. They still have the system to maintain reciprocity with other states as a service to thier citizens. (Imagine that, a government serving it's citizens, rather than the other way round!)
The statute mentions hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, boating, skiing and "other related activities" as long as you are outside the city limits of an incorporated entity.
Officer Ten Haken died in the line of duty September 24, 1998, when he made a routine traffic stop and was shot by the 17-year-old driver of the car.
Yeah, most 17 year olds have legal handguns.
/sarcasm
In my mind this is an insult to the Ten Haken, that these bastards use his untimely death as a political football.
I spent the afternoon shooting an IDPA match with a bunch of cops who seemed to enjoy the company of armed civilians.
Nebraska has a one house legislature, Ernie Chambers, a Jesse Jackson wanna be, Omaha Senator that should have been term limited 30 years ago, has successfully blocked every concealed carry bill that has come up with some kind of proceedural antics.
From what I have read the problem in Kansas is an anti-gun liberal Democrat Governor, vetoed concealed carry.
And then we have the story of Detroit's chief of police, who just resigned over having his unregistered .25 auto found, loaded, in his checked luggage when trying to board a plane. It was spun as a minor $300 fine, and no big deal.
Then someone started reading the rules a bit more closely. It's a fine if unloaded, a federal felony if LOADED. The chief didn't have any of his handguns registered in Michigan, and he didn't have a CCW, despite the fact that county gun boards routinely issue the stuff instantly if you're a VIP. That's a state felony.
To top it all off, the guy was technically not even a cop, since he hadn't taken all the state-mandated classes, and was never sworn in.
And then they expect us to listen to the "wisdom" of these political pretend-cops.
In old Europe only noble, or at least gentle, males could carry swords. And in fact they routinely carried them as a mark of their status (though not concealed, obviously). The lower classes were not allowed to carry swords. That's why the peasants had to use farm implements when they wanted to raise heck.
An odd side effect of this practice occured at Versailles, the principal palace of the French kings. By the 18th Century some of the social mores had loosened and there were wealthy bourgeois business folks who had to petition the king for some favor or another. In order for these commoners to appear properly dressed there was a stall just outside the entrance to the palace that rented swords.
If you have a stalker, putting up a profile that reads like a personal ad and gives a link to your photo and "real life" contact information isn't really the way to protect yourself.
I had (or maybe still have) a stalker for some time, although she's been very quiet for a while now, and that is the main reason I do not have my "real world" contact info on my business site. People can contact me through email and if they check out, I get in touch with them. Sure, it has cost me some business, but I value my life and privacy more than that.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly about guns, but we do have to take some personal responsibility in other parts of our lives.
Even when the ban violates a 212 year old Amendment to the Constitution?
Every time I run across a cop who cites "public safety" as the reason CCW is a bad idea, I tell them to go look up the number of innocent citizens killed by cops per year, and then compare that to the number of innocent citizens killed by CCW license holders per year.
Because, hands down, if "public safety" is the sole reason to disarm a group of people, cops would be at the top of the "must be disarmed for public safety" list.
There are two other even more practical reasons to prefer concealed carry over open carry:
1. With open carry, anyone wishing you harm can see that you're carrying, and can conceal his intentions until he is close enough to make a grab at your holster to prevent you from employing your firearm for self defense (at least not without a struggle for it). With concealed carry, he doesn't even know that you *have* a gun, much less where it might be on your person.
2. When some citizens carry openly and others don't carry at all, perps know to just bypass potential victims who are openly carrying, and target those who are not. That's a good thing for the carriers, a bad thing for the non-carriers -- and overall does little to lower the crime rate. But when a city or state institutes a concealed carry policy, perps know now that *any* citizen has a decent chance of being armed, but they can't tell *which* ones. It's enough to drive many criminally-inclined individuals into safer lines of work entirely.
And for those too dumb to take the hint, well, sooner or later they'll make the mistake of unknowingly trying to victimize an armed citizen, and then the ultimate deterrent comes into play.
As for carrying concealed making for more uncertainty, and hence more deterrence, yes, it does. But only some need to carry concealed for that to be true. The occassional individual carrying openly may server as a reminder to the bandits that there are concealed carriers out there.
But the risks of being targetted, the difficulty of ensuring weapons retention, etc., are enough on their own. Standing in line at the checkout counter becomes a risky situation.
/s>
Oh, I intend to. I don't believe in shooting to wound, or to scare. Dead men also file no lawsuits. And as you say, there is more than ample documentation. The cops are very well aware of the situation.
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.