Letters
Short term limits pose dangers
I am a member of the state bars in Wisconsin and Michigan. The
Michigan Bar Journal recently carried an article noting the effect
of the 1992 passage of term limits for members of the Michigan
Legislature. (Edmund M. Brady Jr., Legislative Law School,
Mich. B.J. 136-7 (Feb. 1998).) In November 1998, 65 members of the
Michigan House of Representatives (out of 110 total) will be turned out
of office because of the term limitation law, which limits House members
to three terms. Additional changes likely will occur due to voluntary
retirement or incumbent defeats. Similar term limits will affect the
Michigan Senate in 2002. The Michigan Bar expects that two-thirds of the
legislators seated in 1999 will have no prior legislative
experience.
Of the 110 members of the Michigan House, only 15 are lawyers. Of
those, six cannot return because of term limits. The Michigan
Legislature now faces the serious risk of loss of its institutional
memory and of even an understanding of how the legislative process
works, let alone any subtleties of legal principles.
While one could argue that this sea change in the legislature will
bring fresh ideas and clear out the "deadwood," it clearly poses a risk
that Michigan's laws will be in the hands of legislative rookies lacking
any knowledge or experience on the limitations of the legislative
process, the legislature's role in the constitutional process, or even
the state's role in the governmental process. The Michigan Bar is so
concerned that it is developing a "legislative law school" to attempt to
close the gap.
Persons advocating short term limits should pause to realize the risk
created if they are successful: It will leave our legislatures in the
control of rookies to make our laws.
Thomas J. Zaremba, Madison
Bar should not add to sprawl
It is with dismay that I read about the Board of Governors approving
an option on a site at the American Center commercial business park
on Madison's far northeast side. I am chagrined that my professional
organization would take steps to contribute to sprawl and bad
transportation and land use planning.
Madison's esthetic attractions are well-known. Sadly, it is rapidly
becoming less of the beautiful city so many of us have admired and
enjoyed. Doty designed the original city streets to radiate out of the
Capitol like the spokes of a wheel. Unfortunately what is radiating out
now is strip malls, office parks, and frontage roads. These so-called
"parks" use landscaping to sugarcoat their real purpose: aiding the
driving and parking of cars.
The Board of Governors should make a commitment to responsible land
use. The headquarters should remain in central Madison. Surely one of
the downtown office buildings currently under construction or on the
drawing boards could accommodate the Bar's expanding needs.
Wisconsin's attorneys can justifiably take great pride in the
contributions we make in our communities and state. The State Bar
headquarters should reflect that pride and commitment. We should not
build another monument to sprawl. Madison has enough of them
already.
Allan Beatty, Sparta
The Facilities Committee spent the last six years exhaustively
investigating and pursuing all possible alternatives to our current
building. Several downtown locations were considered, but these sites
either did not meet the State Bar's future space needs or were far more
costly than the American Center site. One benefit of moving to Madison's
east side is easier access to lawyers outside Dane County using the
state's main highways and interstate system.
Gerald O'Brien, Chair
Facilities Committee
Real data needed on firearms and firearm safety
Firearm deaths in Wisconsin average about 500 per year. In some
communities firearm deaths exceed those caused by auto crashes. Little
data exist to provide insight into the number, nature, and costs of
nonfatal firearm injuries.
The Wisconsin Legislature has devised various strategies to balance
health and safety interests with those of hunters, target shooters,
collectors, dealers, law enforcement, and persons who believe firearms
are important for self protection from criminals or an over-reaching
government. These laws: prohibit certain firearms, limit possession on
the basis of age or past behavior, limit local ordinances, establish
waiting periods, require background checks, regulate carrying, penalize
negligent or intoxicated use of firearms, require education and safe
storage, and establish gun-free school zones.
An amendment to the state constitution establishing a "right to bear
arms" may be placed on the ballot this fall. The impact of passage on
current laws is unclear. Laws regulating use and possession of firearms
may be subject to heightened state interest and scrutiny, raising
questions about age limits, concealed carrying, and waiting periods
among other issues. The impact on future efforts to reduce firearm
injuries through design and safety standards also is unpredictable.
