WI: Doyle vows to veto concealed arms bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

xenophon

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
153
Location
Milwaukee, WI
http://www.jsonline.com/news/State/sep03/171096.asp

Doyle vows to veto concealed arms bill
Governor's decision criticized by GOP as 'premature'
By STEVEN WALTERS, ANNYSA JOHNSON and DENNIS CHAPTMAN
[email protected]
Last Updated: Sept. 19, 2003

Gov. Jim Doyle said Friday he will not sign into law a bill legalizing concealed weapons that the Legislature is poised to pass - an announcement loudly applauded by more than 1,000 people at a Milwaukee luncheon that honored women.


In Madison, Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer (R-West Bend) said it was unfortunate Doyle made that veto promise Friday, especially because it is still unclear exactly what the Legislature will end up sending to him.

"I think it is premature of the governor, until he sees the final form of the bill, to comment on it," she said.

Doyle's comments came just before the start of the Legislature's fall session next week and as Republicans who control both Assembly and Senate push to make Wisconsin the 46th state to allow the carrying of concealed weapons.

"There are people in this state who believe we will be much safer if we can carry concealed weapons and . . . if we're all armed," Doyle said, making it clear he was not one of them.

He told the Women & Public Policy luncheon he would not sign the legislation when it arrives on his desk.

Doyle spokesman Dan Leistikow said Friday the change being pushed by Republicans is unacceptable to the Democratic governor.

"The governor has said that he respects the decision of the Supreme Court that found that shop owners and homeowners have the right to protect themselves on their own property," Leistikow said. "But the bill in the Legislature goes way beyond that - allowing guns in churches and day care centers. And it weakens restrictions against guns in school zones."

Backers won't give up
State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), co-sponsor of the legislation, said he hopes Wisconsin residents who favor allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons for their own protection will contact Doyle's office to express their support.

"I hope the governor will take a very, very, very hard look at this legislation when it hits his desk," Gunderson said. "I really believe that the percentage of people in this state who favor this legislation is much greater than what one would be led to believe."

Backers of the bill say anyone over 21 who pays for a $75 permit, passes a criminal background check and a 22-hour firearms training class and is not mentally incompetent or drug or alcohol dependent should be able to carry a handgun.

That, they say, would deter crime, because criminals would not know which of their victims might be armed and ready to defend themselves. Critics of the bill say it would make handguns more common and make the state a less-safe place.

Gunderson noted that similar legislation passed the state Assembly on a 58-40 vote in February 2002. That bill later died in a Democratic Senate, but Republicans now control both houses, although not by the two-thirds margins necessary to override a governor's veto.

A political risk?
James Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, predicted a Doyle veto of the legislation could put Democratic lawmakers on the hot seat after they narrowly upheld his controversial veto of a cap on local property taxes last month.

"It's a poor move," Fendry said Friday of a possible Doyle veto.

"Since the governor has already endangered a number of his fellow Democrats when he asked them to sustain his veto of a tax freeze, I think it's going to be very hard for the governor to go back to his party and ask lawmakers to remain against this (weapons) bill," Fendry said.

The state Senate came within one vote of overriding Doyle's veto of a state provision that would have limited local governments' tax levies next year.

Fendry also noted that the Missouri Legislature this month overrode Gov. Bob Holden's veto of similar legislation, making Missouri the 45th state to have some sort of concealed carry law.

"The governor should certainly see by the other 45 states that the entire nation will have a concealed-carry law, certainly within the next few years," Fendry said, adding that he hopes Doyle will reconsider his position.

Annysa Johnson reported from Milwaukee; Steven Walters and Dennis Chaptman reported from Madison.




From the Sept. 20, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
 
Only the title of the article and a paraphrase of Senate Leader Mary Panzer says he will veto it. Doyle is quoted as saying he will not sign it. Which is it?

If he doesn't sign it, and doesn't veto it, it's law after it sits on his desk for 30 days. I'm OK with that.


Monkeylegs article showed up in today's paper, :
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/sep03/171180.asp

And Luis Tolley's piece of :barf:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/sep03/171186.asp

Also, couple more letters to the editor:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/sep03/171293.asp

Time for everyone in WI to make themselves heard. Loudly and often.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/waml/
 
Gov. Jim Doyle said Friday he will not sign into law a bill legalizing concealed weapons that the Legislature is poised to pass - an announcement loudly applauded by more than 1,000 people at a Milwaukee luncheon that honored women.

Will not sign does not equal will veto.

Pandering?
 
This is the second article I've seen this week in the Journal Sentinel where Doyle says he will not sign the bill. I wonder if some Democrats aren't asking him to let the bill sit on his desk, in order to save them in their re-election fights next year.
 
Possible that tis a political expedient.

Scary tho to think that if it sits on his desk, any moment of brain tweek could cause him to pick up pen.

Want to see it pass by any means.

