Featured Posts

Student Reminders! EN100 Students: Diagnostic Paragraphs Due 9/9

Readmore

Welcome Back! Welcome Back, UWP Students. Thus begins the fall semester!

Readmore

Litspot Rss

Concealed Carry (Theme 3)

Posted on : 09-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3

0

Another article, focusing on local reaction to the new law, found in the Racine Journal Times.

Four Hour Training Dropped for Concealed Carry

Posted on : 08-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3, Teaching

1

JSOnline reports that lawmakers have removed the training required for a concealed carry permit.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports the same.

An Opinion Piece on Wisconsin’s Concealed Carry Law

Posted on : 08-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3, Teaching

0

Follow the link to the article here.

Please make sure that you care citing the source from the JSOnline page.

A Link to Wisconsin DOJ Page

Posted on : 08-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3

0

Follow the link here to see the details of the concealed carry law.

 

Thanks to Teralyn for the link!

Guns may be allowed in Wisconsin Assembly, not Senate galleries

Posted on : 01-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3

Tags:

0

By Patrick Marley and Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel

Madison – Members of the public will be able to carry guns when they observe the state Assembly, but not the Senate, under differing rules the two GOP-led houses are developing for separate parts of the Capitol.

The discussion comes as Wisconsin moves to become the 11th state in the nation to allow concealed weapons in most of the Capitol’s elegant marble halls and rooms. Lawmakers are deciding whether to allow guns in the parts of the building that they control after Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s administration told them that guns would be allowed in the parts of the statehouse controlled by the executive branch.

On Thursday afternoon, Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) dropped his fight against allowing people to bring guns onto the Senate floor after he succeeded in getting them prohibited in the public viewing galleries that overlook the floor.

“I wanted a touchdown; I got a field goal,” Ellis said Thursday. Earlier in the day he had said, “We have enough problems as it is without having Tom Mix and Hopalong Cassidy with their six-guns” on the floor.

The issue is now being debated after Walker signed a bill allowing people to seek concealed-weapons permits starting Nov. 1. Permits will be granted to those 21 and older who take training and pass a background check showing they are not felons or otherwise barred from carrying guns. Under that law, the public is barred from carrying guns in courthouses and police stations, which would include the Supreme Court’s hearing room in the statehouse and the Capitol police station in the basement.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of last year seven states allowed visitors to carry weapons into their capitols with a concealed-weapons permit, and two other states allowed anyone to carry a weapon into their statehouse. The conference couldn’t immediately provide the names of those states. Since last year, at least one other state, Florida, has moved to allow visitors to carry concealed guns with the proper permits.

“We do not know if there are any further restrictions regarding the chambers (in those capitols) because we have not asked that question in our surveys,” conference spokeswoman Meagan Dorsch said.

In the Capitol in Madison, the areas controlled by the Senate would allow concealed carry with the exception of the viewing gallery during Senate sessions and the offices of individual senators who chose to prohibit guns. Concealed carry would be allowed on the Senate floor and in committee hearing rooms.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said a committee would vote soon to approve this policy.

Different policies

Ellis and Fitzgerald – the two top leaders in the Senate – defended their decision to treat the viewing galleries differently than other parts of the Capitol. They said that while the Senate is in session, members of the public are already barred from certain activities in the balconies, such as filming proceedings.

“It’s a unique part of the Capitol,” Scott Fitzgerald said. “It’s got a long list of prohibitions that’s been in place for many years.”

A committee of Assembly leaders had planned to vote Thursday to allow guns on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, while also leaving the decision on representatives’ offices to the individual lawmakers.

But the office of Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon) said Thursday that the committee vote would be postponed, because the overall Capitol policy from Walker’s Department of Administration won’t be unveiled until Friday. Fitzgerald said the vote would be taken soon.

“We feel in the spirit of the law we passed we want law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves,” Jeff Fitzgerald said.

He said he would allow concealed weapons in his office.

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said the issue was a distraction from the more important problem of lowering the state’s unemployment rate.

“I didn’t think they could talk any less about jobs,” Barca said of Republicans. “But they found a way.”

Barca said he had a number of questions about how the policy would work, including whether it might allow rifles to be carried into the statehouse and whether visitors in the galleries would be able to openly load and unload their guns.

Barca said he hadn’t made a final decision about whether to allow concealed carry in his office. First, he said, he would need to see the Walker administration policy and then talk with his staff and constituents about what would make them feel safest.

Ellis said he didn’t like the idea of visitors carrying guns into his office.

“I don’t want them in my office. They can leave them in Frank Lasee’s office,” Ellis said, referring to the state senator who strongly supports concealed carry.

Lasee, a Republican from De Pere, had joked that he could have a “guns welcome” sign for his office. Lasee’s chief of staff, Rob Kovach, said the senator didn’t think guns should be banned from the galleries.

“If they’re allowed in the Capitol, why not the gallery?” Kovach said.

So far, only a small number of states allow concealed carry in their capitols, and even then it can be subject to restrictions. Florida, for instance, opened up its statehouse earlier this month in response to a change in state law, the Palm Beach Post reported.

