Its a done deal so theres not really any point in further argument. Ill be first in line for my CCW permit and if in your eyes that make me a lesser person than you I really couldnt care. Anyone with guns in there home should have them secure and out of reach from children as well as teach there children about firearm safety. Its already the LAW to do so. If you ask my 4 year old what to do if he see's a gun he says"Dont touch it! Then find a grown up" Its common sense to educate and protect our kids from as many things in life as we can and it is a parents #1 job in life. Never in my home is a gun where kids can get it and it should be that way in any home with guns. Even if you dont own any guns you should teach your children about firearm safety because you never know if they will come across one at friends house or find one on the ground somewhere.

".. in states that have enacted it, the opposite has been true" - Devilsadvocate
Statistics you wish were true are NOT universal and, more often, results are by the bias of the group doing the study (Heritage or NRA?) If you believe more guns = more personal safety then you overlook the fact that children in homes of gun owners are far more likely to die from accidental use of those guns than gain any protection from them. If you want more gun ownership without training and licensing, you must agree that a culture becomes well mannered only because the population terrorize one another by the show of "fire-power". That's working well in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations, isn't it? Trying to inspire apprehension in others to subdue what your OWN fear perceives as potential danger from others through YOUR intimidation whether open or concealed, is simply terrorism of your fellow human beings. More guns do NOT bring about a more democratic nor more rational, civil, or safe society and, sorry, Wisconsin does NOT want or need it.

Although at first blush it may seem that violence would go up, if more people carry weapons. Yet, in states that have enacted it, the opposite has been true. Violence and certain types of violent crime, involving firearms has gone down. A total ban on carrying weapons, only Wisconsin and Illinois currently have this, guarantees the criminal he will have a bevy of unarmed citizens to choose from. With any form of carry, by permit or so called constitutional carry, the criminal doesn't know if his victim(s) may be armed. Since most criminals are basically cowards, it reduces the person to person violent crimes such as robbery, car jackings etc. Even folks who have no interest in carrying weapons, will benefit by the criminal not knolwing for sure. Or so the theory goes.

Ok so quotes from Libs equals shoot first ask questions later? Glad to see a democrat honest about how the DNC operates. Have you even taken the time to read SB90,SB93,and AB126? I have and its pretty basic and easy to understand. It seems to me you must be afraid and totally untrusting of your fellow citizens. Nobody ever did answer my question if the anti-CCW crowd only travel to Illinois due to the serious danger of wild west shootouts in the other 48 states.

Anyone who knows the true statistics knows crime rates go down in States where Concealed carrying (CCW) is granted to their citizens. The only ones who lose with CCW are felons. Granted, we're always going to have egg heads who carry, but those egg heads carry now. Those will be found out quickly because they won't get to know the statues, & they'll do stupid things to get their right taken away from them. Its "lawful" right now in Wisconsin to carry a side arm open so everyone can see it. More, & more people are doing it. I know I've been considering it myself.

CCW is preferred over carrying it on the side because we have so many mis-informed people who call the police anytime they see someone who doesn't fit inside their box, & of-course most police depts like to get those calls because then they have the right to harass us, & use the disorderly conduct laws to justify the harassment. It will be interesting for me to see how rock county, & city pd's handle those calls. I hope they do the right thing, but we'll see.

Legislators are doing the right thing by their constituents, & for me... its nice to finally see their listening to us. CCW will be a non-event just like they were when they were started in in in the 33 other states that have May Issue CCW.

In the words of Al Gore "The time for debate is over" and in the spirit of Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass the law so you can see whats in it" Game Over.

Fear -- I have read several of your posts and the one that gets me going t he most is the one on how you rasie your kids. The reality is, that all societies have a certain amount of violence.

My rule of thumb for my kids is -- do not start a conflict or fight, but if you are assaulted, finish the fight and fight to win. Use whatever you have at your disposal.

So to the issue. -- CC or any allowance to carry is a deterence. Personally -- I dont care what the assaulter or thief is thinking, but if they attack me or mine, they will meet resistance. My ability to defend myself is defined by the laws in place. If the laws state I can have a gun -- I will have one. If not, then I must give the thief or take whatever beating is dished out by the assaulter assuming they have a weapon.

BUT -- they had better kill me -- or I will hunt them down to ends of the earth to exact my revenge.

The cops want to keep their jobs as well as control over the "sheeple" (as cops refer to non-cops.) The fact is thousands of people drive parallel to the sidewalks all over WI every day. I rarely hear of persons who intentionally drive onto the sidewalk just to kill people. It's amazing how fearful the masses have been indoctrinated to be. How can you all tolerate being afraid of everything? What a way to live...I feel so bad for you.

MooShoo, guns are statistically 18 times heavier than a handful of coins and 19 percent more likely to sink in a bucket of water than in a bucket of juice. (I can make up statistics too :)

"you juke the stats. Making robberies into larcenies, making rapes disappear. You juke the stats, and major become colonels. I’ve been here before."

I support the right of conceal carry and would most likely get my permit (if required), but I doubt if I would ever exercise my right to carry. I want the right to carry a concealed weapon and I believe it is the correct thing to do, but other than hunting and military service, I keep my guns locked up.
Unfortunately, some people on both sides of this argument are just making noise to irritate the other side. These are the people that seem to enjoy life a little more when they can make another person's life miserable. Ignore them!
If a person decides it is necessary to carry a weapon and then violates the law, they will have to pay the consequences.

Honestly, TroubleMaker, if I had to do what you are doing just to live my life I can truthfully say I'd much rather suffer the consequences of not being armed than to deal with all the BS you go through, both psychologically and physically. I've got more important things to do than "practice for time" for an event that's as likely to happen as the world ending tomorrow. If ever the suggestion "get a life" was applicable, that time is now. Conceal carry does not affect me unless some idiot thinks my existence poses a threat to them. I would have hoped most legislators and individuals would have better things to do than p*ss away their time passing a conceal carry law. Between requiring a photo ID to vote and conceal carry, the Republicans win the "Most Meaningless Legislation of the Year" award hands down. Whats next, a law requiring women to put the seat up!

"Which is more likely? Violent crime has decrease because the most violent segment of our population has decrease. Or, violent crime has decrease because people are allowed to carry concealed weapons."
.
either way you look at it, either CC has had an effect in decreasing violent crime or it had no effect in INcreasing violent crime. If the latter is true then all these predictions of blood in the streets have no basis in reality so there is no reason to not have some form of CC.

Jarhead has cited *SPECIFIC INCIDENTS*, NOT "statistics" to make their case and has made it quite well...........quit confusing what Jarhead has cited with vague "statistics" .... that just makes your arguments against him look foolish and irrelevant, which they are.

Walter- sorry if I misunderstood your point. All I wish to get across is that no one is responsible for your well being other than yourself. I'm glad we have the police and don't have too many issues with the job they do but there is no way they can be everywhere. I prefer CC to open carry as too many people (police are no different) have been trained by our society to burst a blood vessel at the sight of a firearm.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i... Sorry the numbers are stated were from another site which I just researched and found to be inaccurate.

SigmundFraud -- I have been unable to find data supporting your statement that Florida had a 36% drop in violent crime from 1987-1988. The only mention of this figure that I was able to locate was that Florida had a 36% decrease in its ranking relative to all other states. If you could post a link, I would greatly appreciate it. Sincerely.

On the other hand, I located this statement from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getd...)

"1988 was a transition year for FDLE. Because of a number of changes for the enhancement and expansion of the kind of data collected by the UCR program, complete data are not available for 1988 as some agencies were unable to modify their reporting systems in time to comply with the new format."

As a result, any interpretation of this years data is most likely inaccurate. It is omissions like this that lead to incorrect conclusions.

For the record, while it may seem that I am arguing against Concealed Carry, I am not. I am trying to point out that the arguments that many people are making to support there cause are not supported by the data that they cite. I have respect for the fact that they feel they should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I just disagree with the manner in which they are trying to justify the need for doing so.

In many regards, Concealed Carry has little impact to the states that implement them. The statistics show that only 1-5% of citizen ever even apply to exercise their ability to carry. Furthermore, the many worries that people have about increases in accidental shootings and escalated violence don't manifest in the data.

Yet, the data still does not support the notion that implementing this law will make everyone safer. Violent crime rates have decreased over the years, across all states. Yet, many want to say that it is a result of concealed carry being a deterrent. If this was the case, why has the Wisconsin index for violent crime, (even at its highest rate), always been lower than that of Florida?

And I love that only people who lie use FACTS? Are you kidding me. "Dont let facts get in the way of a good story" Lets not use facts just twist peoples words and qoute them out of context to further your own agenda.

So if an officer arrests you on a trumped up disorderly conduct charge for open carry you shouldnt be able to sue them? Handing an uninformed police officer a card explaining wi law and the legality of open carry is dishonest how? You can copy and paste BS as many times as you want but it doesnt make it true.

So I take it you can just read Jarhead1982's postings and links or do you really need me to post it all again? So states like Florida and Texas which had drops of violent crimes by 36% and 50% within a year of adopting CC must have both what had a mass exodus of young men in that year? All the 15-25 year old males must have just moved I guess,surely its all just coincidence. Oh and GW was a real disappointment to me but what options did I have Al Gore and John Kerry? A golden retreiver would have been a better option then any of them.

Jarhead1982 -- With the amount of research you have done investigating the numerous government studies and statistics, you of all people should know that correlation is not always causation. Throughout the many paragraphs you have written, you continue to present evidence supporting you position that Concealed Carry is a good thing for numerous reasons.

Most notably, you repeatedly cite evidence that violent crime has decreased since states have adopted Concealed Carry laws. Yet, you never question whether or not these trend could be attributed to anything else. Under your logic, the same studies would indicate that we should stop selling ice-cream because crime increases as sales increase.

Realistically we all know that it isn't the ice-cream that is causing the increase in crime. Instead, it is the fact at sales increase in the summer, and crimes increase as well simply because it is summer.

The same goes for Concealed Carry. While many of the proponents of this topic will attest to how safe these laws have made their states, the statistics they point to don't necessarily support their position. Instead, the trend merely coincides with their beliefs. There are numerous other contributing factors to the decline in violence aside from simply concealed carry.

The most notable of these factors being the fact that the 15 - 25 year old male demographic has continued to shrink comparative to the rest of the population. In looking at this trend, correlation does appear to be causation. Considering the fact that young men have historically be the most likely to commit crimes of violence against one another, it should be no surprise that a decrease in this group would lead to a decrease in the percentage of total violence.

Which is more likely? Violent crime has decrease because the most violent segment of our population has decrease. Or, violent crime has decrease because people are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

I am doubtful that concealed carry has done much, if anything to actually have the effect that you have proposed.

Yeah, all that government data, studies and facts, yet you anti's have what government data, studies and facts to counter the aforementioned data?

Oh thats right, again please warn everyone when you get those facts as we will have to dress warm for the aforementioned hell freezing over.

Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?

FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 49% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate. But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

So based on that (1.38 mil x 49%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.75% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

Yeah, we need to listen to all those police how they are there to protect us individual citizens, uh yeah right.

Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.

October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.

January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.

Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois UNiversity, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded

Gun Free Zone 5 incidents

Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117

Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents

murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14

Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.

Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on the anti's beliefs.

We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source?

We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows.

Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 95.52% in today’s numbers. Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pb....

Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws.

Yet more laws will prevent criminals and terrorists from getting a firearm, ROTFLMFAO, uh yeah, and the moon is made of cheese and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, right!

Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968, where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution.

Hence criminals don't have to follow the laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc.... Amazing how the criminals don't have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons!

After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn't be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/htm...

Brady Check report that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994.

We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons.

We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

Yet here you are, placing a plea to the 80 million law abiding, when you should be talking to the two groups responsible for more than 95% of the deaths from use of firearms. The career criminals/gang members and the crazies who commit suicide.

The government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 that 80% of all violent crimes committed in the US each year are committed by career criminals/gang members. http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146...

Suicidal people kinda speak for themselves.

Shall we review police studies in Chicago and MYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shoo...,

www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/publ..., www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report...

So when are you going to address those two groups responsible for over 95% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.

If it is so dangerous, lets compare law abiding citizens licensed to conceal carry against someone safe, say a doctor, and we will not use a single NRA reference.

ATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida's data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/c... it says the same thing.

JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ful... 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .14 per physician.

Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,00 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't you antis crying to ban doctors?

We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm.

That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009.

That is a 30% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 20% reduction in murders?

All while at the same time we see 12-15 more states implementing concealed carry to 48 states total, and 34 states implementing concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 3 states and 71 universities implemented concealed carry.

All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits as the anti's suggest for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep.

Those anti gun soothsayers really suck at predicting violence and mayhem from the law-abiding citizen, every single time.

Hope they aren’t trying to make a living as a soothsayer they are starving if they do.

Funny, CDC and government death data shows in the 1930's, the 112 mil population US citizens had over 2,500 accidental shooting deaths.

Yet in 2007, CDC data shows only 613 total for a population US citizens 302 mil, a 169% increase in population.

Gun ownership increased to 80 million people and number of guns increased by over 100 million.

Why hasn't the number of accidental shootings increased by 169% like the population eh? Get back to us when you have the data and warn us so we can dress warm for hell freezing over.

Bunbun,
I never claimed that the police were my own personal security force. Their duty, as the court ruling states, is to protect the public in general by stopping crimes in progress when they can and investigating crimes that have happened to bring the perpetrators to justice. Dilligence and effectiveness by police in upholding their duties is what will deter criminals.

Koch_Bros: Again, for anyone that holds an idea or belief that differs from your own, you obviously feel it is important to belittle the person or their belief. You just can't stand it that people can think and act for themselves especially if it opposes your viewpoint. And when it becomes apparent that you are losing the argument you resort to name calling. Maybe you should take a time out from the blog scene, get some sleep and if you choose to again contribute, do so as an adult.

Koch_Bros, about gun law debates - the score is 48-2, and is soon to become 49-1. It would be simpler if you just celebrate Governor Walker's signing of the Concealed Carry bill into law by moving to Illinois.

Perhaps you can finance your move by setting up a CafePress.com web site and selling "1 LEFT(ie)" t-shirts.

Here's a little different take for you all. I support concealed carry, but it's not essential. Everyone in my family has a handgun close at hand wherever we go. We would never brandish a weapon to "make a bad guy back down". Instead, we would only uncase the weapon if we believed our lives were actually in danger. Then, we would shoot to kill without warning. Any other approach is asking for trouble. This is not TV or the movies.
-
It takes about 10 seconds to go from unloaded in a locked case (legal under current law in a vehicle) to ready to fire -- including ear protection. We practice for time. The decision to actually kill someone should take at least that long to consider. The idea of openly carrying a weapon for all to see (also allowed under current law) makes no sense and can only cause problems.
-
However, the Second Amendment is really not about any of this. It's about having an armed populace that can prevail against the Government if and when the Government becomes overly corrupt, oppressive, or despotic. Do you think our Government is becoming overly corrupt, oppressive, or despotic? If not, there's nothing to worry about. If so, then we've got a serious problem and everyone should be storing up ammo.
-
Message to elected officials and unelected government employees: Just keep the corruption, oppressiveness, and despotism down to a dull roar and everything will be fine.

FOR WALTER: appologies for this being posted later than I wished, had to be sure I found the correct info.
.
In 1981, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in a civil suit against the Metropolitan Police Department. In the syllabus, the Court wrote:

“[The] fact that police answered [the phone call for help] and arrived outside premises which were scene of burglary and assault did not give rise to special duty on part of police toward victims therein, and police officers were not answerable in damages for failing to ascertain that assaults were continuing upon victims therein, or for leaving premises without so ascertaining.”

The Court ruled that:

“[G]overnment and its agents are under no legal obligation to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific duty exists.” [Cite for case: D.C. App., 444 A. 2nd 1, 1981]

On April 19, 1990, an Associated Press article entitled: “Woman can’t sue cops for failing to help,” stated:

“A women who was being raped in an Oakland (CA) apartment can’t sue police for failing to rescue her, even though a friend may have told officers where she was a state appeals court says.

The officers’ alleged inaction is ‘troubling’ but they had no legal duty to find and save the woman and did not make her situation worse, said the 1st District Court of Appeal in a ruling released Wednesday.”

The article went on to state:

“Her suit was dismissed by Alameda Superior Court Judge Demetrios Agretelis, who said the police had no legal duty to rescue her, the appeals court majority agreed.

The opinion by Justice Gary Strankman noted that a police officer, like a private citizen, has no legal duty to come to another person’s aid. An officer who undertakes to help, however, can be sued for certain types of carelessness or misconduct that makes the other person’s situation worse.”
(sorry for the long post.)

Siggy was the Fed govt tyrannical whe GWB was pres? Tripling debt and raising defecits to record levels? Our current failure of a president has only followed those policies. Just curious of your consistency or if it is only based on partisanship.

Have posted a great many facts Siggy, still waiting for some to support the NEED to carry a concealed weapon. So its your contention also that there has NOT been a single rise in violent crime in any state since they passed CC? I would say that is FALSE, here is a chart for you to study. It is related to MURDER rates, I would say thats a violent crime yes? You will see a great many states have fluxuations up or down depending on which year. States with CC and Wisconsin. Wisconsin also doesnt have the great deterrent of the death penalty yet without CC or Cap punishment our murder rate is consistently amongst the lowest in the nation. How do you explain that?
Please link some sites that show my crime stats are fals and I will be more than happy to visit them. For now I will post a link of Murder rates by state 1996-2009 : http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-r...
Tell me how these rates jive with you argument that crime goes down in states with CC. Looking forward to your response.

Can we get past the "concealed carry is bad, no guns is good" argument and focus on the fact that the Repubs don't have anything up their sleeve besides issues that pander to their narrow base? (I'm all for concealed carry, but know a load of horse!@#$ when I see one.)

Germancaveguy I agree with your explanation of the 2nd amendment but would point out that it does also show that we have the right"to keep and bear arms" The 2nd amend. first purpose was to allow us the ability to defend the states and the people from a tyrannical Fed. government but also the ability to defend our families and ourselves in our pursuits of life,liberty,and happiness.

Just proves my point that you cant use facts against emotions. I guess you missed the point that the 7 states with lower crime already having CC meant they didnt experience any "macho tough guys/gals" with itchy trigger fingers shooting up the place. Not 1 state that has CC has seen a rise in crime only a drop in crime. I really want to know if all of those opposed to CC never leave the state other than to go to Illinois? 48 states with CC,never know which macho tough guy or drunk testosterone fueled man is gonna "snap" and open fire.

"states in this union and there are a great "majority more of them with these laws that have higher crime rates."
.
you may want to note that those states (such as New York that have much higher crime rates)have extreme limits to CC. In NY if you don't have connections, you won't get a permit. NY also has a ID card requirement (similar to Illinois)to even own a firearm.
.
I do like the statement that people are "diagnose(ing) what criminals and thugs are thinking " then in the same post ""macho tough guy/girl) and can't wait to conceal a weapon are the ones that I worry about having an itchy trigger finger in a heated arguement in a public setting." So we can't surmise the motive of a criminal but you have clairvoyance enough to read motives and predict future actions.

Last post was EXCELLENT!!! Spot on!

It's quite amazing how so many people here see this issue of concealed carry as simply a second amendment issue. Many of the comments that I have read address this proposal as simply allowing citizens to practice something that was granted to them in the bill of rights. Unfortunately, many of you look at concealed carry merely as an option for protecting one's self from potential danger from others; namely criminals.

Diminishing the true value of the second amendment by taking such a selfish stance on the issue is disheartening. The true importance of the founding fathers granting the people of the United States the explicit right to bear arms was not to ensure that citizens could feel safer in their day to day affairs. Instead, doing so was a measure to empower the people with the ultimate option to defend themselves against tyranny should usurpers ever take over the government. Given the degree of what it took to establish our country, providing the checks and balances to ensure its prosperity was paramount in the eyes of those who designed its governmental structure.

So to all those who keep touting the concealed carry cause as being something they should simply be allowed to do because it is in the constitution, realize this:

The second amendment is part of the constitution primarily to protect the first amendment, all amendments thereafter, and the Constitution itself.

The second amendment is a duty. Our right to form militias and to bear arms was never intended to be a clause to protect ourselves from each other. Instead, it was enumerated to provide us the means to protect each other and the ideal that is the United States of America.

I love seeing these folks diagnose what criminals and thugs are thinking when they commit crimes. Siggy Fraud you definitely fit the screen name. Are you a psychologist? Your knowledge of what criminals and thugs are thinking when they commit crimes is refreshing. Your analysis on who they prey on and why is equally refreshing, it leads me to believe that you are either a psychologist or a criminal, either way I feel enlightened.
Now to the serious side, I am with keeping fees low. Someone that has this much of a thirst to carry should be willing to pay the price financially.
Thank you again Dr Freud for your in-depth analysis of what thuggish criminals think before they commit a crime. How enlightening!
Another humorous point to speak to is the contention that 7 states are "safer" from crime than Wisconsin being attributed to CC. You are like Fox Noise omitting the part of the arguement that would include that 41 states WITH concealed carry laws are significantly MORE danderous with the law in place. You make my arguement for me, thank you. Try to remember there are %) states in this union and there are a great majority more of them with these laws that have higher crime rates.
BTW- I wouldn't hassle anyone carrying a gun openly, ever! I wouldn't associate with them either, I am trying to raise my kids in a world where they don't NEED violence or the threat of violence to live their life. I was raised in a VERY poor downtrodden area, and still have yet to own or need a gun. I look forward to the day when violence IS NOT the answer, nor is the fear of violence so great that we "need" top protect our families with firearms. Sad, sad world we live in.
Any of you can call me whatever political name you like, but this urge to protect ones selffrom violent crime as a deterrent is silly. I will offer you a look into what I see as a criminal's mind is doing.
1) they will not announce they are going to assult you, or allow you to see them coming.
2) In most cases you will be outmatched solely by a criminal's desprate need to commit a crime, to a point where you will just submit and try to get it over.
3) Anyone that acts like they are the "macho tough guy/girl) and can't wait to conceal a weapon are the ones that I worry about having an itchy trigger finger in a heated arguement in a public setting.
Just my 2 cents.

All those car accidents, after education, and you still travel everyday on the road...guess you're not that worried about people after all.

we have drivers education and there are no more car accidents...... we have ( or did have ) reproductive eductation and there are no more teen pregancies... SO THEREFORE, with proper education, there will not be a increase in gun accidents. ONLY IF THOSE BARNIE FIFES KEEP THE'RE ONE BULLET IN THIER FRONT SHIRT POCKET....

wouldnt it be great if everyone had a gun ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_...

