In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Conservative values collide in feud over firearms
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Conservative values collide in feud over firearms bill
By CRAIG GILBERT
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: June 8, 2002
Washington - Amid the clamor for homeland security, here's a plan that sounds like a political cinch: Let off-duty and retired police officers carry their firearms anywhere in the country, giving antsy Americans a new, no-cost layer of protection.
Washington
Quotable
We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue.
- Bradley DeBraska,
president of the Milwaukee Police Association
If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID).
- Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner ,
(R-Wis.)
Related Coverage
FBI guidelines: Sensenbrenner, Ashcroft still at odds
A bipartisan House majority likes the idea. So do scores of law enforcement groups.
Yet it's going nowhere, thanks to one rather important opponent.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Republican from Menomonee Falls, not only objects to the measure, he won't take it up. He says his main beef has to do with states' rights, since the bill would override laws in the handful of states - including Wisconsin - that prohibit concealed weapons.
The result is an odd political tiff between Sensenbrenner and another conservative Republican who drafted the bill, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California. In interviews last week, Cunningham called Sensenbrenner "vindictive" and said his objections were "donkey manure." Sensenbrenner called Cunningham a "real pest" who "says all kinds of bad things about me."
But the standoff also shows how one conservative value (maintaining law and order) can sometimes collide with another (limiting federal power over the states), even in the security-minded climate spawned by Sept. 11.
In another recent example, two prominent conservative activists complained to President Bush on May 31 about a plan under review by the Justice Department to empower local police officers to enforce immigration violations - a federal function.
"This to me was a remarkable change in the way local police and national police would be related, in a sense nationalizing (local officers), making them agents of the federal government," said David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, a conservative lobbying organization.
While local police can enforce federal criminal offenses, Keene argued that using them to enforce federal civil violations would set an alarming precedent.
Making a case for states' rights
In the case of Cunningham's bill, Sensenbrenner is invoking federalism in a different way. Cunningham wants to exempt off-duty and retired police officers from state bans on carrying concealed handguns. Because the measure would supersede his own state's concealed weapons ban, Sensenbrenner says it "makes a decision that should properly be made by the Wisconsin Legislature." He notes that an effort to overturn that ban failed in the state Senate in March.
Cunningham claims the support of more than 80 national law enforcement groups. Some groups say they're surprised by Sensenbrenner's refusal even to hold a hearing, since the lawmaker is generally viewed as an ally.
Patchwork of firearms laws
The bill's supporters say off-duty police officers face a patchwork of state laws when they travel outside their own jurisdictions; some states allow them to carry firearms, others require them to seek permits, others simply prohibit them from carrying. Under the measure, retired officers would have to keep up their gun training to carry firearms.
"It's been a burning issue," according to Bradley DeBraska, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, who says off-duty officers worry about retaliation from criminals they've arrested. "We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue."
He said officers inevitably run afoul of state laws on vacation, whether they know it or not. DeBraska argues that local police should enjoy the same exemption from concealed weapon bans that federal agents do.
Cunningham first offered the measure years ago, saying it would protect officers from retaliation and help prevent crime. But since Sept. 11, he has added homeland security as a rationale and gained 73 new supporters on Capitol Hill.
"This fits right in with the president's homeland defense by putting more law enforcement agents on the street at no cost," Cunningham said.
Bill's growing support
There are now 264 House co-sponsors, including Wisconsin Democrat Jerry Kleczka and Republicans Paul Ryan, Mark Green and Tom Petri. Backers come from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum. A companion bill was introduced on May 8 by Sensenbrenner's counterpart in the Senate, Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.).
Stymied in the House, Cunningham has resorted to a longshot guerrilla tactic, seeking the signatures of a majority of House members to force a vote against Sensenbrenner's wishes. Rarely do lawmakers seek such a discharge petition against a committee chair in their own party. So far, 42 lawmakers have signed, but Cunningham claims that Sensenbrenner has pressured his own committee members not to.
