Either CCW or the Courts

The legislative Democrats are now faced with an interesting problem: whether to override BagManJim's veto of the Concealed Carry law, or not.

Some of them are going to assist Doyle based on principle--that is, they have always opposed concealed-carry weapons (knives fall into the category) and always will--for whatever reason.

Others are going to assist Doyle because they want butter on their bread: BagManJim will 'take care of them' downstream.

BOTH of these groups have a problem, however, and I think both of them know it.

The "principled" opponents of CCW have the difficulty of the State Constitution and the State Supreme Court. The Constitution explicitly grants the right to bear arms 'for any lawful purpose,' and the Court has found that a 'reasonable fear' of bodily harm to oneself constitutes justification for carrying a concealed weapon. So far, this only applies to "place of business." (One could always legally have concealed weapons in one's own home.) But there's another case now in the docket which most likely will expand the right to "in one's car."

The point is that somewhere along the line, the Court will rule in favor of concealed carry under dozens of circumstances, based on the Constitution's clear language. It is entirely possible that such rulings could include carrying under circumstances proscribed by the proposed legislation (e.g., into Government offices.) Moreover, such rulings do NOT require that the individual who carries register, nor obtain training. In other words, the Court's rulings will produce a helter-skelter "map" of who may/may not, where/where not--and no law-enforcement agency will have foreknowledge of individuals who are legitimately carrying.

It's a nightmare scenario; but voting to sustain the veto WILL lead there, whether by accident or design.

The OTHER group of Democrats may vote to sustain the veto based on gaining favor from the Governor. But they, too, have a problem: the polls. At this time, BagManJim is not doing well at all and it is very likely that he will lose his office in November (all things remaining equal.)

So exactly what 'favors' can BagManJim DO for them? And how long will those 'favors' last?

The case for legal concealed-carry is compelling on principle--who can argue that law-abiding citizens should NOT be able to defend themselves from attack? Which legislator wants to tell their daughter (or mine) to "lay back and enjoy it?"--or tell their Mom (or wife) to just "take a few rounds in the gut--you shouldn't have been in that area of town anyway"? Forty-six other States understand that self-defense is a God-given right, and the law does not COMPEL citizens to carry; if you don't like guns, or knives, or Mace--don't use them. No problem.

The choices for those who would sustain the veto are not appealing: either Court-imposed patchwork, or a "reward" from a guy who has less than 365 days left in power.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.