Posted on 11/12/2003 8:22:49 AM PST by Monitor
Republican legislators force governor to act
By STEVEN WALTERS swalters@journalsentinel.com Last Updated: Nov. 11, 2003
Madison - Republican legislators moved Tuesday to put a bill repealing Wisconsin's ban on concealed weapons on Gov. Jim Doyle's desk, setting up the veto the governor has repeatedly promised.
"This bill has so many problems," Doyle said Tuesday, hours before Republican senators quickly accepted an Assembly amendment to the bill and then took steps to force the Democratic governor to act on the bill by next week.
Instead of giving Doyle the customary 30-day period to act on the bill, the governor will officially get it Wednesday, said an aide to Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer (R-West Bend). That would give the governor six days, not including Sunday, to act.
Doyle spokesman Dan Leistikow said forcing the governor to act on the bill quickly showed "how out of touch" Republican legislators are by making it their top priority. Leistikow said he did not know when the governor would veto the bill.
Doyle's veto would move the drama back to the Senate, where it would take a two-thirds vote of the 33 senators to override the veto. The Senate passed the bill, 24-8.
Two Democratic senators - Jeff Plale of South Milwaukee and Roger Breske of Eland - said Tuesday that they would join 18 Senate Republicans in voting to override the veto.
"I think the governor is wrong on this," Plale said.
Four other Democratic senators - Bob Wirch of Kenosha, Mark Meyer of La Crosse, Julie Lassa of Stevens Point and Russ Decker of Schofield - refused to say Tuesday whether they would continue to side with the Republicans on the issue and vote to override the governor.
Only if the Senate votes to override will that question go to the Assembly, which last week passed the concealed weapons bill 64-35 - two votes short of what's needed to force a bill into law over the governor's objection. Two Republicans, Reps. Luther Olsen of Berlin and John Townsend of Fond du Lac, voted against the bill but later indicated they might reverse themselves in an override vote.
Wisconsin is one of only five states that do not allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Under the bill, residents 21 and older who complete a firearms safety course could be issued a concealed weapons permit by county sheriffs, although many of the sheriffs have said they would ask their county boards to opt out of the program. Veto urged
On Tuesday, a group of Milwaukee-area law enforcement officials asked the governor to veto the concealed weapons proposal.
Although several of the officials had publicly proclaimed their opposition to the legislation before, they joined forces for a news conference at the Milwaukee Safety Building to argue that legalization of concealed weapons would decrease public safety.
The group consisted of Milwaukee county Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.; Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann; Milwaukee Police Chief Arthur Jones; and suburban police chiefs Robert Dams of Greendale, Steve Rinzel of Brown Deer and Tom Bauer of Oak Creek.
"We all feel very strongly that it would be unwise and not in the interest of the public" to legalize concealed weapons, McCann said. He noted that the officials all know of people who have been convicted of misdemeanors and whom they would not want to see carrying weapons, but who could do so under the law. Apology given
In a related matter, state Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire), sponsor of the concealed weapons bill, apologized Tuesday for suggesting that Democratic Rep. Mary Hubler of Rice Lake may have been promised something in return for her vote against the bill last week.
"There was no logrolling" by Hubler, Zien told the Senate, retracting a statement made to a reporter for an Eau Claire radio station.
Asked whether she had illegally traded her vote for any concession, Hubler said: "Absolutely not." She said she voted against the concealed weapons bill last week because it was "totally different" than a similar measure she voted for two years ago.
Zien refused to retract his vote-trading charge against Democratic Rep. Larry Balow of Eau Claire.
Asked about that charge last week, Balow said he had talked to several aides to Doyle and state Department of Transportation officials about possible state funding for an Altoona roundhouse that would house a historic locomotive.
But Balow said he never linked his vote on the concealed weapons bill to support for the Altoona project.
Jessica McBride of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.
From the Nov. 12, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
A sustained veto would just be more recall ammo. People in this state are primed and riding the wave to throw the bums out.
I don't "know" it's doomed to die, and neither do you. So instead of throwing in the towel, how about calling your legislators and urging them to get this passed into law?
Wisconsin Governor Defends His Benefits Offer to State Employees
Did I say that Doyle would sign this bill? No, I did not.
I have said that his veto can be overridden.
