Paul is absolutely correct. Presidents and governors are given credit for much more power than they possess. When it comes to passage of law their powers are limited to that of influence, pressure, signing and veto. Even their veto is not absolute. It can be overidden by the legislature or congress. Only the state legislature and the congress can make and repeal laws. In Wisconsin neither Walker or Barrett will have a hand in the drafting of a choice of carry bill. They may attempt to influence the language but it is the legislature that will draft and pass the law. For those very reasons it is important that we put the pressure on the legislative representatives. Hold the Republican candidates to their party platform and give the Democrates that are gun-friendly a show of support.
As far as the governor race is concerned it isn't so important as to what the details of their gun carry positions are as it is that they are carry friendly. I personally support Walker as the lesser of two evils but it probably doesn't matter much which candidate wins. What matters is to get a bill sponsored and voted on by the legislatue as soon as possible, before a new governor elect can start influencing members of the legislature to his "bugle call". Even if Barrett were to get elected and vetoes carry legislation I feel the atmosphere in the legislature is much different than in 2006 when Doyle vetoed the onerous Personal Protection Act. We are pretty well assured of getting all Republican anti-veto votes by virtue of the republican platform. Even if the democrats retain control after the November elections I feel that there are enough of them that are gun friendly that I'm confident that any vetoed carry legislation would be overidden. bnh has said it and I agree, we should concentrate on the legislature and bombard the candidates with our opinions. I also agree with bnh that the most important issue is the repeal of statute 941.23. It is the most simple path to our objectives. It would only require debate and vote, could be implemented immediately, would require no draft of new legislation, has no negative financial impact, is fundamentally supported by Art I sec 25, which is carry neutral and has support of some members of the WSC. The WSC has no issue with Art I sec 25 per se. It's interest is the issue of concealment and whether or not Art I sec 25 trumps the long standing prohibition of concealed carry. If the statute that prohibits concealed carry was to be recinded the WSC is out of the ball game and contitutional choice of carry would be effected. No permits, no mandatory training, no fees and most important no new legislation that would allow the anti's to insert rules and regulations.
Here is what two members of the WSC said:
State v Hamdan
Justice Bablich
¶92. The Chief Justice's dissent, in its attempt to save the Carrying a Concealed Weapon statute, eviscerates the constitutional amendment. It renders the constitutional amendment a sham by reading into it the words "unless concealed." The inevitable and logical result of that interpretation is to create absurdities neither the legislature nor the voters could have intended.
¶99. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring/dissenting). For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully concur/dissent, since I agree with the majority's result that Hamdan's conviction should be reversed, but I dissent on the majority's action in remanding this matter.
¶100. The majority in this case improperly reads exceptions into Wis. Stat. §941.23 in order to hold that it is constitutional. Such exceptions to the statute should not be made by this court, but by the legislature. Looking at the statute itself, I conclude that Wis. Stat. §941.23 has become unconstitutional with the passage of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. I agree with Chief Justice Abrahamson's dissent that the majority erroneously assigns to a court, rather than a jury, the task of determining factual issues involving whether a defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon is available to a defendant.
State v Cole:
Justice Crooks
¶55 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. (concurring). While I strongly disagree with the majority's conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 941.23 is constitutional, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ____N.W.2d ___, I agree that Phillip Cole's conviction should be upheld. Because of Cole's waiver of the constitutional claim he now makes, I agree with the majority's mandate affirming Cole's conviction
51 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring). I join Justice Prosser's concurrence except that part of his concurrence in which he states that he "strongly support much of the majority opinion."[15] I have reservations about parts of the majority opinion.
¶52 For example, it does not make sense to me that the majority opinion gives a statute that predates a constitutional amendment the presumption of constitutionality under the later-enacted constitutional amendment.[16] The presumption of constitutionality is based on the reasonable belief that a legislature intends to enact laws that are valid under the Constitution at the time they are enacted, not the unreasonable assumption that a legislature can anticipate all future constitutional amendments and draft constitutionally immortal statutes.
My opinions.