I have reviewed your letter regarding your opinions as expressed by reporters regarding Wisconsin’s new carry legislation. I felt compelled to respond to this letter pointing out some of the oversights, misleading statements, and flawed analyses present in this report. I will start from the top.
Proponents of concealed carry legislation in Wisconsin would like us to believe that all permit holders are careful, common sense individuals who are applying for their permits for the right reasons and will take their responsibility seriously. Collected reports from other concealed carry states illustrate why this myth is simply untrue. All of the people in the following stories are concealed carry permit holders.
Some of the stories below are from the Brady Campaign’s report⊕ CCW License Holders “Law- Abiding Citizens?” unless otherwise cited. The stories from the Brady Campaign’s report were largely collected from newspaper articles across the nation.
Your statement that “Proponents of concealed carry legislation in Wisconsin would like us to believe that all permit holders…” is not supported by any document indicating that this is the case. Can you please support the facts that you cite with an appropriate document indicating this? While Wisconsin legislators may make this assumption, the permit holders of other states are indeed reasonable people who recognize that this is not the case. They do, however, recognize that permit holders are 5.1 times less likely to be convicted of violent crimes, and 13 times less likely to be convicted of any other crime than the average citizen. I think that you can agree that this does indicate that permit holders are statistically law abiding citizens. The fact is that we can also cite cases of Police Officers inappropriately using their firearms, just as you have, but a case is not made to disarm our Police Officers. We just don’t choose to cite cases without statistical backing.
I might add that the link that you provided on page one of your report was invalid.
All of the people in the following stories are concealed carry permit holders.
…
MINNESOTA
• One man recklessly discharged 10 rounds of ammunition from his gun. The man claimed he was protecting his yard and his driveway from his brother. The man told the St. Paul Pioneer Press “He [the brother] was ruining my property and he wouldn’t stop. The only thing I could do was get my gun and shut his car down.”⊕
• In one high profile case a nightclub bouncer was shot four times in the back by a permit holding patron the bouncer was ejecting from the bar. The permit holder had been acting drunk and had been harassing women earlier that night. After shooting the bouncer, the permit holder jumped into the nearby Mississippi River. When police dragged him out of the river he shouted “I didn’t do nothin’ wrong, man! I got a permit to carry that bitch [his gun]!” Police also said the man had been flashing his gun around like a badge, trying to make people fear him.⊕
I can cite these as these are only the first 2 stories that you reference, and the stories as you provided them are inaccurate.
In the first, the man who “recklessly discharged 10 rounds of ammunition from his gun” did illegally discharge his firearm at the vehicle. The fact that he was a permit holder had no bearing on this as he was with or without his permit to carry legally in possession of a pistol on his own property. In the state of Minnesota, a person who qualifies according to Minnesota Statute 624.713, as this particular person apparently did, may possess and keep in their home a handgun in a loaded condition with or without a permit to carry a pistol. This permit holder did qualify under the above referenced section, and did not need a permit to carry to have the gun with him which he discharged into his brothers car. This is not an issue of permit holder or not.
In the second, the person was not carrying his pistol at the bar. After being removed from the bar, the person went and retrieved his pistol, at that point illegally carrying it, and committed the crime that was referenced. All reports that I have read do not indicate that the man was “flashing his gun around like a badge,” but was in fact flashing his permit to carry a pistol. The article that you referenced in which you got the information on this incident does in fact reflect that second fact. Your sources need to be read more carefully.
What this demonstrates to me is that your research is poor, and your statements are inaccurate. The first 2 of your case examples are flawed. I will not waste the time necessary to prove the rest of your case examples wrong.
These accounts are only a small number of stories that detail permit holder crime. Many states have strict laws concerning the identity of their concealed carry permit holders. A permit holder’s status is often not reported by law enforcement officials and cannot be reported by the media following a crime.
These stories are all tragic examples of how permit holders abused their responsibility and put themselves and others at risk. We will never know if these people would have obtained a gun illegally to commit their crimes, but we can assume that the presence of a concealed weapons law gave them an easier avenue to obtain a weapon.
I might add that your misrepresentation is a problem. With over 30,000 permit holders in the state of Minnesota, the Minnesota examples are in fact the only stories that detail permit holder crime with a firearm. Perhaps we should take it as a compliment that there have been only 2 crimes with firearms since 2003 with over 30,000 Minnesotans carrying handguns. That’s 1 crime per 30,000 people per year. In other words, 99.97%. I’d say that’s a pretty decent rate.