Republican committee member Chris Cannon of Utah signed the petition but later withdrew his name. Asked why, Cannon issued a statement Friday saying he took his name off after "conversations with Chairman Sensenbrenner about his and the committee's plans to protect the rights of gun owners." He added that Sensenbrenner is "great to work with," does "very thoughtful work" and is "a constant champion of constitutional rights."
Citing safety concerns
Besides the conflict with state law - the Wisconsin statute does not exempt retired officers from the ban on concealed handguns - Sensenbrenner contends that the bill also poses a safety problem. He says an officer on duty might encounter a retired police officer with a gun with no way of knowing the armed man's identity.
"If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID)," Sensenbrenner said.
Advocates for the proposal scoff at the states' rights objection.
"The federal government has been extensively involved in firearms issues. It has told the states who can sell a gun, who can buy a gun, what guns can be sold . . . . It's not as if this is some first and amazing precedent," said Kevin Watson of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a pro-gun group that is pushing the bill.
"It's just Sensenbrenner being Sensenbrenner," said Cunningham, who points to the Judiciary chairman's support years ago for the Brady Bill. "I think he supports gun control."
"One man's keeping it from coming to the floor," Cunningham said. "If he's a man, let him at least let it come to the floor for a vote."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jun02/49847.asp
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By CRAIG GILBERT
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: June 8, 2002
Washington - Amid the clamor for homeland security, here's a plan that sounds like a political cinch: Let off-duty and retired police officers carry their firearms anywhere in the country, giving antsy Americans a new, no-cost layer of protection.
Washington
Quotable
We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue.
- Bradley DeBraska,
president of the Milwaukee Police Association
If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID).
- Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner ,
(R-Wis.)
Related Coverage
FBI guidelines: Sensenbrenner, Ashcroft still at odds
A bipartisan House majority likes the idea. So do scores of law enforcement groups.
Yet it's going nowhere, thanks to one rather important opponent.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Republican from Menomonee Falls, not only objects to the measure, he won't take it up. He says his main beef has to do with states' rights, since the bill would override laws in the handful of states - including Wisconsin - that prohibit concealed weapons.
The result is an odd political tiff between Sensenbrenner and another conservative Republican who drafted the bill, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California. In interviews last week, Cunningham called Sensenbrenner "vindictive" and said his objections were "donkey manure." Sensenbrenner called Cunningham a "real pest" who "says all kinds of bad things about me."
But the standoff also shows how one conservative value (maintaining law and order) can sometimes collide with another (limiting federal power over the states), even in the security-minded climate spawned by Sept. 11.
In another recent example, two prominent conservative activists complained to President Bush on May 31 about a plan under review by the Justice Department to empower local police officers to enforce immigration violations - a federal function.
"This to me was a remarkable change in the way local police and national police would be related, in a sense nationalizing (local officers), making them agents of the federal government," said David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, a conservative lobbying organization.
While local police can enforce federal criminal offenses, Keene argued that using them to enforce federal civil violations would set an alarming precedent.
Making a case for states' rights
In the case of Cunningham's bill, Sensenbrenner is invoking federalism in a different way. Cunningham wants to exempt off-duty and retired police officers from state bans on carrying concealed handguns. Because the measure would supersede his own state's concealed weapons ban, Sensenbrenner says it "makes a decision that should properly be made by the Wisconsin Legislature." He notes that an effort to overturn that ban failed in the state Senate in March.
Cunningham claims the support of more than 80 national law enforcement groups. Some groups say they're surprised by Sensenbrenner's refusal even to hold a hearing, since the lawmaker is generally viewed as an ally.
Patchwork of firearms laws
The bill's supporters say off-duty police officers face a patchwork of state laws when they travel outside their own jurisdictions; some states allow them to carry firearms, others require them to seek permits, others simply prohibit them from carrying. Under the measure, retired officers would have to keep up their gun training to carry firearms.
"It's been a burning issue," according to Bradley DeBraska, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, who says off-duty officers worry about retaliation from criminals they've arrested. "We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue."
