State Rep. Gordon Hintz
Press Release

Rep. Hintz: Statement on Gun Violence Prevention

"The United States is the only country that experiences mass shootings at this level. It’s not even close."

By - Aug 6th, 2019 11:14 am

MADISON – In the aftermath of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio; Assembly Democratic Leader Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) released the following statement on the Wisconsin State Legislature’s role in keeping people safe in communities throughout Wisconsin:

“Families across Wisconsin are reflecting on the deadly violence that occurred in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio over the weekend. We try to make sense of this senseless act. This is a scenario that is repeated across the nation far too often.

“The United States is the only country that experiences mass shootings at this level. It’s not even close. While there is no magic wand or state law that can immediately fix this problem, the heart of who we are as a state depends on us taking steps to reduce the likelihood of these tragedies occurring in the future. People should feel safe in their communities, and yet the vast majority of Wisconsinites are currently represented by politicians who won’t even discuss the most basic steps that can be taken to protect the public and prevent these terrifying acts of violence.

“It’s clear the public expects lawmakers to do everything possible to minimize the threat of gun violence in Wisconsin and around the country. Assembly Democrats look forward to passing meaningful universal background checks that close the gun show loophole, as many other states have done. In addition, we look forward to working with Representative Melissa Sargent and Attorney General Josh Kaul on passing a red flag law to intervene when an individual is a risk to themselves and others. Lastly, Wisconsin should restore its 48 hour waiting period for all firearm purchases.”

Last session, Assembly Democrats brought a bill to the floor that would implement universal background checks for all gun purchases, something 97% of Americans support. Every single Republican voted against it.

More about the Gun Violence

Mentioned in This Press Release

14 thoughts on “Op Ed: 5 Ways to Reduce Gun Deaths”

  1. GRNPAKWH says:

    What we need to do is get the guns off our streets and to this end I suggest a constitutional amendment. Replace the second amendment with one that reads like this: “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.”

  2. Armatus Rebellio says:

    Tired trope is tired. Not one of these things would have prevented any mass shooting to date.

    http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/10/16/op-ed-5-ways-to-reduce-gun-deaths/
    Universal Background checks.
    “Requiring background checks for private gun sales … can reduce gun sales to felons, straw buyers … or buyers with misdemeanor domestic abuse convictions.”

    Washington state and Colorado passed Universal Background Check laws that extend to private part transfers. They had little effect because they were, at their heart, unenforceable.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/13/gun-laws-that-cost-two-state-lawmakers-their-seats-had-little-effect-study-finds

    “Straw buyers”… The sole purpose of a straw buyer is to circumvent the background check.

    Here’s a list of straw buyers and the results of their crimes.
    Robyn Anderson was not charged with a crime for transferring the three guns she had bought in a straw purchase for the Columbine killers.
    https://momsdemandaction.org/faces-of-courage/from-a-loving-father-who-lost-his-son-in-the-columbine-massacre-14-years-ago/

    Emanuel Romo receive probation for was convicted of the straw-purchase of a pistol later used to shoot Milwaukee Police Officer Brandon Baranowski.
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/01/24/probation-straw-purchase-gun-used-cop-shooting/97004132/

    Marcus Wheeler, a felon, killed Omaha Police Officer Kerrie Orozco with the gun he gave money to Jalita Johnson and told her what to buy.
    Jalita Johnson received one year of probation.
    http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/woman-who-bought-gun-used-in-kerrie-orozco-slaying-sentenced/article_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

    “The man who purchased the gun allegedly used to shoot a pair of Milwaukee police officers received two years in federal prison”
    http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/80971787.html/

    Mark Manes, who knowingly sold a TEC-9 to minors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine High School massacre received 6 years.
    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot1113.htm

    Reinstate or extend the 48-hour-waiting period for transfer of purchased handguns.
    “A study of suicide survivors revealed that 70 percent of responders said they made the decision to shoot themselves within one hour of the attempt; 24 percent said the decision was made within 5 minutes.”
    [citation needed] Did the study ask how many were already gun owners or are you just presenting a half truth and hoping the reader will make the leap?

    Safety locks:
    “However, a law passed in San Francisco requiring guns to be kept in locked boxes or equipped with trigger locks was held to be constitutional.”
    Just because the 9th circuit held that mandatory locking a gun is constitutional doesn’t mean that it is. Remember the 9th held that a person who already owns a gun is still subject to a mandatory waiting period to “cool off”. This is what they call “common sense.”

    “prevent a child’s playing with the loaded gun that grandma bought for protection”
    Yes it might. But it puts grandma at risk.
    Heller has held there is a right to having a gun in the home for protection. A gun locked is, by definition, not available for protection. I’m sure you’ve never Googled “home invasion” before.
    If a child negligently accesses a gun and causes harm, the law can be used to punish those allowing negligent access. You cannot legislate against stupidity.

    Mandatory registration:
    “The legal consensus is that mandatory registration does not violate the Second Amendment.”
    Only in the 9th circuit.

    “Mandatory registration could be used to require a gun owner to undergo certified safety training in the safe use and storage of firearms”
    Why is registration needed? Would you be against a firearm owners safety card that proves the owner has had safety training?
    What purpose does registration serve? The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) made registration illegal. Yes it can be changed. Yes it will be tough.

    “It could also verify the gun buyer has a safety lock if legally mandated.”
    The ATF already requires that all guns be sold come with a safety lock. (This is ignorance approaching deceit.)

    Smart Guns:
    “The technology is here for guns that only the owner can fire.”
    Not in any practical sense. No law enforcement agency uses “smart gun” technology.
    There are some proof of concepts, but nothing (anyone who knows anything about firearms) would trust their life to.
    When a 3/10 of a second can mean the difference between life and death, are you willing to trust your life to the technology that unlocks you iPad?
    For now, “smart guns” are a unicorn.