Gun owners with concealed-carry permits can bring their guns into the statehouse there as long as they show their license and photo identification when they enter the building. But they can’t take their guns into “any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof” and are given a written notice of that when they come in the building, the newspaper reported.

States, besides Wisconsin, allow visitors to carry weapons into their capitols. Eight of those require a concealed-weapons permit.

Wisconsin Capitol to Allow Guns (T3)

Posted on : 01-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3

Tags:

0

Walker policy would allow weapons on Assembly floor

By Patrick Marley and Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel

Madison – The public will be able to carry guns into most parts of the state Capitol, under a policy being developed by Gov. Scott Walker.

Lawmakers are developing their own policies that would allow individual lawmakers to decide whether to allow guns into their offices.

Under rules planned for one chamber, guns would be allowed on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, said sources who have been briefed on the plans. That would mean the public could bring guns into the viewing galleries but would still have to adhere to other existing rules, including one that bars the use of still cameras and video cameras.

“People who carry concealed can come in my office, I don’t care,” said Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester).

Vos said he planned to apply for a concealed-weapons permit but had not decided whether he would bring a gun to the Capitol.

Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said he has not been briefed on the plans.

“I don’t think there should be weapons in the Capitol,” Miller said. “People should be able to enter public buildings and feel safe.?.?.?.?There’s children who come in the building, for Pete’s sake.”

The Assembly Committee on Organization is to meet Thursday to set the policy on guns for that house. Minority Democrats are expected to raise concerns at that meeting.

No decision has yet been made by GOP senators on allowing guns on the Senate floor, in the Senate galleries and in committee rooms. Republicans who control that house will set a policy in the coming days, said John Hogan, chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said an announcement would be made soon on the policy for guns in the Capitol and other state buildings but had no other comment.

Walker’s administration is charged with deciding whether to allow guns into the building because of a law Walker signed making Wisconsin the 49th state to allow people to carry concealed weapons.

The law takes effect Tuesday. People can carry concealed weapons once they receive a permit from the Department of Justice. Permits are available to those 21 and older who take a training course and pass a background check that shows they’re not felons or otherwise barred from possessing guns.

Sources said the administration’s plan would allow guns in most parts of the Capitol but not the state Supreme Court hearing room. The concealed weapons law bans guns in courthouses.

During massive protests this spring, the administration installed metal detectors to ensure no weapons were brought into the building. The protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, but lawmakers from both sides received death threats by email and phone.

Republicans complained they often felt unsafe, with Scott Fitzgerald at one point calling the Capitol a “powder keg.”

Fitzgerald spokesman Andrew Welhouse said Wednesday that Fitzgerald would likely allow guns in his office.

Hogan, Fitzgerald’s chief of staff, said GOP senators were seeking to work out a policy for the other areas under control of the Senate before the law takes effect. Hogan said he expected each senator to retain the final decision on his or her own office.

“The?.?.?.?places we need to consider are each office, the floor and galleries and the hearing rooms,” Hogan said.

On Tuesday, a dozen people were removed from the Assembly galleries and arrested for videotaping proceedings and holding up signs.

Vos said he did not see a contradiction in allowing guns in the galleries while banning the use of cameras. He said people could bring both guns and cameras into the galleries, but couldn’t use either.

“You can have a gun in the gallery, but you can’t shoot,” he said.

Have Glock, Will Travel (T3)

Posted on : 01-11-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Sources T3

Tags:

0

By Frank Bruni

Between the struggle to fold a sport jacket so it doesn’t wrinkle, the 45-minute wait on a security line if I’m flying, the price of gas if I’m driving and the worry either way that I left the coffee maker on, I thought I was pretty well versed in the inconveniences and stresses of domestic travel.

Hardly! Things could be much, much worse, namely if I were a gun owner with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in my home state and an itch to do so in any other state I visited as well.

As matters now stand, I’d have to defer to the laws of those states, which vary widely. In some, my permit from back home would suffice, even if getting it required little more than proper adult identification, proof of residency and a smile. The smile might even have been negotiable. A scowl and a clean felony record and I was good to go.

Other states are sticklers, recognizing only their own concealed-carry permits and granting or withholding those based on such killjoy criteria as whether someone has a violent misdemeanor conviction, a history of alcohol abuse or any actual training in weapon safety. Some free country, ours.

Thank heaven for the National Rifle Association, its sights ever fixed on the forces that try to separate Americans from the deadly firearms they like to keep snug at their sides.

The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting traveler’s woes. Should it become law, any state that grants concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions, would be forced to honor a visitor’s concealed-carry permit from another state, no matter how lax that state’s standards.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, recently wrote that the current situation “presents a nightmare for interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to self-defense, at the state line.”

Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A., though it’s not the first word that springs to mind when I mull its current effort.

Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The bill thus far has more than 200 Republican co-sponsors in the House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain about attempts by an overbearing federal government to trample on states’ rights in the realms of health care, tort reform, education — you name it. But to promote concealed guns, they’re encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to its heart’s content.

Imagine how apoplectic they’d be if, on certain other matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others’ values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun-control regulations from the South and West. As it happens these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex marriages, which more conservative states do not have to recognize.