I understand why our law enforcement is concerned about the pending legislation. They had similar concerns regarding pepper spray. According a Rock County Sheriff’s department deputy, to date no officer has had a person carrying pepper spray use it against them since it has become legal to carry.
Law abiding citizens should have the right to carry. I have no problem with a permit system that requires training, but fear ridiculously large fees meant to hamper the process.

Too all the anti second amendment people on here. If you don't want to carry don't carry. I will! I also promise not to use my concealed firearm to protect you if the need arises!

Red, spoken like a true hypocrite. Others asking you questions about rights are windbags while you do the same and want answers.

By your analogy the only place police officers in the state need firearms is a small portion of milwaukee...wonder why they carry them everywhere? I have another question for you, if parts of milwaukee are so unsafe why did you want the leader of that same city to bring his expertise to the state level?

Bunbun... GREAT point! Sometimes, it is just the "possibility" that a thug realizes, THEY are NOT in control, that will diffuse the situation. I have yet to be in a situation that would warrant the need for retaliation, but believe me.. when I say, I would have NO problem sporting a gun to protect my family. It is my right as an American, granted to me by our constitution and bill of rights.

So do all of you opposed to CC only travel to Illinois? Since you must be to scared of all the people with concealed guns in the other 48 states. Just curious cause surely you would be terrified of all the wild west shootouts and drunken testosterone fueled men carrying concealed guns in the other 48 states.

Wow talk about same ol same ol. If you have a gun they will just take it away from you, how ignorant can you be. In most instances when a victim of a violent attack pulls out a gun the perp runs away without a shot being fired. Criminals are cowards that look for easy prey, they arent going to charge you and try to take your gun. Had I pulled a gun my attackers they would have run away as fast as possible. But what can I say you cant have rational discussion using facts against people who only think in emotions. Hello 48 states have CC. None of your scare tactic"wild west" theories have happened,and WI being the 8th lowest crime state would show that the 7 safer states already have CC. Since PPA was last struck down by our former governer 100,000 WI residents have been the victims of violent crime. Had CC only helped in 5% of those cases there would be 5,000 less victims. Open carry would be just fine with me if I didnt get harrassed by people who disagree with my right to do so.

Please show me the statistics that prove a CC weapon is more likely to be used against the owner. Another true story: a car load of what appeared to be drunks showed up at my family's house when I lived in the south (1985) at about 11 pm. They started out asking where the party was(?- no clue what they were talking about). When told by my mother that there was no party here they began to get more and more beligerent. The Police were called (since this was rural it was the Sheriffs office) but they (the drunks) started to become threatening. I went outside with my shotgun (not pointed at anyone - yes not a handgun but it was available). The drunks quit arguing and left as fast as they could. The police arrived about an hour and a half later, as we did not have a good description (no moon and bad lighting) the car was not found. The presence of a firearm prevented the situation from getting out of hand.

"If all you other people dont Like the idea of others carrying concealed, then don't carry! But we will." "If it really really bothers you guys, stay home or move to Illinois..."
-
jet_vet2012, your childish philosophy is completely contrary to reality. It certainly identifies you as someone who can’t support their justifications by using common sense. And to think, you’ll be one of those inane individuals carrying a loaded weapon. You are one of the reasons this bill should NOT pass.

“…just liberal lip exercise for you.”
Wrong again janesvillecomments. Violence is an issue that’s real to everyone, especially women. As extremely unfair as it is, they are the target of violent crime much more often than men. Everyone should feel horror for what MKEgal experienced. I also appreciate her honesty when she admitted that having a concealed weapon may not have prevented her attack. Actually, I really was curious as to how many were speaking from experience and how many were just windbags like RAF. Conservatives believe each individual should be held responsible for their circumstances. The underprivileged are poor because they make bad choices and the rich are wealthy because they make good choices. Therefore, if you find yourself having to carry a loaded weapon to feel safe, then obviously you are making bad choices in choosing the places you go. If an individual carrying a gun is robbed at gunpoint, chances are better their gun will be stolen and used by other criminals than expecting that loaded weapon to protect them. I agree with justmy414, it’s more likely that gun you’re carrying will be used against you. I don’t live in fear so I sure don’t need to carry around a loaded weapon to feel safe. And other than probably a few square blocks of Milwaukee, you should have a reasonable expectation of feeling safe anywhere in Wisconsin. Its fallacy to advocate for passage of the conceal carry law based on the opinion that individuals or our communities will become more safe.

Usename- I do! That was HILARIOUS!! Goes to show that even trained officials can be knuckleheads!! Imagine the guns that get cooked by non-trained folks! Maybe parrotts(Chad Alvarez) in an unrelated funny news story.

BTW calling folks "libs" and "commies" meant as some kind of insult to those that have genuine concerns over this legislation doesnt do anything for the substance of your arguement. Just makes you look like Ted Nugent saying "suck on my machine gun!"

Just to be clear as someone who grew up in the poorer areas of Madison(Simpson st, Allied dr, Vera ct) Madison is NOT some crime ridden metropolis where it is soo necessary that folks carry pistols in their pockets.
I will state again I am FOR CC as long as it is REGULATED. The comparisons to free speech are just ridiculous, talk about apples and oranges. I would also like to point out the fact that Wisconsin's violent crime rate per capita was the 8th LOWEST in the United States! Just another example of UNNECESSARY legislation. Where is the need to carry a concealed weapon?
To me this seems to be more about gun owners wanting to be able to carry concealed weapons, I say if you are a proud gun owner carry OPENLY! That is LEGAL, and a HUGE deterrent to anyone that may perpitrate a crime against you. You have the right to bear your arms, it seems that you just want the right to hide that from others! Just trying to see the logic here.

PanamaRed, or when those three guys jumped you and you pulled out your gun, one of them grabbed it away from you, and shot you dead.

MKEgal: No worries. I don't own a gun and never will. I have absolutely no use for them. I was merely referring to a few earlier posts where one blogger said if somebody held his child at gunpoint at a playground he would use his gun. I find that ridiculously dangerous thinking. I just prefer keeping the Dirty Harry scenarios fantasy instead of reality.

I would fully support concealed carry if everyone was responsible. But then, if everyone was responsible, there would be no need for concealed carry.

PanamaRed, I was robbed at gunpoint in 1981 while walking home from my second shift job. I don't know that if I'd had a gun with me that night that I could have stopped the robbery, but I do know that without one I couldn't stop it. If it happens again, I'd prefer to have more options than hoping a police officer will drive by and rescue me.

As you can see from some of the posts here, some of us pro-ccw people have the benefit of experience to back our opinions. Speaking only for myself, it seems to me that this is just liberal lip exercise for you. To us, the issue is very real and it's personal.

Red you have shown your ignorance once again; requesting people "prove" they could have stopped or prevented a crime by exercising their constitutional right.

Do you want others to “prove” they should or can use free speech, religion, the press, petitions to government, false search and seizure, no search warrant, lack of probable cause, false indictment, faulty grand jury, no eminent domain, no due process, self incrimination, double jeopardy, fair trial, speedy trial, jury trial, accusations, confronting accusers, obtaining witness, right to counsel, common law issues, fines, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, no unremunerated rights before they are allowed or permitted to use them as well?

Your logic is completely unreasonable.

Panama red 3:48pm. Yes as a matter of fact had I been able to carry a gun in Illinois 10 years ago I could have stopped the 3 guys that jumped me outside of a bar and stabbed me 4 times(2x in the arm and 2x in the stomach) Ever been stabbed? It REALLY REALLY REALLY hurts! Especially when you factor in the knife got stuck in my right humorus. Just because you have never been attacked doesnt mean it cant or wont ever happen. Its happens to 100's of people every day, I dont live in fear because Janesville is a pretty safe town but what about people in Madison and Milwaukee? Does their social class or skin color mean they shouldnt have the right to defend themselves and their families? The state of Wisconsin is alot bigger than just Janesville and Rock county so maybe you should take into account those who are not as fortunate to live in a safe area.

PanamaRed, I was a crime victim three times in the past two years so, it will help me. Does that help you? I know it will help my wife.

good night all

True, what I'm saying safety stops, sobriety checkpoints, pulling over all cars, is not probable cause that a violation has been committed. That is illegal.
Quote
2) (a) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector may not stop
or inspect a vehicle solely to determine compliance with a statute
or ordinance specified under par. (b) unless the police officer,
sheriff, deputy sheriff, traffic officer or motor vehicle inspector
has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of a statute or ordinance specified under par. (b) has been committed

gpaw: If I understand and recall correctly, you are offering that statute in reponse to my request for a citation saying police can make stops without cause. The statute you cite here confirms my point. It states that the officer must have cause before making a stop. This statute uses the term "reasonable cause," which, as I understand it, is the same as "reasonable suspicion."

Again, the statute prohibits suspicionless stops. It requires a violation before a stop can be made.

Copperguy @ 6:01pm
I'with you on carrying weapons.

Now, here is the statute you ask for earlier this am about Wisconsin sobriety checkpoints being Illegal...WI statute 349.02(2)(a) There also are written guildline's the police have to follow in states that do allow checkpoints. WI is one of 10 states that outlawed checkpoints.

Prinny, I agree. Nothing is really changing. We have guns in safe harbor here at home. Never have even thought to pull one out for any reason. But protecting your right to be safe in your own home and to protect your family, is what our founding Fathers had in mind, when the constitution was written. We have the RIGHT to protect our own.
I would have NO problem taking a life if it was to protect you or my grandchildren!
I would just hope that people who carry concealed weapons, know how to use them, and use them with ACCURACY!

WI legislator oath of office
Article IV, §28
Oath of office. Section 28.
Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.

19.01(1m)
I, ...., swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of .... to the best of my ability.

It's not just an idea, it's the law! It is about time we start to hold our elected officials to it.
As one of the last two States that does not have some form of concealed carry, I have to ask who gave us the moto "Forward"?

jvldss says:
"I would rather take my chances in society as it is rather than having a bunch of gun toting vigilantes "guarding" our playgrounds, schools and public places with an itchy trigger finger ready to throw down at any perceived "threat" irregardless of the situation"
.
If that's how you'd act if you carried a pistol, then please never be armed.
It's called projection - you're worried about what you'd do, so you attribute that to others.
.
Vigilante? No, I carry to protect myself.
.
I will also protect any child, though as our law stands now I couldn't be near enough to a school to protect anyone there from another Columbine, VA Tech, or NIU. Why don't we want our children protected? Teachers in Utah carry in the classroom, & there haven't been any problems. Also haven't been any attacks.
.
"Itchy trigger finger"???? You think we _want_ to destroy our life? Even if the shoot is completely legal, obviously self-defense, there will still be an investigation & the citizen/defender will still need lots of counseling.
.
"Any perceived threat"
You need to understand the law. I can use force to repel unlawful interference w/ myself or my posessions. I can use deadly force to repel an attack which seems likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
.
I'd like to see WI law changed so that showing a pistol to scare away an attacker is legal, & won't subject the citizen to charges.

Bella:
"We are just asking you to use better judgement when carrying it around with you.
Would much prefer you left it at home."
.
Show us news reports about people who carry openly in WI exercising bad judgment (IOW, harming people who weren't trying to harm them).
.
Show us news reports about people who carry concealed in other states exercising bad judgment (see above).
.
Then consider the millions of citizens who go through their day legally armed for their own protection, many carrying concealed. Yes, there are a few people who need anger management classes, but the VAST majority of armed citizens are responsible & polite.
.
As for leaving it at home, that's laughable.
When you can guarantee that no criminal will assault me, I'll consider being disarmed.
When you agree that you won't speak or write outside your home,
when you agree not to think about religion outside your home,
when you agree not to vote outside your home,
or exercise any of the other rights protected by the Constitutions,
then maybe I'll consider keeping my rights at home, too.

