A curious pattern has emerged in Wisconsin. Most politicians favor concealed carry of weapons – so long as it’s not allowed in the building where they work.
Let’s begin with the equivocations of state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (pictured). On Oct. 5, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported a letter from a top official with the National Rifle Association bashing the attorney general for his ruling saying the training courses for those carrying concealed weapons must last at least four hours. The NRA was “frankly disappointed” in this rule, arguing for more flexibility in interpreting the state law requiring such training.
Given the widespread concern of police and law enforcement officials across the state that such training was necessary, it’s hardly surprising that Van Hollen would have set some minimum to assure the training wasn’t simply a sham, and the gun user had some real instruction in its proper use.
But the NRA is the 800-pound gorilla of lobbyists, and most politicians fear their opposition. So the very next day after this letter of criticism was published, Van Hollen announced he backed allowing concealed carry in the State Capitol, just to let people know once again how committed to concealed carry he was.
The irony of the situation is that the law made an exception for law enforcement offices – like those of the Department of Justice agents who work for the attorney general. Van Hollen has said he would have no problem allowing concealed carry in other parts of the Risser Justice Center where he works, but that would be pretty impossible, according to the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, which noted that the office of Van Hollen and most staff are on the upper floors of the building, “where both a guard and locked elevators prevent public access.”
Van Hollen’s communications person, Dana Brueck, doesn’t deny this but says “security has been a longstanding policy in the building” and notes that the building has case files, criminal records, evidence and “a lot of sensitive items.” That’s good point, but I’m guessing many other government buildings have sensitive items. The bottom line is that Van Hollen won’t have to encounter any visitors packing heat, but legislators in the state Capitol will.
Or will they? Gov. Scott Walker has yet to disclose what his Department of Administration will recommend as to whether guns will be allowed in the Capitol and other state buildings. During the winter’s protests at the Capitol, metal detectors were installed to prevent armed visitors from entering. While Republican Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald has said he favors allowing guns in the Capitol, his spokesperson John Jagler conceded that the Walker administration might enforce some policy to make the building secure. And no lawmaker has ruled out bringing back metal detectors if a protest they don’t like arises.
Meanwhile, County Executive Chris Abele has proposed a ban on carrying concealed weapons in all county buildings, which has raised the ire of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Clarke argues that only the county jail and safety building should ban guns, meaning his officers won’t have to deal with pistol- packing peons. But he feels others will benefit from allowing them in their buildings.
“If a maniac with a gun enters a building and starts spraying the place up, my hope would be that a law-abiding, license-carrying gun toter would be able to counter the shooter.”
But aren’t the sheriffs and police much better equipped to stop this maniac than some citizen who may have had as little as four hours training in using a gun? Why allow concealed carry only in the buildings where you are least likely to have police on patrol? Why the growing double standard between government buildings housing top officials and those with less exalted employees?
Clarke actually used to oppose concealed carry, as pointed out by blogger Bill Christofferson, who ran Clarke’s first campaign for sheriff. Back in 2003, Clarke declared that efforts to legalize this would jeopardize the “safety of my deputies and the citizens they represent,” and added that “there are better ways to fight crime than to flood the streets of Milwaukee with dangerous weapons.”
I’m inclined to agree with the old Sheriff Clarke.
A New Approach to Education?
Recently, a new effort to improve education called “Milwaukee Succeeds” was announced. The JS reported on the new initiative, but frankly the story was a snooze. I doubt if many readers realized what makes this effort so unusual.
For starters, the group’s goal is wildly ambitious: to track children from pre-school to college, from “cradle to career,” using a data-driven approach to try to improve how children are educated. This won’t be “a short-term effort where we’ll just make a couple grants and everything will be OK,” said Ellen Gilligan, one of the group’s leaders, and the new head (since last fall) of the Greater Milwaukee Foundation.
Secondly, its leadership is quite broad and includes the foundation, Milwaukee Public Schools, Milwaukee Area Technical College, UW-Milwaukee, the Milwaukee teachers union, United Way and at least some business leaders. John Schlifske, CEO of Northwestern Mutual Life, will serve as co-chair.
Thirdly, the group will track all students, whether in public, private, choice or charter schools. “It’s immaterial where they go to school,” Gilligan declared. In a city that has been consumed by battles between public and choice schools, this approach is radically refreshing.
Fourth, the group isn’t making it all up from scratch; the effort is based on one in Cincinnati that Gilligan helped lead and that had some success. Moreover, Cincinnati had significant participation from the business community. If Gilligan can make that happen here, that would be quite significant; business leaders in Milwaukee more or less gave up on public schools by the mid-1990s and have backed school choice ever since. Gilligan’s contention that all schools count could nudge business execs in a different direction.
Gilligan is the daughter of former Ohio Governor John Gilligan and the sister of former Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, who currently serves as the U.S. secretary of health and human services. She previously served as vice president of community investment for the Greater Cincinnati Foundation. To judge by this new initiative, she could be an interesting new leader in Milwaukee.
The Buzz
The Journal Sentinel continues to do an outstanding job of reporting on the problems with the CAPCO law, which handed out $50 million to companies, supposedly for venture capital funding. As a Sunday story noted, one of the handful of companies who got the funding actually kept half of it, with no record of where the money went. And it was all legal because of how poorly the legislation was written. The companies simply followed the letter of the law, said Tim Roby, a spokesperson for the CAPCO companies. But he neglected to mention the bill was largely written by CAPCO lobbyists.
The legislation was passed back in 1998 with bipartisan support of Democrats like Gwen Moore and Republicans like Glenn Grothman (who regrets this and has since become the implacable enemy of CAPCO programs). The JS sought quotes from them and other lawmakers but left out a crucial supporter: then-Gov. Tommy Thompson signed the bill into law. Given that he is now about to run for U.S. Senator, probably with a call to improve the economy, isn’t it quite timely and relevant to ask why he supported what Grothman now calls this “horrible” legislation?