It’s not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, they made no major progress on gun control. Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide.

In 2009, when Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, was about to enter a tough re-election battle in Nevada, he actually voted in favor of legislation highly similar to H.R. 822. It was defeated. That same year President Obama signed a law permitting concealed guns in national parks.

The story on the state level has been just as sad over the last few years. Wisconsin recently approved concealed-carry legislation, leaving Illinois the only state in which civilians can’t carry concealed firearms. Several states have enacted laws spelling out that concealed weapons can in many circumstances be carried into bars.

One was Tennessee, where a state lawmaker who sponsored the legislation, Curry Todd,sometimes carries a loaded .38-caliber gun. I know this because it was beside him when Nashville cops pulled him over two weeks ago for drunken driving. They also charged him with carrying a firearm in public while intoxicated. At least that’s still illegal.

New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and several other states don’t have reciprocity arrangements that allow someone like Todd to pay an armed courtesy call. That’s because New York officials can deny concealed-carry permits on a case-by-case basis, whereas many other states — South Dakota, for example — don’t put much stock in such scrutiny.

H.R. 822, now in the House Judiciary Committee, makes a mockery of our diverse values and strategies for public safety. If it were enacted, off to New York the South Dakotan tourist could go, 9-millimeter Glock in tow.

That’s not liberty. More like lunacy.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/frankbruni and join me on Facebook.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 25, 2011, on page A31 of the New York edition with the headline: Have Glock, Will Travel.

When I Needed Help, I Got Propaganda (NYT Op-Ed)

Posted on : 13-10-2011 | By : Dean | In : EN101, Rebuttal Articles, Sources T3, Teaching

Tags:

0

By KATIE STACK
Published: October 5, 2011

DEFENDERS of “crisis pregnancy centers” are converging on Capitol Hill this week to lobby for increased support from the government, brandishing not picket signs, but babies.

The centers portray themselves as nonpartisan health and counseling clinics, but in fact they oppose abortion, and sometimes even family planning, and push a political agenda on vulnerable women. A Congressional investigation in 2006 found that 87 percent of the centers surveyed provided false or misleading medical information. Nonetheless, the government has given over $9.3 million in grants to these centers since 2007 — mostly under the Bush administration. Cities like San Francisco and New York have recently sought to crack down on their deceptive marketing and others have called for an increase in regulations.

Still, supporters of the centers and the “Babies Go to Congress” campaign claim they are promoting a pro-woman agenda.

I am intimately aware of how false that is. Like many young women, I found myself facing an unintended pregnancy. Two years ago, as a junior in college with ambitious career goals, I knew that continuing the pregnancy wasn’t an option for me. I called the local Planned Parenthood and made an appointment for an abortion for a week and a half later. The operator I spoke to encouraged me to spend time thinking over my decision and considering all my options.

I tried to do that. Because my communication with Planned Parenthood had been over the phone and the nearest office was in Iowa City, about an hour away from where I lived, I searched online for somewhere nearby where I could ask questions in person. I found Aid to Women, a center in Cedar Rapids that claimed to provide confidential counseling and abortion information. I knew it didn’t perform abortions, but I still went expecting to get unbiased medical advice.

When I walked in, I knew almost immediately that I’d been wrong. Though the volunteers wore scrubs, none of them were medical professionals. They insisted on calling my pregnancy my “baby” and my “child.” The intake questions included, “What is your relationship to Jesus Christ?”

The “counseling” that I received included the following: I was cautioned that abortions caused breast cancer, even though the National Cancer Institute has found serious flawsin all research that suggests so. I was warned that I would inevitably suffer from post-abortion stress syndrome, even though the American Psychological Association says there is no evidence of increased mental health problems among women who have an abortion in the first trimester. I was told that I would not hear this information from doctors, because doctors make money performing abortions and would lie about the procedure’s risks.

Even as a college student familiar with the abortion debate from studying political science, I left the center with a lot of confusion. I researched what I’d been told, found out that much of it was inaccurate, and got the help I needed at Planned Parenthood. But I can see how easy it would be for more vulnerable women to be manipulated into feeling dependent on these centers.

Since then I’ve talked with dozens of women, including my best friend and my younger sister, about their own experiences with these centers. Regardless of our views on abortion, our conclusion about crisis pregnancy centers is the same — they don’t help women. My sister fully intended to raise her own son, who is now 2, but when she was pregnant and went to a center for advice, all she got was a lecture about the joys of adoption and a pamphlet on eternal salvation. She had to turn to Planned Parenthood to receive any actual prenatal health care or referrals.

Parading babies around as props is only a stunt. While Republicans have made their concern for the unborn clear, the fact that many of them proposed cutting nutrition programs for infants by about 10 percent earlier this year suggests that their concern for babies may end once they’re born. And if they truly want to support women, they should focus on transparent, nonpartisan, fact-based education for those who are facing what is likely to be the most difficult decision of their lives.

Katie Stack is a graduate student in gender and women’s studies at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

______________________________________________

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 6, 2011, on page A35 of the New York edition with the headline: When I Needed Help, I Got Propaganda.

Improve Your Life, Go The myEASY Way™