The MC said:
"It would seem to me that this would lead to escalation.
If I'm wrong, please provide studies or cite articles."
.
You're the one posing the hypothetical; you have to support your assertion that concealed carry would increase crime, or increase the violence of crime, in Wisconsin when it hasn't happened in the other states.
.
Show us news reports of your hypothetical happening, esp. where the citizens in the shop were carrying. Yes, there are some robbers who already go in shooting, murder as many people as they can, then rob.
Some just want to murder; that's why they target "gun-free" zones (schools, malls, churches).

Panama Commie asked:
"How many posting comments here that support this law have witnessed or experienced a situation where a firearm would have prevented a crime?"
.
Me. Crime against me at least 3 times, possibly a 4th, in 3 states. (Though that last was an armed robbery where I worked, & it was better to let them take the money & leave.)
.
Actually, I don't know that "prevented" is the right word when you're talking about a particular crime. "Stopped" is better.
.
If I had a pistol, I could have stopped a man from raping me. Might not have prevented the attack, unless I was carrying openly, but it darn sure would have stopped him from completing the act! Might have stopped him from even attempting any more rapes in the future, depending on where & how many times I shot him to make him stop attacking me.
.
But why does any of that matter?
We don't need justification to exercise a right.

Concealed carry will not prevent massacres. Nor will continuing to make concealed carry unlawful prevent massacres. Tragic events happen despite laws, as the perpetrator isn't concerned about laws. Concealed carry will change nothing in terms of whether or how frequently tragedies occur, IMHO. It MAY lessen the scale of the tragedy if someone who is lawfully carrying a concealed weapon is able to react quickly and precisely enough.

Go watch Madison PD respond to calls. It doesn't matter if it's for a disgruntled recipient of a parking ticket or a violent domestic disturbance, the parties are all regarded as if they are carrying a weapon. Any officer who does not conduct their contacts with awareness of the possible armed person is creating a danger to him/herself and the public. Concealed carry should not change the way officers respond to calls.

I don't like the fact that people feel a need to arm themselves. Yet, I recognize the Constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. I also believe concealed carry to be preferable to open carry because of the uneasiness that open carry tends to create in some people. For these reasons, I support concealed carry.

Conceal and carry should at least have the same requirements that come with going out in the woods and shooting!
Is that unreasonable?

@jet_vet2012 If you are going to quote me, at least try to quote me correctly.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. A gunman (or perhaps more than one) would like to steal something of value. What is to prevent them from proactively gunning down all the customers in a small jewelry shop? What is to prevent them from using an IED? It would seem to me that this would lead to escalation.

If I'm wrong, please provide studies or cite articles. I am genuinely curious.

Although I personally see no reason for it, I am not worried about the vast majority of responsible people carrying concealed weapons if they are fearful of their well being. It is their right to do so. I just worry about the few nut jobs posting here that seem willing to pull weapons and start firing at playgrounds and other public places at a perceived threat. They just may be crazier than the criminals.

PanamaRed and Bella, we shouldn't have to wait and see/be a victim before I choose to protect myself and my family. If all you other people dont Like the idea of others carrying concealed, then don't carry! But we will. Its going to pass next month. If it really really bothers you guys, stay home or move to Illinois...

bella, bella, bella: Can we try to lay off the “gun nut” and any other derogatory and argumentative comments. There can be a conversation where people disagree which is not diminished to that type of rhetoric. That said I am for concealed carry, but weather licensing or registration is required I have no prerogative. I think it might be useful if there was licensing because then a Wisconsin license could be recognized in other states, which would be helpful for those of us who travel to any of the 48 states which allow this very same thing. Either way before I carry anything in public I will attend one of the training courses being held by one of the local shooting ranges and I will spend a large amount of time at the range becoming comfortable with the weapon and proficient with shooting it. There is a huge responsibility with carrying a firearm anywhere. That being said just because you have a bias against people who would like to exercise their rights does not mean that their rights should be infringed upon because don’t like it.

How many posting comments here that support this law have witnessed or experienced a situation where a firearm would have prevented a crime? Not a crime you have only heard about but a crime where you have been an actual witness or victim. Lets hear from freedomfighter, jetvet, janevillecomments, Sigma, RAF, SigmundF or anyone else who believes they could have prevented a crime if only they had been carrying a gun.

Oh....this is perfect. Evan Wynn wants to allow "early 6am liquor sales".....now he adds that he wants these drinkers to be able to carry concealed guns too!

What a representative for the safety of Wisconsin citizens! :-(

Listen up, gun nuts. Most of us aren't arguing with your precious right to own a gun. We are just asking you to use better judgement when carrying it around with you. Would much prefer you left it at home. Thank you.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's why we want concealed weapons in this state. Period! End of Story!

I think this is hilarious in that people obviously think that this story is about carrying a weapon when this is not about carrying the weapon itself, but HOW the weapon is carried. We already have the open carry law, which means it is LEGAL to carry a weapon. And this even goes for the criminals, thugs, kooks, and crazy people. Spoden makes his case that this would put a certain amount of risk on officers responding to calls in that they would have to assume that every person they come into contact with, COULD be carrying a weapon. Honestly, shouldn't they anyways? In fact, if I'm walking down the street with my children, I'd LOVE for that rapist or kidnapper that is thinking about hurting me or my children to have to consider that I might be carrying a firearm that they cannot see. All this legislation would do would allow us to take the gun that we are legally allowed to carry, by law as of now, and holster it under our jacket instead of over it. I don't see how that would raise crime or he risk of unintended shootings anymore than what they are for open carrying right now. Again, the people legally allowed to carry would be required to register and license their weapons, fingerprint themselves at the county and follow all laws regarding the uses of the firearms. The "thugs" that we would be more concerned with are probably carrying their weapons without these these stipulations being met anyways, and likely will continue to whether this law is passed or not, so to me, it's not changing anything other than allowing ME the ability to protect myself from them.

Lemme guess, this MUST be the working of the union thugs, right!?! HAHA!

No offense to all the responsible gun owners out there, but after reading this blog, I think I would rather take my chances in society as it is rather than having a bunch of gun toting vigilantes "guarding" our playgrounds, schools and public places with an itchy trigger finger ready to throw down at any perceived "threat" irregardless of the situation.

Sorry, that is from the following website for the Concealed Campus website.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/

Argument: Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime.
Answer: Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997);

“An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State,

“Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association

College kids with guns....yes, that's all we need. Come on, most college kids can't even hike up their pants or stay sober for tests. Oh, and by the way, I am kind of at a loss for words regarding your vivid descriptions of what COULD happen to a child. Come on, dude.

Bella, Switzerland.

I do believe teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, I also believe College kids, if legally able to obtain, should be allowed to carry in all Colleges.

Am I good at accepting Sarcasm? Not from a Democratic Liberal. And you STILL think I should just this guy Kidnap/Rape/Kill my daughter and let me find her face down in a ditch!!! Hmmm, Kind of at a loss of words here Bella.

This argument that more guns somehow makes us all safer is so ridiculous. Do any other nations that we typically compare ourselves to have similar policies? No. And are they more violent? No. Weapons only escalate a situation. It's foolish to think otherwise.

How does concealed carry change Columnbine...unless you advocate allowing children to carry weapons in school...yes, that will make everyone safer. Or maybe if the teachers, at least, could be carrying so they could have turned the cafeteria or library into real firefight. At least then those teachers could have killed those kids (less a little collateral damage) before they took their own lives.

I know there are many responsible gun owners. What I am questioning is the REASONING for carrying in public when you live in a place like Janesville, or most anywhere in Wisconsin with the exception of maybe some parts of Milwaukee. I just don't understand why you feel like you need to be armed to safely walk around this town. I just don't see the need. I know you have the right. I'm sure the CC bill will pass. I just don't see the point.

jet_vet, you are not really good with sarcasm, are you? I also love that you consider yourself qualified enough to reason with and/or shoot an armed kidnapper at a public playground. Your posts only support my argument that you (and others) are not fit to carry a gun.

Bella, its always a low likelihood until it happens. It was a low likelihood two teens were gonna run inside Columbine and kill all those people. It was a low likelihood that that lady was going to be shot and killed while getting a Pizza at Little Ceasers Pizza. You know what else had a low likelihood? Driving with two other buddies before a guy on a motorcycle pulled up along side the Jeep and Shot and Killed me...

thekid - Thank you for your CC support, but I cannot answer that question because all situations are different. Obviously I am going to try and calm him and reason with him. Chances are he will have his gun trained on me, not the kid. If he refuses to let the kid go and still has his firearm aimed at me or the child, I have every legal right to neutralize the threat. Lets say I leave my gun at home like Bella wants me to, now I watch this guy take my child and drive off and hope to see a plate number, which is probably stolen anyway. But Bella also suggests I should let my family be torn apart at least once before I defend the ones I have left...

jet-vet, you can look at it that way, or you can say that maybe you should evaluate the likelihood of something bad happening before you strap on a lethal weapon and go to a place where kids play.

Oh my God Bella? Is that the kind of thought process you have?? Before I defend my family I should wait until my wife and 1st born is killed before deciding to protect the only child I have left?? Should I wait and let the youngest child be Kidnapped before stopping it from happening to my other one?

fearandrhetoric4dummies - In reference to the biker shooting at the 5 points. He may have been a good guy by asking everyone.. but his interview said he took the gun incase there were other rival biker gang members starting trouble. So if you are knowingly going anywhere armed for a reason... that is totally different then just having a gun for general protection. Instead of arming himself and going to the bar thinking there might be confrontational people there... the better choice would have been to go elsewhere.
-
And it doesnt matter who you are, what people think of you, its been proven over and over again... you put anyone in a certain situation they can change. Why? Because people have emotions and we dont teach people how to control them. American education system again fails. We always shoot first think second. Its the american way.

Walter: I agree with your police department stance and I really do believe they do the best they can to protect the community at large. The problem with this is they are mostly reactive rather than being proactive. They show up AFTER the crime, hardly ever to prevent a crime. I also think that their priorities are a little off base. Traffic citations are explained to be safety oriented and most feel (rightly so, IMO) it is for the revenue.
Why not agree to let people run their own lives instead of the Gov. telling us what we can and can not do?

A firearm is a Tool. Its used in emergency situations. Just like a Fire extinguisher, or a seat belt. You hope you never have to use them, but they are there if need to.

And with Humphrey shooting that guy, for one he was drunk!! Which means We should Ban Alcohol, Right? Im actually quite ok with that, because I dont drink anyways. But, It will never happen because our Government makes WAY WAY WAY too much money off of it...

Judging from the posts here, there are some citizens that should not be allowed anywhere near guns as they lack the judgment to do so in a responsible manner.

jet_vet....does your kid get kidnapped often at gunpoint at Palmer Park or at any other playground in Janesville? Maybe the paranoia goes a little too far and we should watch a little less cop shows? You are not in tune with the area that you live in. Crime is low. Carrying guns is unnecessary and can lead to fatal accidents. If you feel that the playgrounds in Janesville are so unsafe that you think you need to bring a gun, maybe you should just stay at home. I know I'd feel safer if you did.

i support CC but seriously jet_vet...someone has a gun pointed at your kid and youre gonna pull a gun on them??

