Posted on 10/06/2005 6:41:57 PM PDT by jdege
Conceal carry laws should not include privacy provisions
By Susan MacLaughlin
When my step-dad died last spring, my family began a long process of clearing out his personal possessions. Some we gave to charity, and others, including family heirlooms, were dispersed among his children, siblings and nieces and nephews.
As we culled through his closet, I was shocked to learn that my family owned a gun. I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.
What floored me was when my mom nonchalantly asked me to take the gun out to my uncle's truck. I had never touched a gun before.
However, not wanting to make waves, I did it. And, despite being in its case, in poor repair and most importantly unloaded, I somehow worried that I'd shoot myself. I was scared throughout the minute-long walk outside to the driveway.
I never want to touch a gun again.
And I don't know if I'd want a gun in my house again, either.
Last Thursday, state Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, and state Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, introduced legislation that would allow people to carry concealed weapons. Zien also championed a similar bill two years ago that was vetoed by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle.
The current piece of legislation makes me nervous. I don't like the idea of not knowing if Joe Schmo walking down the street is packing or not.
What's worse is that in its current form, the legislation states this vital information about who is carrying a concealed weapon should be kept totally private - even from law enforcement.
This would mean that in situations like routine traffic stops, officers would not be able to check to see if the vehicle's owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Despite what the National Rifle Association says, it is in fact guns, not people alone, that kill other people. Those hired to keep us safe have a right to expect a certain degree of protection as well. We owe it to our officers to give them information about potentially dangerous situations, especially if we have it right at our fingertips.
If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon. And really, would you blame them?
Further, the public has a right to know who is and is not carrying a concealed weapon.
Zien and Gunderson said in a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article it wouldn't be fair to those choosing to conceal weapons, because it would make them targets in criminal investigations, even if they didn't have a reason to suspect them.
You know what? Tough. If people feel the need to conceal weapons, they should expect some consequences. And maybe being questioned now and then will be one of those consequences. If they don't commit crimes, they should have little to worry about.
When we're talking about something as serious as guns - which can take a life in an instant - a free flow of information is imperative.
I understand guns are a necessary part of life. People use them to hunt. Police officers and the men and women in the armed services use them for protection. I understand the Bill of Rights guarantees we all have the right to bear arms.
I don't understand letting anybody who jumps through small hoops walk through the streets with a gun in their back pocket.
I certainly don't understand not giving the public and the police fair warning. If someone holds the power to surprise me and take my life in a matter of seconds, I deserve the right to at least know they have that power.
If people are given the choice to conceal and carry weapons, the rest of us should be given the opportunity to have an informed choice on weather or not to associate with them.
MacLaughlin is a senior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. Mac Mouths Off is a weekly column that appears every Thursday.
There is so much other drivel in this article that I would love to take to task - but I imagine I would be preaching to the choir.
Would like to ask her though, if she thinks she would know which bad guys are armed through her anti-privacy?
I can't help but laugh! Ask the "journalism major" how she feels about protecting source confidentiality and whether she's willing to give that up. Or that she can only print what the Ministry of Information tells her. Oh she'd HOWL about her precious First Amendment. The Second Amendment to her don't mean squat...
That was an excellent analysis of this woman's truly unfortunate psychological situation.
There is another thing that I find interesting...her completely irrational hoplophobia prevented her from ensuring that the firearm was indeed unloaded. She took the word of another person before nervously walking out to the truck. If she was that incapacitated by the presence of the sidearm, she should have asked another person to handle transport duties while she had a cup of herbal tea and telephoned her therapist.
Your categorization of Susan MacLaughlin as a neurotic sociopath is very accurate.
~ Blue Jays ~
OK, it's getting kinda late anyway, we're on eastern time. Probably MI will shake down in time, we're a recent shall issue state and most cops here just are not used to relativly large numbers of CCWs, and are not yet comfortable around holders
Does our military carry weapons to protect themselves? I thought it was to kill enemies.
My god, how does this girl bring herself to sit on the toilet knowing she could fall off and spill her brains on the tile floor of her bathroom.
***BOO***
There goes your shadow little girl.
Bump for later read.
If she can't carry a gone for one minute, should she really be allowed to operate an automobile?
Ermmmm... no one said you had to. And thanks for letting us know ahead of time!
That's why she should display a "No guns in this house" sticker prominently on her front door.
Well, that puts her in a little too much peril, doesn't it, glorgau? The law must read that she has to have a large lawn sign, too. Not to mention the lapel button and the forehead-tattoo. Get the message out there!
Ah ... one of life's little mysteries solved.
Here in Virginia we are not required to notify a police officer if we are carrying. If the interface with the officer involves a traffic stop, the information that you may be legally carrying will show up when they run your tags. Most of the time they are pretty cool about the whole thing and will let you off with a warning. Virginia is a pretty gun friendly state.
Perhaps she's just taken Gun Rule *1 to heart.
Despite what the National Rifle Association says, it is in fact guns, not people alone, that kill other people.
If officers don't know who has a gun or not, they will likely have to treat everyone as if they are carrying a dangerous weapon. And really, would you blame them?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What an idiot. The line from NRA is guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Does this writer beleve that an under cover cop announces his two CCW weapons when they come in contact with a uniformed officer.
this guy is a lunny. Paranoid as they come.
Right. There is no such thing as an unloaded gun until you personally check everything everything. My point, I guess, is that far too many people think that the gun can kill you, when it's the idiot holding the gun who'll do the deed. A gun is not an act of nature.... ;-)
I agree that Police should have all the usefull information they can get, I just don't know why you think CCW status is useful info for the police to have.
If they see someone has a CCW are they (1) supposed to be more relaxed knowing it is a good guy they are dealing with, or (2) are they supposed to think "Oh no, I better watch out he might have a gun."
Only (1) is logical (statistically). Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not implying (2).
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.