Sherman's vote seen as key in override attempt [WI CCW]

The lobbying pressure is on Wisconsin Assembly Democrats as the lower house's Republican leadership Wednesday, for the second time, delayed a vote on overriding Governor Doyle's veto of a bill allowing Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons.

The vote is bringing a flood of communications to assembly lawmakers both for and against the concealed carry bill.

The Senate approved the override last week with one more vote than the necessary two-thirds. If the Assembly approves the override by a two-thirds majority, the bill will become law despite Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s veto.

The Assembly originally placed the vote on Tuesday’s calendar, but Assembly Speaker John Gard, (R-Peshtigo), then rescheduled the vote for Thursday, citing several reasons including the absence of one member.

He said Wednesday he delayed the vote again so that a lawmaker who won a special election Tuesday night could be sworn in — and because other members had problems making Thursday’s vote.

He said the Assembly will vote next Tuesday, unless unforeseen circumstances prevent some members from making it to Madison.

Democrats have complained Gard was delaying the vote in hopes some opponents would be absent when it finally happened, making it easier to muster the two-thirds of the members present for the override.

‘‘I’m not looking to win on a technicality. I’m looking to win on the merits,’’ Gard said.

The legislation, vetoed last year by Doyle, that would allow residents 21 and older who pass a background check to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

Doyle spokesman Dan Leistikow accused Republicans of stalling because they do not have the votes needed to override.

The Assembly approved the bill 64-35 last year. The two Republicans who voted against it have said they will vote to override the veto, meaning supporters need all seven Democrats who initially supported the legislation to do so again to get the 66 votes needed.

The narrow margin means that the seven Democrats have been flooded with pleas from both sides to vote for and against the measure.

A full page ad sponsored by the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action in the Wednesday Ashland Daily Press called on Representative Gary Sherman (D-Port Wing) to "Stay true to your principles" and vote to override Governor Doyle's veto. The ad quoted Sherman's support of the measure in a November 2003 article where Sherman said "In my very first assembly campaign I made my support for concealed carry clear and I have not changed my view."

A news release from the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms urged Wisconsin gun owners to utilize the toll-free legislative hotline to lobby legislators.

"This vote will come right down to the wires," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "And it is imperative for every Wisconsinite who supports the concept of personal protection to make their voices heard."

Waldron said much attention was being focused on Sherman, who co-sponsored the concealed carry legislation.

"Firearms owners need to let him know that they won't forget his important vote on this issue. We've seen nothing to suggest that Rep. Sherman would turn his back on legislation he's co-sponsored, much less on the people who elected him in 1998, based on his support for concealed carry," Waldron said.

Meanwhile, despite the not-so-subtle influences directed his way, Sherman insisted in a statement he issued Thursday that he is untroubled by the lobbying.

"Many people write and say things like 'I know you are under tremendous pressure from their governor,' or 'I know you are under tremendous pressure from the NRA.' All of this is utter nonsense," Sherman said. "I have not been pressured by either side except for the large number of messages received from citizens. Nobody has offered me anything or threatened me in any way. The political leaders of both parties have behaved toward me in an entirely professional and courteous manner, for which I am grateful."

Sherman said he has received "hundreds" of calls and E-mails from people on both sides of the debate.

"Most of which have been entirely proper, although some, reflecting the emotionalism of the issue have exceeded the bounds of courtesy," he said.

"While I read and register them all, the most influential are those from within my district," he said. "Judging by the calls and messages, my 74th Assembly District constituents are just about evenly divided on the issue."

Sherman noted that his vote was no more decisive than that of any of the other 99 state representatives who will vote on the issue Tuesday.

"Each vote is determinative of the issue. Assumptions about who will vote yes or no are just that: assumptions," he said.

"Please understand, just as that interest is quite natural, so is the need for someone who has been cast in the role of 'deciding vote' to maintain privacy."

Sherman said people in favor of the override were assuming he would vote against it, while those opposed to it tended to assume just the opposite.

Sherman said once he had recorded his vote he would make a complete statement of the reasons for that vote.

"In the meantime I have written a number of published articles which explain my thinking on every aspect of how I consider my vote," he said.

(Editor's Note: Material from the Associated Press was used in creating this report.)

Sherman said once he had recorded his vote he would make a complete statement of the reasons for that vote.

"In the meantime I have written a number of published articles which explain my thinking on every aspect of how I consider my vote," he said.

Here is one of his published articles:

In my last column, I discussed the Second Amendment and explained why I think that the right to keep and bear arms is as basic and important a part of the Bill of Rights as any other. In this column, I would like to tackle the issue of the concealed carry of handguns.

Suddenly my progressive supporters have become alarmed at my support for concealed carry, in spite of the fact that I have made no secret of my support for this proposal throughout the past six years. In my very first assembly campaign in 1998, I made my support for concealed carry clear and I have not changed my view.

The odd thing about this issue is that it reverses some people's usual political inclinations. Progressive people usually proclaim the rights of individuals to do whatever they want, absent a compelling state interest in keeping them from doing so. Yet these usually tolerant folk find the notion that any of their fellow citizens might desire to carry a weapon so offensive emotionally that they are willing to preempt the rights of others, irrespective of the facts.

The thing is, the facts do not support the more lurid of people's fears. They seldom do, after all, in any context. Reality is usually far less dramatic than anticipation. Minnesota has had provisions for concealed carry for many years. Nobody much noticed nor felt insecure, yet the broadening of the privilege this year has had such a dramatic emotional impact that most people believe, incorrectly, that our neighboring state has just enacted concealed carry for the first time.