What are you going to do, open fire on the guy holding a child at gunpoint. Now that is a helluva solution, Dirty Harry.

Bella, What do I do if I'm at the park with my kid and someone attempts to kidnap my/your child at gunpoint. We both know it happens. Now what? You going to hit him with your purse? Or call the cops that arent going to arrive until he is long gone with your kid? We dont live in a world where crime only happens at the house...

The 2nd Amendment cites "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms if manditory training be obtained and all taxes and fees be paid to the Gov't"

It's gotta suck to live in so much fear that you want to carry a gun everywhere you go. I feel sorry for you. And it makes me sick to my stomach to think that you might be carrying a gun to the playground where my kid plays, and that you might overreact and try to be a hero if some perceived threat occurs. Why don't you leave your guns at home and let the rest of us live in peace? You can keep your stupid gun to protect your home. Until I see lethal violence running rampant in the streets of Janesville, I really don't buy your argument for "having to protect yourself" everywhere you go.

The world is different these days. In 1775 we didnt have Crystal Meth, we didnt have heroin junkies laying under over passes with needles hanging out of their arms wondering how are they going to pay for their next Fix. As for a group of men rewriting the Constitution, This new world is ran by Politics, Money, Greed, and Power. Its a race to see who can get to the top the fastest by doing anything to get there, Including stripping you of your rights...

Jet- I actually did read. Very interesting article. Again very one sided and states a few cases that support your arguements. I will direct you to a link that cites SEVERAL studies that support BOTH arguements. My point is that ther are NO definitive facts on the actual EFFECT of these laws. Any statement to the contrary is just FALSE. You may have your opinions, and that is just fine, that does NOT make your contentions facts thats all I am saying. to portray them as such is just silly. Look around a littlebit before criticizing others as "comic book" researchers, because that is just how you charecterize yourself. Have a nice day!
Remember I am a 2nd amendment supporter, just with some control. Unfettered gun rights are NOT responsible and play to those that profit from gun sales.

Youll have to be specific Sigma, I make a lot of "dumb" statements. Nor do I think I have the world all figured out. You call other folks "dumb" while making complaints of having to unload and reload your weapon as an arguement for CC. Thats intelligent? Yes, criminals are criminals when they commit a crime, but firearms can and do accelerate situations, many times to places they dont need to go. You may just play off the guy that committed murder at 5 ponts as some kind of thuggish murderer, but if you talk to those who know him, they would beg to differ. So because you choose to make ASSumptions, does that mean everyone else should? Grey , Siggie, not black and white, thats all im trying to say. Nothing to do with Jumbo jets falling from the sky killing 30,000+ Americans on a yearly basis to protect your rights.
BTW it was ME who said the US constitution is outdated, and I contend that it is. Hypothetically speaking my guess is that if you placed the same group of men in a room today to construct a similar document to govern a nation, it would look markedly different. Considering in 1776 the USA was 13 colonies with a population of approximately 2.5 million people. Now there are more people in Chicago, and we have a yearly GDP of 15 trillion dollars. The document is considered "living and breathing" because it is amendable. Should we maybe just stick with it as written? (3/5 clause?)
Stupid is as stupid does folks. If Law enforcement isnt there to protect us then why would the motto of law enforcement be "To Protect and Serve"? Is that just a metaphor? Talk about uninformed statements.
Please point out some webites or studies that are able to DRECTLY relate CC to a drop in crime. I would love to read them. The crime rate in WI continues to fall with out the PPA so what good would it do here? I would also ask that it is a LAW related or government related study, not a one-sided website. Thanks!

fearand rhetoric - Evidently you didnt read it. Because at the bottom that page is what you call "References" (which means where you got the information from). And these references are from Court House procedings, FBI Enforcement Bulletins, and research institutions. There was one more, what was it?? Oooh thats right, it was the United States Constitution!!! These are facts, not Opinions.

fearandrhetotic - What spoden and Leck said is False in everyway. It is not an opinion, but a FACT that crime goes DOWN when CC is in place. One more time for you slow folks, Their statements are FALSE. These statements didnt come from statistics given by ANY state in the USA! Its a FACT crime goes down. NOT my opinion. You must have the same comic book they do... Do I need another Crayon??

Ha.. ya.. criminals have another name for a "gun free" store.. its called "easy target".

Republicans ran on a platform of job creation and deficit reduction. So far they only seem interested in giving tax breaks to corporations, eliminating collective bargaining, providing an option for buying booze before 8am and allowing residents to hide the fact they are carrying loaded weapons. Yes sir, we are on the road to economic recovery!!

Youkillme- You are absolutely right, home owners and business' have the right to not allow me inside. Lets say I was a Criminal fresh out of prison with multiple felonies for violent crimes. I stole a handgun and I was going to rob a place, take a hostage if I need too (because I'll go to prison for life this time and I aint going back), maybe even shoot a man. Am I going to rob a store that DENIES people the right to carry a firearm and defend themselfs against me or a store that could very well be the last thing I ever do??? Does it happen often? No, Thank God. But Yes it does happen, including in so called "Crime Free" Wisconsin. An Armed Criminal walks into a "Gun Free" store and he sees Fish in a barrel. You and your family are completely at his Mercy, begging him to spare the lives of the ones you love most, and you chose that!!! I, as a Armed citizen will take my family and my money to a store that doesn't infringe on my Constitutional Right to protect my Wife, My beautiful 3yr old Daughter, and my 11 month old Son.

And the difference between Open Carry and Concealed Carry, Besides the obvious, with Concealed he has no idea who is or is not Armed. Where ever he goes, there is a very good possiblity there is a gentleman willing to stop him from ruining the lives of families. Open Carry, He looks around, sees a gun and decides its not safe and heads over to the "Gun Free" store you shop at.
Concealed carry - Guns are hidden and could be anywhere, crime goes down.
Open carry- Guns are in plain sight, if he dont see one, He's in the clear to do as he pleases.

bella: You say that the U.S. Constituton IS outdated, you don't understand that the Constitution protect ua from a opressive goverment.(see the bill of rights) I cite three examples in past. 1. The Russian Gov. took away guns in the early 1900's this gov. opressed their people,look what happen. The German Gov. in the 1930's took away the guns ,also look what happen when their gov oppressed their peoplle.. The third example is that Japan was going to invade the US. What stopped them? The american people owned guns.
Please be thankful that your living in a country that the only law and order comes from our US. AND STATE CONSTITUTION!

walter- there is a court ruling stating that police departments are not responsible for protecting individuals but that their duty is to the public at large. I don't have it in front of me and will attempt to look it up later but the highlights were an individual was assaulted and the police didn't respond for a long time. The victim (or relatives - its been a while since I read it) sued, their case was dismissed due to the reasoning above. in short: if we can get there and save the day, great but it's not our fault if you get killed because we are buisy enough that it took X hours to respond.

"You can carry openly now, why the need to conceal your weapon. Wouldn't that be MUCH more of a dterrent than someone not knowing who is carrying and who is not?"
.
ask yourself what happens when people open carry unless it is a previously announced event? How many phone calls have the police had to deal with about a "man with a gun"? CC is more than tucking your Glock into your waistband and pretending you are Harry Callihan (Yes I know he carried a S&W M29 not a Glock but have you ever TRIED to hide a .44?). The idea is low profile, which means no NRA cap, photogaphers vests or fanny packs. Attracting attention is not the desired result. CC advocates believe that the individual is responsible for him/her self. We do not stand in front of the mirror saying "you talking to me?" The deterent exists in the fact that CC exists and criminals don't know the armed from the unarmed. Uncertanty helps those who don't wish to carry as well.

jetvet,
A government is under no obligation to provide police services, however a police department that currently exists typically takes it upon themselves to protect the public. Thus, it can be inferred that police officers are obligated to protect their community when called upon.

fearandrhetoric4dummies - Your statement is dumb. No one is a criminal untill they commit a crime...duh. Analogys work because some people are too dumb to see how things are unless you put them into different terms.
-
Nuclear weapons may be arms.. So are class 3 guns (another analogy).. you need a special permit. If you can get a permit to carry around nuclear weapons... more power to ya.

Right Jet and your reearch was done in a NON-opinionated fashion right? Firearmsandliberty.com? That seems to be a site where I am sure that you could find some opposing view points, if you wanted to hear them. My guess is you don't, and that's fine, just don't try to downplay an officer's comments because it doesn't jive with your opinion. People that serve the community as law enforcement officers have my utmost respect, whether or not I agree with their positions. Too bad when folks downplay what a PROFESSIONAL says with facts from a one-sided website. Comicbooks?

I understand folks, however current laws don't allow for people to legally carry concealed weapons. If the law is passed how are people working at a business to know if someone is carrying a weapon. Does this law have a provision that provides any business with a metal detector that wants one? If not, I believe pat downs will be in order. Everybody talks about gun owner's rights, but what about the rights of those that don't want the things in their place of business? Talk about a government intrusion.

One thing you are right about is the constitution, its not living and breathing, its OUTDATED! Written almost 250 years ago when the world was a waaaay different place.
Your assertions about the man that I knew , are completely wrong. Assumptions based on ONE view of every issue are where I believe some go so wrong. Issues like these aren't black and white they just aren't. You say you and your wife own many fire arms and are responsible, and that is great, you are the example of what its supposed to be. My question to you is....Hypothetically speaking, what would you do if you came home and found your spouse being unfaithful? Or were dealing with a messy divorce? I understand that these are hypotheticals, but they are realities of our society. You may be able to contain yourself , but how many couldn't do the same when presented with the same situations?
Here's a link to the website with 2010 firearm death numbers.http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
30,000 in 2010, thats the equivalent of 10 september 11ths. To make silly analogies doesnt make sense to me. I am for peoples right to bear arms, I just want it regulated that's all. You don't like open carry because its inconvienient to reload your weapon? Really? An inconvienience that you should suffer IMO due to your choice to carry a weapon.

Walter says "Also, I must have missed the announcement that police were long required to "Protect & Serve". If protection is no longer in their job description, why do they still have guns at all?"

Im afraid you have missed the announcement that Police DO NOT have to protect you, or your family. And I quote from the link listed below----"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler...

One thing that seperates us supporters from other people with the lack of common sense is we bring Facts and Statistics, while others bring Opinions, Emotions, and Lies. For Example, Spoden says "I think it escalates every conflict that individuals are going to be involved in to a very dangerous level,” Spoden said. “I don’t think it will decrease the level of violence in Wisconsin. To the contrary, I think it will increase the level of violence in the state." And this From Stoughton Police Chief Greg Leck "This bill allows just about anyone to carry a loaded gun just about anywhere in public, even though research shows that allowing more people to carry guns in more places will lead to one thing—more tragedies,” said Stoughton Police Chief Greg Leck, president of the association."

This is Incorrect information, Crime ALWAYS goes down... This guy must have gotten his "Research" from a Comic Book, Because that is a false statement? Dont believe me? Look it up...

Didn't we already have this discussion last year when the Niles brothers felt the need to carry their guns to do their ice cream shopping in Janesville? Seems to me that the people of WI have a lot more pressing issues to worry about than concealed weapons. The way the economy is going with Walker in charge, there will be nothing left for the working/middle class to protect, anyway. Such a ridiculous discussion. The 2nd amendment is outdated and no longer relevant. We have bigger fish to fry.