I do agree that the abuse of their responsibilities is tragic. They both, however, would have likely happened anyway, as their permit to carry a pistol had no actual affect on the outcome. Remember that in your first example, the permit holder did not need a permit to carry a pistol to possess the pistol that he used, and in the second the holder had to actually go and retrieve his pistol from another location not governed by his permit to carry a pistol.
In addition, your statement that “we can assume that the presence…” is not backed up with fact. When you are charged with the safety of all of your Wisconsin citizens, I find it interesting that you are willing to cut corners and make assumptions rather than citing fact. I believe that your lack of research and assumptions is rather irresponsible.
This anecdotal evidence is also supported by an extensive statistical study done by the Violence Policy Center. The Center focused its report on Texas’ conceal carry law and on the permit holder crime that has been committed in that state between January of 1996 and April of 2000.
The Center found that during this time Texas permit holders were arrested at a rate of more than two crimes a day since the law was first enacted in 1996. These crimes include instances of murder/attempted murder, manslaughter/negligent homicide, kidnapping, rape, and sexual assault.⊕
A study of this report and reports on conceal carry laws in other states can be found at
http://www.vpc.org/studies/cccrimst.htmAgain, your statements can not be backed with facts as the link cited in your end-page citations was invalid, and the link cited in the report itself makes absolutely no reference to this. I will, however, state that according to the following site, it does appear that Texas CHL holders are quite significantly less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population.
http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htmNeed a section regarding Dr. Lott here when I get the article from Norm.
Concealed carry supporters attempt to eliminate public fears surrounding the legislation by assuring citizens that the permitting process keeps criminals and other unsavory individuals from being able to legally carry a weapon. Examples from other states show that the permitting process is imperfect and that individuals unfit to carry weapons are able to get a permit anyway.
I might correct your statement to read, “Concealed carry supporters attempt to eliminate public fears surrounding the legislation by assuring citizens that the permitting process almost always keeps criminals and usually keeps unsavory individuals from being able to legally carry a firearm. Examples from other states show that the permitting process is imperfect, just like any other activity regulated by the government, and that individuals unfit to carry weapons are, on occasion, able to get a permit anyway.”
The fact is that while occasionally a person qualifies and receives a permit to carry a pistol who we think should not, I would regard it as quite an infrequent occurrence. It is not common.
Last year in Manchester, New Hampshire, a concealed carry permit was issued to a member of the Hells Angels. The judge presiding over the petition overruled the man’s previous permit denial by a local police chief. From the news story that was published in Manchester’s Union Leader:
“Salem Police Chief Paul Donovan denied Thomas O’Donnell a concealed weapons permit once in 2002 and in November 2004 according to court documents, saying O’Donnell attended a Hells Angels party in New York in 2003 where a man was killed.”
“Donovan said on the phone yesterday that he based his decision on what law enforcement knows about Hells Angels propensity for violence. He pointed to an incident at the Derry/Salem Elks Club in 1997, when a gun-fight between rival biker groups resulted in a minor injury for a passerby.”
While the Hells Angel had no criminal record, it is troubling how quickly the opinion of an experienced law enforcement official was thrown out during the permitting process.
What you fail to mention in this incident which you failed to provide documentation for, is that there is no cited reason to believe that the man was in fact involved with the murder. I was not aware that having another person commit a murder while you’re in the same building makes you likely to be a murderer. In addition, this man had a permit to carry a pistol for at least 4 years prior to his renewal application being denied, and the Chief wanted to grant him a permit to carry a pistol openly rather than concealed. This is still carrying a pistol. It’s interesting that the Chief believed him to be fit to carry a pistol, but you do not. I see no reference to the Chief of Police referencing any incidents that he actually had with a pistol. This tends to tell me that there weren’t any. Involvement in a motorcycle club does not make you a criminal.
Additionally, I see nothing that indicates that the judge disregarded the opinion of the Chief of Police, examined the case “quickly,” or with anything less than great care and thought. I’m sure the judge would find your opinion of his ability to properly examine a case less than thoughtful.
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/storie ... FP_004.htmThese accounts show that concealed carry permitting procedures can vary from state to state and even from county to county within a state. In certain situations common sense is abandoned for a speedy execution of the law. These findings suggest that no permitting procedure is precise or uniformally enforceable. Sometimes legal guns do get into the hands of criminals or citizens who should not be carrying them. In these cases the public is put at risk, an unacceptable outcome of conceal carry legislation in action.
Unfortunately, as you are going for vote on this issue very soon, I do not have time to research and learn the permit process and the incidents in question for all of the states that were referenced, so I can not respond well to those specific issues. Many of the issues that were identified can be appropriately resolved with good, effective legislation. Though you may not be, I am confident that the legislature of the state of Wisconsin is capable of enacting excellent laws regarding carrying firearms in Wisconsin.
