Nicolekathman.files.wordpress.com



Conceal and Carry: A Closer LookNicole Kathman, Lauren Ketzler, Ben Voss, Austen KellerThe issue of allowing a citizen to carry a concealed weapon or not has always been controversial in the United States. For clarification, conceal and carry is the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on or near you. Recently, with Wisconsin becoming the 49th state to pass the bill, the concealed carry debate has resurfaced in the state. In order to provide citizens with enough background knowledge to make an informed decision, one needs to know what the bill states, how it is being implemented in Wisconsin as well as other states, and the general reasons to support or oppose it. On July 8, 2011, Act 35 was signed into law, but it did not actually take effect until November 1, 2011. Act 35 is the Wisconsin concealed carry legislation. It makes it legal to carry a concealed weapon, as long as you have a permit. In order to be eligible for a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit, the applicant must be a resident of Wisconsin 21 years of age or older; not be prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law; not have been ordered as a condition of bail or release in a criminal case from possessing a dangerous weapon; and finally have provided proof of the firearms training required for a license (SB93 Act 35). Wisconsin residents could apply as soon as November 1, 2011. Applications must be submitted to the Department of Justice through the mail as well as in person. The permit itself is thirty-seven dollars, and the applicant must submit an additional thirteen dollars for a background check. The application asks for the applicant’s name, address, date of birth, Wisconsin state identification number, race, sex, height, and eye color. The application also includes various statements at the bottom that summarizes when applicants are ineligible, where weapons are not allowed, and a notification that those who answer questions falsely or submit fraud documents will be prosecuted. Then the applicant must sign to state they understand the statements (SB93 Act 35). Included on the form will also be asked a series of questions about their eligibility to possess firearms. Once the application is approved and the license is obtained, the CCW license is valid for five years from the date issued on the license. If one loses their license, it is possible to get a replacement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for twelve dollars (SB93 Act 35). In order to obtain the CCW license, the applicant must go through some sort of training. The training requirement can be fulfilled by many different means from simply a certified firearms safety course to the Department of Natural Resource’s hunter education program or one similar. Additionally, law enforcement can submit their application using training required for the job. If any of these classes are used to fulfill the training requirement, the applicant must include a document from the instructor as proof that they completed the course. United States armed forces training does count; however, the applicant will still need documentation to prove that the training has been completed (SB93 Act 35). Once a permit is received, a licensee has limits to the type of weapon he or she is allowed to carry. In the bill, “weapon” is defined as a handgun, an electric weapon, a knife other than a switchblade, and a billy club (SB93 Act 35). Also, licenses should be carried with a person at all times. It is illegal to carry a weapon in any type of police or Department of Justice building, correctional institutes, mental health facilities, courthouses, airports, and school grounds (SB93 Act 35). Private businesses have the right to ban concealed carry, but it must be posted somewhere visible to patrons. Once a piece of legislation is passed and put into law it, it needs to be implemented. Implementation is simply putting a law into action. Often outlined and stated in the piece of legislation is which individuals or agencies are ultimately responsible for making it happen. In the case of the Conceal and Carry law of Wisconsin much of this responsibility was given to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Spokesman Bill Cosh states, “The Department of Justice has been given significant responsibility to implement this bill and we will begin working hard to put ourselves in position to begin issuing permits as soon as the law allows” (Stein). A frequently answered questions document posted on the Department of Justice’s website outlines much of what the department is in charge of. Responsibilities include: developing, processing and approving applications, issuing licenses, warning holders of renewal time, and dealing with appeals (Concealed Carry Law).An important part of implementation for public administrators in general is their responsibilities are regulated by rules. In our case example of the newly enacted Conceal and Carry Law in Wisconsin the DOJ has certain restrictions that it must follow. For example although given the responsibility of enacting the license fee, it is not to exceed 50 dollars in total and the renewal fee is not to be over 12 (Concealed Carry Law). Additionally, even though it is the job of the Department of Justice to approve the applications, they cannot just grant permits to anyone they wish, they law must be followed both that of the state and federal regulations (Concealed Carry Law). In other aspects the Department of Justice was open to choose how to implement. The law determines that the DOJ is to develop the application not just to simply distribute something already made. They also were given choice in deciding what training is acceptable in qualifying for a license. Since this governmental agency has so much influence and control in the execution of this law, the Department of Justice established its own rules in terms of what it is responsible for enacting. Afterwards, with a signature they were approved by the governor. The rules that were established are emergency rules or in other words they are temporary and are valid for only 150 days with permanent rules to come next year (Marley). In this case government officials did not seem too pleased with the temporary rules but with the short amount of time between signing the law in July to the beginning of enactment in November there was not too much lag time. It is almost as if these rules were rushed to be passed as shown in this statement by a Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie, "Given the short timeline between the promulgation of the rules by the Department of Justice and the implementation of the concealed carry law, we have little choice but to approve the emergency rules"?