RE: Facts on Sheriffs' Cost of Issuing Concealed Carry License in SB 214
___________________________________
CLAIM: "Data is not available in a centralized location, requiring legwork"
RESPONSE: We designed additions to the DOJ instant background check database to allow this information to be instantly available in the current check. Additionally, we make this information available for handgun purchase background checks to prevent handgun sales to individuals who have been involuntarily committed as a danger to themselves and others. Currently, Wisconsin has no means to stop these purchases.
CLAIM: "Cost of license-making machine is too high."
RESPONSE: We amended the bill to allow purchase or lease of a machine that produces the exact same tamper-proof license for 40% less cost. The same equipment used in issuing drivers licenses may be leased on a per unit basis. The least cost has been estimated between $4 and $8 per license (depending on the number issued per machine).
CLAIM: "Revenue from license sales flow to the county general fund and must be allocated to the sheriff by the county board. If the board chooses not to allocate funds, the sheriff may not be able to cover costs."
RESPONSE: We amended the bill to give the sheriff complete control over the funds generated through license fees without county board approval. We also bar the board from using this revenue to offset the sheriff's budget.
CLAIM: "Sheriffs need more money to properly issue the license."
RESPONSE 1: We asked the sheriffs to come up with cost estimates to back up this claim. They came forward with nothing. The non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau did a 41-page analysis of the bill, its operation and costs. As previously drafted, it was clear from their analysis and the fiscal estimate prepared by the DOJ, that the $75 fee was more than sufficient to cover costs on an ongoing basis. DOJ inflates their numbers by including incredible estimates for start-up costs and assumes that no sheriffs will cooperate to save money. Additionally, they assume all administrative work (photo-taking, filing, etc.) would be carried out by sworn officers instead of clerical staff.
RESPONSE 2: We significantly lowered the cost of administration from the DOJ and Legislative Fiscal Bureau analyses by virtually eliminating legwork through increased use of the DOJ instant check system and lowering necessary equipment costs. In virtually every case, license issuance would consist of receiving the application, calling in the person for an instant check, writing down the confirmation number, taking a picture, mailing the hard-copy application to DOJ, waiting the required seven days for the final approval and mailing the license to the individual. DOJ estimated this to take one hour on average (when it included separate mental commitment research). It should take no more than 15-minutes now. Sheriffs can develop dossiers on citizens, if they choose, but only the information allowed in the bill (and available through the DOJ instant check) can be used to deny a license.
RESPONSE 3: At $113, Wisconsin will have the fourth highest license fees of the 45 states that allow their citizens this right. Among the states with shall issue laws, Wisconsin would have the highest fees of the 15 states with issuance by the sheriff. I refuse to believe that Wisconsin sheriffs are the least efficient in the nation.
Alabama - fee varies by county Colorado - not more than $100 for initial permit and not more than $50 for renewal (just enacted this year) -- 5 years Idaho - $20 for initial permit and $12 for renewal -- 4 years Maine - $35 for initial permit and $20 for renewal -- 4 years Michigan - $105 for both -- 4 years Minnesota - not more than $100 dollars for initial and not more than $75 for renewal (just enacted this year) -- 5 years Missouri - not more than $100 for both Montana - varies by county -- 4 years Nevada - not more than $60 for initial permit and $25 for renewal-- 5 years North Carolina - $80 for initial permit and $75 for renewal -- 5 years Oregon - $50 for both -- 4 years Pennsylvania - $19 for both -- 5 years South Dakota - $10 for both -- 4 years Washington - $60 for initial permit and $32 for renewal -- 5 years West Virginia - $60 for both -- 5 years
RESPONSE 4: Even after the sheriff has recovered his/her costs in the $75 administrative fee, we provide an additional $15 Law Enforcement Excellence Fund fee for discretionary spending to improve law enforcement in the county. $567,000 in the first year above the departmental budget could go a long way toward ensuring safety equipment for deputies on the street. We also allocate to the sheriff $15 for the Shooting Range Improvement Fund. While the funds must go to ranges that are open to the public and offer low-cost training to qualify citizens for these licenses, the estimated $567,000 in the first year would go a long way to ensuring law enforcement has the quality ranges they need in each county. These two funds would give sheriffs over one million dollars in the first year alone ABOVE THE COST OF ISSUING LICENSES.
The bottom line is that we have a good bill that is fully funded. Anyone who doesn't think they can operate the program for more money than sheriffs in every other state can recommend to their county board that they opt out. The fact is a number of sheriffs are waiting for the opportunity to administer this program because their first concern is with public safety. They know this bill will improve safety and improve funding for their departments.
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.