Conservative values collide in feud over firearms bill

JS Online ^ | CRAIG GILBERT

[Sir Gawain]

Conservative values collide in feud over firearms bill

By CRAIG GILBERT
of the Journal Sentinel staff

Last Updated: June 8, 2002

Washington - Amid the clamor for homeland security, here's a plan that sounds like a political cinch: Let off-duty and retired police officers carry their firearms anywhere in the country, giving antsy Americans a new, no-cost layer of protection.

Washington

Quotable

We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue.

- Bradley DeBraska,
president of the Milwaukee Police Association

If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID).

- Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner ,
(R-Wis.)

Related Coverage

FBI guidelines: Sensenbrenner, Ashcroft still at odds

A bipartisan House majority likes the idea. So do scores of law enforcement groups.

Yet it's going nowhere, thanks to one rather important opponent.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Republican from Menomonee Falls, not only objects to the measure, he won't take it up. He says his main beef has to do with states' rights, since the bill would override laws in the handful of states - including Wisconsin - that prohibit concealed weapons.

The result is an odd political tiff between Sensenbrenner and another conservative Republican who drafted the bill, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California. In interviews last week, Cunningham called Sensenbrenner "vindictive" and said his objections were "donkey manure." Sensenbrenner called Cunningham a "real pest" who "says all kinds of bad things about me."

But the standoff also shows how one conservative value (maintaining law and order) can sometimes collide with another (limiting federal power over the states), even in the security-minded climate spawned by Sept. 11.

In another recent example, two prominent conservative activists complained to President Bush on May 31 about a plan under review by the Justice Department to empower local police officers to enforce immigration violations - a federal function.

"This to me was a remarkable change in the way local police and national police would be related, in a sense nationalizing (local officers), making them agents of the federal government," said David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, a conservative lobbying organization.

While local police can enforce federal criminal offenses, Keene argued that using them to enforce federal civil violations would set an alarming precedent.

Making a case for states' rights

In the case of Cunningham's bill, Sensenbrenner is invoking federalism in a different way. Cunningham wants to exempt off-duty and retired police officers from state bans on carrying concealed handguns. Because the measure would supersede his own state's concealed weapons ban, Sensenbrenner says it "makes a decision that should properly be made by the Wisconsin Legislature." He notes that an effort to overturn that ban failed in the state Senate in March.

Cunningham claims the support of more than 80 national law enforcement groups. Some groups say they're surprised by Sensenbrenner's refusal even to hold a hearing, since the lawmaker is generally viewed as an ally.

Patchwork of firearms laws

The bill's supporters say off-duty police officers face a patchwork of state laws when they travel outside their own jurisdictions; some states allow them to carry firearms, others require them to seek permits, others simply prohibit them from carrying. Under the measure, retired officers would have to keep up their gun training to carry firearms.

"It's been a burning issue," according to Bradley DeBraska, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, who says off-duty officers worry about retaliation from criminals they've arrested. "We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue."

He said officers inevitably run afoul of state laws on vacation, whether they know it or not. DeBraska argues that local police should enjoy the same exemption from concealed weapon bans that federal agents do.

Cunningham first offered the measure years ago, saying it would protect officers from retaliation and help prevent crime. But since Sept. 11, he has added homeland security as a rationale and gained 73 new supporters on Capitol Hill.

"This fits right in with the president's homeland defense by putting more law enforcement agents on the street at no cost," Cunningham said.

Bill's growing support

There are now 264 House co-sponsors, including Wisconsin Democrat Jerry Kleczka and Republicans Paul Ryan, Mark Green and Tom Petri. Backers come from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum. A companion bill was introduced on May 8 by Sensenbrenner's counterpart in the Senate, Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.).

Stymied in the House, Cunningham has resorted to a longshot guerrilla tactic, seeking the signatures of a majority of House members to force a vote against Sensenbrenner's wishes. Rarely do lawmakers seek such a discharge petition against a committee chair in their own party. So far, 42 lawmakers have signed, but Cunningham claims that Sensenbrenner has pressured his own committee members not to.

