GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
From today's Capitol Times....
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_1c562bec-8013-11e0-bfde-001cc4c03286.html
Earlier this month, state lawmakers introduced two bills that would allow people to carry concealed firearms in Wisconsin, currently one of only two states that ban them. Law enforcement officials have concerns. Neither proposal would require gun carriers to undergo training. And while one bill would require that people obtain permits through the state Department of Justice, the other would not require gun carriers to obtain a license, which would make the concealed carry law in Wisconsin among the least restrictive in the nation.
Both proposals would ease restrictions on where citizens could go armed.
With Republicans in complete charge of state government, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray is resigned to the fact that concealed carry, in some form, is inevitable. But he wants safeguards in place. What follows is an edited transcript of an interview with him on the topic by Steven Elbow of The Capital Times.
Capital Times: What are your main concerns about the concealed carry proposals in the state Legislature?
Noble Wray: We believe the permitting process is vitally important. But along with the permitting process, we need some way through the Department of Transportation that an officer can confirm if someone does have a permit. The more information you know, the safer you’re not only going to feel, but the safer everyone is going to be in that encounter.
CT: There was a subsequent proposal to require carriers to undergo two hours of training. Is that enough?
NW: We were one of the first law enforcement agencies in the state of Wisconsin to implement concealed carry for retired police officers. And even with veteran, trained, retired police officers we require certification and training on an annual basis. I think there needs to be some period of time where there is a refresher course, some reorientation, some instruction, because even as a trained law enforcement officer, if you’re not using it for a while, things change. There are updates about certain things, the capacity of a weapon, the nomenclature of the weapon, current trends as they relate to weapons.
CT: Both proposals remove the 1,000-foot gun-free zone around school properties. Is there a problem with that?
NW: We’re dealing with a demographic where if you send a message that it’s OK for school zones, that could be problematic. I would consider a school zone a sacred area, a sensitive area.
CT: The bills also appear to lift prohibitions against going armed in taverns. What are your thoughts on that?
NW: One of the elements we use in determining reckless use of a firearm is the level of intoxication of a person who’s in possession of one and using it. Alcohol and a firearm is a dangerous mix.
CT: The bills also specifically lift prohibitions against driving with access to a loaded weapon. Is that a problem?
NW: That one I could see, because from a law enforcement standpoint we should always approach a car with due regard for safety and care. If you’re going to carry concealed and people travel in automobiles, it’s only a natural step that they would be carrying in a vehicle.
CT: Is concealed carry more problematic in some areas than in others?
NW: I think anytime you have a densely populated area and a high-crime area in an urban setting, it’s going to create more problems and complexities in trying to maintain safety when you’re introducing more firearms into a situation like that.
CT: What do you think of the argument that arming law-abiding citizens increases public safety?
NW: I can’t say that I agree or disagree with that. I have not seen any proof that would demonstrate that. If you look at the crime data you can get it where it shows one way or the other.
CT: Would concealed carry make it less safe for the officer on the street?
NW: In 2010, 162 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty (nationally), a 40 percent increase from 2009. Of the ones that were killed in 2010, 61 were killed by firearms, a 24 percent increase. I’m not here to say that this is the work of law-abiding citizens. I’m not trying to make that connection. But the more we are dealing with firearms and encounters, if we’re going to have concealed carry we want to do it in the safest manner possible.
CT: But in all likelihood, lifting the ban on concealed carry would increase the number of guns on the street, which would increase the potential for police encounters with armed citizens, correct?
NW: That is a challenge of policing a free society. The people who want more access to being able to carry concealed weapons, I have no doubt that the majority of them are law-abiding citizens. But contained within our cities are people who are not law-abiding citizens. We’re trying to strike that balance where law-abiding citizens can have access to their constitutional rights, but those who are going to use guns in manners that are detrimental to society can be held accountable.
CT: Do you think Americans are too fixated on guns?
