But noteverything is rosy over on State Street. Chisholm, like other elected officials, isstruggling with a tight budget—eased in large part by an earmark inserted bySen. Herb Kohl in the federal budget that enabled Milwaukee County to not layoff some assistant district attorneys—plus an exodus of experienced prosecutorswho simply can’t afford to work for the office anymore no matter how much theylove their jobs.
Then there’sthe constant uphill battle against crime in a sprawling metropolitan area thatincludes pockets of deep poverty and dysfunction. In particular, Chisholm hasbeen frustrated by his inability to prosecute many people who have guns whoshouldn’t.
Chisholm,who had supervised the office’s gun unit before being elected district attorneyin 2006, points to the conflicting federal and state laws on firearms and themessages they send. The tragic result is guns in the hands of people who can’tpass a background check—felons, the mentally ill, domestic abusers, teens. Andlaw enforcement can’t stop it.
That ledChisholm to propose a three-part firearm reform package that includesbackground checks for stranger-to-stranger sales of firearms; a strongconcealed carry permitting system; and unifying federal and state laws onfirearm and ammunition possession.
Chisholm’sproposed reforms generated controversy, since anti-gun-violence advocates andChisholm’s fellow Democrats—who control the state Legislature—are fighting topreserve the ban on concealed carry (the ShepherdExpress has also consistently supported the ban on concealed carry), evenif they are open to background checks on gun sales and other measures.
Last week,Chisholm and Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern stopped by the Shepherd offices to explain whyWisconsin legislators should create a strict concealed carry permittingsystem—and why the state needs to act now. Here’s an excerpt of ourconversation, but the expanded interview can be found at ExpressMilwaukee.com.
Shepherd: You recently proposed a firearm reform package that includes aconcealed carry permitting system. As a prosecutor who has long been concernedabout gun violence, why would you want to allow concealed carry in the state?
Chisholm: The package that I am advocating for is based on 10 years of reallyfocused firearm violence prevention strategies. The reality is that Wisconsin’s CCW[carrying concealed weapons] statute, 941.23, has always been one of the mostoverbroad and constitutionally challengeable statutes in the country. At thesame time, it’s been paired with one of the weakest penalties for committingthe offense of CCW. So you’ve got really the worst of all worlds.
Shepherd: How did that happen?
Chisholm: The [DA’s] office made the improvident decision to prosecute agentleman named [Munir] Hamdan back in 1999, before I took over as team captainof the gun unit. Hamdan was a store owner who had a gun underneath his storecounter, and when the officer went [into his store] and found the gun, hebrought him in to prosecute for CCW.
Thatimplicated the Wisconsinright to keep and bear arms amendment. In the Supreme Court decision, the courtupheld the constitutionality of the CCW statute, but barely so. What [thecourt] basically said was [that the Legislature] needs to start looking veryclosely at this law and figure out what [it is] going to do with this in thefuture. But what we’ve done is nothing. So we’ve been living on borrowed time.And that time is up now.
Shepherd: Why is this so urgent?
Chisholm: That time is up because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller [District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, which overturned agun ban in Washington, D.C.], which I believe will now be reinforced by McDonald v. Chicago [a case the SupremeCourt will hear early next year, which challenges the constitutionality ofstate or local gun regulations]. We are truly living on borrowed time.
Shepherd: What should the state Legislature do?
Chisholm: I want certain things out of the Legislature right now that would makeour community much safer. The reform package I’m looking for is threefold: Oneis we need to regulate what I call stranger-to-stranger gun sales. That meansthat anytime a person wants to permanently transfer a firearm to anotherperson, they ought to be doing so through a licensed dealer so that we can dobackground checks and make sure that the person can own a gun.
Shepherd: How would that system work?
Chisholm: That means with reasonable exceptions—the most common being if youwant to transfer a grandfather’s heirloom rifle to his grandson orgranddaughter—that it would have to be brokered. … Then you would get thattransaction brokered through a dealer so we can make sure that the persongetting the gun isn’t prohibited from having a gun. We’d also make it a felonyoffense for people to make straw purchases of guns for other individuals.
Shepherd: Why do you believe background checks are so important?
Chisholm: It’s as simple as this. Under the current system a person can walkinto a store, purchase a gun, walk outside the store and say, “I don’t like thecolor of this gun,” and they can give it to whoever they want to give it to andthere is nothing illegal about it as long as they know that person isn’tprohibited, which is impossible to prove, and if they know that the person isof legal age to possess a gun. As long as they can make a good-faith assertionto that, there is nothing that I can prosecute.
I hearpeople say I should more aggressively prosecute these sales. But the problem isthat the law is so incredibly open. If people actually know their rights itwould be virtually impossible to prosecute someone. They can say, “Yes I boughtthat gun and I intended to keep it for myself, but I went home and realizedthat it was a sort of improvident decision to buy a gun so I decided to sell itand use the money to buy food for my kids. So I went to my neighbor and I took$50 off and I got $300 back.” That would be an unprovable case [forprosecutors].
