Concealed carry (or, for that matter, open carry) is just plain nuts.
Case in point, Dan Siegmann. He was a school board member in Dodge County when he visited the superintendent, carrying a loaded firearm. Guns aren’t allowed in school buildings. It was noticed, he got charged for it, resigned from the board and settled out of court with a slap on the wrist. But now for whatever reason he wants to make a Federal case out of it.
His defense is the most insane one you can imagine: he forgot he was carrying the gun. If anything that excuse she disqualify him from ever carrying one again.
I have a healthy respect for firearms. In the deer camp I belong to everyone is carefully schooled in gun etiquette and safety. You never point a rifle at anybody, even casually and even if you know it’s unloaded. You always empty your rifle before returning to camp. You never, ever would even think about handling a gun after you’ve had your first beer, much less your third.
So, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone could be so casual and careless as to not remember that they were carrying deadly force on their hip. The degree of irresponsibility that comes with that attitude is mind boggling.
Not only should the charges and light penalty Siegmann paid stick, his “right” to carry a weapon should be revoked. Gosh, think that’ll happen?
YSDA stands for:
Free speech.
The rule of law.
Reason.
Tolerance.
Pluralism.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
I got my cc license after attending a class in Fitchburg. The class members were diverse. The first thing the instructor told us was something along the lines of “For most of you, carrying a weapon will not be a good idea”.
He spent the rest of the class emphasizing the responsibility that carrying entails. At the same time he emphasized his support of 2A rights.
I got the license, have never carried a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
This guy should feel the wrath of the law, as should all the CONVICTED FELONS caught with a firearm. Ha not in Dane County.
LikeLike
I’ll use this blog post to highlight what I find interesting about gun-rights enthusiasts. There’s a significant overlap between this group and the anti-equity crowd, but their desire that everyone be armed is itself a form of equity.
Not everyone is as big or strong as everyone else. So, there’s a natural inequality in this talent that leads to advantage during physical conflict. Enter firearms, and now even the weakest person has equity with the strongest.
An argument may be raised that this is a great thing – physical violence is something we all wish to avoid, so achieving equity in this respect is good. But what about all the other things we wish to avoid? Things that may befall us regardless of our own decisions? May we be allowed equity in these as well? Food for thought.
LikeLike
I suppose if all conflicts were resolved through duels then yes there would be equity. I might even concede there is some equity if diverse groups of people are armed for home defense.
But that’s not how conflict works. If you’re a cc holder jumped by someone on the street you are out of luck; you can’t preemptively shoot them. Size and strength still matter.
This applies to our police force too. Ideally officers have several levels they can go through before they have to resort to the gun. This has become less true over the last few decades.
And as far as equity being a good thing to avoid violence that has not worked out well in the gangbanger community.
LikeLike