Why are they still fighting against CCW?

[AJ Dual]

Our trials and tribulations in our WI CCW battle have got me thinking: Why are they fighting the tide?

After the gun-positive, or at least, gun-neutral experiences of 46 U.S. States with concealed carry, especially the 37 of them granting "shall-issue" permits to anyone who passes a background check, why are the anti's still so vehemently opposed to CCW? We know the arguments against CCW are thin, unsubstantiated, taken out of context, or outright falsehoods. So do the majority of U.S. State legislatures. So why do the anti's still trot out the same tired rhetoric ad-nauseum, state after state?

The simple answer: They are armed with nothing better, and they know it.

The underlying answer: The commencement of state-issued Concealed Carry permits marks a de-facto end to the "gun debate".

It's not the guns, the owners, or the act of concealed-carry, that strikes terror into the anti-self defense lobby's little black hearts, it's the sense of near-finality CCW brings to the debate. Of course, it doesn't actually end the noisy cacophony of the anti's constant sheep-like bleating, but it certainly steepens the slope of their already uphill battle to nearly cliff-like proportion.

Magazine capacity, military styling, action type, or caliber restrictions seem moot when one is forced to consider the fact that any law-abiding adult can get a permit to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public 24/7, in the majority of places in the state for their protection. And that such carry has not adversely impacted the crime rate, accidents, or other mishaps in any other state that's enacted it.

Hand wringing legislation borne of fear or animus towards "rednecks with AK47's in their closets" seems moot, when the soccer mom standing right behind you in line at Starbucks could legally be carrying a Glock in her purse.

For the anti-gunner, CCW is political Armageddon.

Good.

 

[cosine]

Excellent analysis.

 

[P95Carry]

Now just House of Rep's? - but I here tell it'll be a 50/50 thing - so, how soon do we weep or cheer?

AJ - can't fault you'r assessment - but then we folks are rational people yeah!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/insessi...tes/sv0328.htm

Wisconsin Senate Roll Call
2005-2006 SESSION

SB 403
OVERRIDE VETO

AYES - 23
BRESKE BROWN COWLES DARLING DECKER ELLIS FITZGERALD ROTHMAN HARSDORF KANAVAS KAPANKE KEDZIE LASEE LASSA LAZICH LEIBHAM
PLALE REYNOLDS ROESSLER SCHULTZ STEPP WIRCH ZIEN

NAYS - 10
CARPENTER COGGS ERPENBACH HANSEN JAUCH MILLER OLSEN RISSER ROBSON TAYLOR

NOT VOTING - 0
__________________

 

[tulsamal]

I've seen anti-gun people get VERY upset about CCW laws. I've seen them refuse to even listen to FBI statistics. Logic is TOTALLY outside of this debate for them. I think there are two groups of people that form the hard-core "antis" on CCW laws. (Although they may well "interbreed!")

There are people out there that are just emotionally terrified of guns. Period. You can't take somebody who is scared of heights and rationally get them to NOT be scared anymore. In some cases, they are people who have seen violence up close and personal. In some cases, it is something they were brought up to believe from an early age. These people are convinced that guns are somehow a moral evil and they must be destroyed no matter what the cost.

The second group are the antis who see it quite rightly as a wedge issue. The antis have always pursued a "little bit at a time" agenda. And they always divided up guns into categories. The very worst kind of gun was "easily concealed handguns." There has been an assumption by many of them going back to at least the 1960's that sooner or later all handguns would be banned. They "weren't useful for hunting" and they were "dangerous to their owners." They recognized that it would be harder to outright ban rifles and shotguns since then they would run into the "sportsmen." Then handgun hunting came along and infuriated a bunch of them. I've had anti-gun types tell me that I hunt deer with a handgun just as some sort of stunt. As a way of showing handguns were useful for something besides "killing people." The one saving grace of handgun hunting (to an anti) was that at least hunting handguns tended to be on the large size and have longer barrels. Not many people hunted with 2" snubs or ultralight guns that would recoil much harder.

Then CCW laws came along and they realized this was a potentially fatal blow to their strategy. If a lot of states passed these laws and "blood didn't run in the streets," then their whole case against handguns would collapse. People would be able to see for themselves that the mere ownership of handguns didn't turn peaceful citizens into crazed gunmen. Worse, much worse, is that it gives actual governmental sanction to the idea that there was is actual legal role for small handguns in the hands of regular citizens. The STATE was actually saying that you could take a class and get a permit to carry these "Saturday Night Specials." Doesn't that mean they aren't actually dangerous in and of themselves? Oh, the horror!