Prefer to see it blow by him with veto proof overwhelming vote.

The mind reels at the possibilities suggested when they say the final version is not on the table tho.

Sam
 
Yea!! Go, Wisconsin! Here's hopin' you can become the 46th State to allow CCW before the year is out.

Sounds like a good time for all those in Wiconsin who are interested in this to be callin' their State Legislators. :D
 
If he vetoes it, look on the bright side.

Kick him out of office like Ann Richards of Texas and his replacement can be the President of the United States.
 
"The governor has said that he respects the decision of the Supreme Court that found that shop owners and homeowners have the right to protect themselves on their own property," Leistikow said. "But the bill in the Legislature goes way beyond that - allowing guns in churches and day care centers. And it weakens restrictions against guns in school zones."

So your highness, a normal, law-abiding parent carrying a firearm in their shop or at home is OK, but the second they set foot on a school or daycare center, that same normal, law-abiding parent is going to start shooting children?

Is that correct?
 
but the second they set foot on a school or daycare center, that same normal, law-abiding parent is going to start shooting children?
According to the anti-self-defense Banshee Chorus that is exactly what happens...the "eeeevil gun" takes over the person, and makes them shoot children.

Soret of like that 1950's B-grade horror flick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"


:p
 
bedlamite's analysis is spot-on. Doyle may well have been leaving himself wiggle room to not sign, but let it pass in the default period. He would risk no political capital with the pro-carry movment, but could allways state that he refused to sign the legislation to anti's.

I wonder aloud if the Milwaukee Urinal-Sentinel fabricated the headline "Doyle vows to veto concealed arms bill" by loosely paraphrasing Mary Panzer to try and force Doyle into a corner and actually veto it?

So much for impartial reporting, eh?
 
So if the bill initially passes with enough votes for a veto override, is it then a done deal, or can Doyle still veto it and subject it to a second vote for override?

I'm hoping that the "won't sign" VS veto interpretations are correct, and he'll simply let it slide into law via his inaction.
 
Letter to the editor

Actually the govenor has the option to not sign a bill and let it pass by default without his endorsment no matter how many votes it came to his desk with. However, if it does come to him with a veto-proof majority, letting it pass without signing is prudent to avoid the embarassment of a veto override, but still oppose it in some symbolic way.

I'm so mad at the Journal Sentinel for trying to bend the truth, and control gov. Doyle with that headline, I fired this letter off to the editor. I indeed think Doyle was perhaps intending to let the bill become law without his sig in 30-60 days, whichever it is, and the Journal Sentinel is trying to prevent that and force him to veto it by putting words in his mouth. :cussing:

Let's see if they dare print it...

The Journal Sentinel's Saturday headline read: "Doyle vows to veto concealed arms bill". Interestingly, nowhere in the article did I actually read that the governor stated he would veto the bill. The closest he came to such a statement was that he would not sign it.

In Wisconsin, a seated governor refusing to sign a bill is a very different thing than a veto. If the governor merely refuses to sign a bill, it will become law automatically after a set period of time. This would allow the governor a chance to avoid expending the political capital to veto the bill, but come election time, still claim to the bill's opponents that he "did not sign it".

I wonder if the Journal Sentinel is by any chance trying to force the governor’s hand on the issue of CCW by stretching the truth in coming up with that headline? I would hardly expect governor Doyle to be able to publicly correct the Journal Sentinel on such an issue.

Although, if such political “having one’s cake and eating it too†is what it takes for us to have the right to defend ourselves outside our homes and businesses, so be it.
 
If he vetoes it, look on the bright side.

Kick him out of office like Ann Richards of Texas and his replacement can be the President of the United States.

Most eloquent.......................:D

Yanus
 
Whoa! MO, WI, MI, OH on the brink

Hey you guys, stop all this CCW nonsense right now.

You are all making little Richie Daley here in Illinois nervous. At this rate he won't be able to drive out of state and feel safe.

I wonder if he sold the family compound in Grand Beach after they passed shall issue CC there. Or maybe I missed the story of the streets running red with blood of traffic shooters?

Good luck to all our friends behind the cheddar curtain to the North!

Don P.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The governor has said that he respects the decision of the Supreme Court that found that shop owners and homeowners have the right to protect themselves on their own property," Leistikow said. "But the bill in the Legislature goes way beyond that - allowing guns in churches and day care centers. And it weakens restrictions against guns in school zones."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So your highness, a normal, law-abiding parent carrying a firearm in their shop or at home is OK, but the second they set foot on a school or daycare center, that same normal, law-abiding parent is going to start shooting children?

Is that correct?

No, I don't think that is correct. Note that he said he "respects" the decision of the court. He didn't say he "agrees" with it. When one says they "respect" a court decision, they are really saying that they don't agree with the court, but there's not much they can do about it, so they'll just have to live with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top