Previous writers have urged the State Bar to avoid taking positions
because the debate over gun regulation is "political." However,
automatically silencing the Bar when an issue becomes politicized
rewards extremism and amounts to a heckler's veto.
Why should lawyers and the State Bar take positions on firearm
issues? First, a large body of law and legal practice involving firearms
already exists and is subject to change and improvement. Second,
amending the state constitution has ramifications far beyond the
criminal justice system. Third, criminal cases involving firearms
consume an inordinate amount of judicial and enforcement resources.
Fourth, the practicing bar is in an important position to educate the
public.
Advocates on all sides will argue that their position is the right
one to reduce the social and judicial costs of violence. Therefore,
progress in public policy is not likely unless three things happen:
- The issues must be reframed. Lobbying groups have an interest in
casting public debate in stark terms such as "pro-gun vs. anti-gun" or
"gun-control vs. individual rights." These terms are calculated to raise
funds and motivate constituents but may not contribute to real
solutions. Reframed issues include: focusing on injury reduction,
assuring gun-owners wider access to safety choices, promoting research
into firearm engineering, and improving education.
- A better job must be done to gather and analyze the data. Many of
the advocates' assertions are based on faith and not fact. We lack basic
information about environmental circumstances contributing to gun
injuries and we lack the necessary capacity to evaluate injury-reduction
strategies. We don't know which firearms are more likely to produce
injuries or deaths or why. Crafting policies without even knowing how
many gun injuries occur is, indeed, shooting in the dark. We do a better
job reporting and evaluating dog-bite cases than gun injuries.
- The public needs education about firearms and firearm laws. The one
thing everyone agreed upon following a recent Wisconsin survey was that
much of the public is uninformed or misinformed about firearm law. This
is an area where the Bar has an opportunity, as well as a
responsibility, to act.
The Commission on Violence and the Justice System recommended
establishing a firearm injury tracking survey. Agreement should be
possible on this and on providing education to the Bar and the public.
We can then tackle the tougher issues of identifying the factors
associated with firearm injuries and promoting responsible firearm
policies.
Richard L. Withers, JD
Stephen W. Hargarten, MD, MPH
Medical College of Wisconsin
Firearm Injury Center, Milwaukee
Many thanks to Atty. Withers and Dr. Hargarten for their
well-reasoned and astute analysis. Our Board of Governors was well aware
of the controversy that would ensue from approval of the recommendations
of the Commission on Violence and the Justice System, including the call
for firearm injury tracking. I agree with the several reasons stated for
the State Bar taking positions on firearm issues. Those reasons plus the
arguments against taking such positions were strongly debated. In the
end, the report was adopted with only a single dissent. I am proud that
our governance chose to contribute to the discussion of a very serious
issue of public health with profound implications for our justice
system.
David A. Saichek, Past President
Milwaukee
Gerald
R. Fox's letter in the February 1998 Wisconsin Lawyer
demonstrates the common sense that is a hallmark of good lawyering. I
second Mr. Fox's suggestion that if the State Bar really wishes
to address violence in our society, we must contribute to reducing
ignorance, poverty and social injustice. These are the hard issues that
politicians and headline seekers tend to avoid.
Attacking inanimate objects like kitchen knives, baseball bats or
guns makes no sense. In the end, such attacks will do nothing to protect
the victims of violence.
If cheap and unduly dangerous handguns have proliferated as Past
President Saichek indicates, shouldn't we be asking why? As an
organization devoted to justice, let's get at the root causes, rather
than rushing to the easy, but ineffective, answers.
John L. Peeters, Kaukauna
I agree with Mr. Peeters on the root causes of American violence.
The Commission on Violence and the Justice System did not "attack" guns.
It suggested feasible safety mechanisms that could protect people from
accidental injury plus aid law enforcement to identify the perpetrators
of violent crimes.
David A. Saichek, Past President
Milwaukee
Note: The commission's
report was published in the July 1997 Wisconsin Lawyer at page
10.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