And it fosters a mindset that they have been trying to stamp out for many years. Individualism versus collectivism. When you are in a seriously dangerous position, do you try to handle it yourself or do you wait for society to come to your rescue? CCW laws give state sanction to the idea that sometimes you have to actually use force to defend yourself! Without anybody from the nanny state standing there giving you instructions!! This just can't be allowed! People that think like that can start thinking that their individual rights and liberties are more important than society as a whole!

In retrospect, it is no wonder the anti-gun people feel threatened by CCW laws. And there is a reason that pro-gun people can consider them the most remarkable change in gun laws in the US since, well, forever!

Gregg

 

[Molon Labe]

Liberals want your mind, not your guns.

Yes, the liberals refuse to give in on CCW. So what is the real reason? What are they really afraid of? Someone getting hurt or killed? Yea, right.

When it comes down to it, liberals don't care about you owning a gun, or CCW. What they really want is for you to think like them. They know that owning & carrying a gun works against this goal, in that it fosters an attitude of individuality and self-reliance. It is this attitude they hate, not the guns.

More than anything else, liberals want your mind, not your guns.

 

[AJ Dual]

Exactly,

IMO, it needs to be recognized that shall-issue carry laws are an enormous postitive step. I'd dare say that in practical terms of "hearts and minds", CCW is a bigger step forward than the '34 NFA or the '68 GCA were setbacks! Look at the new rash of states refining thier "castle doctrines" in the wake of Florida's newest "Make My Day" law! The pointless whining of the VPC passing out "warning pamphlets" to Florida airport arrivals shows that they know this is the inevitable end-game once CCW is enacted.

The absolute right to self-defense with deadly force when the situation requires it, free from fear of criminal or civil liability is such a travesty, no?

As much as I wish the NFA and GCA would evaporate under the glare of true Constitutional scrutiny, I have to admit, a Glock 26 on my belt is much more important to my safety, day to day survival, and well being, than a Thompson would be in my safe.

In practical terms, if SHTF, most of us do not have the logistical supply train to sustain full-auto fire anyway, and rapid semi-auto fire is probably 90% just as effective. If I'm in that much danger, a achey trigger finger is the least of my problems. We can't all be on the Knob Creek firing line waiting list.

(Though if I ever win the lotto, I might just invite 'yall down there as my guest... )

I completely understand and agree with the "purists" who say licenced carry is an abomination, and that only "Vermont style" carry will do.

To that I say, Alaska has shown us the way my friend!

P95Carry,

We need a 66% - 2/3rds supermajority in the Assembly to override the Govenor's veto. We have exactly] that many votes. (We picked up another pro-gun Repub in the meantime, but the ratio is the same...) We were in the exact same boat in '04, and the Dem Govenor managed to flip one vote to sustain his veto with promises of election help next fall, or if he lost, a cush six-figure state job for life etc.

The real sticker was that the Dem he flipped was an avowed CCW proponent, co-sponsor of the bill, and had gone so far to write pro-carry op-ed pieces in his district's local rag. The Gov helped him raise campaign money in lib strongholds on the opposite end of WI from his district that fall...

This year the Govenor is even less popular, and he has several of his own scandals brewing, both sides seem to agree there are two weak dems in the Assembly, so it's touch and go.

The Assembly override is probably this coming Tuesday. However, it might be as much as a week later if either side drags things out for strategic reasons.

 

[taliv]

perhaps we should start adding scary words into CCW to taunt them... concealed and weapon are pretty scary,

but throw "silent" in there too (after all, most guns are pretty dang quiet when nobody's pulling the trigger)

and 'black' or 'tactical' or


tennessee's "pistol carry permit" is just lame. I want a list of check boxes like drivers licenses have for wearing eyeglasses and driving limos etc.

of course, all boxes Shall be checked, especially the boxes labeled "secret" and "militia" (if you're an able-bodied male under 49.5)

 

[scout26]

Correct: Because they can't have your mind, if you're holding a gun.