  3. Vincent Hanna says:

    Ah yes the same tired trope that nothing works so nothing should be done. This story proves that isn’t true. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

    The Deputy Prime Minister at the time, a conservative and a gun owner himself, spoke to NPR earlier this month and reiterated many of the points in this story. Saying nothing can be done is nonsense.

  4. Armatus Rebellio says:

    Yes. The Australian gun confiscation. I will admit, if you eliminate all the guns, you will eliminate all the gun deaths.
    There’s an easy 5 step process to doing that, and a somewhat more difficult 6th step.
    You should immediately get to work on that. We’re not Australia. We value our liberty here.

    https://pics.me.me/all-joggers-must-wear-a-helmet-effective-jan-26-2017-13755653.png

  5. Armatus Rebellio says:

    From the “We gotta DOOOO something” department.
    In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
    https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

    That’s nearly the number of firearm related homicides. All illegal, all totally preventable.
    Are truly willing to DOOOO something about that?

    How about universal breathalyzer interlocks? You just have to blow into a tube before your care starts.
    Of course this doesn’t work for drug impairments, so just a tiny blood sample. This also doesn’t eliminate straw breathers. You’re less impaired buddy puffs for you and off you go. What about Smart Car technology so only the registered owner/breather can operate the car? Doesn’t infringe on the right to operate a motor vehicle because there is no right to operate a motor vehicle.

    Vincent would be all for this, am I right?

  6. Vincent Hanna says:

    They didn’t confiscate all guns. Apparently you can’t read. Typical gun nut.

  7. Dennis Grzezinski says:

    GRNPKWH is correct. All we really need to do is follow the requirements of the United States Constitution, as stated in the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, the made-up history spouted by the late unlamented Justice Scalia, falsely claiming to be an “originalist,” utterly distorted the meaning of those quite straightforward words. As long as there is a majority of unprincipled so-called conservatives willing to radically alter our legal system, none of us is likely to be safe from the flood of guns — ranging from the Saturday night special cheap handguns to the military weapons used by mass murderers.

  8. Armatus Rebellio says:

    Vincent Hanna: I did not say Australia confiscated all guns. I said Australia confiscated guns.
    The “all” reference was solely scoped in the second sentence: eliminate all guns, eliminate all gun deaths.
    Which means: Leave some guns, leave some gun deaths. Apparently you cannot comprehend.

  9. Armatus Rebellio says:

    Dennis Grzezinski Have you read the Heller opinions? Both majority and dissent?

    JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
    GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” SURELY IT PROTECTS A RIGHT THAT CAN BE ENFORCED BY INDIVIDUALS. (emphasis added) But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

    Even the dissenting opinion agreed that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms not contingent with service to the militia.

  10. Tyrell track master says:

    LOL. Having spent time in Australia, I can assure you there is at least as much, if not more ‘liberty’ there than in the US.

  11. TransitRider says:

    Armatus, you grossly misstated the position of the 4 dissenting justices in Heller. You said, “Even the dissenting opinion agreed that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms not contingent with service to the militia.”

    It most certainly does not!

    Instead, it said the 2nd Amendment ONLY provides an absolute right to own guns “for certain military purposes”. The sentences immediately following your citation make this clear:

    “Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunt­ ing and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.” (emphasis added)

    According to those 4 justices, the 2nd Amendment ONLY protects gun ownership in connection with militia service, and the right to bear arms is wholly contingent with service to that militia.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

  12. Armatus Rebellio says:

    “When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.”

    You are correct. While I don’t agree with the dissenting opinion, the dissent is arguing the right to bear arms is wholly contingent with service to that militia.

  13. Michael Schwister says:

    Growing up in Wisconsin we never had a problem with our gun ownership. Transporting firearms was legal if the arms were unloaded and cased. If not, you were in violation of the law. If you were at home and confronted with a burglar, you had a right to protect yourself. But if you shot this burglar, he had better fall inside your home because a fleeing burglar was no longer a threat to your life. What we do now is insane. Cops used to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys because only the bad guys had guns on the streets. Wyatt Earp had more sense than the entire US Congress. But then he didn’t have to deal with a government bought by the arms industry. We never felt threatened that “our guns” would be taken or that our rights were being violated. My, how the radio can make us see things that aren’t based in reality.

  14. steve again says:

    The Book: Living with Guns made an impression on me as it examined the history of 2nd amendment and the history of challenges to gun restrictions that it has been involved with. Among other things, it suggests methods of containing guns and containing the debate and assertions about guns that run on
    without much reality check. In general, it seems that the current perception of the 2nd is very far
    removed from the everyday experience of the original writers. At that time, it was not questioned that
    people on the frontier needed guns for hunting and for protection, but local ordinances barring guns and other weapons in cities or other locales with a local police force were also common and unchallenged. The first truly legal cases of 2nd amendment and individual rights came in the twentieth century. For myself, I am most concerned with States writing legislation that precludes local laws or referenda that could limit ownership and use – say in an incorporated area. While the 2nd is fairly clearly addressing the validity of states having their own militias (which G. Washington complained of as useless in the Rev. War, and which now seems to be institutionalized in State control of the National Guard) the idea that gun ownership, concealed or open carry, and protection from the same could be pre-emptively removed from local consideration as needed or desired seems
    reckless and far from the orginalist intention. Have these laws (FL is the one I have read the most about) been challenged? Can the State Legislature prevent us from enacting local laws for our own protection or perceived safety? I have questions, not answers!

Leave a Reply

You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.

Join now and cancel anytime.

If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.

Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us