Posted on 11/05/2003 6:46:57 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
The Wisconsin Assembly will be voting for SB214 today. The vote will probably be the last item of business. This is will give us some time to make that final phone call of support.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/asmvideo.asp
It worked using the Windows Media player.
Considering it's the last thing on today's schedule, and considering that Democrats are likely to use whatever delaying tactics they have available to them (witness how this went down in the Senate) to push the debate onto tomorrow's or Friday's schedule, and considering it's a two hour drive one way, it isn't likely that I'll make the trip.
However, if I see the Assembly ripping through today's schedule, with no sign of delaying tactics, and a clear indication they're intent on voting on this tonight, I may very well hop in the truck and drive to Madison to join you because it would be fun to be there and witness history being made.
But don't go with the expectation that I'll be joining you.
THE WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY WILL RECONVENE AT 1:45 P.M. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003
ASA1 (ASSEMBLY SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT 1, TO 2003 SENATE BILL 214):
This substitute amendment permits a person to go armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon in his or her own home or place of business if: 1) the person’s interest in carrying a concealed weapon substantially outweighs the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons law; 2) the person has no other reasonable means to keep and handle the weapon; and 3) the person is not motivated by an unlawful purpose in concealing it. This authorization does not apply if the person is prohibited under federal or state law from possessing a firearm (prohibitions that apply if, for example, the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or a felony; the person unlawfully uses a controlled substance; the person has been committed to a mental health facility; or the person is subject to a stalking, harassment, or domestic abuse restraining order or a harassment, domestic abuse, or child abuse injunction) or if the person, in an unrelated criminal case, has been prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon as a condition of being released while the case is pending.
That's a crock. The WISC just declared those things Constitutional and Free from State restrictions.
Basically deletes the portion of 214 which keeps the record of permit holders and applicants secret.
AA2 (ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT 2, TO 2003 SENATE BILL 214):
Basically the state must reimburse county sheriff's offices for any cost incurred above and beyond those covered by the license fees.
AA3 (ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT 3, TO 2003 SENATE BILL 214):
Outlaws license holders who are carrying from being within 1,000 feet of school grounds. In other words, you wouldn't be able to carry concealed while driving past a school.
Democrats are doing the same thing in the Assembly that they did in the Senate.
TO: All Legislators
FR: Senator Dave Zien
DT: November 5, 2003
RE: Response to Sheriffs' concerns about concealed carry (SB 214 / AB 444)
_____________________________________________________________________
This memo addresses the contention that this office has not been responsive to the Sheriffs organizations (Badger Sheriffs and Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs). It also addresses their concerns (all of which were accommodated), yet they continue to raise these concerns.
1) Nick Segina, President of the Fraternal Order of Police - Wisconsin Chapter, contacted us this spring suggesting that we call a representative from the Badger Sheriffs. This organization did not contact me. Bob Seitz, my Chief of Staff, initiated the conversation and received input from Sheriff Govier. The primary concern Sheriff Govier raised was with administration by the Sheriffs. The major secondary issues regarded the limitation on the fee the sheriff could charge and potential liability. He also informed us that, regardless of what changes we made, his organization would not support the legislation. We took the input and acted on it. The fact that support for the legislation was not an option meant there was little left to discuss. We met with the Attorney General to look into state administration to address that concern. For several reasons, state administration was not a viable option. We added specific immunity from liability for sheriffs. The issue of local costs would have to wait for analysis from the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
2) This fall, we met with the Badger Sheriffs and the Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs following the public hearing in which Sheriff Heuer testified that we had not responded to Sheriff Govier. This, despite the fact that the contact in the spring had come from us.
3) We met September 24 with the Badger Sheriffs and September 26 with the Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association. At both meetings, both authors discussed every administrative concern raised. Issues and solutions offered are listed below:
a. Involuntary Commitment data is not available in a centralized location, requiring legwork
i. RESPONSE: We designed additions to the DOJ instant background check database to allow this information to be instantly available in the current check. Additionally, we make this information available for handgun purchase background checks to prevent handgun sales to individuals who have been involuntarily committed as a danger to themselves and others. Currently, Wisconsin has no means to stop these purchases.
b. Cost of license-making machine is too high.
i. RESPONSE: We amended the bill to allow purchase or lease of a machine that produces the exact same tamper-proof license for 40% less cost.
c. Sheriffs don't have enough time to issue or deny the license.
