Scott Walker Developing Plan To Allow Guns In Wisconsin State Capitol

The administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker is developing a plan to allow guns in most parts of the Wisconsin State Capitol, reports the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Under the plan, the state Supreme Court hearing room would not allow guns.

Walker signed a bill allowing the public to carry concealed weapons, provided they pass a four-hour training course and a background check. That law takes effect Nov. 1.

During the protests over a bill curtailing most collective bargaining rules last February, the administration installed metal detectors at the Capitol but removed them in June.

Florida recently allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry weapons into more parts of the Capitol.

Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Minnesota, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Texas and Virginia all allow guns in state Capitols with varying restrictions ranging from nothing to only allowing guns with permission from state police.

Comments

[realpolitic]

10:23 PM on 11/05/2011

Why are Republicans so nuts about guns? It is like they want to see them everywhere. They can not even contemplate a visit to the capital building without the spectacle of people walking around strapped and ready. What are these people so afraid of that they need to carry a gun everywhere they go? Will someone come up and say "boo" to them. I can not contemplate how scary life must seem for those who can not walk around without being armed. Why so afraid of your fellow man? When Wisconsin voters elected Walker they sure got an ideological fire brand doing little to create jobs in the state and only good at dividing the public.

[Gunluvr]

08:57 AM on 12/16/2011

Because a lot of my fellow men have proven that they have malice and ill intentions in their hearts and in the case of guns it's better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it. Plus radical anti-gun leftists tried to take our guns in 1994 with your "assault weapons" ban.

We're(gun owners) not gonna let that happen again. You people(anti-gunners) started it but we're gonna see it through to the end.

[Robin of Locksley]

09:53 AM on 11/01/2011

Hmmmm...methinks this might 'backfire'

[JimInHouston]

08:42 PM on 11/01/2011

Given the history of similar states with similar laws, why do you think that?

[bunnieman]

10:43 AM on 11/02/2011

Wisconsin's current political mood, thanks in no small part to Walker's mindset and policies, is one of bitterness and volatility. Perhaps the poster feels, as most do, that the introduction of concealed weapons into such an environment is not a prudent course of action.

[zanzig]

09:15 AM on 11/01/2011

In most other countries on this benighted planet we just watch this drive that Americans seem to have to be bristling with arms for no good reason, with bemusement. Other than in countries at war or with current and long running insurgencies, the majority of the civilised world prefers to have their police and soldiers armed, and their citizens unarmed. And you know what? In all of these countries we don't have dictatorships, we don't have insurrections by the army, we don't have governments that are denying us our liberties (and in fact we probably have more liberties than Americans since we don't have legislation like the Patriot Act) and we are living peaceful lives with lower crime rates, lower murder rates, and almost no spree killings or mass murders. Don't you think it is time you in America actually reconsidered what you are doing with guns? With all the lax gun rules you have, supposedly to protect you against a giovernment run amuck, you still have corrupt, bought and paid for politicians and a corporatocracy, that you can do nothing about. What is the point of the Second Amendment?

[Berettasskeeter]

01:50 PM on 11/01/2011

I wasn't going to comment, until I saw your remark about the Patriot Act. So, allow me to respond. No country around the rest of the world has a functioning 1st Amendment. The press does what they are told when the government wishes it. They are called Official Secrets Act, or some variant. There is NO self-defense, without proving that one was being attacked, and in some places not even that! There is NO Right to privacy. There is NO Right to not incriminate oneself, or to private property. There is NO Right to speedy trial, coming potentially under the Official Secrets Act.
What you have around the rest of the world is privilege, granted by governments, and instantly revocable. So, please don't try to compare WHATEVER country you are living in, as ONLY in the US are those things considered to be Individual Rights. Do we occasionally have problems with government? Of course! Anyone attempting to tell you otherwise would be a liar. But you have NONE of our Rights. And, kindly do NOT attempt to show us your "constitution". We know you likely have one. But you have NO recourse to it against your government!!
Semper fi

[bunnieman]

02:27 PM on 11/01/2011

It is flagrantly obvious to those "around the rest of the world" that America's beloved rights are merely placebos, and will in no way impact its inevitable descent into corruption and decay.