(Marley). This brings up an issue that comes up many times in implementation. Often, not enough time is given between passing the law and the time that public administrators must enforce it. It becomes an issue of being timely or efficient versus being effective in terms of getting desired results. In many cases the two do not come together so administrators must choose. Complete implementation is not something that happens instantly but instead takes time. As with the Conceal and Carry Law despite the fact that the law started November 1st residents of Wisconsin were not carrying around concealed weapons. Rather this was the date that the applications were available. Due to the time to approve applications and print licenses residents of states that had been approved for reciprocity such as Minnesota and Iowa were allowed to carry in Wisconsin before its own residents (Bloom). Residents did not delay as well as state workers because by 9 a.m. 83,000 applications were downloaded and by later in the afternoon of the first day 85 permits had already been printed (Jones). Stated in the law the agency has 45 days to process initial submissions sent in before the end of November and after those, 21 days (Bloom). Printing permits is fast being that the machine used can spit out up to 1,500 per hour but approving applications is what has increased the work load (Jones).In order to accommodate for this increased work load for this department changes had to be made in terms of employment. In fact, Dave Zibloski, deputy administrator in the Divison of Law Enforcements Services estimates that 200,000 applications will be submitted in the first few months (Jones). Approving applications is a very time consuming and labor intensive being that each application must be individually looked over says Dave Zibolski, the deputy administrator in the Division of Law Enforcement Services (Jones). To compensate for this the agency under the law was authorized to hire 11 new hires, 10 that will be working for only 6 months costing the state $236,700 (“Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit”). Even with the new employees administrators have struggled to keep up. Brian O’Keefe, administrator of DOJ's Law Enforcement Services Division reveals that the DOJ of Justice has had to go to other agencies for assistance (“Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit”). Again an issue of efficiency versus effectiveness comes into the picture. In this situation the agency has chosen to be more effective. The Department of Justice has requested another 1.5 million dollars for 14.5 new employees that would handle applications (“Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit”). The role that the police play in enforcing this law also costs money. Within two years it is estimated that it will cost three million dollars for the additional staffing and building a database (Stein). This database will assist police by giving them the ability to see if the permits are valid and investigate in cases of lying. It is not to be used by police to routinely check in a situation like pulling someone over and it will not be available to the public (Stein).Just as many individuals are involved in implementing; many others in the public are seeking to make guns not allowed. Local legislators such as the Superior City council have passed ordinances to allow public buildings to disallow carrying weapons (Nelson). Earlier in November Onalaska was awaiting the approval of an ordinance that would ban weapons in city buildings (Bloom). Local government ordinances are not the only way to prevent concealed weapons in facilities. Under those such as businesses and universities have special privileges to take action but it takes enforcement by individuals. In order to show a certain building does not permit concealed weapons signage must be posted on entrances (Concealed Carry Memorandum and FAQs). The signage has to be at least five by seven inches. Weeks before November signs were put on the entrances of dormitories at the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse. Lambeau Field officials who wanted to keep in place their ban on weapons, placed signs before the first Packer’s game in November to be in accordance with the law (Morell). Even with the posting of signs those who wish to ban concealed weapons have no control over weapons kept in cars parked there even in university parking lots. (Concealed Carry Memorandum and FAQs).As shown in this case example modification and evaluation of the legislation begins as soon as the law does. Officially the law started November 1st and already by November 7th changes were being made. The Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) approved of changes to be made to the application regarding training requirements. There are no longer requirements to include: the number of hours training, where the training was, instructor information and the instructor’s signature (Concealed Carry Law). It is still necessary to have completed training but by taking away these requirements it has turned into like a honor system, possibly making it easy to slip by untrained. Additionally it has caused