The Northwestern.com is a Gannett-owned media company based out of Wisconsin. Because Gannett is such a large media conglomerate, it’s important to call them out on their ignorance and stupidity. They have the potential to influence a lot of people who don’t know better, so they must be corrected. Please allow me to educate a clueless editorial board (read the post for the full story):
“Wisconsin to buck the trend and continue to not allow residents to carry concealed (CC) firearms.” In other words, put gun owners in danger by being forced to carry the only way they legally can – openly! CC allows a gun owner to protect himself by concealing the fact that he is carrying at all and carry on as normal. Ignorant people – like this editorial board – who don’t understand gun owners create a false sense of danger and stress at the sight of a gun. Being allowed to CC means that both gun owners and non-constitutionalists can carry on their lives as normal.
“The risks do not outweigh the benefits and in a state where Second Amendment rights are explicitly guaranteed in a number of ways, such as the right to fish and hunt, the principle and practice of the right to bear arms is not in question.” Another ignorant argument of the gun control advocate. The gun control advocate assumes that guns are ONLY good for hunting and should be used for nothing else. They lack the basic understanding that guns are also a great deterrent to crime and provide a valuable protection to the gun owner. Most gun owners who are burglarized merely need to show their gun to prevent a crime from happening. In most cases in which a gun is used to deter a crime, not one bullet is ever fired! The board seeks to assume that only hunters should be permitted to have guns and hunters don’t need CC rights.
“The form that deserves passage is one that takes into account the serious concerns of law enforcement, public safety and common sense that come with concealed firearms.” CC is no more serious to any of the above mentioned entities than CC. But, regardless, this editorial board misses the main point about why the founding founders included the right to “keep and bear arms” as a fundamental right for our nation. Gun rights are meant serve as a deterrent to the government you seek to protect. Without them, we are slaves. Gun control was NEVER designed or meant for strictly hunting.
Under the pen name “Publius”, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “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.” Notice Madison didn’t mention ANYTHING about “the right and advantage” of being armed to hunt quail! He specifically mention being armed as a counter to an out-of-control government – much like the one we defeated a mere decade prior to these words being written.
“So-called ‘constitutional carry’ is a misnomer because the responsible application of constitutional rights has never been absolutist in nature.” This is the common straw man argument used by the left and gun grabbers. No reasonable gun rights advocate wants carte blanche rights for anyone and everyone to carry whenever and wherever they want. To even suggest that ANY legislature or group like NRA wants open ended gun carry is either completely ignorant or just blatantly idiotic. The largest group in the nation pushing for firearms training is the National Rifle Association. So that makes the following editorial comment simple fear mongering: “Therefore, allowing residents to carry concealed weapons without any reasonable and responsible safeguards would be akin to saying a citizen has an absolute right to maliciously shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
The Northwestern then gives a bunch of hurdles that gun owners should have to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Some of these I agree with are make sense to a small degree while some of are quite simply the dumbest things I’ve heard.
1. Requiring a permit issued by the state Department of Justice to carry a weapon. The permit would be good for 5 years and include a background check and a $65 fee. The permitting process lays out parameters for who is eligible and not to carry and the penalties for falsifying information carrying felony consequences. This is one of only two points that I agree with in principle, just not in action. Personally, I think that $65 is too high and could prevent lower income Americans from being able to obtain a permit. Permits should ONLY be required to pay for the processing and creation of a license, not to enrich any government bureaucracy. Once citizens are required to pay high fees for a RIGHT, it violates the infringement clause.
If the right to own a firearm can be legislated through fines and fees, why aren’t other rights mandated the same way. Why don’t we charge citizens to speak in public? Why don’t we charge citizens NOT to have their homes searched and seized? Why don’t we charge churches for the right to hold services and bestow five year permits? It’s absurd.
2. Producing a registry of permit holders for law enforcement so police officers, for instance, could check to see if someone being pulled over may be carrying a concealed weapon. I ADAMANTLY oppose this with a vengeance. Any such registry would become public domain and would give criminals an easily searchable database from which they could choose their victims. Gun control advocates (who tend to be criminal apologists much of the time) would throw out the BS flag and say something like, “that’s a strawman argument! What makes you think criminals would target people without guns using the list?” It’s the perfect question, because you can throw it right back at them and ask, “what makes you think CC owners will commit more crimes? In Texas, we are required to show our CC permits if we’re pulled over and carrying. That’s all that needs to done. In my case, I won’t do that unless it looks I’m going to be pulled out of the car. The officer honestly has no “need to know” if I’m carrying if all he’s going to do is issue me a warning or write me a ticket. If I feel like I’m about to be searched, I’ll inform the officer that I’m carrying. But, that information in NO WAY needs to be made public.
I’ll throw another scenario at you. What if it’s a crooked cop? He now has the upper hand on me if he had plans to do anything illegal to violate MY rights rights. I’m not stupid, so I know that’s a 1:1,000,000,000 chance! So, don’t get on to me about that stupidity.
3. Making permit carriers complete firearm training. Such training would help provide a minimum level of knowledge of firearms and how to appropriately make decisions when carrying a deadly weapon. Refresher training should also be mandated. I do agree that firearm training should be a component of the licensing process. Here’s an idea that I’ve NEVER heard mentioned. How about making firearm training similar to driver training and providing discounts on permits to those that have completed the training? Or, those that have completed firearm training keep their permits for longer than those that haven’t. There should be NO requirement for “refresher training.” This is just a forced tax on Americans that will be required to pay above and beyond the cost of a permit.
4. Prohibiting concealed weapons in state and local government buildings, police stations, taverns, courthouses and within 1,000 feet of school property and allowing businesses and homeowners to prohibit patrons and visitors from carrying weapons. This is more fear-mongering. The Texas State Capitol is gun owner friendly and actually has a separate line for CC holders. When I recently testified in Austin, I went through this line along with dozens of other people with my .380 pistol and you know what? NOTHING HAPPENED!! I didn’t shoot anyone. No one shot me. No one shot anyone else.
Sound to me like more fear-mongering on behalf of the editorial board. This is a classic scare tactic of gun grabbers, but obviously lacks reality. I’ve personally carried guns into each and every one of those those locations without negative results. Teachers and school officials should be allowed to carry concealed for self protection just as any other adult on school property. It’s another gun grabber strawman argument.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter what this ignorant editorial board thinks because come this July, Wisconsin citizens wanting to carry handguns will no longer have to undergo a criminal background check or show proficiency with a firearm.