Brown County Clerk of Courts
Paul Janquart
(N-C file photo by H. Marc Larson).
Posted on 01/26/2004 12:02:13 AM PST by gnarledmaw
Concealed weapons bill raises concerns locally
Issues of accountability, expense face county government
A state Assembly vote overriding the governor's veto of a bill that would lift a 130-year-old ban on carrying concealed weapons would not bode well for government officials at the Brown County Clerk of Courts office and the Brown County Sheriff's Department. Provisions in the bill allowing concealed weapons in courtrooms and requiring costly record-keeping demands on the sheriff's office bolsters their opposition.
Brown County Clerk of Courts
Paul Janquart
(N-C file photo by H. Marc Larson).
Senate Bill 214 stipulates that individuals who undergo firearm safety training and background checks can carry certain concealed weapons - handguns, stunguns, tear gas guns, a knife other than a switchblade, or a billy club - as long as they abide by some exceptions.
The bill prohibits bringing concealed weapons into police stations, taverns, prisons and within 1,000 feet of school grounds, but a judge who is authorized himself to carry a concealed weapon may give written permission for another licensee to carry a concealed weapon in a courtroom, according to section 16.
County court clerk Paul Janquart said the justice process will be threatened by concealed weapons in the courtroom because individuals will be afraid to speak freely in court. Even if provisions that absolutely prohibit weapons in courthouses are made, he said, they will not sufficiently protect the right to speak freely in a courthouse when a case is being tried.
"You can't divorce the court or courtroom from the larger community around it," he said. "In Wisconsin there have been too many violent episodes in the courthouse in regards to firearms and deaths."
Liability for computer failures in the background check process and in transferring the information from department to department concerns officials.
"Is the sheriff immune from liability?" said John Gossage, captain of Professional Standards Division at the Brown County Sheriff's Department.
The bill, Gossage said, leaves a lot of questions for the sheriff's department. It stipulates that, should a sheriff or employees administering firearm training accidentally omit information whose omission later results in a trainee's violation of the conceal-and-carry rules, the instructors cannot be held liable. However, the sheriff's department is concerned about other potential liabilities. It is unclear how the Brown County Sheriff's Department will determine whether an individual has been institutionalized in another county; and if the department authorizes a conceal-carry license and computerized records fail to indicate that an individual is disqualified, it is unclear whether the department is held liable.
When the state justices department notifies the county clerk of courts office of which individuals have broken laws, resulting in the revocation of their conceal-and-carry licenses, the clerk of courts office would be responsible for informing the sheriff's department.
Janquart said the clerk of courts office would rely heavily on computers to record an individuals' information and he fears liability suits if for some technical reason the clerk of courts office fails to inform law enforcement of a violation on the part of a licensee.
"I'm worried more about the technology of computers to do that safely and thoroughly," he said.
As far as Sheriff Dennis Kocken's feelings are concerned, Gossage said he is not against the bill outright, but against the additional responsibilities that would burden the department during a time of budget cuts. An applicant's fees include a $15 shooting range improvement fee for the Department of Natural Resources and a $15 law enforcement fund fee given to the county sheriff's department. The law enforcement fee is not meant to supplement or replace funds that are otherwise available to the department. However, the department would have 21 days to issue or deny licenses, according to the bill. Conceal-and-carry licenses would be renewed every five years and the maximum fee that department's can charge for a license application, $75, is not sufficient, Gossage said.
"It's record maintenance which is added cost to the sheriff's department," he said. There are three people on staff that handle accident and criminal records, including misdemeanors and felonies. Everything down to mailbox vandalism is recorded. Although Gossage said that budget cuts did not reduce record-keeping staff, the cuts made in other areas has made the department extremely conscious of being efficient.
"It seems like we'll be taking two steps back here with this proposal," he said.
Currently, the department is three months behind in record-keeping because of new software integration.