The facts regarding your reporters who you rely on facts from is that they tend to report with an anti-gun bias. I can remember but a few articles that supported the legal ownership, possession or carry of any firearms in any positive way. It’s interesting that you rely on the media to provide you with an opinion regarding carrying firearms. I will save any rebuttal of media opinions for the media, as you have not expressed them as your opinions, just the opinions of a few people who don’t want people to have the means to protect themselves from criminals.
Evidence collected from other states with concealed carry laws proves that this law is wrong for Wisconsin. Permitting procedures are flawed and lead to the unskilled or the unsavory acquiring a permit to carry a gun legally. Permit holders themselves can be wreckless and put their communities at risk. No direct links exists between lower crime rates and concealed carry legislation.
If you believe the procedures are flawed, correct them. There may well be some that could use correction. I’m sure that Wisconsin is capable of passing good laws. Permit holders can be reckless. The key words are “can be.” That doesn’t mean they are. Your drivers can be reckless as well. In fact, it looks like they’re more likely to be reckless with their several thousand pound weapons that they are licensed to operate daily.
Additional information to link lower crime rates
On amendments to make the bill “more palatable”:
“The allowable blood-alcohol concentration for those carrying a concealed weapon was lowered from 0.08 percent to 0.02 percent…Now, you only can be a little bit drunk and still pack heat.”
“Permit holders now will have to take "refresher" training every five years…We've seen the drivers that the state deems acceptable for licensing, and we're not encouraged.”
“The new bills create a 100-foot safety zone around school property into which guns can't be carried. Lawmakers presumably haven't been told that bullets travel well over 100 feet.
These changes and other goofy language in the bill make it abundantly clear that it shouldn't be signed into law.”
You do need to look into some of the intents of these laws. If you would prefer to pass this law without those changes which people believe make it better, that is fine. I personally believe that reviewing and making necessary modifications to laws is a good part of our process and leads to laws that would not be classified as “bad laws.” The other part of that, “goofy language” is a big part of what statutes are made of. I, for one, would love to see them in plain English, but that brings about lawsuits and abuses of the law, and questions in court that tie up our entire legal system. As a result, we now have legal experts take our plain English stuff and turn it into goofy legal lingo that is easier for experts to more precisely interpret leading to less questions down the road. Crack open a book of some of your states laws. You’ll find “goofy language” all over the place in them.
So, if you’d like people to be able to have a blood alcohol limit of .08% and carry a pistol, say that. If you want them to have a 0% BAC, say that. The writer skimped that issue, don’t you think? If you think the state should be more strict about their permit holders than their drivers (also licensed to operate a deadly weapon, as cars are) say that. Put it into your laws. This stuff is what laws are for. You need to look into how you want it organized rather than just scrapping the whole thing just because your citizens can’t drive.
On permit-holders and the potential to commit crimes:
“So here's the question: If permit-holders are safe and reliable enough to be handed permits, why aren't they safe everywhere? Why can they not go into the federal courthouse in Madison, but they can wander into the Wausau Center mall
or through the heart of downtown? And why won't a list of permit-holders be public record, so that journalists can double-check on backgrounds?
It's obvious that lawmakers aren't sure. They hope licensees will be trustworthy,
but they're not willing to bet the lives of schoolchildren or cops on it. They're not
willing to bet that one of these fine and upstanding citizens won't have one too
many at the local watering hole and open fire. And they darn sure don't want
pesky reporters poking around and finding mistakes.
Bottom line: They're not willing to bet their own lives on the background checks
and safety courses, but they're willing to bet yours.”
Those issues of why they are not safe enough is up to your anti-gun folks, and the legislators. The citizens encouraging this law are not the one’s who put those restrictions there, the legislators did.
Regarding the list of permit-holders not being public record, there is a very good reason for this that I’m sure people can understand, and it has nothing to do with pesky reporters finding mistakes. Permit holders do not want to be bothered by anti-gunners, criminals who want to steal their guns, reporters, and others who may wish to harass or harm them. In general, permit holders do not want people knowing that they’re permit holders at all.
The fact is that if these pieces that you mention were not in the law, the law would not pass. It’s not a matter of being unwilling to “bet” certain peoples lives on it. It’s a matter of being unable to pass the law without those provisions because of people who do not understand the issue entirely, much like yourselves. It’s kind of a catch .22 isn’t it? If you try to pass the law with those provisions, it’s a bad law because you need the provisions. If you try to pass it without those provisions, it’s a bad law because it doesn’t have those provisions. Sounds like grabbing at straws to me.