NW: I would say “yes” from this standpoint: With the evolution of Tasers and things like that, 15 or 20 years from now we may be looking at other technologies that will keep someone safe and not have as much of a destructive impact on the person you’re trying to stop. I think the technology is out there, I think that the understanding of how to create systems to defend yourself without creating so much destruction is probably out there, but we’re really preoccupied with the gun.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_1c562bec-8013-11e0-bfde-001cc4c03286.html
Earlier this month, state lawmakers introduced two bills that would allow people to carry concealed firearms in Wisconsin, currently one of only two states that ban them. Law enforcement officials have concerns. Neither proposal would require gun carriers to undergo training. And while one bill would require that people obtain permits through the state Department of Justice, the other would not require gun carriers to obtain a license, which would make the concealed carry law in Wisconsin among the least restrictive in the nation.
Both proposals would ease restrictions on where citizens could go armed.
With Republicans in complete charge of state government, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray is resigned to the fact that concealed carry, in some form, is inevitable. But he wants safeguards in place. What follows is an edited transcript of an interview with him on the topic by Steven Elbow of The Capital Times.
Capital Times: What are your main concerns about the concealed carry proposals in the state Legislature?
Noble Wray: We believe the permitting process is vitally important. But along with the permitting process, we need some way through the Department of Transportation that an officer can confirm if someone does have a permit. The more information you know, the safer you’re not only going to feel, but the safer everyone is going to be in that encounter.
CT: There was a subsequent proposal to require carriers to undergo two hours of training. Is that enough?
NW: We were one of the first law enforcement agencies in the state of Wisconsin to implement concealed carry for retired police officers. And even with veteran, trained, retired police officers we require certification and training on an annual basis. I think there needs to be some period of time where there is a refresher course, some reorientation, some instruction, because even as a trained law enforcement officer, if you’re not using it for a while, things change. There are updates about certain things, the capacity of a weapon, the nomenclature of the weapon, current trends as they relate to weapons.
CT: Both proposals remove the 1,000-foot gun-free zone around school properties. Is there a problem with that?
NW: We’re dealing with a demographic where if you send a message that it’s OK for school zones, that could be problematic. I would consider a school zone a sacred area, a sensitive area.
CT: The bills also appear to lift prohibitions against going armed in taverns. What are your thoughts on that?
NW: One of the elements we use in determining reckless use of a firearm is the level of intoxication of a person who’s in possession of one and using it. Alcohol and a firearm is a dangerous mix.
CT: The bills also specifically lift prohibitions against driving with access to a loaded weapon. Is that a problem?
NW: That one I could see, because from a law enforcement standpoint we should always approach a car with due regard for safety and care. If you’re going to carry concealed and people travel in automobiles, it’s only a natural step that they would be carrying in a vehicle.
CT: Is concealed carry more problematic in some areas than in others?
NW: I think anytime you have a densely populated area and a high-crime area in an urban setting, it’s going to create more problems and complexities in trying to maintain safety when you’re introducing more firearms into a situation like that.
CT: What do you think of the argument that arming law-abiding citizens increases public safety?
NW: I can’t say that I agree or disagree with that. I have not seen any proof that would demonstrate that. If you look at the crime data you can get it where it shows one way or the other.
CT: Would concealed carry make it less safe for the officer on the street?
NW: In 2010, 162 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty (nationally), a 40 percent increase from 2009. Of the ones that were killed in 2010, 61 were killed by firearms, a 24 percent increase. I’m not here to say that this is the work of law-abiding citizens. I’m not trying to make that connection. But the more we are dealing with firearms and encounters, if we’re going to have concealed carry we want to do it in the safest manner possible.
CT: But in all likelihood, lifting the ban on concealed carry would increase the number of guns on the street, which would increase the potential for police encounters with armed citizens, correct?
NW: That is a challenge of policing a free society. The people who want more access to being able to carry concealed weapons, I have no doubt that the majority of them are law-abiding citizens. But contained within our cities are people who are not law-abiding citizens. We’re trying to strike that balance where law-abiding citizens can have access to their constitutional rights, but those who are going to use guns in manners that are detrimental to society can be held accountable.
CT: Do you think Americans are too fixated on guns?
NW: I would say “yes” from this standpoint: With the evolution of Tasers and things like that, 15 or 20 years from now we may be looking at other technologies that will keep someone safe and not have as much of a destructive impact on the person you’re trying to stop. I think the technology is out there, I think that the understanding of how to create systems to defend yourself without creating so much destruction is probably out there, but we’re really preoccupied with the gun.