Assembly Amendment 70, which was taken into the bill in early November, stipulates that any license application or renewal fees collected by a sheriff's department in excess of the county's cost of issuing the licenses will result in payments from the county treasurer to the sheriff's department to be spent on law enforcement needs.
The state Assembly could vote on the bill next week.
\Bol"ster\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Bolstered; p. pr. & vb. n. Bolstering.]
1. To support with a bolster or pillow. --S. Sharp.
2. To support, hold up, or maintain with difficulty or unusual effort; -- often with up.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Ahhh! To attempt to hold up something pre-existing and failing by back padding it with something insubstantial. OK, got it. Who says theres no truth in the media?
"In Wisconsin there have been too many violent episodes in the courthouse in regards to firearms and deaths."
I dont remember even 1, do you?
As far as Sheriff Dennis Kocken's feelings are concerned...he is not against the bill outright, but against the additional responsibilities that would burden the department during a time of budget cuts.
Well he's been known to tell a little bit different story in "private".
"Currently, the department is three months behind in record-keeping because of new software integration."
Oops, slipped up again there Dennis. It was just a couple of months ago when law enforcement calls werent being dispatched and houses were burning without adequate fire support that the problem wasnt the improperly administered problem management tool used to dispatch but a huge shortage of personnel. Isnt that why all those new people were hired? Now that nobody is looking, its safe to bring in new software...
Conceal-and-carry licenses would be renewed every five years and the maximum fee that department's can charge for a license application, $75, is not sufficient, Gossage said.
Same thing as in Missouri. $75 just isn't sufficient to cover the cost of processing a piece of paper.
Damn. I gotta get me a paper-shuffling job at one of these sheriff's departments...
Utter bilge. Testimony is public and any witness who has cause to fear retribution in the courtroom has cause to fear it outside.
They just whine and come up with any excuse because they don't like it. Give me the power even if it took me a hr per CCW check I would be making money.
I dont remember even 1, do you?
There are instances where a con grabbed a baliff's gun and shot up the court, but I don't recall any cases where someone walked into a court with their own firearm and shot it up.
That, after all, is the liberal way.
If you can't win politically, get a sympathethic liberal judge to strike the law down.
Tell as many lies as you want along the way. Liberals, Communists and Islamists all have this in common: truth doesn't matter. Lie all you want.
If it takes redefining the word "justify" to mean "allow," no problem.
The liberals lost big-time in their New Mexico lawsuit. Perception here in Missouri is that the same thing is about to happen here as well.
Huh!!??
If true, this is simply crazy.
WHAT PASSED AS PART OF THE KOHL LAW?
The Kohl law, which was passed as section 657 of the Treasury-Postal portion of the omnibus appropriations bill, signed into law on September 30, 1996, sets up a circle with a 2,000 foot diameter (minimum) around every American school. Within that circle, with limited exceptions, guns are banned.
Specifically, the Kohl language imposes a prison sentence of up to five years for a person who "knowingly possess[es] a firearm ... at a place that the individual knows or has reason to believe is a school zone..." The five year sentence could not run concurrently with any other sentence. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. 921 defines "school zone" to be any place "in or on the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school or within a distance of 1,000 feet of a public, parochial, or private school..." A "school" is a place which "provides elementary or secondary education as determined under state law."
Exceptions would apply if (1) the firearm were possessed on private property not part of school grounds; (2) the individual was licensed to carry the gun by a state conducting a background check prior to the issuance of the license; (3) the gun is not loaded and "is in a locked container or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;" (4) the gun is for use in a program approved by a school; (5) the gun is carried by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or (6) the gun is unloaded and carried by a person traversing the school zone on a hunting trip, if the possession is authorized by school authorities.
Here are some of the most commonly asked questions about this language:
BRIEFLY, WHAT DOES THE KOHL LAW DO?
