from Sen. Zien's office
Dear PPA supporter,
We're in danger of losing the 66th vote in the Assembly needed to override the Governor's impending veto of the Personal Protection Act. PPA opponents are weighing in heavily on 2 particular Assembly Democrats in an effort to get them to flip-flop and vote against people who wish to defend themselves from violent crime. These two Assembly Democrats have always been WITH US in the past and have never voted against PPA, so we need them to STAY WITH US in the override.
We have to encourage these two Democrats to STAND FIRM and DON'T LISTEN TO THE LIES spread by the anti-self-defense forces; ask them to VOTE TO OVERRIDE THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.
The two Assembly Democrats that need our positive encouragement are:
Rep. Terry Van Akkeren (D - Sheboygan) (608) 266-0656, P.O. Box 8953, Madison, WI 53708, email@example.com
Rep. John Steinbrink (D - Pleasant Prairie) (608) 266-0455, P.O. Box 8953, Madison, WI 53708, firstname.lastname@example.org
Below is information debunking two "red herrings" that PPA opponents are trying to use to convince these Democrat allies of self-defense to flip flip. We have debunked those red herrings, meaning there should be no reason these 2 brave Assemblymen should vote against us. Use the arguments below to refute opponents' false claims about the PPA.
Yours in Freedom,
Senator Dave Zien
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Senator Dave Zien
DT: January 18, 2006
RE: PPA vehicle stops "red herring" - DEBUNKED
The non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau debunks a "red herring" circulated by PPA opponents. Below is a copy of the LRB's analysis. Throwing out a red herring such as this represents opponents' efforts to persuade key Assembly Democrats to vote to sustain the Governor's veto of the PPA.
PPA opponents make a false claim that law enforcement officers would not be able to check if a driver is a permit holder for any violation other than a traffic violation. The truth is law enforcement need probable cause to pull someone over, which also gives them reason under the bill to check if the vehicle is registered to a permit holder.
The example used by PPA opponents is that if a domestic violence disturbance occurs where officers are called in, then one of the suspects drives away, opponents claim that officers would not be able to check permit holder status once the vehicle is pulled over. This is completely untrue.
LRB ANALYSIS ON VEHICLE STOPS
From: Dsida, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:53 AM
To: Hogan, John
Subject: Vehicle stops
In response to your question regarding vehicle stops, under the bill (s. 341.175 (4)), if a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle, he or she may request information from DOT regarding the CCW license status of the vehicle's registered owner, but only if the vehicle stop meets the requirements of s. 349.02 (2) (a). That section, however, relates only to a law enforcement officer's authority to stop or inspect a vehicle to enforce certain statutes relating to vehicles and their operation and other statutes relating to controlled substances. Thus, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle committed a crime -- including a crime of domestic abuse, to use your example -- the officer may request information from DOT regarding whether the owner of the vehicle has a license to carry a concealed weapon.
I hope this information is helpful.
Legislative Reference Bureau
PPA and the Domestic Violence Red Herring
PPA opponents are providing a fine example of a "red herring" with their claim that not allowing law enforcement to access concealed weapon license holder information when responding to domestic violence calls will somehow cause them to be in greater danger.
They are using this fallacy in a desperate attempt to convince key democrats like Representative Terry Van Akkeren, from Sheboygan, and Representative John Steinbrink, from Pleasant Prairie, to vote to sustain the Governor's veto of the PPA. Both of these legislators have been steadfast supporters of the right to self-defense. Representative Van Akkeren has voted in support of the PPA all three times it has come before him since 2003. Representative Steinbrink has voted for it on four of four occasions since 2002. These votes included support for the 2004 override of Governor Doyle's veto of this life-saving legislation. None of these versions contained the provision now being demanded by opponents.
In State v. Munir Hamadan, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the right to carry concealed weapons on their own property without a license.
Because of this, law enforcement officers may encounter a homeowner at a domestic violence call legally carrying a concealed weapon regardless of whether he has a license or not. Checking a database of citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms in public has absolutely no bearing on the conditions that law enforcement may find in a home.
Law Enforcement does not currently have access to a database of gun owners when responding to a call at a residence.
PPA opponents apparently do not understand this. If law enforcement is able to access the license holder database, it only informs them of whether or not the homeowner has obtained a laminated piece of paper form the Department of Justice. It does not indicate whether there are handguns, rifles or shotguns at the residence. Only three percent of adults in Wisconsin will obtain a license. Firearms are present in over 50% of the homes in the state.
The practical difference between traffic stops and domestic violence calls.
At the request of law enforcement interests, the PPA was amended to authorize law enforcement officers engaged in a traffic stop to determine whether the registered owner of the vehicle is a license holder prior to approaching the driver. This situation is far different than responding to a residential call. The courts have ruled that citizens have no right to carry loaded firearms in a vehicle. A concealed weapons license is required to legally carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle. This arguably makes the database search useful to law enforcement. The courts have ruled that citizens have a right to possess loaded firearms, including concealed weapons, in their residence without a license. This makes a check of the license holder database, citizens who are authorized to carry concealed firearms in public, inconsequential when approaching a residence.
License holders do not commit domestic violence.
License holders will have successfully passed a criminal background check that includes a search for domestic violence offenses. Offenders are prohibited from obtaining a license and are prohibited from possessing firearms of any kind pursuant to federal law. Because the majority of domestic violence calls involve a prior history of domestic violence, license holders are rarely involved.
Only three percent of the population will obtain licenses. The experience of the other 38 Right to Carry states shows that only a fraction of one percent of licenses will be revoked. A domestic violence offense is one of dozens of reasons for which a license must be revoked. This is undeniable evidence that the instances of license holders committing domestic violence are statistically insignificant. Law enforcement officers will respond to literally thousands of domestic violence calls for every one case involving a license holder's residence.
Law enforcement practices would not change even if the information were made available.
Law enforcement officers know that domestic violence calls are the most dangerous of all calls they respond to. They know that, while only three percent of the adult population will obtain concealed weapons licenses, firearms are in the majority of homes in Wisconsin. Well-trained law enforcement officers always assume that firearms may be present in a home. If a database search were available and the search came up negative, it is not as if law enforcement officers will be leaving their gun belts in their cruisers when approaching the front door of a residence. An inexperienced, poorly trained officer could actually be placed in greater jeopardy by such a system being available because it could lead to a false sense of security and complacency.