 

[CAnnoneer]

+1 ML

It is fundamentally a control issue, rather than a firearm issue. But, my suspicion is that maybe only 5% of all antis honestly understand their own motivations. Among the remaining, 20% are dittoists that blindly trust their political gang on every issue, 20% are commie statists, and 45% are the scared misinformed. Therein the large potential benefit of educational work to be done among the hostile masses.

 

[DonP]

They are already shopping for a friendly judge

I'm willing to bet that the anti-forces are already lining up a friendly big city Madison or Milwaukee judges to declare the new law "unconstitutional" on some trumped up basis and fight it in the liberal loving courts in the big cities.

Their rule is when you can't win stall in the courts.

We all know that when CCW passes it's never the "will of the people", it's always the "NRA jammed it through the legistlature"

Remember the crapola the folks in Minnesota went through AFTER they got it passed?

Hey guys you're still way ahead of us Illinois serfs.

 

[Monkeyleg]

AJ, your analysis is spot-on.

The head of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, in a moment of candor, told me that she didn't believe the "blood in the streets" arguments.

When I asked her why she was working so hard to defeat the bill, she said it was because she and the other anti-gun groups didn't want the NRA to gain any more momentum.

 

[Tim L]

AJ, your analysis is spot-on.

The head of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, in a moment of candor, told me that she didn't believe the "blood in the streets" arguments.

When I asked her why she was working so hard to defeat the bill, she said it was because she and the other anti-gun groups didn't want the NRA to gain any more momentum.

So if the NRA wasn't involved they would let CCW pass? For some reason I don't believe that one.

Good luck with the override, we need more states to join the shall issue fold.

Tim

 

[cracked butt]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm willing to bet that the anti-forces are already lining up a friendly big city Madison or Milwaukee judges to declare the new law "unconstitutional" on some trumped up basis and fight it in the liberal loving courts in the big cities

You can pretty much count on that happening. The exact same scenario happened a few years ago when Wisconsin had its first dove season. Their tactic ended the season the first year before it began, but the case having no merit couldn't stop the season the following year.

 

[xd9fan]

Because its not about logic..... for them its about control.

Police powers are FOR the Govt.
Gun is the hands of citizens (reguardless of being law abidding) are a threat to the Govt and its police powers.

The look on the sherrifs face knowing he had no say in me getting my permit.........priceless. (I will never forget that look...and what it means)

 

[Soybomb]

I think they'd hate to admit they're wrong and the entire party platform of gun control might need to be re-examined. I think alot of voters just aren't aware that concealed carry exists or if so they aren't aware of the statistics from states that have it. If you walked up to me a few years ago I would have told you that it sounds like a terrible idea to arm the generally dumb public. Today I don't even try to push that it lowers crime rates even though I think its possible. To me the big seller is that it doesn't increase crime. I can quote John Lott or someone's assumptions based off FBI numbers all day. It still looks biased and supposition filled in the end. On the other hand I can say that in Florida there have been 1.1 million concealed carry licenses issued, and 157 (0.01%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees.

You don't have to fish through several possible causes or find the bias in the numbers, its plain fact. I think to show people that it doesn't increase crime goes further than to try to sell them that they'll be safer. I think I went off on something of a tangent here, but in short its damaging to the party and the voters are ignorant.

 

[jazurell]

When it comes down to it, liberals don't care about you owning a gun, or CCW. What they really want is for you to think like them. They know that owning & carrying a gun works against this goal, in that it fosters an attitude of individuality and self-reliance. It is this attitude they hate, not the guns.

I don't know what it is. I think they are afraid of loosing control. Otherwise some of them would not "carry" themselves as Schummer and Feinstien both have permits. They probably think they are "elite" or above their constituents.

 

[Gatman]

I don't know what it is. I think they are afraid of loosing control. Otherwise some of them would not "carry" themselves as Schummer and Feinstien both have permits. They probably think they are "elite" or above their constituents.

Here in the Peoples Republic South of Wisconsin our Prince Daley has 37 bodyguards and he can carry a pistol. So do some of his blessed council AKA Chicago Alderman. Us serfs our not worthy enough of such priveledges.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm willing to bet that the anti-forces are already lining up a friendly big city Madison or Milwaukee judges to declare the new law "unconstitutional" on some trumped up basis and fight it in the liberal loving courts in the big cities.

No bets here. I'm sure you're right.

