Sherman's Retreat

Last week the Wisconsin legislature fell one vote short of overriding Gov. Jim Doyle's veto of legislation that would have allowed residents to carry concealed handguns. The override, which passed the state Senate in January, failed in the Assembly when one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Gary Sherman, switched sides at the last minute to prevent an embarrassing defeat for the governor, a fellow Democrat. The National Rifle Association, which plans to target Sherman for defeat in this November's elections, emphasizes how the legislator betrayed his own avowed principles, quoting from an op-ed piece he wrote last fall:

In my very first assembly campaign in 1998, I made my support for concealed carry clear and I have not changed my position…. People who are unconcerned about obeying the law are not deterred from carrying concealed weapons now…. As things stand now, only those of us who are determined to obey the law cannot carry concealed weapons. These permitting laws exist in 45 of our 50 states. Based upon this extensive experience, there is no evidence that issuing permits to properly trained people, who have been carefully checked to see if there is some reason why they should not be trusted with a firearm, will increase the risk of gun violence for the rest of us. In the absence of such evidence, there is no compelling reason why such people should be denied the privilege of doing so. In America, it is not necessary to prove the opposite, that there is a compelling reason for doing so. The mere absence of a compelling reason for limiting people`s liberty is enough.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

Not that they care, but Dems have a real opportuninity at the Jason Ligon demographic right now. I don't feel like I have any allies, except for Ron Paul, in DC. I have always identified with Repubs, but Bush's spending spree is more than I can handle.

Problem is, the right of self defense is non negotiable for me. Dems terrify me on that issue. Just let it go, guys ...

[Kevin Carson]

If the Jason Ligon demographic isn't any bigger than the Kevin Carson demographic, I doubt the Dems are quaking in their boots. 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

Kevin,

LMAO

[Jason Ligon]

A New Party:

JL & KC United for Statistical Significance - Cast your wasted votes here!

[dhex]

i've never quite understood why the dems are so hard on guns. seems sort of a pointless matter, since criminality tends to win out over government suppression consistently...why not allow people to arm themselves?

[Drew]

I live in Wisconsin and wrote letters to the editor in support of CC. What kills me is that we have a Constitutional ammendment stating "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." What could be clearer than that?

[Bob]

What your article missed, is that 2 Republicans also changed their vote. 2 voted 'no' to repeal the CC law, and than flip-flopped and voted to override the governor. Hence causing Rep Sherman to change his vote to sustain the veto. If the Republicans and Democrats would have all kept their votes the same, the veto override would have still been defeated. It just would have been at the hands of 2 Republicans instead of 1 Democrat. I would think by now, most of you would learn not to take the NRA's statements for face-value.

[Karl]

Bob - And how does this explain Sherman completely
reversing his position vis the bill? No excuse for
the Republicans if they are opposed to CCW and reversed solely
to try to embarass a Dem Gov. But I will take the
NRA's statement at face value - Sherman had staked
out a position in favor of CCW and reversed himself
for a purely political purpose. I don't see much
way around that, whatever your opinion of the NRA.
In fact, they've been remarkably consistent as far
as I can tell - support gun rights, get our endorsement,
Rep. or Dem.; just happens to mostly be Reps that
'support' the NRA's positions. Their weakness on
lib. candidates is generally an electability issue;
while I would disagree with them, I see their point.
-Karl

[dhex]

that's a bit broad (speaking as an urbanite, whatever the fuck that may be 🙂 but not necessarily innacurate. much like your country bumpkin example.

i work with a large number of what you could call "typical new york liberals" - very nice ladies but of a general political slant, with some exceptions. some of them are very much of the mindset you described, and they do terribly confuse me on this point. then again, they are equally confused by my "i don't care who wants to own a gun" line of reasoning.

it has some similarities with fear over the breakdown of social mores, of homosexuality, of drugs, of cultural drift, etc. sort of a genuine "wrong things in the wrong hands" fear that everyone seems to have.

"an orderly society where the buses and subways run on time"

however, i'd really like to move to that city...

come to think of it, generally speaking, i think guns are to the dems as abortion is to the repubs as drugs are to both. and as genuine free trade or even lip service to liberty is to both. etc.

[Isaac Bartram]

"an orderly society where the buses and subways run on time"

Canada?

[thoreau]

My liberal mother lives in Wisconsin. My father, her ex-husband, is a violent man. I don't know how my mother feels about concealed carry. On the one hand she's very much a liberal Democrat. On the other hand, she has a gun in the house because she's afraid (for good reason) of my father.

I wish it was legal for her to carry it everywhere.

How about we make common cause with the feminists and legalize concealed carry for women only? 🙂

[dhex]

heh.

but in all seriousness, you'd think that point would be more well-received, especially if so many feminists are as mentally ill and man-hatey as they're supposed to be.

confusinating.

[Mark S.]

Bob: The two Republicans changed their votes because their constituants demanded that they do so via calls and letters to their offices. On the other hand, Sherman received the same constituent imput (10-to-1 in favor of CCW according to media accounts) and he sold out the people who voted for in.

Of course, Sherman may not have much to worry about. He's probably hoping that people in his district will forgive-and-forget (i.e. buying them off with some state/federal program money) and he'll keep his seat, or that Doyle will put Sherman into an appointed position if he is defeated or recalled.

[Mark S.]

dhex: I think a large portion of the gun control debate has little or anything to do with crime or safety, but cultural attitudes of a large portion of Americans. Despite our "E Pluribus Unum" reputation, the truth is that American culture is horribly balkanized along political, racial, regional lines. Urban America's cultural output is that of cosmopolitan civilization, education, and an orderly society where the buses and subways run on time. Firearms in this mindset represent chaos, crime, and disorder. Only the dastardly or the ignorant would carry one, much less own one.

That's why you get the urban stereotypes of rural Americans being inbred trigger-happy bumpkins with gun racks in the back of their pick-up trucks. Urbanites can't conceive of anyone rational wanting to own a firearm. Therefore, the Democrats, who have found themselves relying more and more upon urban votes since the late 20th Century became more and more supportive of gun control.

[Larry]

Mark S.

"That's why you get the urban stereotypes of rural Americans being inbred trigger-happy bumpkins with gun racks in the back of their pick-up trucks."

Actually, the urbanites are right about us. So there ain't any reason for any more of them to move out here. Right, y'all?

Statistically there are four states that prohibit concealed carry, nine that have "discretionary" licenses commonly restricted to celebrities and the politically connected, 35 states with shall-issue laws, and two (Alaska, Vermont) that don't require a license to carry concealed.

[Larry]

"but in all seriousness, you'd think that point would be more well-received, especially if so many feminists are as mentally ill and man-hatey as they're supposed to be."

That point (self-defense) would be attractive to feminists if they wanted women to be independent and have the ability to do as they please. However, feminists are far more likely to want women to be feminists, the more radical the better. That way the feminist leadership retains control and can require men and women to interact in ways they find acceptable.

If every secretary carried a sidearm you wouldn't need a federal law telling the bosses to keep their hands to themselves. And, by the way, they could also tell feminists MYOB.

Reminds me of the sixties, when folks kept telling me I couldn't be doing my own thing because it didn't look like their thing.