I recently wrote about the disappointing websites of Wisconsin attorney general candidates Susan Happ and Brad Schimel, on which neither want to address to of the issues facing the office: drunk driving and high incarceration rates for African American men. There's a third issue that one candidate is all but ignoring, and I wish the other would ignore: guns.
Happ says nothing at all about the gun violence epidemic on her website, while Schimel seems eager on his to show that he is in lockstep with the National Rifle Association.
In other settings, Happ has said that she wants to extend background checks to all purchasers of firearms. This is good, though she also has the dubious distinction of having applied for a concealed carry permit, which is a serious lapse in judgment. She should know, as Jefferson County District Attorney, that guns in the home are 22 times more likely to kill or injure a family member than to stop an intruder. Happ's campaign says that her gun is safely locked away and she doesn't carry on the campaign trail.
It's a measure of how far gone we are on this issue that Happ looks like she's getting tough on guns compared to her opponent, who not surprisingly was endorsed by the NRA this week.
Brad Schimel's website has its own Second Amendment page, and it reads like the late Charlton Heston's bedtime prayer.
It starts with an important omission from Amendment II itself. Schimel's website quotes only a portion of the amendment.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," proudly declares the lead line of the gun rights page on Schimel's website.
Actually, the full amendment begins with an all-important qualifying clause. Here's the complete language: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Schimel didn't see the need to quote the entire amendment. Yet the courts and legal scholars have struggled with the meaning of that phrase for generations. For a candidate for attorney general to leave it out speaks volumes about his attitude toward guns, public safety and the law itself. Apparently, he'll take what he likes and ignore the rest.
Schimel has also made it a point in his campaign to say that he will always defend every action of the legislature without factoring in his own opinions about the constitutionality or appropriateness of that law. He has gone so far as to say that he would have defended a state law against interracial marriage had one existed in Wisconsin in the past. So, if that's the case, the candidate shouldn't need to go out of his way to declare:
Brad Schimel stands by the Wisconsin State Legislature's choice to enact concealed carry legislation and would defend it against any legal challenge.
Or this:
Brad Schimel will uphold Section 26, article I of the Wisconsin Constitution, which provides that "The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law."
If we were to take Schimel at his word, then it shouldn't matter what he says he stands by, as he supposedly wouldn't be deciding what he will uphold and what he won't. I guess what Schimel must be saying that when it comes to guns, he won't just do what the Legislature directs, but that he'll do it because he's really into it.
And this might be the worst statement:
Having law enforcement present at your home in only a few minutes after dialing 911 is not always possible. As Attorney General, Brad Schimel will fight for the right of all Wisconsin citizens to have the tools to protect their families.
Here Schimel is saying that he believes in the "castle doctrine," which is the idea, and now law, that says because a man's home is his castle, he is presumed to have the right to protect it with deadly force. Basically, Schimel is saying go ahead and shoot now, and maybe we'll ask some questions later.
This is an outrageous thing for somebody who wants to be Wisconsin's "top cop" to be saying. Schimel is essentially supporting vigilante justice and contributing to the notion that you are safer with a loaded gun in your home than you are without one, which is just flat-out inaccurate. You would expect the attorney general to support the rule of law, not the law of the jungle.
According to the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, there were 467 Wisconsinites were killed by guns in 2013 alone. That's more than drunk driving and heroin combined. And both candidates go on at length about how they'll fight heroin. Meanwhile, one candidate has little to say about guns, while the other is essentially supporting the firearms equivalent of supplying drug addicts with all the needles and opiates they want.
Happ is the better candidate on guns, but these days in mainstream American politics, what passes for better is pretty thin soup.