Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/20/2006 8:02:27 AM EDT
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, rep.vanakkeren@legis.state.wi.us
Rep. John Steinbrink (D - Pleasant Prairie) (608) 266-0455, P.O. Box
8953, Madison, WI 53708, rep.steinbrink@legis.state.wi.us

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
sen.zien@legis.state.wi.us
(608) 266-7511



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.

Mike Dsida
Legislative Reference Bureau
608/266-9867
michael.dsida@legis.state.wi.us



____________________________________________________


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.


Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:13:17 AM EDT
I see that this is a repost but im leaving it up anyway.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:10:37 AM EDT
Probably better off in it's own thread... can't miss it that way.
Top Top