A cop writes his support of SD CCW.

A cop writes his support of SD CCW.

This is a discussion on A cop writes his support of SD CCW. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A piece from an LEO with the support I like to see for CCW. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/12...carry_prov.php Concealed carry provides protection. Friday, December 9, 2005 I ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484

    A cop writes his support of SD CCW.

    A piece from an LEO with the support I like to see for CCW.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/12...carry_prov.php

    Concealed carry provides protection.

    Friday, December 9, 2005
    I grew up in Wisconsin. I am a University of Wisconsin alum, and many of my friends and family live in Madison. I am currently a police officer in South Dakota.

    As a police officer, I may legally carry a concealed weapon when I visit my family in Madison. This is a right that should not only be afforded to police officers like myself, but all law-abiding citizens who choose to take on the extra responsibility to keep their families and their communities safe.

    In my professional experience in South Dakota, a ?shall-issue? concealed-carry state where permits are issued to anyone who can pass a background check, I have never had ? nor heard of ? any problems with a person legally carrying a concealed pistol. However, I do know of several instances where a legally possessed firearm has saved innocent lives during the commission of a violent crime.

    Concealed-carry permit holders act as first responders, as do many ordinary citizens who know CPR, first aid or how to use a fire extinguisher. Their actions are often the difference between life and death. The same holds true for concealed-carry permit holders.

    As police, we simply cannot be everywhere ? nor would the public want us to be. When most violent criminal acts, including shootings, robberies, rampages and rape, are over within minutes ? if not seconds ? the response time of police is simply not fast enough. The training individuals will receive to obtain a concealed-weapons permit under the PPA will make them qualified first responders. Like those certified in first aid, we won?t expect them to perform major surgery. But it will be adequate for stabilizing a bad situation until professionals arrive.

    Those who oppose this law will try to claim that there will be gunfights, people will look for fights and ?blood will run in the streets.? In my professional experience, and after significant research I?ve completed on concealed-carry laws in other states, this is simply not true. In fact, I have not been able to find a single state that has legalized concealed carry in the last 50 years and has turned around and re-criminalized it. In fact, I have found concealed-carry permit holders in most states are far less likely to be involved in criminal activity than other citizens.

    I do not believe I deserve special rights because I am a law enforcement officer. I am, and will always be, a citizen first. I believe there are many good members of our communities who are willing to take on extra responsibilities to keep their communities safe and to serve as first responders to stabilize dangerous situations. If they want to step up and be prepared to do their part if it is ever needed, as a police officer, I am thankful for their help.

    Adrian Alan is a University of Wisconsin alumnus and municipal patrol officer in South Dakota.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,134
    Well Written and reflects accurately most of the street level officers imho , the guys on the street dont have a media outlet like the iacp or sheriffs do , eaver notice the further off the street someone is the less pro armed citizen they are ?

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,924
    I guess I'm pretty fortunate to have a Sheriff that comes into our CCW classes and teachs the "Law" part of the class on occasion. If he dosent do it, the Prosecuting Attorney does it...proving that they arent all bad.

    Of course, this is Arkansas. Seems like most of the antigun LEO's live up north.

  4. #4
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    That officer is spot on and I am encouraged to see LE support CC laws in the states. If you look at the page that Chris linked you will see the following editorial written earlier which the officer was probably rebutting. This guy is an idiot....

    Concealed-carry law threatens order

    by Adam Lichtenheld
    Wednesday, October 19, 2005

    Last week, two state legislators finally introduced the controversial Personal Protection Act, a proposal that would allow citizens to bear a gun, knife or — as ridiculous as it sounds — a billy club in public. The bill’s drafters include every gun-lover’s hero, Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, a man with more rifles and shotguns on his office walls than the Madison police, and Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, the Assembly’s alleged hunting expert.

    Undercutting progressive gun-control initiatives, state politicians around the country have bowed to the NRA-rabid right and their backward “more guns, less crime” rhetoric in their absurd belief that hidden handguns deter crime, that everyone would be afraid to harm anyone else out of fear that a weapon is shoved down every pocket. This has spawned the passage of laws in almost every state to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Wisconsin, as one of four remaining states that has thus far rejected political conformity, is now threatening to succumb to the pressures of the gun lobby.

    While alarmists like to predict a chaotic scene reminiscent of the Wild West, there are many risks associated with allowing citizens to sport hidden handguns whose logic is more concrete than fantastic predictions of “Matrix”-style shootouts on Bascom Hill.