Wisconsin is one of only five states that have no provision whatsoever for concealed carry. What is proposed is a limited permit process for some citizens to be able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is not a wide open door. The streets will not suddenly be flooded with people carrying concealed weapons.

The only people who will be able to get the permit will be those who pass a background check conducted by the county sheriff, take a course in the safe handling of firearms similar to that approved by the law enforcement standards board for police officers, and pay a substantial fee to the sheriff.

The sheriff of Hennepin County (which includes Minneapolis) and the sheriff of Ramsey County (which includes St. Paul), Minnesota, were both recently interviewed at length on Minnesota Public Radio. They had some very interesting, and I think encouraging, things to say about their experience with concealed carry, both under the new law and under the previous one.

First, they noted that in all the years the concealed carry law had been in existence, they were not aware of a single act of firearms violence being committed by a permit holder. I have since heard that they were mistaken and that there was one incident some years ago, but that is still a pretty outstanding record, and one that is consistent with experience throughout the country. Permit holders are not a significant source of gun violence.

Second, they expressed complete confidence that, with current technology, they are able to weed out the people who should not be given permits, and that the courts back them up when their judgment is challenged. They made it clear that the background checks they conduct are extensive and reliable.

Finally, they pointed out that the number of permit applications they were receiving was considerably less, actually about half, than what they had estimated.

If we think about this logically, rather than emotionally, this proposal is a lot less radical than most people believe it is. People already have the right to possess handguns in their homes and businesses under the Second Amendment, and it is not uncommon for them to do so. Consequently, the issuing of permits to some of these people to carry those handguns concealed will not necessarily increase the number of handguns.

People who are unconcerned about obeying the law are not deterred from carrying concealed weapons now. In fact, criminals usually carry untraceable stolen guns and would be unlikely to want to involve themselves in the permitting process, in any event. Perhaps that is why those places in America with the strictest gun control laws often have the highest rates of gun violence. As things stand now, only those of us who are determined to obey the law cannot carry concealed weapons.

These permitting laws exist in 45 of our 50 states. Based upon this extensive experience, there is no evidence that issuing permits to properly trained people, who have been carefully checked to see if there is some reason why they should not be trusted with a firearm, will increase the risk of gun violence for the rest of us. In the absence of such evidence, there is no compelling reason why such people should be denied the privilege of doing so. In America, it is not necessary to prove the opposite, that there is a compelling reason for doing so. The mere absence of a compelling reason for limiting people's liberty is enough.

The particular law that is being proposed is complex and still has some controversial elements. People will propose amendments to clean up some of the weaknesses. Their success in doing so will determine whether this bill ever becomes law.

Gary E. Sherman, D-Port Wing, Ashland (WI) Daily Press, November 5, 2003

I never saw his article supporting an upholding of the veto. Is it available?

Supporting the governor
A commentary by Gary Sherman
The Daily Press
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 25th, 2003 09:45:11 AM

Former Speaker Tom Loftus wrote one of the most interesting political memoirs in Wisconsin history, called The Art of Legislative Politics. Quite a bit of it resonates with my experience. One particular statement caught my eye. Speaker Lotus says that, when the governor is a member of your party, your role as a legislator is transformed. It becomes your priority to support the Governor and assist in putting across the Governor's program. I now find myself in that position, and the truth of Speaker Loftus' observation, and its importance to you, could not be clearer.

As a member of the minority party in my house, I have had very little opportunity to influence public policy in the last 4 years. The only influence Assembly Democrats have had has been as a result of the Democratic majority in the Senate. There was no other place to take our concerns.

Now, Democrats are in the minority in the Senate as well.

But, it is a new day in Wisconsin, and having a Governor of my own party presents opportunities that could not otherwise exist. The Governor can be a powerful enough player in the legislative process to afford members of our party the opportunity to have an important influence on public policy.

However, the only actual power that the Governor has in the legislative process is the veto power. As long as the possibility of the Governor's veto is credible, the majority must take the Governor's views into account.

In order for the Governor's veto power to be credible, everyone has to know that he has sufficient support in the legislature to sustain his veto against any vote to override. If the Governor's veto can be broken, then he is no longer powerful enough to put his legislative program across.

In other words, if the Governor is not sustained when his power is challenged, then I have no avenue available to influence public policy. In that case, I am totally powerless, and so are you.

Nobody ever understood that better than former Governor Thompson. He managed to dominate Wisconsin public policy during periods of time in which Democrats had strong majorities in both houses. He was able to do that for only one reason, and that was because Republicans in the legislature had the discipline to sustain his vetoes, whether they agreed with him or not. In 14 years, he never lost a singe veto override. After a couple of terms, people quit trying.

Republicans sustained Tommy's vetoes on bills or amendments that they themselves had voted for, and even for some that they had sponsored.

I expect to do the same.

Democrats have a sufficient number of votes to sustain the Governor, but only if we set aside personal interest and all stick together.

This will not always be easy. The Governor and I disagree on some things that we both feel very strongly about. I fully expect that there will be bills on which I am a sponsor or author that the Governor will veto. When he does, it will hurt, but I will vote to support him.

I will do that because this is not about me. It is about you. My job is to represent you in the legislature and there is no way that I can have any real effect on public policy unless the Governor's veto power is undefeatable.

Rep. Gary E. Sherman represents the 74th Assembly District.

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

This sucks! Not his constituents, not his state, not right and wrong, not morals, not ethics, but PARTY (the Rat party specifically) come first, according to this idiot.

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.