How to Submit a Letter to the Editor

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:

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.