Holy F***, just when you thought a concealed carry bill couldn't be worse

[sybylla]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jun05/335223.asp

Conceal, carry gun bill back on table
Senator proposes revisions of bill vetoed by Doyle
By PATRICK MARLEY
[e-mail]
Posted: June 20, 2005
(added emphasis is mine)

<<<snip>>>
The new bill would give the responsibility of issuing permits to another group, such as the state Department of Justice; the union that represents state troopers; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Law Enforcement Alliance of America; or private security firms, Zien said.

Zien said one of those groups might get those duties explicitly in the legislation, or a process might be set up to select the group through competitive bidding.

Permits under the new bill would cost $75, compared with the $113 in the last bill, said Michael Bruhn, chief of staff to Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), a sponsor of the bill.

Whatever group got the work would be immune from liability if a person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon broke the law, Zien said. A similar provision was in the earlier bill for sheriffs, though some questioned the strength of the protection.

<<<snip>>>

So now Zien wants to outsource issuance of permits and then give those companies explicit immunity from liability for misconduct in issuing said permits? Plus, he's lowering the cost when the last go-round, the sheriffs complained that the fee wasn't enough to cover costs in issuing the permit.

I can't believe they are marching out this tired horse again. Of course the pukes wouldn't want to deal with healthcare or property taxes or their own bazillion dollar deficit, would they. Jesus, I hope all this crap legislation comes back to bite them in the backside. Doyle must be getting cramps from all the vetos.

It's starting to look like either Zien is an absolute idiot or the pukes are trying to make him look like one by getting him to sponsor all their psycho legislation. I don't know what the heck this idiot is on, but I hope you'll join me in supporting his opposition the minute they set up a campaign committee.

I promise, I'll keep ya all posted.

[slackmaster]

1. Where did you get "immune from liability for misconduct in issuing...?"

I read it as immune from liability if they issue permits according to the rules and a permitholder subsequently screws up.

[sybylla]

3. Looks like you can't read either

It says "immune from liability if a person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon broke the law." It says nothing about issuing according to rules.

Now I was reading between the lines. This senator is my idiot legislator (who spends his days talking about ancient rocks :crazy:) and I know what immunity will mean in the final bill. Regardless, I guess we'll have to wait and see when the NRA gets done crafting the bill for him and we can read it for ourselves.

[slackmaster]

4. I was reading between the lines too

It says nothing about issuing according to rules.

That was my assumption, that a public employee or contractor who breaks the rules in issuing a license or permit would always be liable for malfeasance or negligence.

I believe that if an issuing agency follows the rules and issues a permit to someone who is qualified according to the letter of the law to receive it, and the permittee then goes and does something illegal, the issuing agency should not be held liable.

...I know what immunity will mean in the final bill.

I guess we'll have to wait for the text to see what comes up. I can't imagine a legislature being dumb enough to grant immunity for malfeasance or negligence.

[sybylla]

5. Gee, you would think if the issuing agency followed the rules

then there would be no legal standing for liability. So what other kind of liability could they be talking about? :think: :think: :think:

Maybe it's the kind of liability where a company cuts corners and shimmies out from under the burden of following rules.

On the other hand, if I accept your argument, then why should any company be given immunity from liability in the letter of the law? Any company that produces a product should be liable for that product. If a security company issues a permit(their product) to someone who shouldn't have had one and they commit a crime, why shouldn't they be held responsible for their product?

A toy company manufactures toys under relatively strict rules and oversight. Yet they still occasionally produce products that cause harm and may be recalled. Do we waive their liability because they followed all the rules too?

If a tavern owner sells liquor to a minor who hands him a trumped up ID, we still find fault in the tavern owner even though he or she followed all the rules.

It would seem to me that the only way to insure appropriate permitting takes place is to make sure the companies doing the permitting are liable.

This liability crap is ridiculous on its face and I promise you it will get no prettier under the skin. This is an old fight in this state and this Senator has already promised to bring to the table the worst concealed carry bill in the country.

Check back in July, you'll see what I mean.

[ewagner]

2. He threatened to do this

last year....he said if the bill was vetoed, he would bring it back WITHOUT the compromises, safety-nets, or restrictions.

Julie Lasee, Our Senator, worked like hell to get a provision to keep the CCL from applying to medical centers....she had to agree to support the bill in order to get the compromise....Zien threatened to reintroduce the bill without the amendment in it and I think he's done it.

Zien should be on the list with Gard, Suder and Senselessbrenner....not to mention Green....jeeeeeeesssshhhhh.

Is AWOL from an insane asylum a REQUIREMENT for running aqs a Repub?

[Broca]

6. The price makes me suspicious

From the Journal article:
"Permits under the new bill would cost $75, compared with the $113 in the last bill, said Michael Bruhn, chief of staff to Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), a sponsor of the bill."

With today's administrative costs, it sounds like this will be a rubber stamp type procedure. If they rubber stamp an application for a nut case just where will the public be allowed to go for redress?

Because of his mental illness I hope Zien at least will be precluded from getting a permit.