Correcting the record on concealed carry

Racine Alderman Pete Karas read this editorial by the Janesville Gazette the other day, and decided the Gazette needed to get its facts straight before it promotes concealed weapons as a way to “ward off criminals” instead of what they really are: a danger to the community.

So he wrote a letter to the editor:

To the Editor:

I read with dismay your editorial entitled, “Residents deserve the right to carry guns,” which appeared in the Janesville Gazette on October 23. Although I disagree with your position on this issue – I find it hard to believe that more guns on the street will make our neighborhoods safer – I was most shocked at the inaccuracy of what your editorial presented as fact.

First, you mention a few of the limited places that the proposed concealed weapons bill will not allow people to carry concealed weapons. You neglected to mention the exceptions. The bill clearly states that one would be able to carry weapons in a school zone if just “passing through,” in taverns if they derive over half of their revenue from food sales, at sporting events that are not school or professional (a little league game is allowed,) or in Municipal Buildings unless there are metal detectors installed.

The second misstatement of fact is your statement that posting a notice will prevent permit holders from bringing concealed weapons into shopping malls or other private businesses. While it is correct that to not allow weapons in a store or other private business a sign must be posted, your editorial failed to mention that visitors to the inside of a mall, store or private business must be “personally and orally” notified of the prohibition upon entry. In addition, this bill does not allow any individual or business owner to prohibit the carrying of guns on the outdoor portion of their property, e.g. in yards, parking lots and outdoor markets. I find this an incredibly unreasonable portion of the proposed law, usurping the property rights of a business owner.

The third fallacy deals with your contention that if the legislature does not pass a concealed carry law, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will chip away at the current concealed carry prohibition. This speculation, no doubt, comes from an opinion written by one justice in a decision last year which allowed people to carry weapons in their home or personal business and has widely been quoted by the authors of this bill. I suggest the entire decision and opinion be read, as it will be easily interpreted otherwise.

Fourth, the editorial mentions that if one is convicted of domestic abuse, a violent misdemeanor, a felony, or drunken driving they will not be allowed a permit. What you fail to mention, once again, are the exceptions. For example, it must be two drunken driving convictions within the preceding three years to be denied a permit and if the violent misdemeanor is three years old, the person may obtain a permit. Furthermore, virtually none of the prohibitions for people to carry a concealed weapon apply to out of state licensees who will also be allowed to carry guns in Wisconsin.

I would suggest that before your Editorial Board takes another stand on such an important issue, they actually read and research the bill that they are writing about. I believe that when even the supporters of the concept of carrying concealed weapons learn of the actual content of the bill, most will agree as I do, that this bill, as written, is unsafe policy for the people and businesses of Wisconsin.

Alderman Pete Karas
Racine, Wisconsin

Hat tip: Gun Guys.