[zanzig]

07:04 PM on 11/01/2011

You're wrong. Most countries have a rule of law based on the Magna Carta or similar, which enshrines ALL those rights IN LAW. They are not granted at the whim of government but by courts of law that are independent of the executive and government, unlike in the US. Most of these countries also have independent judiciary not political appointees so that, unlike in the US, they are not biased to a political ideology. What most of us have is a democracy in which our elected representative actually represent us, rather than a corporate "person".

[Grumpy Man]

08:36 PM on 11/01/2011

I'd be curious to know what nation you live in.

Your statement: "and we are living peaceful lives with lower crime rates, lower murder rates, and almost no spree killings or mass murders." may be up for debate.

As to your question: "Don't you think it is time you in America actually reconsider­ed what you are doing with guns?"

As U.S. gun laws have become more lax in the past few decades we've watched as violent crime rates have been cut in half. I'm not claiming causation but it is VERY clear that the relaxing of our gun laws has NOT been a factor in any statistical increase in violent crimes.

Why limit rights when no statistical evidence supports such infringements?

[zanzig]

08:58 PM on 11/01/2011

Australia.

[Mydian01]

09:05 AM on 11/01/2011

there are plenty of states that have this law, they are just arming themselves so its more of a standoff than a lynching.

[linda91254]

08:17 AM on 11/01/2011

WAKE up people. This is a law that's been passed in so many other states, especially since Obama doesn't want ordinary citizens to have guns. You act like everyone's going to be toting a gun and shooting up the place. Get real

[Roadrun]

08:50 AM on 11/01/2011

Get real? From someone who makes claims about things that never happened. Want to try and show some foundation for your claim that Obama has done a single thing to curtail guns?

[CmonAlreadyWouldja]

09:39 AM on 11/01/2011

"Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“

It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police."

Excerpted from: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

[CmonAlreadyWouldja]

09:45 AM on 11/01/2011

I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

[Mydian01]

09:04 AM on 11/01/2011

find me one article with credibility that says "Obama said, and I quote 'i dont want ordinary citizens to have guns' end quote"

you cant, because there is none, your making it up whole cloth, your lying and im calling you on it.. proof or it doesnt exist.

[Old Jarhead]

07:25 PM on 11/01/2011

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

Here's the problem with this article. YOU won't find this credible, even though it is an accurate history of the gun control measure he has supported. It is a mixed bag, but definitely tends toward restrictive gun control.

[mickeyspumoni]

12:40 AM on 11/01/2011

Scotty - enjoy your brief time in the sun. Your time in the Governor's mansion will soon be over...

[aqueryan]

10:10 PM on 10/31/2011

This lizard-brained neanderthal Koch-head cannot be recalled fast enough.

[Roadrun]

08:52 AM on 11/01/2011

Oh I disagree - he certainly can be recalled fast enough, just maybe fast enough to cause whiplash.

[Tsckey]

07:11 PM on 10/31/2011

Did the earth fly through the tail of an evil comet that is making Republicans insane?

[NVEd]

05:43 PM on 10/31/2011

I am so glad that scott walker is not governor of Nevada. Used to think Wisconsin was a cool state, not so much anymore.

[John Reff]

10:26 PM on 10/31/2011

I lived there five years, it was very cool until January, 2011.

[ColoradoBear]

05:40 PM on 10/31/2011

Stoke that shrinking base Walker....it won't help you any!! Recall will remove your sad a*s from office.

[SgtMac]

05:06 PM on 10/31/2011

Is this the biggest issue facing the state of Wisconsin? Things must be better there than in the rest of the country, or Texas.
I have had a concealed-carry permit (OR) for some years now, but I have never felt like I'd need to defend myself from a random mugging while in the state capitol building. If one can't carry a weapon in a county court house or federal post office, it's not much of an infringement to disallow weapons in the state capitol as well. A little common sense can be helpful.