He said officers inevitably run afoul of state laws on vacation, whether they know it or not. DeBraska argues that local police should enjoy the same exemption from concealed weapon bans that federal agents do.
Cunningham first offered the measure years ago, saying it would protect officers from retaliation and help prevent crime. But since Sept. 11, he has added homeland security as a rationale and gained 73 new supporters on Capitol Hill.
"This fits right in with the president's homeland defense by putting more law enforcement agents on the street at no cost," Cunningham said.
Bill's growing support
There are now 264 House co-sponsors, including Wisconsin Democrat Jerry Kleczka and Republicans Paul Ryan, Mark Green and Tom Petri. Backers come from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum. A companion bill was introduced on May 8 by Sensenbrenner's counterpart in the Senate, Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.).
Stymied in the House, Cunningham has resorted to a longshot guerrilla tactic, seeking the signatures of a majority of House members to force a vote against Sensenbrenner's wishes. Rarely do lawmakers seek such a discharge petition against a committee chair in their own party. So far, 42 lawmakers have signed, but Cunningham claims that Sensenbrenner has pressured his own committee members not to.
Republican committee member Chris Cannon of Utah signed the petition but later withdrew his name. Asked why, Cannon issued a statement Friday saying he took his name off after "conversations with Chairman Sensenbrenner about his and the committee's plans to protect the rights of gun owners." He added that Sensenbrenner is "great to work with," does "very thoughtful work" and is "a constant champion of constitutional rights."
Citing safety concerns
Besides the conflict with state law - the Wisconsin statute does not exempt retired officers from the ban on concealed handguns - Sensenbrenner contends that the bill also poses a safety problem. He says an officer on duty might encounter a retired police officer with a gun with no way of knowing the armed man's identity.
"If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID)," Sensenbrenner said.
Advocates for the proposal scoff at the states' rights objection.
"The federal government has been extensively involved in firearms issues. It has told the states who can sell a gun, who can buy a gun, what guns can be sold . . . . It's not as if this is some first and amazing precedent," said Kevin Watson of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a pro-gun group that is pushing the bill.
"It's just Sensenbrenner being Sensenbrenner," said Cunningham, who points to the Judiciary chairman's support years ago for the Brady Bill. "I think he supports gun control."
"One man's keeping it from coming to the floor," Cunningham said. "If he's a man, let him at least let it come to the floor for a vote."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jun02/49847.asp
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By CRAIG GILBERT
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: June 8, 2002
Washington - Amid the clamor for homeland security, here's a plan that sounds like a political cinch: Let off-duty and retired police officers carry their firearms anywhere in the country, giving antsy Americans a new, no-cost layer of protection.
Washington
Quotable
We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue.
- Bradley DeBraska,
president of the Milwaukee Police Association
If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID).
- Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner ,
(R-Wis.)
Related Coverage
FBI guidelines: Sensenbrenner, Ashcroft still at odds
A bipartisan House majority likes the idea. So do scores of law enforcement groups.
Yet it's going nowhere, thanks to one rather important opponent.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Republican from Menomonee Falls, not only objects to the measure, he won't take it up. He says his main beef has to do with states' rights, since the bill would override laws in the handful of states - including Wisconsin - that prohibit concealed weapons.
The result is an odd political tiff between Sensenbrenner and another conservative Republican who drafted the bill, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California. In interviews last week, Cunningham called Sensenbrenner "vindictive" and said his objections were "donkey manure." Sensenbrenner called Cunningham a "real pest" who "says all kinds of bad things about me."
But the standoff also shows how one conservative value (maintaining law and order) can sometimes collide with another (limiting federal power over the states), even in the security-minded climate spawned by Sept. 11.
In another recent example, two prominent conservative activists complained to President Bush on May 31 about a plan under review by the Justice Department to empower local police officers to enforce immigration violations - a federal function.
"This to me was a remarkable change in the way local police and national police would be related, in a sense nationalizing (local officers), making them agents of the federal government," said David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, a conservative lobbying organization.
While local police can enforce federal criminal offenses, Keene argued that using them to enforce federal civil violations would set an alarming precedent.
