by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

All it took was for Rep. Gary Sherman (D-Port Wing) to reverse his position on concealed carry legislation that he co-sponsored, and the Wisconsin Assembly’s attempt to override Gov. Jim Doyle’s veto was derailed.

Sherman, quoted by The Wisconsin State Journal, reportedly switched his vote “to protect his governor and what limited power the minority Assembly Democrats have,” the newspaper said.

“If you don’t have the discipline to stick together as a group,” Sherman explained in justifying his vote switch, “you don’t have anything to do with governing.”

He also claimed that the issue had become “partisan” because two Republicans changed their earlier votes and joined in the attempt to override. However, six other Democrats stood fast to their original votes in favor of concealed carry.

It was a complete switch on his stated position in a Nov. 6, 2003 guest commentary in The Ashland Daily Press, in which Sherman insisted, “In my very first assembly campaign in 1998, I made my support for concealed carry clear and I have not changed my view.”

Sherman now acknowledges that the vote flip may cost him re-election this fall.

That’s a very real threat, as backers of the legislation, including outspoken state Sen. Dave Zien, are furious and are vowing to target lawmakers who voted to sustain Doyle’s veto. The vote was 65-34, and 66 votes were needed to override.

Zien told Gun Week that Sherman’s reversal was “a dastardly mistake.”

“He sacrificed people’s lives in a sense for petty partisan politics,” said Zien, the Republican sponsor of the Senate bill.

State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Union Grove) vowed to bring the issue back before the legislature next year, and by then, there may be a veto-proof Republican majority. That, at least, is what gun rights activists are hoping for. National Rifle Association lobbyist Darren LaSorte told The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “Some seats have got to change. This issue is too important to quit on.”

LaSorte told Gun Week that he felt betrayed by Sherman.

“The members are absolutely livid,” he said. “His name is dirt throughout the shooting community. When people go to gun shops they will be talking about Gary Sherman.”

LaSorte predicted that Sherman will face an angry electorate this fall, and even though his is a heavily Democratic district, “this is an issue that makes people cross party lines.”

Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms—a grassroots organization that circulated the toll-free legislative hotline telephone number to gun activists in the days leading up to the vote—stated, “Clearly those 34 Assembly members who voted to sustain the governor did so out of political expediency rather than the public good.”

Waldron was critical of Sherman’s vote switch, accusing the lawmaker of “placing the interests of Jim Doyle and his anti-gun Democrat cronies above public safety and the citizens’ constitutional rights.” He said the vote flip was “despicable,” and that it should be remembered in November.

Lobbying on both sides of the issue was intense, as supporters of personal protection virtually squared off with police officials and anti-gun activists for the attention of lawmakers. The lobbying effort paid off with two Republicans switching their votes. Reps. Luther Olson of Berlin and John Townsend from Fond du Lac had previously voted against the CCW bill, but joined their colleagues in the Republican majority. Six Democrats also supported the attempted override, possibly placing them at risk of retribution from within the ranks of their own caucus, and from Doyle.

Those Democrats are Barbara Gronemus (91st District), Marlin Schneider (72nd District), John Steinbrink (65th District), Terry Van Akkeren (26th District), Amy Sue Vruwink (70th District), and Wayne Wood (67th District). Waldron is urging the gun rights community to not only thank these Democrats for breaking partisan ranks, but also to support them against backlash from their party.

Doyle was all smiles after the vote, lauding members of his party for “courageously” standing against the personal protection act. He said that the failure to override was ‘good for the state.’ ”