    In support of their legislation, Messrs. Zien and Gunderson have continually quoted a flawed study by gun-loving economist John Lott, whose linking of concealed-carry laws to lower crime rates has been frequently debunked by a multitude of esteemed scholars and pro-gun criminologists. Just as there is minimal proof that conceal and carry brings out the Clint Eastwood in every citizen, there is little evidence that the laws effectively deter would-be assailants and thieves. Rapid decreases in crime rates across the nation can be more directly associated with strict gun access laws and post-Sept. 11 security initiatives than weak provisions that allow individuals to bring their pistol to the supermarket.

    You don’t need to be a staunch anti-gun advocate to see why letting people carry guns in banks, churches, university dormitories, and the state Capitol is a fundamentally bad idea. While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes. Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare. Perhaps this is why the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association strongly opposes the Zien-Gunderson bill.

    Police, more than anybody, would know how the presence of a handgun endangers all parties, including the gun’s owner — for 12 percent of law enforcement officers killed by firearms are shot to death with their own service weapon. Guns quickly escalate a situation, and bringing one into the fold — imagine a drunken brawl or back alley mugging — only stands to make things much, much worse. You go from losing your wallet to losing your life; you go from enduring a black eye or a bloody nose to suffering from a gunshot wound.

    Proponents of the legislation especially love to claim that conceal and carry is necessary for self-defense. Yet the odds that one would use a gun on an assailant or thief are quite minimal — of the over 30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed “justifiable homicide,” and it’s well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder. The legislation, which is opposed by a majority of Wisconsin citizens and state gun owners, is supposedly intended to protect the disabled and the elderly. Yet these are the very people who would have the most difficult time obtaining the necessary gun permit, and the citizens who would be most incapable of effectively operating a firearm at all.

    In America, guns are presented as the solution to everything. Too many school shootings? Give teachers firearms. Airplane hijackings becoming a problem? Arm the pilots. Too many criminals running loose? Let citizens wield their semi-automatics and use the law at their own discretion. In a nation where gun violence remains a virtual epidemic, the very poison itself is also assumed to be the anecdote. If more guns lead to less crime, then why does the United States, with the developing world’s most lax gun laws, suffer from 93 gun deaths every day, four to five times more than any other industrialized nation? If owning a weapon makes people safer, then why does a gun in the home triple the risk of homicide? If gun accessibility is not a problem, then why do firearm fatalities remain as the second leading killer of this nation’s youth?

    Other states have bowed to our fear-driven culture and the junk science it produces, undermining rapid advancements in curtailing crime and dealing a blow to effective gun control. I would hate to see Wisconsin do the same.

    Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  5. #5
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Okay, I am encouraged again.....

    Allow conceal, carry for safety
    by Nicole Marklein
    Wednesday, September 17, 2003


    Imagine yourself passing a stranger on the street, knowing that he or she could be carrying a concealed weapon.

    If that scenario makes you feel a little uneasy, consider this one: You are walking down the same street, but now the only people that could possibly be concealing guns are criminals. This is a scenario that Wisconsin’s citizens face everyday.

    While the thought of ordinary citizens walking around with concealed weapons may seem radical, it is widely practiced across the United States. Have you ever traveled out of Wisconsin? Chances are that the states you have visited, lived in or originated from have a conceal-and-carry law on the books, whether you were conscious of it or not. In fact, Wisconsin is one of just five states that do not issue conceal-and-carry permits.

    Our state’s legislators are working hard to change that. They want to make sure that all citizens, not just lawbreakers, have the opportunity to defend themselves and their loved ones.

    At last week’s public hearing, citizens from all over the state voiced their overwhelming support for Wisconsin’s Personal Protection Act (PPA).

    This bill is designed for responsible citizens who will not risk breaking the law even to protect themselves and their families. Hopefully, they soon won’t have to. This conceal-and-carry bill will give those law-abiding citizens a means to protect themselves.

    While I realize that carrying a gun may not be for everyone, the beauty of this bill is that all citizens can reap its benefits, not just those that choose to carry a concealed weapon. Under Wisconsin’s current 130-year concealed-gun ban, only criminals carry concealed firearms. These individuals can see at a glance which victims they can overpower because they know that law-abiding citizens, specifically women, the disabled and the elderly, will not have the proper means to defend themselves. The Personal Protection Act will cause attackers to second-guess their target before assaulting a seemingly defenseless person.