even inefficiency within the department because those that were rejected for not providing sufficient information about training can be resubmitted (Concealed Carry Law). If the rules would have been in place right away the Department of Justice would not have to be using its resources to review applications for the same individuals twice. Wisconsin is only one of 49 states that have permitted the concealed carry of weapons with Illinois being the only state that does not. As far as the rest of the United States, each state has their own specific policies regarding conceal and carry (Aikens and Slider). States are broken down into four distinct categories of allowance. The first, and least restricting are states that are considered “unrestricted”. In a state with an unrestricted conceal and carry law policy, individuals are not required to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. States that are presently considered unrestricted are: Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming. In some unrestricted states like Arizona and Alaska, the state issues permits on a “shall issue” basis for citizens of those states who wish to visit other states and keep their right to conceal and carry (Aikens and Slider). Even in states that are unrestricted, there are still limits in certain areas where you cannot carry a concealed weapon. The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act is an example of legislation enacted to prevent any guns from entering school zones.The second, and most common of the state conceal and carry laws, is known as “shall issue”. States that are considered shall issue include: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Minnesota, and now Wisconsin just to name a few. Overall there are a total of thirty-eight states that consider themselves shall issue. Shall issue states not only require you to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, they also have additional requirements needed. Some requirements may include: residency, minimum age, background check, and a safety class. Each state is not the same however; these requirements may change from state to state (CCW).There are also states that are considered “may issue” states. May issue states are not as common as shall issue states being that there are only ten states that are considered “may issue.” Alabama, Delaware, California, New York and Hawaii are all considered may issue states. There is one distinct difference between may issue states and shall issue states. While may issue states require you to obtain a permit like in shall issue states, may issue states give the local authorities discretion into granting these permits. This usually comes down to meeting certain criteria laid forth by police departments in these local jurisdictions.The final, and most restricted, type of conceal and carry law are called “no issue” states. In this case, there is only one state currently considered no issue, and that state is Illinois. No issue jurisdiction means that the state does not allow any of its citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Illinois is now the only state that does not have any type of conceal and carry law now that Wisconsin became the forty-ninth state to become a conceal and carry state. Illinois tried to pass legislation as recently as this year that would of allowed its citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon on a shall issue basis. The Bill however did not pass through the Illinois Legislature and thus effectively keeping Illinois the only state to not allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon (Aikens and Slider).Gun laws, and specifically conceal and carry laws, have been and always will be one of the most contentious issues in the United States. The question we need to ask ourselves about these issues is: where do we as a society draw the line when it comes to protecting yourself along with our loved ones? The answer to this questions is dependent on who is asked being that there are many different opinions. Many individuals have tried to provide sufficient evidence for their beliefs.Proponents of the Conceal and Carry law say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. These people cite the?2nd Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and?argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms (Concealed Guns). Criminals will carry guns or concealed weapons whether they are legal or not.The arguments against the Conceal and Carry law are pretty standard. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street not more (Concealed Guns).Each claim for or against the law can be turned around to support the other side. One pro is that criminals are less likely to attack someone that they feel is armed. However, this can be spun to the negative: criminals are more likely to arm themselves if they feel like everyone else is armed. Another argument used is that victims are less likely to be injured during an attack. The opposition to this could reason that the risk of unintended shootings would increase; therefore, someone is more likely to be injured during an attack or other situations (Concealed Guns). Going along with this argument, proponents would claim that public safety would increase because people would be able to protect themselves when the government cannot guarantee their protection. Opponents would argue that concealed carry would cause a threat to public safety because the chances of a dispute escalating and turning violent increases with the law, people with guns are often inadequately trained, and citizens are needlessly intimidated by people with a concealed weapon (Concealed Guns).In 2000, John Lott did a study that found that “shall-issue” laws reduce the risk of violent crimes (Concealed Guns). He found his data by analyzing the instances of homicides, aggravated assaults, rapes, and robberies of all 3054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1994 (An Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws). This is one of the main arguments for the new law. However, two studies came out that law contradicts this claim. These studies conclude that “shall-issue” laws increase the rates of violent crimes. David McDowall, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema published a peer reviewed study in 1995 in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In this study, he studied Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, Jackson, and Portland and found that after “shall-issue” laws were enacted, gun homicide rates increased (McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema 193). Then, in 2009, Professors Ian Ayres and John Donohue from Yale analyzed the instances of homicides, aggravated assaults, rapes, and robberies of all 3054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 2006. They found that the instances of these crimes actually increased after examining a greater number of years in their study (Aryes and Donohue 238). After reading more into the studies, the one used as a proponent for the law is not valid and would be shot down if presented in a debate of the law.After examining all of these aspects of the law, one is able to make an informed decision about whether or not they support the enactment of the law in the state of Wisconsin. It is important to not jump to conclusions without understanding what the outcomes of the bill are and the manner in which the officials will carry out the law. It is also beneficial for one to recognize what other options are available as shown in the legislation and implementation in other states. Finally, it is vital that one has sufficient evidence to support their opinion and is aware of the view of the opposition.Annotated BibliographyAikens, Steve, and Gary Slider. “Arizona.” Handgunlaws.us. PC Solutions Inc. Web. 04 Dec. 2011 I used handgunlaws.us to answer many of my specific questions regarding individual state gun law policies. I found the website particularly helpful when searching for each states status as either: no issue, shall issue, may issue, or unrestricted. I used the “Arizona” page specifically to help me understand better this states stance on its “unrestricted” conceal and carry policy for our presentation.An Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of Chicago, 1998. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. This is an interview that was done by the University of Chicago with John Lott about his study that stated that more guns decrease crime. The interviewer asked questions about children, women, escalating arguments, and other countries. The interviewer also asked about the basis of his numbers, which is what I used the interview for. It helped me understand about the validity of the study.Aryes, Ian and John Donohue. “More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977 – 2006.” Econ Journal Watch 6.2 (2009): 218-238. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. This is a website that has an abstract and a full version of the peer-reviewed journal that Ian Aryes and John Donohue from Yale wrote about whether or not more guns really decreases crime or not. I read the abstract which told me that they disproved the study by John Lott. That lead me to read the full version of the journal article where I was able to understand the ways in which they got their information and how exactly it disproved the other study.Bloom, Betsy. “Conceal carry Law will start slow in Wisconsin.” La Crosse Tribune. 30 Oct. 2011. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 2 Dec. 2011. Bloom gives details about the turnaround for the Conceal and Carry application available to the public the first of November. She points out that those with permits in other states will actually be able to carry in Wisconsin before residents. Additionally, she receives input for the mayor of Onalaska, Mike Giese. This article assisted me in discussing the first date of the law being effective. “(CCW) U.S. State Carry Concealed Weapon Laws.”Www., 15 Apr. 2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. This was another helpful website in gathering information on each individual states laws concerning their conceal and carry laws. This website had a useful map that we used in our presentation showing, in contrasting colors, which states had which policies. This website is where I obtained most of my information from, it was very helpful.Concealed Carry Law. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.After the recent enactment of the Conceal and Carry Law in Wisconsin the state agency put out a website as a resource for the general public. This site is very easy to navigate and find reliable, clear information about the law. On this website one can find the application, recent updates, and frequently asked questions answered about the conditions of the law. Being developed by the implementers themselves this is a great source to go to concerning the Conceal and Carry Law and I used it to understand the main role of the Department of Justice.Concealed Carry Memorandum and FAQs. Board of Regents - University of Wisconsin System, 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.In response to many questions about what the law means for Wisconsin universities the General Counsel published the answers to frequently asked questions regarding universities on its website. Many questions are addressed with clear concise answers. Furthermore contact information for officials is provided to address additional questions to. This website helps me to explain the situation for universities.Concealed Guns. , 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. This website was created recently because of the conceal and carry law that is now implemented in 49 states. It gives a background of the law, where it has been implemented, and how it has been working there. Also, this website gives different facts about the law. I used this website for the pros