Republican committee member Chris Cannon of Utah signed the petition but later withdrew his name. Asked why, Cannon issued a statement Friday saying he took his name off after "conversations with Chairman Sensenbrenner about his and the committee's plans to protect the rights of gun owners." He added that Sensenbrenner is "great to work with," does "very thoughtful work" and is "a constant champion of constitutional rights."

Citing safety concerns

Besides the conflict with state law - the Wisconsin statute does not exempt retired officers from the ban on concealed handguns - Sensenbrenner contends that the bill also poses a safety problem. He says an officer on duty might encounter a retired police officer with a gun with no way of knowing the armed man's identity.

"If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID)," Sensenbrenner said.

Advocates for the proposal scoff at the states' rights objection.

"The federal government has been extensively involved in firearms issues. It has told the states who can sell a gun, who can buy a gun, what guns can be sold . . . . It's not as if this is some first and amazing precedent," said Kevin Watson of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a pro-gun group that is pushing the bill.

"It's just Sensenbrenner being Sensenbrenner," said Cunningham, who points to the Judiciary chairman's support years ago for the Brady Bill. "I think he supports gun control."

"One man's keeping it from coming to the floor," Cunningham said. "If he's a man, let him at least let it come to the floor for a vote."

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 9, 2002.

[wcbtinman]

Just more effort to complete the process of turning a natural, God given right into a govt granted priveledge.

I guess Sensenbrenner can't read, and also swore an empty oath.

[wcbtinman]

"What's the solution?"

You and I both know what the "solution" is.

If I posted it however, it would be quickly deleted. We really can't talk about the ultimate implementation of the Second amendment.

[toddst]

How about we let citizens in good standing carry their firearms anywhere in the country, giving antsy Americans a new, no-cost layer of protection. Oh, we can't do that!

We can and we should. Perhaaps a benefit of the whole anti-terror push will be a national reciprocity concealed carry agreement that does parallel driver's licenses. The national conversation is going this direction - over the protests of anti-gun groups!

[Redbob]

James Sensenbrenner is a "States' Rights" supporter? He'd have to be the first such to come from Wisconsin.
Suspend disbelief all ye who enter here!

Here's why I oppose this idea: Why give cops any more special privileges that the citizens can't have?

[cruiserman]

We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue."

Now you know how us regular citizen types feel, you maroon.

[Maelstrom]

bingo.

[Rifleman]

I don't much care for this "special privilages for the rulers" business either, but in this case, it breaks through a barrier that I want broken. In Missouri, I could then point to this law and say "why can some ex chicago cop who is probably as corrupt as little dick daly be able to carry and I can"t get a CCW permit under any circumstances?"

[Maelstrom]

bump

[Ohioan]

The Police power is a State power. It is outside the Federal sphere--Bill Clinton's posturing on the subject notwithstanding. We need to be consistent.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[steve-b]

"If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID)," Sensenbrenner said.

What a bunch of crap. The only legitimate reason for the cops to demand someone's ID is if they're dealing with someone who appears to be up to no good. In that case, they should assume that the suspect might be armed, and stay alert accordingly, whether ordinary law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry or not.

[fire_eye]

I don't much care for this "special privilages for the rulers" business either, but in this case, it breaks through a barrier that I want broken. In Missouri, I could then point to this law and say "why can some ex chicago cop who is probably as corrupt as little dick daly be able to carry and I can"t get a CCW permit under any circumstances?"

yeah... it's an interesting debate, between the two positions you mention.

I tend toward the conclusion that *any* relaxation of firearms laws for *any* group of people is desirable "on balance" as a further erosion of the anti-gun laws, despite my distaste for treating cops as a special class of extralegally-privileged citizens.

However, that said, laws of all sorts have a way of producing "unintended consequences" - for instance, would this open the door, by way of legal precedent, for further restriction of those of us mere mortals who were *not* thus Federally privileged to carry weapons? I'd be interested to hear what a firearms lawyer would have to say about this, in terms of its potential implications as a legal precedent...