I happened to watch Charlie Sykes' "Sunday Insight" show the other day for a rare change and saw and heard a spirited debate about trans fatty acids and government intrusion. I had heard something about trans fatty acids (TFA's) and New York City banning them in restaurants, but prior to that, I had thought “Trans” was a record by Neil Young, in which he experimented using vocoder technology to communicate with his speechless son, who has cerebral palsy. Trans fat is also not to be confused with video games such as Tron or the quite addictive Williams original, Robotron.

The Sykes discussion was interesting in that New York City often does interesting things and the rest of the country reacts (Rudy Giulliani's anti-graffiti ads would have been and still are a great Milwaukee conversation piece); it was interesting to listen to the arguments and rhetoric unfurl on both sides. I didn't understand why this was an issue for a Milwaukee Sunday talk show, but then I don't know what Charlie's programming values are.

Here at Watchdog we’ve been talking about guns, and about the 2nd Amendment.  We wondered where and how the constitutional protections for "concealed carry" (CC) legislation can be found in the 2nd Amendment.  We posted links to research on concealed carry, put together by state Rep. Jon Richards.  We talked about Minnesota, a concealed carry state where Minneapolis leads the nation in soaring violent crime.  Milwaukee is number two on that violent crime spike list, and we don’t have concealed carry. Concealed carry is obviously a wash, a non-factor as these disturbing new violent crime trends occur in Upper Midwest cities not named Detroit. Something’s happening … nobody’s sure exactly what, but CC is not even on the table in the criminal justice discussion.  It seems, however, that CC will never leave the political realm.

What does this have to do with trans fatty acids?  Absolutely nothing.  But there’s this idea out there, present and accounted for in the fatty acid debate by conservatives such as Charlie Sykes and Patrick McInerney and yes, County Supervisor Lynne Debruin, whose main goal seems to be to agree with every idea and person she is confronted with – that TFA prevention amounts to undue government intervention. One of our readers then compared the New York fatty acid law to government telling gun owners they can’t walk around in public with concealed weapons.

Naturally, I was slobbering like Deuce our pit bull mascot over this diversion, but also well aware that this is the sort of thing that happens more and more these days when people start talking politics. There’s no pit bull intensity, no German shepherd-like discipline to topic … it devolves to Labrador retriever slop. (Don’t worry, the dog metaphor comes back around again later).

The idea of Big Government and the 2nd Amendment is a strange creature. The amendment is easily the most misunderstood in the Bill of Rights, if not its most tested.  The amendment’s definition of “militia” came to be rooted, not in the general semantics of the word "militia", but to the bygone era when state-approved militias were the public police.  Since then, the revolutionary spine of the 2nd Amendment has long eroded and been shaped to suit government purposes.  Bloody FBI-militia battles in the 1970’s taught groups like the American Indian Movement that the letter of the constitution could not be enforced against the government. And the last 20 years have seen an unprecedented federalization of law enforcement that is quickly becoming a critical discussion around the country about dispersion of police resources and response to crime in the city.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has used the 2nd Amendment as an umbrella to further promote the American culture of guns, never the intent of the amendment at all. In fact, the 2nd Amendment is terrible law, as it legislates the means by which the citizenry ought to defend itself — the militia. The individual who takes up arms in self-defense against another individual, and the means by which he or she chooses to do so, is not a matter arbitrated in the Bill of Rights.  Personal self-defense is an inherently local criminal justice issue, and the 2nd Amendment provides no means for it.

Yet over many American generations, various 2nd Amendment legal arguments have been twisted into a political debate about ownership of certain types of firearms and other weapons, and the vagaries of where, when and how a person is allowed to use them.  One big 2nd Amendment misconception is that legal use of a firearm can be based on property ownership, property being a core principle in the constitution. But the courts have repeatedly ruled that a citizen can't shoot another to protect property. And under any circumstances, if an unarmed person is shot in the back — even if the shooting victim is on a property and running off with the shooter’s mom's TV (yes, this occurred in Milwaukee in 1997) – the person who fired the gun is going to prison.  Recently, a Racine jury ruled that it’s illegal to protect your girlfriend by shooting someone. The law says you have to find another way.

As a lifelong urban resident who’s written for years about criminal law, it's all too clear that the situations in which you can legally fire the gun are so rare that it's nearly inconceivable that concealed carry is still debated as seriously as it is. But the reality is that CC exists in almost every state – all but four, Wisconsin being one of the four.  It is legislation that lives and breathes in the aquarium of politics – because the NRA wants it so bad; because it appeals to rural residents who don’t see it as a big deal; because rural legislators and suburban ring Republicans can outvote urban legislators in states like Minnesota.  Yet CC remains a dangerous nightmare to urban dwellers, and our police agree.

In Wisconsin, a farmer named John Steinbrink, who represents Pleasant Prairie along the Illinois border, killed CC last year, changing his pro-CC vote to uphold Gov. Jim Doyle’s veto of the bill.  Steinbrink, a Democrat, will face little retribution from voters because of his sudden switch, making this story no profile in courage. Although a natural supporter of concealed carry because of his rural roots, his state Assembly district has changed quite a bit in the 12 years he’s held the seat. Pleasant Prairie is now overrun by Illinois developers and growing faster than any area in the state. It’s populated by folks who watch Chicago television and have very little interest in the values of the Republican Party of Wisconsin or the NRA.

Yet still, there is the vocal minority. Steinbrink’s wife received threatening phone calls at home from concealed carry supporters after her husband flipped his vote. Why? So some idiot can shoot coyotes on Chewaukee Prairie and feel sanctioned by the state, even though his or her neighbors feel threatened by such activities? The Steinbrink’s filed a police report. Although concealed carry was defeated as law, it created extra police work in the state.

It's completely unreasonable for a special interest group, the NRA, to foist CC on states all for the narrow agenda of promoting gun culture, expanding membership and increasing gun sales, which also serves the membership organization and its interests.  The NRA, however, is such a strong, persistent and organized lobby that they've succeeded with CC despite their inability to prove their arguments (deterrent the main one). Recalling the NRA’s crazy push for assault rifles in the 1990’s, it's possible that concealed carry sounds reasonable and harmless by comparison. Whether or not there is a sense of relief about this kinder, gentler NRA, what the group tells legislators and voters about urban areas is pure bullshit in every sense.

Nobody's going to have shootouts with rapists and muggers under concealed carry. That's strictly illegal. What we would get in Milwaukee is an assembly line of government signs telling CC permit holders that they can’t bring their guns into hundreds of buildings and public places. The result is government being forced by a special interest to intrude and regulate on a majority that wants no part of gun culture in day-to-day life.  Concealed carry is revealed, then, as the opposite of all conservative Big Government arguments.  Masquerading as a law that expands the rights of some individuals, CC infringes on the quality of life and general happiness of the majority.  That denying concealed carry is still somehow viewed as an intrusion by Big Government is an astounding rhetorical victory for the NRA.

If only the founding fathers had mentioned the benefits of owning big dogs. Or vicious cats.