    No person should have to fear for his or her safety. For the first time, violent offenders may be the ones who are afraid.

    How will the PPA ensure that conceal-and-carry permits stay out of the hands of criminals?

    There are a number of requirements that a person must meet in order to be granted a conceal-and-carry license. First, an applicant must be at least 21 years of age, a non-felon and found not to be incompetent or disabled in a way that he or she cannot safely operate a firearm. He or she cannot be drug- or alcohol-dependent, mentally ill, or have been found guilty of violent misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct or domestic abuse. In addition, each applicant must pass a background check to search for federal, state and local offenses, as well as successfully complete specified firearms training or safety courses.

    While the PPA is a broad bill that would allow citizens to protect themselves in a great many settings, certain places are exempt from this bill because of the inherently precarious environment resulting when a gun is added to the equation. Additionally, state or federal law may prohibit the carrying of a weapon in some of these locations. Prohibited conceal-and-carry places will include taverns, police stations, prisons, courthouses, jails, schools, athletic events, airports and other settings where carrying is prohibited by state or federal law.

    Some additional places have been proposed for exemption from the bill. However, by extending the exemption list, much of the PPA’s value is diminished. By exempting a broad range of settings from the bill, we also exempt citizens from defending themselves in such places.

    A few opponents of the Personal Protection Act claim that passing this measure will result in increased shootings, gun violence and crime overall — basically a return to the “Wild West.” However, these same claims have been made before passage of similar bills in other states, and, to date, zero of the 45 states with conceal-and-carry laws have repealed them. In fact, 1999 crime statistics from the FBI show that overall violent crime, homicide, robbery and aggravated assault are lower in states with instituted conceal-and-carry laws than in those that do not have such laws.

    Yes, a person’s knee-jerk reaction to this bill might be that it does not promote public safety. However, all evidence points to the converse. We’ve seen it work in 45 out of 45 states. PPA opponents base their arguments on gut feelings, not research and facts.

    For 130 years, Wisconsin citizens have been denied lawful means to protect themselves, their family and their loved ones from violent attackers. The Personal Protection Act represents an exciting opportunity for our state to increase public safety and give some power and control back to its citizens.

    Nicole Marklein (nmmarklein@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  6. #6
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Then again, maybe not, LOL!

    Conceal-and-carry not the answer
    by Sam-Omar Z. Hall
    Friday, September 19, 2003

    Imagine yourself walking down a street where everyone is carrying a concealed weapon. Now every argument, fight or domestic disturbance has the potential for massive bloodshed. Hurrah!

    In her Sept. 17 column, Nicole Marklein attempts to present guns as the cure-all for crime and other societal problems. She asks the brazen question, “Have you ever traveled out of Wisconsin?” I would ask Marklein: have you ever traveled out of the United States? Have you seen or even heard about the massive number of gun deaths we have in this country compared to others with much stricter gun laws?

    Marklein points out, as though it were a bad thing, that Wisconsin is one of only five states that does not issue conceal-and-carry permits. Oh no, the people of Wisconsin aren’t armed! What if Minnesota invades?

    As for the statement that all citizens can reap the benefits of this bill, Marklein is right. From the fist-fight participant who gets shot to the victim of now-deadly road rage, everyone can share in this bill’s warm, fuzzy glow.

    Even on page two of the very issue of the Herald in which Marklein’s column appeared, there is a report on a man who pulled out a gun after a driving incident. Are more guns really what we need in our glove boxes and pockets? What if the other driver had pulled a gun, too?

    As for the defense of elderly people, women and the disabled, there are a number of non-lethal methods for self-defense (pepper spray, tasers, etc.). Is the solution to all assaults for everyone to be constantly afraid of everyone else?

    Also, Marklein’s explanation of why criminals wouldn’t be able to get these permits is totally irrelevant. She herself states earlier in the article that criminals already have all the guns they need.

    Marklein uses some extremely suspect logic in making her next couple of points. First, she glazes over gun-control concerns and over-generalizes them into a fear of “a return to the Wild West.” A good column is supposed to take opposing viewpoints and clearly counter them. Marklein’s column simply mentions opposing arguments and then disregards them.

    She then makes the claim that since none of the other 45 similar laws have been repealed, they must be working fine. Just because the laws haven’t been repealed doesn’t mean they’re responsible for a drop in crime.