Shepherd: What’s the second reform?
Chisholm: I want to make concealed carry a felony offense. In order to do thatyou would have to create some form of a permitting system so someone couldlegally carry a concealed weapon and those who did [illegally carry a concealedweapon] would face felony consequences.
Shepherd: Why should concealed carry become a felony offense?
Chisholm: Now [as a misdemeanor] you could get caught 100 times and you couldstill walk into a gun store and buy a gun. From my perspective, we prosecute350 to 400 people every year for carrying concealed weapons. Every single oneof those individuals would be prohibited from owning a firearm in the future ifit was a felony offense. I said, make it 25 and older. You can’t get a CCWpermit until you’re beyond the silly stage. And you’d have to pass backgroundchecks and get trained. You can quibble over the standards of use for thepermit system. But I know from my experience that we would get more out of afelonized CCW statute than we would from a misdemeanor statute.
Shepherd: What’s the third part of your proposal?
Chisholm: We need to incorporate all of the federal prohibitions that existright now on possession of a firearm by people who have been adjudicated formental illness or domestic violence. Or if they possess any ammunition, whichis a key point. The thing that does the damage is the bullet. Under the federalsystem, if you are a convicted felon, you cannot possess ammunition. If youincorporated the federal prohibition into state law it would be perfect. Then Ithink we would have model legislation for the state. This is an opportunity toengage people and create a package of legislation that could make Wisconsin a nationalmodel.
Shepherd: What would happen if the state Legislature doesn’t act on thesereforms?
Chisholm: I’m going to make a prediction right now because I don’t know if wehave the will and the foresight to do this but I predict that nothing willhappen and that Chicago vs. McDonaldwill hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the 14thAmendment [and call into question other state and local gun laws]. Then 20seconds later the NRA will file a challenge to [Wisconsin’s concealed carry statute] andthey will win. And at that point in time we will be left with no CCW and noregulatory scheme at all. That’s what I think will happen.
We’ve sentsuch deeply contradictory messages to people on firearms over the years. I havefound it frustrating and other prosecutors find it frustrating. What we need todo is to come up with a comprehensive package of firearms reforms that wouldsatisfy everyone’s major concerns. It’s doable. It’s an achievable goal if wejust focus on what’s best for the state.
Shepherd: One major source of guns ultimately used in crimes and of “strawpurchases” of firearms is Badger Outdoors, based in West Milwaukee. How does law enforcement ensure that the store’s rightto sell guns doesn’t harm public safety?
Chisholm: I’ve always been fair and balanced with Badger. I’ve alwaysacknowledged the good things that they’ve done and their work with lawenforcement. What I’ve become increasingly concerned about in recent years isthat they are engaged in a business practice, a deliberate business model, thatmakes it easy for people to quickly transfer guns to the illegal market.
If I weresitting behind that counter there would be a list of maybe ten questions that Iwould ask any potential customer. This would be based on my own familiarity offirearms and the law and the way they get into the illegal market. I would askquestions that would very quickly let me know whether I have a legitimatepurchaser or someone who was intending to get rid of that gun fairly quicklyand has no intention of keeping it themselves. They are experts in the field.It’s their business. They know everything there is to know about firearms andtheir accessories and what would be a good indicator of a straw purchases.
The otherthing is that other licensed firearms dealers don’t have near the number ofcrime guns that Badger has. Some of them sell high-end stuff and have adifferent clientele, but the reality is that in our experience they are muchmore proactive in stopping what they see are suspicious sales, and asking thatnext question.
“You say youwant a 40-caliber high-point semi-automatic? Why do you want that gun?” “Well,I want it for something.” “That’s great. Do you want a holster too? We offertraining. We have courses for $100. Do you want some training?” “No I’m notinterested in training.” “Do you have kids in the house?” “Yeah, I’ve got kidsin the house.” “Really? And you still don’t want training?” “No, I don’t wanttraining.”
These arethe questions they should be asking and they could very quickly assess whetherthat person has any intention of keeping that gun. I’m convinced that some ofthem don’t ask those questions. They just ask what the customer wants and ifthey have the money and whether they have any criminal convictions. Then givethem the gun. But that’s not being a good public citizen.
They’remaking their living and raising their families on the proceeds that they doengage in a legitimate business. They ought to consider themselves part of thiscommunity and be a good public citizen, just as we ask other businesses [to doso]. They derive benefit from the people of Milwaukee and they ought to have anobligation to those people as well.
Theirbusiness practices are resulting in cops being shot and a high proportion oftheir guns being used in homicides. They ought to be asking what they can do tochange their practices to make them a better citizen of this community.
Shepherd: Have the recent police shootings made Badger’s owner Adam Allen moreaware of the need to change the store’s business practices?
Chisholm: We get lip service. Only time will tell. But I think he’s on noticethat our patience is being exhausted on this. We’re so deeply concerned aboutwhat we’re seeing. Clearly the tone of our discussions with him have changed.