[Grumpy Man]

08:38 AM on 11/01/2011

Some questions for SgtMac:

1.) Would you suddenly be transformed into a dangerous person by entering the capitol while carrying a concealed handgun?

2.) You basically say you'd feel safe IN the capitol. What about walking to and from your vehicle parked six blocks away?

3.) How do you feel about leaving your handgun in your vehicle, where it could be stolen, while you visit the capitol?

4.) Retired and/or off duty police officers who carry under LEOSA can carry guns in places where you, a permitted person, cannot. Do you believe a retired and/or off duty police officer should have more freedoms, or more rights than you do?

[SgtMac]

12:35 AM on 11/02/2011

Some answers for you:
1: No, the question seems to presume that I believe that having a gun within reach gives one an uncontrollable impulse to use it. The fact that I've had a carry permit for over a decade, I'm a retired Army staff sergeant and Iraq vet should be evidence enough that I'm unlikely to hold such a silly opinion.
2-4: As I said, one is not permitted to carry weapons into municipal courthouses or federal office buildings. If one can manage those issues in such places, is the state capitol so different? The military and police forces are already allowed to have weapons that I cannot (automatic grenade launchers, nerve gas, Trident submarines). I really don't see this as an infringement. Should I be free to grow Anthrax in my basement because the Army has some samples in a lab?

[Ricardo01]

04:35 PM on 10/31/2011

Only thing that would shock me about Walker is if he denounced The Kochs and resigned.

[Fundamental2A]

03:54 PM on 10/31/2011

Fundamental Rights are Inalienable Rights. This story is much ado about nothing.

[IntelliWriter]

03:40 PM on 10/31/2011

Well when some lunatic walks into the capitol and starts shooting the place up, maybe he'll change his mind....although usually they just double down and say that it's really too bad that EVERYONE wasn't carrying a gun that day so someone could take out the shooter. It's an inane argument as most gun owners aren't trained. Not everyone is Dirty Harry and can shoot down a soda can at 100 paces.

[intolleft]

07:51 AM on 11/01/2011

Something tells me, and that' just me mind you, that a 'lunatic" isn't going to give two hoots if there is a law in place on whether he/she is allowed to carry a weapon into a building before going in and killing people.

[IntelliWriter]

08:41 AM on 11/01/2011

True, but the option to catch him or her at the door via a metal detector goes out the window when a law like this is passed.

[Grumpy Man]

08:50 AM on 11/01/2011

Common sense tells us that a lunatic who plans to commit murder doesn't care one whit about breaking the laws regarding possession of a gun.

Common sense tells us that an untrained person with a gun has a better chance of fighting back against an armed lunatic than does an unarmed person who is trained with a gun.

Common sense also tells us that a gun doesn't create a magic bubble of invincibility around its possessor but it undeniably increases their potential ability to thwart an aggressive attack. It is the most efficient, effective, portable means of self defense.

[IntelliWriter]

04:35 PM on 11/01/2011

Or they can have the gun taken away from them. Or they could freeze up (most likely scenario). Or they could hurt innocent people precisely because they're untrained.

When Gabrielle Giffords was shot there were people there with handguns and yet no one pulled one out. Under the stress of the situation, people just wanted to duck and not get shot. Our first instinct is survival, not to play the Lone Ranger and take out the shooter.

I remain unconvinced of your argument because common sense tells me that in these situations it's very unlikely that anyone other than a police officer or someone with military service is going to take out the shooter.

[AllBlues59]

03:38 PM on 10/31/2011

The founders that the right so often likes to talk about are spinning in their graves!! Never saw a picture of any of them with a side arm strapped to their leg. I enjoy shooting and love talking about hunting etc. but I do not need to carry a gun everywhere I go. This state has lost a major part of its soul.

[Grumpy Man]

08:56 AM on 11/01/2011

You've seen pictures of the founding fathers???

Wow!!!

All this time I thought cameras became popular somewhere closer to the mid-eighteen-hundreds.

"Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788