i. RESPONSE: We asked the Sheriffs to make a recommendation as to the length of time necessary for issuance along with the reasons a delay was necessary. In spite of the fact that we received no such recommendation or justification, we delayed the issuance deadline 40% from 21 to 30 days. Additionally, they already had the ability to instantly revoke the license of any licensee when they discover the individual is not eligible for any reason.
d. The process at the county level could involve people outside the sheriff's office who do not have the immunity from liability provided the sheriff.
i. RESPONSE: We extended immunity to other county employees with responsibilities under the bill.
e. Revenue from license flows to the county general fund and must be allocated to the sheriff by the county board. If the board chooses not to allocate funds, the sheriff may not be able to cover costs.
i. RESPONSE: We amended the bill to give the sheriff complete control over the funds generated through license fees without county board approval. We also bar the board from using this revenue to offset the sheriff's budget.
f. Sheriffs do not have access to the database of information on licensees except to check on whether the person is licensed, was licensed properly and holds a valid license. The sheriffs wanted to be able to check on people they are dealing with and produce lists of licensees "as a starting point for criminal investigations" of gun crimes.
i. RESPONSE: We allow the sheriff to check the license of anyone they have probable cause to pull over in addition to the above reasons. We included the database on the TIME system to ensure instant access around the clock. We WILL NOT agree to allow the sheriffs to use this database to create lists of law-abiding citizens to be turned into suspects in crime because they painstakingly followed an expensive and time-consuming process to follow the law.
g. Sheriffs need more money to properly issue the license.
i. RESPONSE: We asked the sheriffs to come up with cost estimates to back up this claim. They came forward with nothing. The non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau did a 41-page analysis of the bill, its operation and costs. As previously drafted, it was clear from their analysis and the fiscal estimate prepared by the DOJ, that the $75 fee was more than sufficient to cover costs on an ongoing basis. DOJ inflates their numbers by including incredible estimates for start-up costs and assumes that no sheriffs will cooperate to save money. Additionally, they assume all administrative work (photo-taking, filing, etc.) would be carried out by sworn officers instead of clerical staff.
ii. RESPONSE 2: We significantly lowered the cost of administration from the DOJ and Legislative Fiscal Bureau analyses by virtually eliminating legwork through increased use of the DOJ instant check system and lowering necessary equipment costs. In virtually every case, license issuance would consist of receiving the application, calling in the person for an instant check, writing down the confirmation number, taking a picture, mailing the hard-copy application to DOJ, waiting the required seven days for the final approval and mailing the license to the individual. DOJ estimated this to take one hour on average (when it included separate mental commitment research). It should take no more than 15-minutes now.
iii. RESPONSE 3: Wisconsin will have the fourth highest license fees of the 45 states that allow their citizens this right. Among the states with shall issue laws, Wisconsin would have the highest fees of the 15 states with issuance by the sheriff. I refuse to believe that Wisconsin sheriffs are the least efficient in the nation.
iv. RESPONSE 4: Even after the sheriff has recovered his/her costs in the $75 administrative fee, we provide an additional $15 Law Enforcement Excellence Fund fee for discretionary spending to improve law enforcement in the county. $567,000 in the first year above the departmental budget could go a long way toward ensuring safety equipment for deputies on the street. We also allocate to the sheriff $15 for the Shooting Range Improvement Fund. While the funds must go to ranges that are open to the public and offer low-cost training to qualify citizens for these licenses, the estimated $567,000 in the first year would go a long way to ensuring law enforcement has the quality ranges they need in each county. These two funds would give sheriffs over one million dollars in the first year alone ABOVE THE COST OF ISSUING LICENSES.
As you can see, we went a long way to meet the major concerns of sheriffs even though they made it clear that our meeting their needs would never alter their position on the legislation because these associations just oppose citizens having the ability to protect themselves from crime. Unfortunately, the facts in 45 other states are not enough to overcome this basic disagreement.
We asked each association to name the people who could speak for the association and work out solutions to the issues they raised. Despite the fact that we told them the timeframe of the process, we are still waiting for their response. In fact I called the lobbyist for the Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs (the Badger Sheriffs have no lobbyist) after the meeting to stress again the timeline and ask for the names of individuals we could work with. Bob Seitz got a phone call about two weeks ago, returned it, was told the lobbyist was on the phone and would call back after he got off. We're still waiting.
The bottom line is that we have a good bill that is fully funded. Anyone who doesn't think they can operate the program for more money than sheriffs in every other state can recommend to their county board that they opt out. The fact is, a number of sheriffs are waiting for the opportunity to administer this program because their first concern is with public safety. They know this bill will improve safety and improve funding for their departments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.