Here in the Peoples Republic South of Wisconsin our Prince Daley has 37 bodyguards and he can carry a pistol. So do some of his blessed council AKA Chicago Alderman. Us serfs our not worthy enough of such priveledges.

Only self-appointed aristocrats need apply.

 

[Zundfolge]

I've often said that those who support gun control fall into 4 camps (although there are some in more than one).

1) The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).

2) The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).

3) The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).

4) The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).



In the case of fighting CCW, I think more important than the influence of group 4 is the influence of 2 and 3 (who keep group 1 fed with plenty of lies).

Fighting CCW is more about keeping the NRA from "winning" anything (and the NRA is seen as part of the GOP). Clearly group 4 would rather we not be armed (for both the reasons of making us easer to prey on and not feeling independent) but they could frankly live with CCW as long as long guns are more heavily regulated ... its our rifles that are a threat to the power seekers as it is our rifles that we'll use to reach out and "vote from the rooftops" or stage a rebellion. They can keep us proles out of pistol range pretty easy with strong security (and super tight gun control in DC).

I think sometimes we in the RKBA camp tend to give group 4 way too much credit for power and effectiveness ... their goals are being achieved by group 2 & 3, but not because 2 & 3 actually agree with 4. 2 & 3 are 4's "useful idiots".

 

[beerslurpy]

Uh, you can lump the hoplophobes, the partisans and the duped in the same category.

They have in common:
-ignorance of guns
-general indifference or fear of guns
-lack of will to vote on the gun issue

In my experience most pro-gunners really care about the issue while most "anti-gunners" dont. This makes for some awesome poll-based political miscalculations.

 

[Zundfolge]

Uh, you can lump the hoplophobes, the partisans and the duped in the same category.

They have in common:
-ignorance of guns
-general indifference or fear of guns
-lack of will to vote on the gun issue

Not quite ... those in "The Duped" are not partisan or hoplophobes but just wrong ... if they persist in their wrongness after being exposed to the truth than they where always partisans and/or hopolophobes.

 

[beerslurpy]

Dont overestimate the dedication of the masses to gun control. Unless the news media constantly hits them over the head with tales of urban gun violence, they very quickly lose interest. Also, many of these "urban liberals" are quite socially conservative if you can get them to think out of the party line for a bit.

A lot of the democratic base is slowly getting tired of being robbed every year and while friends and relatives in republican controlled states enjoy a continually rising standard of living with a far smaller tax burden. I think there is also a general sympathy towards self defense, which only gets stronger the more crime rises in the urban hellholes.

 

[Telperion]

A big reason they're going all out to stop it now is that they know CCW laws are very difficult to repeal. Since Florida got the ball rolling in 1989, I don't recall any states going shall-issue and subsequently reverting to something more restrictive. Their opposition is based on predictions of people shooting each other over fender-benders, blood running in the streets, etc. A year from now in the next legislative session, what will they be able to say when none of this happens?

 

[beerslurpy]

Plus about 10-15 years down the line, CCW turns nearly everyone in a state pro-gun. People get used to carrying and then their friends get used to it and next thing you know, 90 percent of your coworkers are gun owners.

This polish guy at work was like: *scared look* "People here have guns?"
Me: "I know Dan does" *dan laughs* "I think besides the european guys, everyone here has a gun that I can think of."
Polish guy: *deep thought*

There are a few die hard anti-gunners anywhere, but the vast majority of the population adjusts pretty quickly to liberalized carry laws. The real winner is the antis that suddenly realize that everyone around them has been carrying a gun for the past 5 years and nothing bad happened. I have seen moments like this actually turn people around 180 degrees on the issue.

CCW is an incredible socio-political virus that we shoudl spread to the ends of the earth. Long term it is death to the gun control movement.

 

[Monkeyleg]

DonP, I'm pretty sure where the anti's will attack in the courts. Just peruse some recent Journal Sentinel articles about "open government" and legislative committees. I think that's where they'll begin.

Tim L, you must understand that Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort takes down some pretty good dollars for doing much of nothing: $54K in salary, full pension, full car allowance, full travel expense (none of our WCCA volunteers can afford the hotels she stays in), health insurance...the full nine yards.

One-on-one, she's pretty reasonable to talk to. It's just that I think she's found a cash cow, and is milking it for all it's worth.