    I’m not one to spout buzzwords, but Marklein’s column has a serious problem linking correlation and causality. She states that “overall violent crime, homicide, robbery and aggravated assault are lower” in states with conceal-and-carry laws. Aside from not making sense, this claim does not hold water logically. Pointing to concealed weapons as the sole reason for this drop in crime is laughable at best. I’d also like to see the gun-death statistics in the 45 conceal-and-carry states.

    The piece concludes with a massive over-generalization and stereotype. Apparently, all we “PPA opponents base [our] arguments on gut feelings, not research and facts.” I, for one, am glad that she had the foresight and good sense to dig up some real facts.


    Sam-Omar Z. Hall is a UW freshman with an undeclared major.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  7. #7
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    21,873
    What a great article, I think I'm going to keep that one in my hip pocket to sent to some Maryland legislators when CCW (hopefully) comes up again next year.
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  8. #8
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Wow - some excellent results of some digging - I had not delved deeper. Thx for those.
    You don?t need to be a staunch anti-gun advocate to see why letting people carry guns in banks, churches, university dormitories, and the state Capitol is a fundamentally bad idea.
    Sure - like BG's will always avoid carry in such places. Right!
    Guns quickly escalate a situation, and bringing one into the fold ? imagine a drunken brawl or back alley mugging ? only stands to make things much, much worse. You go from losing your wallet to losing your life; you go from enduring a black eye or a bloody nose to suffering from a gunshot wound.
    Yeah sure - like the BG is never going to shoot if you ''comply'' - what a crock. We have seen different.

    Oh heck I could pull out so many quotes from the anti presentation of ''logic'' - but it all pretty much presupposes that BG's do not shoot unless provoked!! BG's obey the law with no-carry establishments! So it goes on.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array srfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,870
    To both Sam-Omar Z. Hall and Adam Lichtenheld I would say this: please go to a rape crisis center to explain to any victims of rape present why they should be happy they didn't have the option of carrying a firearm....after all, their attacker didn't kill them, did they? Had they had a gun, they would have been killed since they would have only been disarmed and shot with that gun that was introduced into an otherwise non-lethal situation.....I mean, Mr. Lichtenheld's statistics are the gospel truth after all....so he must be an expert.

    The island of my forefathers, Puerto Rico (PR), registered it's 700th homicide over the Thanksgiving holidays. Most are narcotics related. But, tragically, LEO's and other good guys are victimized as well.

    To Mr. "Statistic" Lichtenheld, PR's homicide rate is usually three times the U.S. rate. Yet, PR does not have a right-to-carry (RTC) law in place; it's gun licensing is slow, expensive, and complicated. You can get a target, possession, and/or concealed carry permit, but any of them is a several months long wait (at least when I got the first two types....retraction, it took over a year for me to get the possession license). You even need a permit to allow you to reload. But not to worry mis hermanos....Mr. Lichtenheld says that lack of RTC keeps you safer!

    Another issue that is constantly addressed is the use of non-lethal tools (NLT). I believe in having multiple tools, OC, powerful flashlights, batons, tasers, etc., in addition to firearms. But the anti-gun proponent will have you believe that, while a having a gun is dangerous since it can and will be taken from and then used on you, a NLT will definitively stop a criminal.

    I suppose they assume that the same criminal will find it impossible to disarm a person of a baton or OC (remember those are implements that require you be in contact or relatively short distance from your aggressor) to then use it against them; but it's a guarantee that the same criminal will consistently disarm a person of their firearm (by definition a "stand-off" weapon...or one that allows for distance) and also use it against them?

    God help us.
    USAF: Loving Our Obscene Amenities Since 1947

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Support Taco Cabana, they support our CHL effort.
    By kd5tms in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 28th, 2009, 02:18 PM
  2. Blogger writes Senator about Thune er reply and his
    By Chiller2 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 08:00 PM
  3. VT Student Writes an Interesting Article.
    By havegunjoe in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 1st, 2007, 01:14 AM
  4. Tom Clancy writes the terrorist handbook?
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 16th, 2007, 08:30 PM
  5. F.B.I. Under Clinton ~ L. Freeh Writes A Book
    By QKShooter in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 17th, 2005, 04:33 PM

Search tags for this page

30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed justifiable homicide,

,

nicole marklein

,

of the over 30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed justifiable homicide,

,

personal protection act

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors