It’s been widely reported that accused assassin Jared Loughner bought his Glock 19 and ammunition legally. Even after being suspended from community college and being told to get a mental health evaluation, Loughner was able to pass an instant background check and purchase a semiautomatic weapon.
But it’s been less widely reported that Arizona has some of the most lax gun control laws in the country. Arizona Republicans have enacted a number of laws that enable more residents to carry guns in more places. Arizona is now one of just three states that do not require a permit to carry concealed weapons. Guns are allowed in bars and restaurants (if the gun owner isn’t drinking), on school grounds when picking up or dropping off a child, and inside government buildings and the state Capitol. Workers can take their guns to work if they keep them in their locked cars, even if their workplace bans firearms. A Washington Post investigation found that Arizona is a “net exporter” of guns that are seized in crimes, meaning that guns purchased in that state are being used in crimes elsewhere.
According to gun-lobby logic, with all of these guns on Arizona’s streets, a fast-acting concealed weapon carrier should have taken down Loughner. Instead, fast-acting bystanders foiled the shooter without pulling out their weapons as Loughner attempted to reload his Glock.
We’re fully expecting that Wisconsin Republicans will introduce some sort of firearms legislation during this session. We’re asking them to carefully consider the impact of more guns on the streets of Wisconsin—because an Arizona-style free-for-all isn’t going to keep Wisconsin residents safer.
Event of the Week
Dr. Martin Luther
King Justice Rally and March
Celebrate the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and honor the
former Milwaukee Commandos, who marched with Father James Groppi for open
housing in 1967 and 1968, on Monday, Jan. 17. The event will begin at St.
Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (1927 N. Fourth St.) at 1 p.m., followed by a
four-block march to King’s statue on MLK Drive at 2:30 p.m. The event is
sponsored by the Milwaukee Justice Coalition. For more information, visit
www.wnpj.org.
Heroes of the Week
Open Door Café Volunteers
In a
city where disturbingly large numbers of citizens live below the poverty line,
it is even more important to recognize the people and organizations doing their
part to take care of the less fortunate. The parish at the Cathedral of St.
John the Evangelist (812 N. Jackson St.) reaches out to the community through
several programs, including the Open Door Café.
Originating
from a single action in which a priest made a sandwich for a homeless man who
had knocked on the door looking for food, the program has evolved into one of
the largest meal services in the city. Operating out of the parish’s Weakland
Center, the Open Door Café serves midday meals six days a week to area men,
women and children. Last year, more than 200 individuals served nearly 57,000
meals. Volunteers come from the parish, the local business community and area
schools and churches.
Readers
who wish to volunteer at the Cathedral’s Open Door Café are urged to call
Rachel at 414-276-9814.
Jerk of the Week
Rep. Paul Ryan
Unfortunately, rising Republican star Janesville Congressman
Paul Ryan is beginning to ignore reality in favor of his conservative
ideological belief. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has for
decades been scrupulously careful to do its calculations as objectively as
possible and let the numbers speak for themselves. When the CBO would come back
with numbers unfavorable to the Obama administration during the health care
reform debate, the Obama administration would go back to the drawing board and
change their legislation. When Paul Ryan and his colleagues saw CBO numbers
they didn’t like, instead of altering their policy, they attacked the CBO. The
CBO, after an exhaustive analysis, came to a conclusion that doesn’t jibe with
Ryan’s perception of reality—that repealing the health care law would actually
increase the federal deficit by $230 billion—so Ryan bashed the CBO. While this
may get Ryan some face time on FOX News, it isn’t honest or consistent. For
more than three decades, both Democrats and Republicans understood that they
needed a fair referee, the CBO, in order to write honest legislation.
*/?>
That article needs some correction. A man with a concealed weapon clicked off his safety and ran towards the shooting only to find that the gunman's weapon had jammed and he had already been disarmed.
VT has even less restrictive laws than AZ and is the state with either the lowest or 2nd lowest crime rate in the country.
Even their Democratic Senator thinks their gun laws are adequate.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-leahy-gun-control-easy-answer-vermon
"take a careful look at who, exactly, should be able to own guns and carry them in a concealed manner"
Look at who's allowed to carry them concealed now - CRIMINALS! People who don't follow laws, & who want to harm law-abiding citizens.
Why should criminals have more freedoms than I do?
Answer is, they shouldn't.
And they certainly shouldn't be encouraged in their activities, which is what "[legal] gun free zones" do.
States where open & concealed carry are common have lower rates of violent crime than places like Illinois, DC, & CA which practically prevent their citizens from having the means effectively to protect themselves.
That's not propaganda from a biased group with lots of money, you can dig up those results yourself from federal government databases on crime.
"with all of these guns on Arizona’s streets, a fast-acting concealed weapon carrier should have taken down Loughner"
With all those people in the crowd, probably there wasn't a clear shot that would only hit & stop the killer. I'd say that's showing good judgment by the citizens who were armed.
Why only report part of the news, the part that best supports your fear? Why not tell the readers that while the man purchased the gun legally, but that he was never committed or found mentally ill by the court system, that none of the people that has concern over the mental state of the shooter had made any official complaints. Hind sight is so easy to say, why didn't someone know? It is a great tragedy that this happened, and my heart goes out to all those who are involved, but to sit behind your desk and spread fear about guns because of this is unfounded.
As usual the author of this article choses to spread misleading information as it pertains to law abiding citizens who choose to carry a firearm for self defense.
Your blood in the streets scare tactics simply do not work anymore. There is to much factual evidence to indicate that your theory of in the street gun fights and bloody gun battles held in public places is hogwash at best.
Look at the facts and except them for what they are and quit trying to impose your own ideals upon your readers. It is a proven fact, more guns equals less crime.
I would rather carry a firearm and not need it, then to need it and not have it. I am sure the people at the Arizona incident would agree. Even the father of the 9 year old girl has asked that no new laws be imposed or enacted to create any further restrictions on our rights. It will be interesting to hear the opinion of Congresswoman Giffords when she is ready to speak publicly.
Besides who says the other people involved in bringing down the gunman were not armed? Has anyone asked? Just because an armed citizen didn't pull out a gun and shoot the terrorist shooter doesn't mean that carrying a firearm for self defense is unnecessary. It simply means that they have good decision making skills and the ability to disarm someone without using their firearm. Firearms should be used as a last resort in any situation such as this anyway. Even a person who is uneducated in firearms is generally smart enough to understand that.
How lond did it take the police to respond? What if those people hadn't been able to disarm this goof ball? Then what? we should just wait around and endure being shot until police arrive? I got news for you. Look at all of the school massacres in this country or even Fort Hood. In each of those incidents the police waited outside until the shooting stopped. How would you feel if it were your kids inside those schools or public places?
What does that say for our country that we do not even trust our own military members to carry firearms for their own protection?
We need to stop letting the Anti-gun/Anti Self defense bleeding heart liberals run this country and our Constitution into the ground. It is the only way we are going to be able to stop these mad men from running a muck in or country.
Support Constitutional Carry throughout the United States. When seconds count, Police are minutes away.
I really believe the constitution, when read, is left too open to interpretation. When reading the second amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is too open ended. When I read that I interpret that to mean that each state should be allowed to maintain a militia (the national guard) while gun advocates, such as your self, take it to mean anyone and all has the right to bear arms. Unfortunately it wasn't written to state only an organize militia may bear arms or any and all citizens may carry arms. Would save a lot of debate.
Nikolai, we can argue about the meaning of the 2nd amendment all day, however, the WI Constitution is much clearer. It reads "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." Article 1, Section 25. This was ratified by 71% of WI voters in 1998.
AFA bearing arms being in the context of the militia, consider the following simple explanation from Dr. Nelson Lund, of George Mason University (perhaps our foremost Constitutional scholar on the Second Amendment.)
"Another very significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that the operative clause ("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is a command. Because nothing in that command is grammatically qualified by the prefatory assertion, the operative clause has the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted or even if the preamble were demonstrably false."
"Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: "The teacher being ill, class is cancelled." Nothing about the dean's prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean's order is not thereby modified."