Sen.Cullen, in Sunday's Gazette said that "I think people who carry guns have rights, but people who do not carry guns have rights,too"
My question to Sen Cullen is this. Doesn't the Wisconsin Constitution (Article 1,Section 25)give me the RIGHT to keep and bear arms if i so choose? What part of that you don't understand? It is Part of my right,your rights, AND ANY OTHER PERSONS RIGHT. There should be no question, no balance. You swore that you would up hold the Constitution of the State Of Wisconsin, and The United States Constitution (Article 2 Bill of Rights). Again why am Inot suprise that you passed the buck again. Please do your job!

Too bad sigmund has to go partisan. That is a definite sign you are out of logic. Argue based on the merits NOT partisan talking points.
I could say that a typical conservative arguement would be to remove all rules and let people and markets govern themselves and things will all work out. How did that lie of thought work out for you on Wall Street with investment banks? Deregulation is NOT the answer. Unfortunately NOT everyone is intelligent enough to make wise decisions and rules NEED to be in place. Its not anyone "telling you what to eat, do , think" maybe you shouldn't be so paranoid. If you are smart enough it shouldn't matter if there are laws/rules because they won't apply to you. Its protection from the minority of gun owners that lack common sense. Remember it takes only one.
Also, you dont like analogies of nukes and guns, yet you compare jets falling out of the sky to killing of people with fire arms. In 2010 almost 30,000 people died due to fire arms, be they suicides or homocides. Did thirty thousand jumbo jets fall out of the sky in 2010?
Please leave the lib, name calling and conservative talking points at home. would you like us to completely de-regulate narcotics as well? Maybe all dugs should be legal too, since the "libs" are just all about protecting "dumb consevatives" from themselves.
Please keep your arguements issue based and not partisan hackery. Your partisan name calling is silly, and doesnt prove anything, just ignorance.

My issue with open carry is that everytime i get in the car i have to unload and case my gun then put the ammo in the glove box then grab the ammo get out get the gun out of the case and load it then put it in the holster. I have to repeat this process everytime i go somewhere. And it sounds like your friend was a murderer who wants to blame his actions on booze instead of taking responsability for what he did. My wife and I have many firearms and like any other couple we argue and fight over stuff and never once has she or I tried to shoot the other. The point of CC is so criminals dont know who is armed and also so other citizens cant target and harrass those who carry. Every amendment to the constitution is just as important every other amendment. Without all of them,we lose all of them. The constitution is not "A living breathing document" it says what it says and means what it says. Sorry Im trying to respond to several dif posts because I have to go to work. Have a nice day

as youkillme said...

Walter business' already have the right to reject people from carrying weapons on their property if they want; except law enforcement.

Walter, private property owners including retail businesses and restaurants' still have the right to post signs on their property stating concealed handguns are not allowed on their property. I suspect we'll see an increase in those signs.

Sorry typo- Comparisons to the 1st amendment

sigma,
The militias originally alluded to by the 2nd amendment eventually were replaced with police in order to defend the public. If it's so damned important to people to play police officer, why isn't the open carry law good enough? It seems to me people just want to be able to carry their weapons into private business unbeknownst to the business owner who may not want patrons carrying guns in their establishment.
If this law passes I will encourage those representing me in the state government to introduce legislation to make a law allowing business owners and employees to conduct a bodily search of anyone they suspect of carrying weapons into their business against the wishes of the business owner.

This is all the same old lib position. You are not smart enough to carry a gun,you are not smart enough to spend your own money,you are not smart enough to decide what to eat,you are not smart enough to raise your children. We libs are better at living your life than you are. We libs need to make all the decisions for you dumb conservatives. Our society is just to stupid to own guns let alone carry them, why everyone will just start shooting up the place at the drop of a hat. Every time someone disagrees with someone else they'll just pull their gun and open fire because only stupid violent insane people own guns. That about sum it up Libs?

Just so we are clear I AM a supporter of the 2nd amendment. I just dont like the false comparisons to the second amendment, as if freedom of speech is comparable to your right to own and carry a weapon that is capable of ending another human life. I feel as if the second amendment is more of a responsibility that should be earned through training and a clean record. I also understand that the great majority of gun owners are responsible people, remember that it just takes ONE crazy person to change the debate. You can have millions of abusers of the 1st amendment and the effects are FAR less damaging.

Sigma and Sigmund- one has a hard time with the nuclear weapons analogy and the other compares an individual shooting another to a jumbo jet falling out of the sky. Analogies to me are useless. There are MANY examples of alchohol enfused rampages with firearms, right here in Wisconsin. I happened to know a man that was a "law abiding citizen" never had a conviction in his life. Snapped and murdered his wife in front of their 2 kids when intoxicated. Comparing something like that to a Jumbo jet falling from the sky is just not smart.
I actuallt would like one of you to address the fact that Walter brought up. You can carry openly now, why the need to conceal your weapon. Wouldn't that be MUCH more of a dterrent than someone not knowing who is carrying and who is not? I like Walter dont understand the fascination of concealing your weapon being so essential to your right to bear arms. Please educate me.

No sigma40, I'm not comparing nuclear arms to handgun arms. This has nothing to do with radiation or flying airplanes into buildings. I'm asking about the line of thinking here that says we are safer if everyone is armed. Nuclear weapons are arms - are they not?

I must live a sheltered life. Never once in 60+ years walking this earth have I ever wished that I was "packing". Is Wisconsin really that dangerous that I need to carry a gun? Please advise me.

WalterReuther - previous comment, the second part was for you.. i put the wrng name in.

Oh what a great comparison a 9mm handgun and a 10 megaton thermo nuke. Kinda like comparing a matchbox car to freight train. Gun ownership is at record highs, crime is at record lows, 48 states have CC. Every state with CC has seen drops in violent crimes. Ill bet that 99% of people who carry have never had to pull their gun and that other 1% just might be alive because the did.

youkillme - You are really comparing nulear weapons to firearms? Last time i discharged a firearm I dont recall everything around it dying and radiation contamination,.
-
youkillme - Back then the Brittish were a threat, what was the crime rate amongst the civilians? Was there a reason to have a fire arm to defend oneself for reasons other than the Brittish? Also were there terrorist threats? ya.. the Brittish... they have been replaced with the Al Qaeda. Sure they arent in our back yards threatening us... but then again they werent flying airplanes into buildings before they actually did it either....

Rimmer - Disagree with you on your conspiracy theory about the media. No one is taking your rights away.

This is all the same "What if,what if,what if" What if you are driving down I-90 and a jumbo jet falls out of the sky and lands on your car? It could happen,we need laws so that aircraft cant fly over any roadways. The issue with "Strict rules" is we will then have a "May issue" law not a "Shall issue" law. May issue laws make it so that local sheriffs decide who can and cant carry for no reason. They dont have to provide you with any reason for denial. "Training" is expensive. So I guess people in poor,high crime areas that cant afford training just wont have the same rights as those who have the money. Lots of people in WI already own guns and dont see any "Drunk testosterone fueled rampages" in the paper. The motorcycle guy at the five points was a CRIMINAL THUG! He is a MURDERER who broke the law and deserves life in prison. It is a perfest example that the criminals in our society are already carrying guns. People sit here and act like "The gun made him do it" Guns dont kill people, scum bags kill people.

Interesting that Tim Cullen belongs to and supports a party that is just fine with and supports the rights of people killing their unborn children, yet doesn't support the most basic right to protect your own life and that of your family.

I'm still curious about the line of thinking and logic that says if everyone owned and carried a gun we'll be a safer society, but why countries are denied nuclear weapons to defend themselves if the right to bear arms ultimately means a safer world?

"The British are coming! The British are coming!"
-a mythologized announcement made the last time the 2nd amendment would have even been relevant. Oddly enough, this "right" came into existence years after the last time it actually needed to be exercised.

Just reading the article on the Gaz, there are SEVERAL politicians that want this passed with NO rules. So lets just stand back and breathe. I am fine with this law as long as it's passed with VERY strict rules and regs.
I do not beleve in the fear mongering that goes on that is related to "the wild west". Just because you make rules that a person can't "drink and carry" doesn't mean that it will happen. Also who will protect the people against the "Law Abiding Citizen" that snaps for whaever reason? Or maybe the person that uses his/her weapon when it is unecessary. Is one person dead because an over reacting CC permit holder too much? Hows about 10? I am NOT saying I am against this, I am saying these are my reservations. There jut NEEDS to be VERY strict rules, training , and registration here. Any drunk guy full of testosterone shouldn't be able to have a gun on his person. Passing this law with no restrictions is a warranted fear that I hold. Just because there are sets of rules doesn't mean they will be followed. This is a law that if not followed up with strict regulations, there is no way I would support it. I am all for people's right to bear arms, I just dont believe that it is NEARLY as necessary as some believe it is.

916,
Law abiding citizens do have the right to open carry just like police officers. Did you forget about that? Yes, police officers have weapons to protect themselves while they are carrying out their duties to protect and serve the public. Why isn't it enough to carry a weapon openly, resembling a member of society meant to protect? It seems like people are more interested in concealing their weapons, therefore resembling someone in our society that intends to do harm. I can see why police officers might take issue with this.

Is there any evidence that states with conceal and carry laws have less crime than Wisconsin OR that more people are shot accidentally in these states? Is this law going to solve an actual problem or improve a situation? Can we answer these questions without bias? Politicians should be honest when answering these questions.

I wonder if Spoden remembers during the election that he stated that he supports gun rights? At the time of the elections, he was the better of the two running. I was going to vote for his challenger, but after the remark about the deputies he said, I changed my mind, and I would do it again.

David Moore, you quoted, “From a police perspective, I would like the only people out in the public with guns to be trained police officers.”

What country do you live in? Who makes such a statement? Isn't this how the Nazis preferred it? As Americans, we have rights that are backed by the U.S. constitution we all live by, period. Be watchful and stand up to "right stripping" individuals who like to pick and choose if an already given right is okay or not. The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege, it's a RIGHT.
Does this need to be proven?

Mr. Moore, if you understood the article below written by Jim Maas, maybe you could more effectively carry out your job and service to this country.

Thanks for spelling it out so clearly for us below Jim.

Jim Maas column: Concealed carry is a right

Wisconsin's Legislature may pass a law that, finally, will increase our freedoms. It would be a mistake to take that result for granted, however. There are many who claim to care about us who are willing to limit or compromise our constitutional rights. We have to watch them carefully.

The constitutional right I refer to, of course, is the right to keep and bear arms, Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, passed in 1998. It makes bearing arms a right, rather than a privilege, just like the right to free speech.

Just like free speech, we should not expect to have to purchase a permit or jump through bureaucratic hoops to exercise our freedoms. Some who oppose law-abiding fellow citizens from bearing arms would like to pretend that the Constitutional amendment was never passed. They are bringing up the same old arguments they offered back in the '90s. Those arguments are now irrelevant. Our statutes must now conform to the constitution. That is how the system is supposed to work.

James Madison said, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Rep. Donna Seidel, D-Wausau, along with most Democrats and some big-government Republicans, would prefer to control us with regulations, fees and bureaucratic hoops to jump through, like applying for a driver's license. Driving is not a constitutional right; it is a privilege. Our constitution says, "The people (Wisconsin citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms (carry) for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." Is any part of that simple declarative sentence not clear to anyone who can read?

for the rest of the article go to:

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article...

tpaine09, the officer in question, resigned a few years back. After the shooting, he could not shake from his mind what he did wrong by lieing and not identifying that he was a police officer at the scene. All what I said was reported in the paper when the "suspect" was released from the county jail. This officer may still live in the area, and he is now a man of the cloth.

