Doyle’s Anti-Liberty Firearm Proposals

I see that Governor Doyle is back to his anti-gun mania.  Let’s take a look:

Gov. Jim Doyle today said he will propose closing the so-called “gun show loophole” as part of an anti-crime package he will present to the Legislature this fall.

The move would prohibit people who are not federally licensed firearms dealers from selling weapons at gun shows, typically without a background check.

This proposal would essentially ban all private sales of firearms.  If a private person wanted to sell a firearm, he or she would have to go through a licensed dealer, and the buyer would have to submit to a background check. This would make it incredibly difficult to privately sell guns and would also substantially add to the cost of privately selling a gun.  Furthermore, it would do nothing about crime.  A crook who is buying or selling a gun for the purpose of criminal activity is not going to bother abiding by this law.

*Allowing Wisconsin to contribute information to a national database that help increase monitoring of individuals who have been civilly committed or prohibited by a court from using a firearm. This would prevent people from traveling to a state where their background is unavailable to purchase a firearm and coming back to Wisconsin to commit a crime, Doyle said.

I’m OK with this proposal.

*Rolling back a 1995 law that erased all local ordinances related to firearms. Doyle said it kept municipalities and counties from enacting any new laws that would be more restrictive than state statutes.

This proposal is a recipe for disaster.  Right now, no local unit of government can make a firearms law that is more restrictive than state law.  This proposal would obliterate that to allow cities like Milwaukee, Madison, or anywhere else to make their firearms laws more restrictive. 

Let me provide an example for how this could adversely effect law-abiding citizens.  If I want to drive to Waukesha to go to a shooting range with some friends, I have to drive through about 8 different municipalities to get there: West Bend, Jackson, Germantown, Menomonee Falls, Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, Brookfield, and Waukesha.  Perhaps I’ll take my Winchester Defender 1200, which has an 18-inch barrel, my Springfield 1903 30-06, which is a war rifle from WW1, and my S&W .357 for a little fun.  What if each of the 8 communities has different laws?  Perhaps Milwaukee has banned handguns, thus rendering the mere possession of my .357 illegal.  And maybe Wauwatosa declares any shotgun with a barrel under 22 inches to be an “assault weapon” and I can’t have that.  And maybe Milwaukee requires firearms to be transported in a locked case while everywhere else allows firearms to be transported in a case merely closed by a zipper.  How is a simple law-abiding citizen supposed to comply with the law?  It is an unreasonable burden to expect a citizen to research the ordinances of every single municipality through which he might want to travel for the simple exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 

*Tracking guns used in multiple crimes by requiring ballistic fingerprinting, matching the marks made by a bullet when fired from a gun with marks on the inside of the barrel of the gun. He said that would create a trail for law enforcement to track down both guns and criminals.

This one isn’t as onerous as it is unnecessary and useless.  It creates an expense for the manufacturer to register each individual weapon which will be passed on to the buyer.  At the same time, it does nothing but provide law enforcement with a starting place for tracking down a firearm.  Yet, ballistic fingerprinting and a record of the initial buyer of the firearm do not constitute evidence of guilt that anyone in particular committed a crime with the weapon.  I’m not completely opposed to this provision.  The cost is relatively small and it is a marginally helpful record for law enforcement, I’m just not convinced that the benefit outweighs the cost. 

*Prohibiting possession or purchase of a gun by anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor that involved a firearm.

This is another horrible proposal.  Think of all of the misdemeanors that could involve a firearm: illegally transporting a firearm; possession of a concealed firearm; illegal discharge of a firearm; etc.  To think that someone could be permanently deprived of their right to keep and bear arms for an offense as simple as accidentally leaving a shell in a firearm while transporting it is reprehensible.  This proposal would create a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms - something that has traditionally been reserved for felonies.

*Banning the sale of handguns to people under 21, except for licensed purposes or weapons passed down through families, such as hunting heirlooms.

I don’t know what the heck is up with this one.  It is my understanding that it is already illegal for anyone under 21 to purchase a handgun.  I’ll look it up when I have some time, but can anyone confirm this? 

In any case, Doyle is continuing his effort to appeal to the anti-gun left with horrible proposals that curtail the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to fight crime. 

1. Concur with most of your analysis.  I would note that the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is not quite a clear as you suggest.  Many, many felonies are plea bargained to misdemeanor status.  It is revealing to look at the actual chronology of cases to see how this works.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0409 hrs




2. I’ll check w/someone on the “21” law.  I vaguely recall that it IS 21 currently, but….it’s been a long time since I was concerned about that.

   You raise good concersn about the ‘municipal option’ provision.  Obviously, Mayor Milk-Carton has something in mind, but there is a Constitutional problem he’ll have to overcome to do anything drastic.

   By the way, the “trace” thing is totally ineffective.  Ask the State of Maryland, who tried it.

   As to the misdemeanor stuff—there’s a LOT which is not known about the proposal.  One could also read his announcement as affecting those who were “involved” but NOT in possession of the gun.

   Posted by dad29 on August 22, 2007 at 0703 hrs




3. The patch work municipalities laws would be a disaster from a constitutional law stand point too. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-defense etc in the WI Constitution.  Each one of these laws would be subject to constitutional review.  Big pain in the ass and tons of uncertainty.

   But realistically, the only gun law the state should be working on is a conceal and carry law.  I am a supporter but, even if I wasn’t good gov’t demands it.  Right now Wisconsin law on this issue is in flux.  Everyone should read the WI Supreme Court’s Hamden decision. http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2003/01-0056.htm

   It invalidated the state law making it illegal to conceal a weapon but it also introduced a ton of uncertainty in the law.  It is a goofy opinion.  It does not wholesale give you the right to carry, but it does if you can demonstrate several factors.  Reasonable fear of safety, etc.  So in other words you can carry if your life is endanger but you may still get arrested and would have to convince a judge after the fact that you were in the right.  That is just a sloppy system and shifts the burden onto the citizen to prove his innocence.  The Court basically asked the legislature to come up with a new law that would clarify the area.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0851 hrs




4. How about just massively harsher punishments for crimes involving guns? Instead of six years for shooting an innocent girl in the head how about 50?

   Posted by Matt on August 22, 2007 at 1035 hrs




5. Matt’s question highlights the duplicity of those supporting plans such as Doyle’s.  To punish those using guns in crimes would have a “disparate” impact on Blacks, so that option is off the table.  The odds are more than one in three that guy with the 6-year sentence will be back behind bars w/in three years of his release, having committed a new offense.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1045 hrs




6. I checked.

   The law in Wisconsin CURRENTLY prohibits sale of a handgun to anyone under 21 years of age.

   Posted by dad29 on August 22, 2007 at 1110 hrs




7. I peersonally have a proble with the 21 year old restriction on handgun ownership.  At 18 I was issued a sidearm by the US Army but I could not own one.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1409 hrs




8. Before you lower your guard on the “firearms fingerprinting” provision, take a look at it in the context of the rest of the bill.  With that provison and the requirement that anyone transfering a firearm (that’s selling, buying or giving to your daughter) must use a licensed dealer and submit to a background check.

   This would not be law for five minutes before law enforecement would be demanding they close the “background check loophole” which requires government ro destroy background check data that could “assist law enforcement in identfying suspects.” 

   The two provisions together allow them to track a firearm through any number of owners.  Now let’s bring in another provison, the lifetime ban on possession for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor involving a firearm.  If they tracked a firearm to you that you had illegally given to your Son, you would be banned from possession for the rest of your life.

   The really sick part of this is that there are profiteer gun dealers who will sell out your rights and their own beliefs to make an extra buck.  You will see them standing with Doyle backing “closing the gun show loophole” so we are forced to pay them if we want to pass on Grandpa’s shootin’ stick to another generation.

   Own, you should ask people to identify these people so we can take our business elsewhere.  I don’t mind all the folks who don’t know better.  But, these people should be treated as lepers by anyone who respects citizens rights (no offense intended to lepers).

   If you think I am stretching any of this, you have never worked in the Capitol.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1511 hrs




9. The really sick part of this is that there are profiteer gun dealers who will sell out your rights and their own beliefs to make an extra buck.

   That would be Badger Guns of West Milwaukee, WI.

   Posted by dad29 on August 22, 2007 at 1751 hrs




10. By the way, the legislation prohibits sale of ALL FIREARMS to anyone under 21.

    No shotgun, no rifle.  No target-practice .22s for Olympic hopefuls.  No goose/duck hunting unless it’s dad’s gun.

    And, by the way, watch how “straw purchase” gets abused on THAT one.

    Posted by dad29 on August 22, 2007 at 1753 hrs




11. We warned every one before the election that Doyle and the ultra left like new Senator Jim Sullivan would do this right after they were elected.
    Bob Dohnal, Publisher
    Wisconsin Sportsmen’s Digest

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1857 hrs




12. Owen, you don’t understand what’s going on here? Let me explain young man.  The Assembly Republicans have no agenda, right?  Fall is approaching, and what are they focused on??? What was their spring agenda??? And their 08 agenda??? It’s pretty hard to have an agenda when you met once a month, and pass a couple of resolutions.  This is where Doyle and the Dems are brilliant.  Their thinking: if the Republicans don’t bring the fight to us, we’ll bring it to them.  On the very same issues Gard rammed thru last session: God, Guns, and Gays.  Huebsch won’t bring up concealed carry, so the Dems and Doyle will force a gun issue.  The Republicans will carry NO water for pro life…so the Dems and Doyle force the abortion issue with “compassionate rape” bill.  Soon will be a gay issue.  It’s kinda hilarious.  The Dems complain about the Republican focus on those issues.  Then when the Republicans get spineless, agendaless, the Dems dwell on the issues Republicans get hammered each and every election.  What’s next? A Dem fight over TABOR.  Just watch.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1957 hrs




13. Governor Doyle’s “Anti Crime Plan” has a nice ring to it but it does nothing for the people living in high crime areas.
    Criminals and criminal behavior are the real problem at hand in the city of Milwaukee, Racine and elsewhere. As we all know criminals by definition and reality do not follow the law and could care less about this “Anti Crime Plan” as it will not stop them from getting guns.
      We already have a plethora of laws on the books to deal with felons possessing guns and crimes committed with a firearm. Regularly those charges are plea-bargained away when prosecuting criminals. The laws we have need to be enforced and not bargained away by prosecutors. We also need more officers on the streets of these problem neighborhoods to combat the lawlessness at hand.
      Law abiding citizens will comply with laws like this but it will do nothing to reduce one crime in Milwaukee, Racine and other high crime areas.
      The citizens do not need Wisconsin made into a state with a patchwork of different gun laws and regulations for each municipality.
    What we need are extra severe penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
      We should allow our most responsible law abiding citizens to make the streets safer by allowing them to protect themselves with concealed carry as long as they pass a background check, firearms training course and legal training on self protection.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 2002 hrs




14. on one point, leonard is correct: the doyle gun announcement is part of the ‘08 legislative campaign…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 2006 hrs




15. We should allow our most responsible law abiding citizens to make the streets safer by allowing them to protect themselves with concealed carry as long as they pass a background check, firearms training course and legal training on self protection

    And exactly where does Wisconsin’s 25th Amendment or the 2A require “legal training on self-protection” or “firearms training”?

    You don’t get it, my man.  “Reasonable restrictions” applies to the type of weapons (no field artillery for homeowners), not some friggin homework assignment on “facts and circumstances to think about while the dirtball’s trying to rape your daughter.”

    Posted by dad29 on August 22, 2007 at 2045 hrs




16. We should allow our most responsible law abiding citizens to make the streets safer by allowing them to protect themselves with concealed carry as long as they pass a background check, firearms training course and legal training on self protection

    You don’t get it, my man.  “Reasonable restrictions” applies to the type of weapons (no field artillery for homeowners), not some friggin homework assignment on “facts and circumstances to think about while the dirtball’s trying to rape your daughter.”

    As a matter of fact i do get it!
    I should have been more clear for you as I was referring to the need for concealed carry legislation and the training it would involve.
    Add to that I would also support “Castle Doctrine ” legislation to further protect a persons right to protect their property.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 2113 hrs




17. Make that “protect themselves, family and property”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 2115 hrs




18. concealed carry legislation and the training

    No, Dave, you don’t get it.  We simply will never agree that it is necessary to have “legal training on self-protection, or whether it is necessary to have State regs on ‘what is necessary training’ for handling a gun.

    The utilization of “disorderly conduct” statutues to prohibit open-carry and the lack of CCW law is, pure and simple, un-Constitutional under Wisconsin’s 25th Amendment (and likely the 2A.)

    Now, if someone is fool enough to purchase and utilize a handgun WITHOUT obtaining some training, that’s their problem.  Not the State’s.

    Posted by dad29 on August 23, 2007 at 0700 hrs




19. “How about just massively harsher punishments for crimes involving guns? Instead of six years for shooting an innocent girl in the head how about 50? “

    Why should the penalty for murder with a gun be any harsher than murder by knife??

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1645 hrs