I subscribe to a few anti-gun mailing lists. As such, I get weird emails from time to time. Some are ludicrous, some are informative, and lately, most of them carry a certain air of desperation.
Today’s example: a request from the Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort urging me to sign a petition against reform of Wisconsin’s carry laws. According to the petition,
Research shows that allowing more people to carry guns in more places will lead to one thing — more tragedies.
That’s odd, because most statistics I’ve seen prove quite the opposite. Perhaps if they’d provided a citation, I could research their allegation further. Alas, none seems forthcoming.
Not that it would help much. Carry reform in Wisconsin, though long overdue, is all but inevitable. Once passed, Illinois will be the last state in the union that completely bans concealed carry.
At the moment, Wisconsin does not have any provision for legal concealed carry whatsoever. In theory, that makes the situation worse than New York or Maryland, though we rarely hear about it. Open carry is legal, but with some caveats.
Several times, the legislature has approved carry reform, but it has always been vetoed by governor Doyle, who makes the same vague and unverifiable noises WAVE does regarding a concern for “public welfare.” Governor-elect Scott Walker has already promised to sign such legislation when it reaches his desk.
Furthermore, the courts in Wisconsin are on the side of the 2nd Amendment. In 2003, the state Supreme Court overturned concealed weapon charges against a shopkeeper named Munir Hamdan, finding that,
Hamdan’s interests in maintaining a concealed weapon in his store and carrying it personally during an unexpected encounter with visitors substantially outweighed the State’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute. (…) enforcement of the CCW statute on these facts would seriously frustrate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security but advance no discernible public interest. [¶8]
This, four years in advance of Heller.
In October, a judge in Clark County ruled in a similar manner, this time using the McDonald decision as a waypoint in determining that strict scrutiny applies to any law abridging the right to keep and bear arms:
When this court examines this case in view of Hamdan as affected by Heller and McDonald, Justice Crooks’ analysis prevails–leading to the conclusion that sec. 941.23 in not narrowly tailored and therefore is unconstitutional. [p. 3]
Judge Counsell goes so far as to reach into Justice Thomas’ opinion in McDonald:
In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As Justice Thomas demonstrates, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not to be abridged by any State law. Sec. 941.23 must also fail under the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In sum, sec. 941.23 is unconstitutional on its face as overly broad in violation of the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. [p. 5]
Counsell also dismantles the argument that a ban on concealed carry is acceptable as long as open carry is lawful, finding that,
Open carry or display could result in the gun owner violating other laws regarding access of minors to guns or result in overzealous police and/or prosecutors charging disorderly conduct under sec. 947.01, Wis. Stats., for (what this court considers) the lawful open carrying and display of handguns. The argument that this will not happen with reasonable prosecutors has already been proven wrong. (…) five men were issued disorderly conduct citations for eating at a Culver’s restaurant while having firearms in holsters in plain view. The Hamdan court, apparently, was prophetic on this issue. [p. 4]
I agree. While the right to carry openly should be honored, there are situations in which it is not wise or practical. A law that requires weapons to be visible at all times discourages people from carrying the means of protection in the very places they may most need it.
People should be allowed their own discretion in defending themselves, and it looks like that’s soon to happen in Wisconsin.
ETA: Interestingly, the only two studies quoted by Judge Counsell were penned by Stephen Halbrook and John Lott. I’d think that, with the $315,000 given to them by the Joyce Founation this year alone, WAVE could have exerted some influence.