Every time you drive in a right to carry state, people have guns you don't know about. How many gun nuts took a shot at you?
Do I want to carry, No. I had enough of guns in the Marines, and bad things happen if you aren't careful.
Statistics show a home will be more likely to be broken into if people know you have a gun!
Do I have weapons to defend my self, yea, but I like to surprise my attacker so I'm not saying. Yes, the weapons are street legal.

Every one needs to go to NRA.org all of the propossed rules of the PPA are there including you can not drink if you are carrying a gun. These police are saying the same things police said in other states when they got CC and its proven to be untrue. I mean come on"Only trained police officers should carry guns" what a joke. Not to mention the so called "research" he sites as proof that CC cause more violence has been proven false. If you support "PPA" or not you should at least go to NRA.org-click on state leg. click on WI and read the rules being proposed so you can at least be informed of the facts instead of speculating and spreading uninformed rumors.

Wally.......Your comment, "Also, I must have missed the announcement that police were long required to "Protect & Serve". If protection is no longer in their job description, why do they still have guns at all?"
Easy answer--To protect themselves........which just happens to be the exact same reason law abiding citizens wish to carry.......Imagine that!

"Food for thought. How much training is mandated on firearm use by police after the academy..........none. So why should citizens be required to receive training and rectification when police are not?"
This reminds me of the case in the early 90's when jpd responded to an alarm @ Applebee's ; a guy took a shot @ the officer & he responded by emptying his high cap. 9mm clip missing the suspect! The cop should have been FIRED for missing & spraying 17 9mm rounds in public....
Somehow, I would bet he is still one of Janesville's finest...

Bottom line is that we all know the anti-gun, "I will dictate your life" crowd will use whatever arguments (whether logical or not) they can to scare people into thinking we are going back to the days of the "Old West", but reasonable minds will prevail. If the law abiding citizens really wanted to go out and shoot it up, why would we wait for Conceal Carry laws? We would just follow the path of the unlawful and let it rip.
As for our police chiefs and sheriffs...You do your job and write your traffic tickets (all for our safety, not for the revenue, I'm sure) and we will watch out for ourselves and protect our families.
Why is it that all states other than Wisconsin and Illinois allow conceal carry, yet we resist. Do we really think we are so much smarter than the other states?

rimmer - Socialists and Communists? For crying out loud....maybe you should get yourself some education instead of waving that gun.

I am fine with the conceal carry legislation, as long as it comes with training and registration. To compare firearms to a nail gun is just laughable. Also Mr Wynn comparing the freedom of speech to the right to carry a firearm is just hilarious. The difference between the two is night and day. The 1st amendment isnt going to kill anyone directly with irresponsible excersise of said right. The 2nd amendment is subject to that individual's sanity. Sorry but public safety can and will be negatively affected by just allowing anyone to carry , no questions asked.
Doesn't an officer deserve to know that the person, that they are pulling over may have a firearm? I certainly would like for an officer of the law to be prepared for a situation that could go bad in a hurry. The idea that this should just be some kind of free-wheeling everyone has a gun law, is a little un-nerving to me. I want responsible,SANE gun owners be allowed to carry if they really deem it necessary. Funny thing is , when have any of you ever been presented with that situation? I grew up in a very poor area of Madison, a ghetto if you will and never in my life have been in a situation where a firearm would have made ANY difference.
We in Janesville have seen the direct affects of what a concealed weapon can bring. A young man was killed when a road rage incident arose where alchohol and a lot of testosterone was involved. Perfect example why there are needs not only for training , but registration should be required.
Kind of like voter ID, something that I am fine with, but there is really small examples in Wisconsin where it may be needed. Still both legislation acts are really unnecessary. Congrats to all the macho Rambos out there that want to hug their guns for lack of rasonability and common sense.

*no longer required*

Also, I must have missed the announcement that police were long required to "Protect & Serve". If protection is no longer in their job description, why do they still have guns at all?

walter - haha, love your posts. Thanks for bringing some reason into the discussion. The gun-nuts are out in full force.

Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I've been stabbed in the gut while being mugged for my watch...

Walter, it is NOT the police's job to protect you, it IS their responsibility to investigate the crime once it has occurred and gather evidence for the prosecution. SCOTUS has ruled that on more than one occasion they are not responsible for citizens safety. Statements like yours are so typical of scared victims that think the police are around every street corner waiting to jump out and apprehend the mugger that is about to stab you in the gut because he doesnt like your taste in watches.

You can go into any store and buy power tools, roof nailers.. all with no training. Why would a gun need special training? Its simple.. dont point the dangerous end at anything unless you intend to shoot it,... ever. I believe this is all covered in the owners manuals of firearms. They also sell cars with no training... you can even go to a liquer store and by booze with no training.

So a couple people have commented here that the mentality of police is a greater threat to public safety than citizens carrying concealed weapons and that police do more to protect criminals than law-abiding citizens. Many seem to agree with these sentiments. If one were to accept these statements as fact, wouldn't it then stand to reason to turn our weapons on the police in the interest of public safety and self-preservation?

Poor headline, Ted! We already have "open carry" under existing law. Pay attention! Also, a couple local police chiefs who are out of synch with the people who pay their salaries do not constitute the totality of "law enforcement."

I find it disturbing that no training will be required. Seriously??

Pity that the right to free speech doesn't require any special training or a license. Wake up people, your rights have been trampled on for so long you think its normal. The police cant protect you (its not their job!) so ultimately its your own responsibility to protect yourself. Why not have the means to do just that?

The general consensus among gun lovers commenting here seems to be that police don't do enough, protect criminals and are unnecessary. I'm half expecting to hear all you wannabe gun-toters burst into a rousing rendition of a certain N.W.A. song.
Apparently all we need is a gun in the hands of every man, woman and child to reach the pinnacle of public safety. I say pass the law and disband the police force. Let's save the tax payer's some money!

nice to know the police all look at us as if we are lesser of people and incapable of being civil. Just shows how the police think. They are no different than us. If they are worried about bad people being armed... the law currently does not stop that so what would change?? Nothing.

The negative comments on this CCW law continue to amaze me every time it comes up.....
Comparing it to the wild west, or nuclear weapons just shows the ignorance of these people.
Concealed carry laws specifically state that when you have a permit, you are NOT A POLICEMAN, and have no authority to use your weapon for anything other than "PERSONAL PROTECTION OF YOURSELF OR YOUR FAMILY". HELLO ???????
Also the real facts on the Wild West are that the Cowboys/businessmen did not really carry open in holsters with shoot outs etc. That was all created by the movie folks.....
They actually mostly carried concealed,if they carried, or only had rifles.
And all you who continue to say "Call the Police"....yah right....when you live in the country, and someone breaks a window in your house waking you up....your going to call the police who are (20) minutes away.....not me....that is when the handgun comes out instantly....same should be my right when pulling into a rest area while traveling with my family in a remote area an night...
And how about the Congresswoman that recently was shot with an ILLEGAL handgun.....(a terrible situation), but now our elected officials are wanting to pass a law for THEM to be able to carry concealed....
I would welcome accurate information on any state that passed CCW and had an increase in crime....and what about Washington DC which recently overturned the ban on owning handguns....oh my gosh, it was going to be the end of the world with shootings out of control....hmmmmmm....don't seem to hear anything about that now do we..
Time to get this law passed and move on...No one is forcing you to carry if you don't want to.

If people feel sooooooo threatened walking the mean streets of Janesville, Wisconsin that they feel it necessary to carry concealed weapons, God help us all. Pack your lunch, pack your heat, it's time to go to work or school. Just watch out for all those evil gun-toting criminals hiding behind every bush waiting to do you harm. This argument is nothing more than ridiculous paranoia.

The police chief and Sheriff are stating their opinions not based on statistics from concelled carry states that surround Wisconsin. The facts from surrounding states with required training prior to issuance of license to concealed carry do not show higher crime rates, nor higher utilization of weapons during the commission of crimes. Common sense folks, you don't spend high amounts of money to attend classes, more money to obtain the license to commit crimes. Facts are facts.

This is the same tried and not true blood in the streets scare tactics that have been used time and time again by liberal law enforcement administrative people who are against citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

The military mentality of the modern police officer is a greater threat to the public safety of this state (and others) than those who wish to carry a concealed weapon.

The military mentality of the modern police officer is a greater threat to the people of this state (and others) than those who wish to carry a concealed weapon.

jet_vet2012it is yet to be determined that an "unbalanced" individual's background check is accurate. We do not have an accurate way to determine one's mental stability, due to HIPPA law. I HAVE done my research, thank you.

Food for thought. How much training is mandated on firearm use by police after the academy..........none. So why should citizens be required to receive training and rectification when police are not?

"What is the Constitutional definition of "arms." A flintlock musket and a half dozen cannonballs or FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher?"
.
Technically, "arms" covers all of it. You can legally own grenades, automatic weapons, landmines or stinger missiles (provided you can find one) with a permit. A stinger costs $38000 a shot so I don't foresee your local meth head shelling out for one. Your argument is like asking if free speech applies to the street corner and printed paper as much as the internet and radio.

The LEO's should be worried because the criminals are going to go through the trouble of getting a permit... riiight. Psst, Sheriff Spoden and Chief Moore, guess what, the criminals ARE ALREADY carrying.

Janesvillecomments, who are you to apologize on behalf of anyone but yourself? Keep you legend in your own mind.

Although I didn't vote for him, I'd like to apologize on behalf of District 15 voters for Tim Cullen's waste of a Senate seat. I promise that when he becomes eligible for recall that I will sign a petition to get his worthless carcass out of the Capitol building.

I will be looking for alternative candidates for Rock County Sheriff during the next election cycle.

How about this;If a person is found to have a concealed gun on them,AND they are not a felon OR say robbing a liquer store,(doing anything wrong) the police,da judge etc. should let them go,(not prosecute) the "crime". This idea would require common sense though,so it can never possibly work...

If we are to believe that we'll be safer if everyone owns and carries a handgun so everyone will be on equal footing with the criminals who have them, wouldn't the world be a much safer place if all countries were armed with nuclear weapons? What is the Constitutional definition of "arms." A flintlock musket and a half dozen cannonballs or FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher? Any Constitutionional arms advocates here that can answer these questions?

“...I think it will increase the level of violence in the state.”
:banghead:
Because that's what's happened in the other states with concealed carry, right?
WI isn't all that different from anywhere else.

"We’ll have to assume that everyone we come in contact with is carrying a firearm.”
If you don't already, you'll have a short career.

"It makes no sense to adopt the policies of states that have more crime, more violence and more gun deaths.”
Wonderful! So you're actually in support of Constitutional Carry then.
Because why would we want to have laws like Chicago, DC, CA, NJ?
I'd rather have laws like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, Florida...

“The general rule in our society, I think, has been that I have a right to do what I want do until it comes to the point that it interferes with your right.”
Exactly! So he's in support of Constitutional Carry, too.
My right to bear arms isn't any of your business unless & until I try to do something illegal to you with a firearm.

As for the people in favor of permits & restrictions:
A meta-study released in 2004 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences was a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research.
It failed to identify *_any_* gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.

Charles F. Wellford et. al., Nat'l Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review 6-10 (2004).

The CDC came to the same conclusion a year earlier.