and cons of the law. It has an entire section with a list of pros and cons and where the author got the fact. From there, I was able to look up more information on the studies that this website provided.Jones, Meg. “Justice Department inundated with concealed carry application.” JSOnline. Journal Sentinel, 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.Jones gives a different perspective on the demand for the Conceal and Carry permits with data with what happened the very first day in effect. Numbers such as the amount of hits on the Department of Justice website, submitted and printed are included in this article. It also elaborates on the overall increased expected workload for the department. The article wraps up by talking of the protest against the new legislation. The article even quotes Van Hollen the attorney general. The article is very informative and providing me information about how the department has been impacted.Marley,Patrick. “Walker OKs 4 hours' training for concealed carry permit.” JSOnline. Journal Sentinel, 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.Marley reports on the event of Wisconsin’s governor Scott Walker approving the emergency rules for the recently passed Conceal and Carry Law in the state. It is pointed out that the governor would not like to require a four hour training requirement. The conditions of these temporary rules are well explained and testimonies from both a spokesman of the governor and a spokeswoman of the attorney general are included. Marley covers the topic well and I used to discuss the emergency rules.McCoy, Luke. “Wisconsin Concealed Carry Now Legal.” , 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.Even though the new Wisconsin conceal and carry law was not exactly my part in our presentation, I did find the information in this article useful in the sense that I found out which other states (which was my part in the group) were now like Wisconsin in being a shall issue state. The article also gave me insight into the application process needed to obtain a permit, as well as some of the requirements needed to do so.McDowall, David, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema. “Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86.1 (1995): 193. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.This is from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and is the study that David McDowall, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema did in 1995 to look at the instances of violent crimes after the conceal and carry law was implemented. I used this to look at the “study design and data” section of the study in order to understand where these researchers were getting their information. After reading through this study, I was able to compare the different studies to each other.Morell, Alex. “Lambeau Field ban on weapons to continue after concealed carry takes effect.” Green Bay Press Gazette. , 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.This article featured in the Green Bay Press Gazette by Morell mentions that even with the enactment of the new Conceal and Carry Law, Lambeau Field will continue with its’ current policy of now allowing any weapons. The article seems very trustworthy coming from a reliable source with lots of detail. This article provided me with a specific example of how businesses are banning weapons on their premises.Nelson, Shelley. “Local panels modify weapons laws.” The Telegram. 19 Oct. 2011. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.Nelson speaks of a recent ordinance allowing controlling weapons in public buildings that was enacted by the Superior City Council regarding the Conceal and Carry Law. She also touches on the plans of the Douglas County Board to enact something similar for the entire county. To ensure accurate information she included thoughts from both a city and county administrators that are involved and I used it to show specific examples of cities passing its own rules concerning the law.SB93 Act 35. (2011) This is the concealed carry law. It allows individuals to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. The bill goes into detail about how to obtain a permit, who can obtain a permit, and where you can use it.Stein, Jason. “Assembly passes concealed carry bill; sends it to Walker.” JSOnline. Journal Sentinel, 21 June 2011. Web. 2 Dec 2011.Stein reports the recent voting on a piece of legislation that would permit citizens of Wisconsin to apply for a permit to carry around a concealed weapon. He goes further into detail by adding information such as the Department of Justice’s responsibility and viewpoints of legislators from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Finally, Stein describes limitation on the law including where guns will not be allowed and how businesses can prevent people from carrying in their facility by posting signs. Stein quotes many directly involved with the legislation of this law and depicts information from reliable resources making this article top notch especially in giving specific details of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. “Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit.” . Chicago Tribune, 24 Nov. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.This Chicago Tribune article discusses the Department of Justice’s situation with Conceal and Carry permits in the first month of implementation. The article is very detailed and gives a clear perspective of how this state agency has been affected with the large number of applications and phone calls. It further explains how the department has temporarily hired more individuals but yet that is not enough being that there is a new proposal to create additional positions. From store owners to state administrators the article shows the overall effects of the law and it was very beneficial in writing about how the law has affected this department. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download