Posted on 12/23/2007 6:45:43 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
(Legislators look to curb power allowed during emergencies)
Madison, WI - State lawmakers want to clip the power of the governor and local officials to seize people's guns during emergencies, saying that authority could trample the rights of citizens.
Legislators said they decided to try to curb those powers after seeing New Orleans police officers take guns from people during the recovery from Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
The Republican-run Assembly passed the bill this month on a bipartisan 84-13 vote, and the Democratic-led Senate is looking at doing the same soon.
"I just think it's important that if there ever is a disaster similar to Katrina, that citizens are able to defend themselves, their families and their property and not be worried about government coming and confiscating their firearms," said Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), the sponsor of the bill.
But Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) said he was worried the bill goes too far. He said he recalls seeing the police stop vigilantes with guns from entering Milwaukee when it was gripped by civil unrest in 1967.
He said that around that time, a man trained a gun on him from a third-floor window as Kessler walked down Juneau Ave.
"I thought, 'Oh, my, my. . . he may just kill me,' " Kessler said. "That incident was very vivid in my mind."
Police must be able to fully protect people during such times, he said.
"I don't want to seize guns," he said. "I want to limit the transportation of weapons into areas of confrontation."
Kessler was one of 13 Democrats to vote against the bill. Thirty-three Democrats joined 51 Republicans to pass the measure.
The governor, the adjutant general who runs the Wisconsin National Guard and local officials have long been able to exercise emergency powers during disasters or civil unrest. The bill would prohibit those officials from using their emergency powers to "restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition."
Twenty-one other states, including Louisiana, have passed similar laws since Hurricane Katrina, according to the National Rifle Association, which backs the law.
The proposed law in Wisconsin is broader than some. For instance, the Louisiana law provides an exemption that gives police the power to take a gun from someone if they believe they need to do so to protect themselves or others.
But Gunderson said his bill would not curb the normal powers of the police because they would be able to do the same things during emergencies that they can do during other times. Officers could set up roadblocks to stop traffic if needed, which would prevent everyone - including those transporting firearms - from getting into specific areas, he said.
Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston) said he would like his house to pass the bill soon.
"I think people's homes are their castles, and law-abiding citizens that are playing by the rules ought to have a protection that government is not going to intrude on their property," Decker said.
"This is more than just a gun issue. This is an invasion of law-abiding people's residences by government officials - you shouldn't be able to do that without cause."
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle will review the bill if it gets to him to decide whether to sign it, aide Carla Vigue said.
"We really need to understand the implications of curtailing the powers of emergency management during a time of crisis," Vigue said.
But, nice try, WI Pubbies! Proud of ya! :)
From Wikipedia:
On October 4, 2006 President George W. Bush signed into law the NRA-backed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill). This legislation prohibits the confiscation of otherwise legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency by any agent of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds (effectively, any Federal, state, or local governmental entity). Introduced in Congress by Rep. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter, both of Louisiana, this bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support, passing the House of Representatives with a margin of 322-99 and the Senate by 84-16.
--you Wisconsinites might end up with a handgun ban---
I believe the 2nd Amendment already prohibits the seizing of guns.
You’d think so, wouldn’t ya? ;)
Doyle’s losing that power, and soon. We get to vote on it in April. That extra $45 MILLION we taxpayers are to come up with in the coming year was the nail in that coffin.
Doyle hasn’t decided whether he’ll campaign against veto change
Associated Press - December 18th
MADISON (AP) — Gov. Jim Doyle said Monday he hasn’t decided yet whether he will actively try to sway voters when they get a chance in April to curtail the governor’s veto power, which is the strongest in the country.
But he’s sure not excited about the possible change, saying it could have unintended consequences.
“There are some real issues with this proposal,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press.
The proposal, expected to be put on the April 1 ballot would ban the so-called “Frankenstein” veto. That allows the governor to cross out words and numbers and stitch together others to create new laws not approved by the Legislature.
Doyle has used the authority to make major changes to the state budget, including the one he signed in October. In that budget, he used the power to allow local governments to increase property tax levies by 3.86 percent, instead of the 2 percent as the Legislature wanted.
The result was a projected $45 million property tax increase.
Doyle said Monday that voters will have to be “very, very careful” when they consider doing away with the veto authority. He said banning it could have unintended consequences that may lead to “extreme mischief” in how the Legislature words things in the budget.
So why did they still confiscate the guns?
***”We really need to understand the implications of curtailing the powers of emergency management during a time of crisis,” Vigue said.***
It’s not about that you nincompoop. Which Founding Father said “No Citizen shall ever be debarred the use of Arms?”
--that has to be the laugh of the week--
***I believe the 2nd Amendment already prohibits the seizing of guns.***
Tell that to the House, Senate and Supreme Court.
The implications during a "time of crisis" is that the public is left to their own devices to ward of the animals that come to prey on "we the people".
The "implications" from here are that anyone who attempts to take advantage of me or mine, during a "crisis", or any other time, will be met with rather stern resistance. The burying kind.
> So why did they still confiscate the guns?
Because they could.
84-13 vote seems veto proof.
It would seem that siezing guns without proximate cause, and without due process, would be an infringement on the right to keep arms, would it not?
Of course the state and local authorities would probably say that the second amendment doesn't apply to them, so such legislation is still useful. Of course in the case of LA and WI, there are these little impediments as well.
“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.” Article 1, Section 11, Louisiana Constitution
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. WISC. CONST. art. 1, § 25
I do believe that would be the very intent of the founding fathers.
Come into my house and take my weapons after you declare an emergency?
There would be blood on the tracks with that one.
“But Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) said he was worried the bill goes too far. He said he recalls seeing the police stop vigilantes with guns from entering Milwaukee when it was gripped by civil unrest in 1967.
He said that around that time, a man trained a gun on him from a third-floor window as Kessler walked down Juneau Ave.
“I thought, ‘Oh, my, my. . . he may just kill me,’ “ Kessler said. “That incident was very vivid in my mind.”
Police must be able to fully protect people during such times, he said.”
I guess this all hinges on Kessler speaking the truth in support of his agenda and we all know Rat politicians never lie.
“I believe the 2nd Amendment already prohibits the seizing of guns.”
Ah, no, the RAT interpretation of this malleable document means that only the RAT body guards can have weapons.
To begin with, that provision of the law was not then in force. It was passed in response to their confiscating the guns. Secondly, they are scofflaws, the Constitution of Louisiana already prohibited such action, but they did it anyway. They or some other local authorities will likely do it again, if they think they can get away with it.
You didn't see the Chocolate City Mayor or his lap dog police chief being perp walked into a court did you? No, so they got away with it,, they could care less about any civil suits which have been filed. The fines or restitution won't come out of their pockets. They still haven't returned most of the guns AFAIK.
.....oh wait, never mind.
One wonders what Mr. Kessler was doing walking down Juneau Ave in the middle of riot? Was he looking to loot the guy's house? Or burn it down? Notice too that this home defender was apparently a resident of the area, not someone coming into it.
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.