The Kohl law imposes huge felony liability (five years in prison) on virtually any private citizen who carries a loaded gun for protection on his or her person or in his or her car. In other words, if you are convicted of carrying a firearm (on your person or in your car) within 1,000 feet of a school, you will have committed a felony which could subject you to a five year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine. If you carry a firearm in your car, at some time or another, the car will travel within 1,000 feet of a school. When that happens, that person will have committed a felony punished at the same level as most serious crimes. This is true even though the person does not actually know he or she is in the vicinity of a school.
DOES THE KOHL LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR ROADBLOCKS?
No, but this can be accomplished by other laws and authorities. Law enforcement officials manning a roadblock to detect drunk drivers, possession of fruit (upon entering California), or even seatbelt usage now can arrest and imprison you for an additional charge. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that a policeman, in such a stop, has the authority to search your entire car without giving you any Miranda warning or indicating that you have a right to refuse. Even without your consent, your car can be visually inspected under those circumstances, and you can be required to get out of the car.
DOES THE KOHL LAW ALLOW YOU TO DRIVE PAST A SCHOOL WITH A GUN IN YOUR CAR?
Not under most circumstances. If you have an unloaded gun in a locked box or locked gun rack, you cannot be arrested. But if the gun is loaded, or if the gun rack is unlocked, or if the gun is located in your glove compartment or on your car seat, you can be prosecuted for a felony.
DO YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A SCHOOL BEFORE YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED?
No. If you "should have known" you were within approximately three blocks of a school, you can be prosecuted.
CAN YOU KEEP A GUN WITHIN YOUR HOME?
Yes. But you cannot carry it from your front door to your car parked on the street, unless you determine that such action is approved by school officials. As a result, any hunting trip for a person living within 1,000 feet of a school would constitute a legal labyrinth.
WHAT IF YOU ARE AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER?
There is no exemption for off-duty police officers. They can be prosecuted and imprisoned for five years for carrying a gun on school property just as readily as other Americans, even if police department policy requires them to carry a gun at all times, on or off duty.
WHAT ABOUT HOME SCHOOLS?
The language of the Kohl gun ban is unclear on this point. But it appears that the Kohl law, on its face, could prohibit possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids. Home schools are arguably "private schools" within the definition of "school zone," and most state laws do recognize these as schools in some respect. Presumably, the parents can create a "school program" which involves firearms instruction. But, for young children or for uses apart from that program, firearms may well be prohibited in those homes. This would certainly be consistent with efforts by gun control advocates to remove firearms from homes with children.
WHAT IF YOU HAVE TO CROSS SCHOOL PROPERTY TO GO HUNTING?
A school can permit carrying an unloaded gun across its property on the way to a hunting trip. As a practical matter, however, if you must drive your car across twenty different "school zones" on your way to your hunting grounds, it will be impossible to get permission from all of the different schools involved -- or determine if permission has been given. Furthermore, many will not give their permission.
ARE YOU EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW BY VIRTUE OF POSSESSING A PISTOL CARRY PERMIT?
Not necessarily. A person in possession of a concealed carry permit is exempt if he comes from a state where a criminal background check was required prior to issuance. In states like Alabama, where no such requirement exists, the carry permit will not protect you. Furthermore, states like Vermont, which allow citizens to carry without a permit, will be put under pressure to institute a permit system.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE KOHL LAW?
A school is permitted to maintain guns on the premises for firearms training in connection with educational programs such as ROTC. Other than that, there are no exemptions.
At this point some may say so whats the difference, its already a federal law. Thats true but the unnecessary 2nd layer of laws makes it twice as difficult for people to remove these roadblocks to our safety. When those with a grudge against society discover that the only safe place left to exact vengance is a pre-school, theres going to be a bloodbath and a lot of very young innocent lives lost. Then again, thats probably what those supporting the "safety free zone" part of the legislation wanted all along...
Of course, the "Kohl Law" simply re-passed a statute the Supreme Court had already struck down. Gotta love that...
Does anyone remember when the NRA first bothered to mention this bill/statute to its members? I found out about it from GOA prior to passage, but I don't recall hearing a peep about it from the NRA.
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.