Since WI is one of the last two states to hold out on this issue; would it not be wise to look at all of the other states and adopt the laws of the states that have the least amount of crime?
Hello folks.... crime is out there already. What is wrong with the ability to protect ourselves? The people most likely to commit a gun crime already carry guns.
We should also not just change the law to carry a concealed gun but also to change other laws that would affect the use of the gun. Check into some of the gun laws like in Texas. If you rob a home and take a gun and later down the road if that gun is used in a crime and it is tracked back to you taking it, you then receive the same charge as the offender. If a house is robbed in Texas you will more than likely find the guns still there.
This is just an example and should be explored buy the people that are making these laws, God knows if they left it up to the voting public it would have been changed a long time ago.

of course law enforcement doesn't want you to carry a gun, but it's not up to them. I support some of the Dem policies, but think that carrying a weapon is my right as a free human being, with training and license of course. (...already had a zillion hours of firearms training, but I'll do some more...)
*****
I don't think right now is the right time to be addressing this, but I understand it's part of the Republi-smokescreen to make it seem like they doing something.

To all of you supporters, there is a couple forums where you can find true nfo and other true comments made by people with common sense. Opencarry.org and carry.org. Come by and check it out, ask questions, learn about these issues...

To: TheMaskedCommenter... Have I thought "a criminal is going to try and weed out all concealed carrying people?".... Nope, because that would be as stupid as the person who asked that question... For one, he doesn't know who is or is not armed. 2: Chances are he isn't gonna get far with 4 Armed Citizens firing back at him. Even he knows this... 3: What a Dumb question... lol

The opinions of a bunch of administrators and politicians (or am I being redundant here?) - at least a few of whom could not attain a qualifying score at a shooting range with their agency's actual duty weapons without "special range training" (bets anyone?) - have little or no bearing on what the people of this state should be able to do, or on the actual history of concealed carry laws in the US.

I forgot to mention I have talked with many officers in sourhern wisconsin and the large majority are fine with concealed carry, but they can't speak out as many of the chiefs don't want anybody else to counter crime, as they might not be able to hire more officers to build an empire, as the serious crime rate might go down and they would be denied more officers. Its a lot of politics at the top.

This is the stuoidest idea ever put forth by any legislature. This is not Texas where their IQ is the size of their caliber.

Welcome to Dodge in the land of GM.

Has anybody thought that this may push criminals to act *more* violently, in order to eliminate the threat of someone fighting back?

Might be a good time to start a funeral home business.

Oh, and any police officer worth his badge will approach any contact as a potentially armed situation. If not that officer should consider a change in career options. It is sad that the chief Spoden doesn't seem to be worth his badge.

what could be wrong with a law that 48 other states have had for quite awhile and they have absoulutely no problem with it. the crooks are carrying guns already. Why can't a law abiding citizen carry one, its in the constitution anyways and no training, registration is required or wanted.With the law in place serious crime will go down and there will be less roadrage incidents, because the crooks and trouble makers would worry about getting payback if they act up. Everyone will be much safer. You must realize the police can't protect anyone. They arrive after the fact when you're dead and gone. and when you see a car-jacking or kidnapping and are helpless to stop it unless you have a gun. Concealed carry has a strong calming effect on everybody. Independant studies have shown this in all 48 other states. Why deny law abidfing citizens their legal right to protect themselves and others and its stupid to require registration,etc. while crooks go around with conceled weapons. I don't see them having crooks registering their guns and people getting all stirred up about the crooks carrying guns.Whats wrong here.Passing coincealed carry would be like adding a thousand plain-clothed officers, without spending any tax dollars. Its a win-win matter.

WOW, typical elitist police attitudes. Moore said. “From a police perspective, I would like the only people out in the public with guns to be trained police officers.”
Only the police should be able to protect themselves? Pardon my French but what an azzhole. The police can not (and are not obligated to) protect you all the time. Statements such as "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" are not just fluff.
Leck cant show any proof of his statement because there is none, it has been proven state by state, city by city that violent crime drops like a stone when citizens are "permitted by the King" to protect themselves.
The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association stated in a letter that violent criminals and people convicted of misdemeanor battery, stalking or sexual assault would be allowed to carry under the bill
I always thought police chiefs should be able to read, not fabricate.
Rep Cullen, I'm happy you announced you don't believe in the Constitution and citizens rights, I hope you are soon unemployed from the state. We don't need you.

Any officer that assumes that people they interact with are not in possession of a weapon would most likely have a short career.

Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. In my conversations with numerous street level officers, they all said that they assume EVERYONE is armed.

Sheriff Graves has the most common sense approach to this. He wants to wait to see if it will directly affect his manpower. Smart man!

"The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association stated in a letter that violent criminals and people convicted of misdemeanor battery, stalking or sexual assault would be allowed to carry under the bill." How asinine! They aren't allowed to buy a firearm now, that won't change with either of these laws.

As others have pointed out, carrying a firearm is the smaller crime. If I was hell bent on killing someone, why would violating another law (buying/owning/carrying) a gun matter to me?

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not" ~ Thomas Jefferson

Funny, I didn't have to have a permit in the Marines. But I did have a lot of classroom and firing range time.

My brother-in -law retired from the St.Louis County Sheriffs Dept. after 30 years. When he visited us In WI he had a hand gun. Would he need a permit from Rock County?

I just returned from St. Louis from attending a funeral. The sign on the front door of the funeral home said, "firearms not allowed in the building".

Here I was, driving all over St. Louis, and not one crazy gun nut took a free shot. (I'm sure my WI plates told everyone I was unarmed).

I don't know why this is so hard to get people
to understand that the concealed carry is for
LAW ABIDING i.e. not drug dealers/rapeists/thuds or that kind of people
to be able to protect themselfs and there loved ones from the kind of people above they will not get a pemit to carry and already do so
UNLAWFULLY........
I belive that we should have training some how in this just so people know the laws and what there limits to use are but should not have to pay more for these RIGHTS i.e. permits or back ground checks (did that when I got my gun)...
People that are going to carry will do some kind of training shooting and the rights to use
(Laws).
And as for the cops having to worry if someone is carrying they are trained to approach as if you are alreadly and a law abiding person has no worrys cause they are not doing anything wrong and know how to act with cops to where the above bad guys will do as they have always done......

Milwaukee County Law Enforcement supports Concealed Carry.

Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County is for a CCW law You can watch his comments starting at the 01:20:27 mark on WisconsinEye video. The video has the entire 6 hour, 57 minute hearing.

http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/VideoA...

In 2003 Sheriff Clarke took the position that CCW was unwise in urban Milwaukee. The increased street crime since then has changed his mind and he is in favor of CCW. He cited some examples of victims of violence in broad daylight and tore the Milwaukee County circuit court judges a new one for staying sentences, complaining about the lenient judiciary that exists in Milwaukee County and the expanded liberal policies for violent career criminals and predators. He issued a September 2007 statement to that effect he supports concealed carry as necessary for the public to help defend themselves and said it remains his position today.

He did advocate changes to AB126 to require training, and would like it contain stiff penalties for violating the law and gun violence penalties to include mandatory penalties for gun use in crimes that must be served consecutively of other sentences and cannot be stayed or reduced by judges.

Where do I start? Spoden, I'm not going to call you a liar, but some of the information you have given is incorrect. 48 of 50 states have Concealed Carry, and not one time has any state regretted the choice to allow it. Stoughton Police Chief Greg Leck, State crime has always gone DOWN after choosing CC. Never up! For those of you that dont believe me, Look it up. And I also believe Teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to protect my children, I also believe college kids legally able to own a handgun, should be allowed to as well. As we all know, a school shooting can happen anywhere, at anytime, in any state. A Criminal that disregards all guns laws anyway, walks into a school and sees fish in a barrel. There is no opposition for him. Unless he gets smacked with a stapler!! Cops wont be there in time to save everyone. A weapon in the hands of a armed citizen can save thie life of your son/daughter sitting in a college math class as the door is kicked in. Guns are already in the hands of felons. Bans on Guns only disarm the Law Abiding Citizens, Not the Violent criminal high on meth with a stolen gun that is on a rampage. We are at his mercy. No defense at all. In Wisconsin we cant conceal carry a firearm, carry an electric weapon(stun gun), or Oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper spray) of 10% or more, police grade is twice or more as potent. (Evidently our lives, and the lives of our families mean less to allow better pepper spray). Point being Criminals already have guns, and I want to protect my family from them. All you have to do is open a news paper once in a while to see the dangerous world we live in. It's not the Armed Citizens you have to worry about, its that 350lb convicted rapist trying to climb in the window of a 125lb single mothers home... There isnt going to be any "High Noon" showdowns on E. Milwaukee st. between 2 normal armed citizens. We are responible, we have respect for law enforcement and the lives of others. As much as some people like to think, Its not going to be "The Wild Wild West".

And gmaof3-background checks are done to stop mentally unstable people from buying guns. The ones that do posses them are acquired illegally.

Please people, before you start making decisions whether or not to attemped to deny us our constitutional right, read up on the subject first...

I love this quote “It is going to put a certain level of stress on every interaction a police officer has with the public,” Spoden said. “It is going to put a certain degree of uncertainty in every call that officer takes. We’ll have to assume that everyone we come in contact with is carrying a firearm.” If any police officer doesn't have this mindset people are carrying already he or she most likely will end up being hurt or worse because they weren't prepared.

To gmaof3

To be sure life is risky and scary thing but neither you nor I have the right to infringe on another man or woman's right to protect himself or herself due to our fears. If you are that concerned about kooks then you should be the first one to carry a weapon and know how to use it. Police cannot be everywhere and kooks and crooks do not care about laws prohibiting them from killing you so regulating their ability to carry fire arm is like using a squirtgun to put out a fire or limiting free speech because you are afraid of what I might say about you.

The constitution permits regulation of what you can do with your gun but not your right to keep and bear it. If we really want to deter crime we need an armed well trained populous and longer sentences for felonious crimes that involve the use of a firearm such as armed robbery.

As much as people want to use scare tactics and induce fear about concealed carry, other states just do not have the problems opponents swear will be the end result. As someone who has had an out of state permit for years (no good in WI and I always obeyed WI laws- leave it at home here), I feel it's long overdue for Wisconsin to join the other 48 states that have CC in some form. I do support training, fingerprinting, and background checks, however.

I find it extremely disturbing that members of law enforcement think their safety trumps that of the ordinary citizen and that this is an excuse to violate our natural and constitutionally protected right to kep and bear arms for self defense. The courts have consistently ruled that police cannot be every where and thus are indemnified for not being able to save or protect everyone and yet here we have law enforcement attempting interfering with our right to self defense in the face of their proven inability to guarantee it. These people are hired to protect and serve and being a law enforcement officer is a risky job to be sure but if they cannot accept this risk then perhaps they should find another line of work.

I'm all for being able to protect my own family & property and should someone break into my home, I would have NO problem killing that person. However, an open carry bothers me. Mentally unstable people have no business being able to arm themselves. Look at the kooks that have murdered people on our campuses. Many of them were or had been under medical care. I just feel they are dangerous.

I see that the desk jockey leaders of law enforcement are spouting the same lies as the Brady bunch and violence policy center. With one of them even having the guts to say that more guns "on the streets" brings more violince (sp?) without giving proof in writing that it is occuring. Finger printing? Why? Conceal carry people in other states are more mature and more law abiding than non conceal carry people. As a responsible gunowner, I do support a background check and some sort of class training, but I do not want a database for leo's and if the media gets their way, them, to see who is legally carrying. As for leo's uncertainty of who has a weapon, they already "suspect" and prepare for it. Some of the changes that these leaders demand are a deterent for the law abiding to get a permit to legally carry.