Making a case for states' rights
In the case of Cunningham's bill, Sensenbrenner is invoking federalism in a different way. Cunningham wants to exempt off-duty and retired police officers from state bans on carrying concealed handguns. Because the measure would supersede his own state's concealed weapons ban, Sensenbrenner says it "makes a decision that should properly be made by the Wisconsin Legislature." He notes that an effort to overturn that ban failed in the state Senate in March.
Cunningham claims the support of more than 80 national law enforcement groups. Some groups say they're surprised by Sensenbrenner's refusal even to hold a hearing, since the lawmaker is generally viewed as an ally.
Patchwork of firearms laws
The bill's supporters say off-duty police officers face a patchwork of state laws when they travel outside their own jurisdictions; some states allow them to carry firearms, others require them to seek permits, others simply prohibit them from carrying. Under the measure, retired officers would have to keep up their gun training to carry firearms.
"It's been a burning issue," according to Bradley DeBraska, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, who says off-duty officers worry about retaliation from criminals they've arrested. "We basically have 50 different state laws that regulate police officers and concealment when we cross state lines, and we simply don't know them all. We don't have a clue."
He said officers inevitably run afoul of state laws on vacation, whether they know it or not. DeBraska argues that local police should enjoy the same exemption from concealed weapon bans that federal agents do.
Cunningham first offered the measure years ago, saying it would protect officers from retaliation and help prevent crime. But since Sept. 11, he has added homeland security as a rationale and gained 73 new supporters on Capitol Hill.
"This fits right in with the president's homeland defense by putting more law enforcement agents on the street at no cost," Cunningham said.
Bill's growing support
There are now 264 House co-sponsors, including Wisconsin Democrat Jerry Kleczka and Republicans Paul Ryan, Mark Green and Tom Petri. Backers come from both parties and both ends of the political spectrum. A companion bill was introduced on May 8 by Sensenbrenner's counterpart in the Senate, Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.).
Stymied in the House, Cunningham has resorted to a longshot guerrilla tactic, seeking the signatures of a majority of House members to force a vote against Sensenbrenner's wishes. Rarely do lawmakers seek such a discharge petition against a committee chair in their own party. So far, 42 lawmakers have signed, but Cunningham claims that Sensenbrenner has pressured his own committee members not to.
Republican committee member Chris Cannon of Utah signed the petition but later withdrew his name. Asked why, Cannon issued a statement Friday saying he took his name off after "conversations with Chairman Sensenbrenner about his and the committee's plans to protect the rights of gun owners." He added that Sensenbrenner is "great to work with," does "very thoughtful work" and is "a constant champion of constitutional rights."
Citing safety concerns
Besides the conflict with state law - the Wisconsin statute does not exempt retired officers from the ban on concealed handguns - Sensenbrenner contends that the bill also poses a safety problem. He says an officer on duty might encounter a retired police officer with a gun with no way of knowing the armed man's identity.
"If I were a Wisconsin police officer, I wouldn't want to have somebody I was suspecting of carrying a gun fumbling around in his pockets (for an ID)," Sensenbrenner said.
Advocates for the proposal scoff at the states' rights objection.
"The federal government has been extensively involved in firearms issues. It has told the states who can sell a gun, who can buy a gun, what guns can be sold . . . . It's not as if this is some first and amazing precedent," said Kevin Watson of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a pro-gun group that is pushing the bill.
"It's just Sensenbrenner being Sensenbrenner," said Cunningham, who points to the Judiciary chairman's support years ago for the Brady Bill. "I think he supports gun control."
"One man's keeping it from coming to the floor," Cunningham said. "If he's a man, let him at least let it come to the floor for a vote."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jun02/49847.asp
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
This is an issue that should be decided by the state.
Just because the federal government is nowe "exstensively involved in firearm issues" as Kevin Watson stated, that does not make it constitutional.The federal government should not bei involved with guns, and just because they have decided they will be involved with guns, does not mean they have the authority to do so.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison