The media has picked up on the story generated by the Milwaukee DA and Police Chief saying they might be willing to accept concealed carry reform in exchange for some more restrictions on gun sales. While it’s true that this hardly indicates they’ve been converted, they are at least signaling a willingness to deal. That doesn’t mean gun owners have to accept a deal, but when you have your opponent over the ropes in politics, this is typically the kind of signal sent that would be the equivalent of crying “Uncle!”
I think it’s a good example of targeted open carry activism having a positive effect.
Why heck! I’m willing to compromise, in fact, I think it’s key that all of us sit down and reach an understanding that accepts and respects the views of everyone for the betterment of society and the common good!
How about this: Respect the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and start facilitating and encourage the arming of free citizens….or get your ass fired and pension cancelled!
See? That’s a compromise that involves neither ropes, blindfolds nor feathers! A WIN for everyone!
I love this:
“Police officers in some of the meanest parts of urban America aren’t excited about the possibility of going out on streets with no way of telling if the person being pulled over or stopped on the street is armed.”
So I guess he believes that since there’s no legal concealed carry in Wisconsin, police there never worry about whether “the person being pulled over or stopped on the street is armed.”
During my LEO training and afterwards in my career, my SOP was to assume that every person I contacted was armed until I was positive that they were not.
Do you know any cop who assumes that “well there are no guns allowed here where I am so I don’t have to worry about that issue.”?
If there are any, I suspect that their names will soon be engraved on their department’s memorial wall.
It’s my opinion that any deal made can only be worse than what they’ve already got.
So Wisconsiners can now carry openly (and it’s constitutionally protected), but they’ll get concealed carry in exchange for a ‘tough eligibility process’ and ‘more stringent background checks for all gun purchases’.
Constitutionally-protected-with-no-background-check open carry vs tough-eligibility-process-and-more- stringent-background-checks-for-all-gun-purchases concealed carry?
Doesn’t sound like the anti’s are giving much up at all.
Do NOT be fooled. If they are willing to compromise it’s only because they know they are going to lose. I am sure if they thought they could win they would not be open to a compromise of any sort. Remember we are also not dealing from a zero sum position. Ie: no gun laws vs. total restriction
They already have many gun laws on the books. We do not need another.
If they are willing to compromise it’s only because they know they are going to lose
Yes. That was essentially the point I was trying to get at.
Here in California there is a pseudo-open carry movement which bears some similarity to the situation in Wisconsin.
For the vast majority of Californians it is impossible to get a CCW. Even though the state has a CCW permit system, it is of the discretionary type, so only a few rural California counties give out permits under the conditions ‘must carry’ states issue permits.
In fact without a CCW permit it isn’t even legal to carry any loaded weapon in California, even if it is unconcealed. But is is legal to carry ammunition separately if the handgun is also carried unconcealed and unloaded in a belt holster.
So some people have taken to our own local version of open-carry events. The main difference is the weapon is unloaded and police have the power to check a person at any time to verify that the pistol is unloaded.
Welcome to Commiefornia.
“Do NOT be fooled. If they are willing to compromise it’s only because they know they are going to lose.”
+ 1000.
Mr. Kane has thus far decided not to respond to my email below:
Hi Eugene:
Interesting take on the situation. My own is that it isn’t too surprising that a carry bill will soon pass in WI. After all, only WI and IL remain with no concealed provision, and it’s legal to carry openly in WI. Also, remember that a carry bill has passed twice (to be vetoed by Doyle). I suspect that Flynn and Chisholm don’t support carry. They oppose carry … but they would pretend to support it so that various gun control measures they support would be passed in “compromise.” Frankly, I think they see the writing on the wall and are hoping they can pass some gun control along with the inevitable carry bill. Don’t you agree that this is the likely situation?
But second amendment rights and gun control laws don’t make good bedfellows. Here is my prediction: a decent carry bill will pass, but the various gun control supported by Flynn and Chisholm will not.
Yeah, this is them starting to squirm.