Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

To The Editor:

In your editorial comment, Capitol Common Sense (Oct 11, 2011), you wrote:

Here’s how a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald made the argument this week for allowing concealed weapons inside the state Capitol.

“So long as the Capitol remains open, our members, their staff and the public have a right to defend themselves,” John Jagler said.

Defend themselves? What about the right of members, their staff and the public to a safe environment?

We backed concealed carry in Wisconsin … Under the law … Municipalities can prohibit weapons in government buildings … weapons can’t be banned from parks and public grounds.

At least John Jagler was being consistent. If legislators believe that the citizens of Wisconsin are responsible enough, given some training, to carry concealed weapons, then why should there be a prohibition against carrying weapons into the capitol? Or any other place, for that matter? If a citizen is deemed responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon into a public park, why not a public building? And certainly anyone should be able to carry concealed weapons into the very building where the legislature that availed us of this right carries out their daily labors.

But if the Editor objects that carrying concealed weapons into the capitol will transform it into an unsafe environment for the legislators, their staff and the public, then why does the Editor endorse a policy of carrying concealed weapons anywhere else? How is the capitol less safe than other public buildings and lands when citizens bring concealed weapons into them? How is the public endangered in a capitol where concealed carry is allowed, yet somehow safe in a public park where concealed carry cannot be prohibited? I would very much like to know how you justify one, but not the other.

consistency | 7:11 pm CST
Category: current events | Tags:
Comments Off on consistency

Comments are closed.