See also State v. Maker,

¶5. The decision to charge a defendant with disorderly conduct necessarily depends on the totality of the circumstances. Reasonableness, not bright-line rules, should guide your decision. See, e.g., State v. Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d 668, 671-72, 211 N.W.2d 437 (1973) ("Wisconsin’s disorderly conduct statute proscribes conduct in terms of results which can reasonably be expected therefrom, rather than attempting to enumerate the limitless number of anti-social acts which a person could engage in that would menace, disrupt or destroy public order") (footnote omitted). Even when an act facially resembles the exercise of a protected right, the facts and circumstances of a case may give rise to a disorderly conduct charge. For example, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution both protect the right to freedom of speech. Yet it has long been recognized that speech-only activity can cross the line between protected expression and disorderly conduct. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942) ("[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances"); accord State v. Zwicker, 41 Wis. 2d 497, 510, 164 N.W.2d 512 (1969). See also Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (noting that some categories of speech are "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest").

¶6. Applying these principles to open carry matters, we recognize that under certain circumstances, openly carrying a firearm may contribute to a disorderly conduct charge. But this determination must take into account the constitutional protection afforded by Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Department believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge. For example, a hunter openly carrying a rifle or shotgun on his property during hunting season while quietly tracking game should not face a disorderly conduct charge. But if the same hunter carries the same rifle or shotgun through a crowded street while barking at a passerby, the conduct may lose its constitutional protection. See Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d at 672-73 (collecting cases illustrating disorderly conduct) ("In each of these cases, convictions for being ‘otherwise disorderly’ resulted from the inappropriateness of specific conduct because of the circumstances involved") (emphasis added).4 Wisconsin District Attorneys, Deputy District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys April 20, 2009 Page 4

5 See Linda Spice, "West Allis Man Not Guilty In Open Carry Gun Case," Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Feb. 17, 2009, online at < http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html> (last visited March 26, 2009).

¶7. The same concepts should apply to handguns. The state constitutional right to bear arms extends to openly carrying a handgun for lawful purposes. As illustrated by a recent municipal court case in West Allis, a person openly carrying a holstered handgun on his own property while doing lawn work should not face a disorderly conduct charge.5 If, however, a person brandishes a handgun in public, the conduct may lose its constitutional protection. Again, "[i]t is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the [disorderly conduct] statute to a particular situation." Maker, 48 Wis. 2d at 616.

¶8. Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or Terry stop) if he has "reasonable suspicion," based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming "totality of the circumstances" test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop).

¶9. And "even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification," as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553-54 (1980). Accordingly, a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in public and asking questions. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 435-36. The person approached need not answer any questions. As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554. Wisconsin District Attorneys, Deputy District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys April 20, 2009 Page 5

¶10. For further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Assistant Attorneys General Greg Weber at 608.266.3935, or Roy Korte at 608.267.1339.

JBV:RPT:KMS:GMW:cma

My second objective is to encourage the legislature to eventually enact a good permit to carry law (not mandated concealed carry). The mechanics of carry should be your decision. People should openly carry in the meantime.

My first objective has been achieved and sometime in June, the legislature will vote on SB 90 / AB 126 which will be the states new carry law, which will complete my second objective.

The Wisconsin carry course is being updated and course materials are being prepared.

In preparation of the signing of this new carry law, several AACFI instructor classes are being scheduled and I will post them here as details are confirmed. Our instructor program is explained below. If you are interested in knowing more, please contact me at genegerman@ccwtrainer.com . I would appreciate your describing your background and providing me with your contact information.

If you live in Wisconsin, you need to tune in and listen to the top rated radio talk show host in Madison and Milwaukee. Vicki McKenna is a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, the Wisconsin constitution and everyone’s right to be safe and I am proud to say, Vicki is a friend of mine. In very liberal Madison, she is the only “voice of reason in a city of chaos” that we have. Her audience is consistently larger than all the liberal talkers' audience combined!

Upfront with Vicki McKenna broadcasts weekdays in Milwaukee on 1130 AM WISN from 10a.m to Noon and in Madison on 1310 AM WIBA every weekday afternoon from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.. If you are like me and beyond the stations signal, you can listen to her on the internet anywhere in the world from her website at www.vickimckenna.com . Vicki’s website will introduce her to you and you can also read her timely thoughts on current issues of importance.

The following bits and pieces of information is offered to help you reprogram yourself and to help you understand the mentality of gun grabbers. When you are finished reading the following comments and articles you will have a better understanding why some people “just don’t get it”. They can’t “get it”. The odds of your changing their minds to your way of thinking are exactly the same that they will change your mind to their way of thinking, so don’t beat yourself up over it. The reasons are identical because we are all hard wired to think as we do and we won’t or perhaps can’t, change our fundamental belief system. That defines who we are.

True sheep very rarely become sheepdogs and people, who believe the government should take care of them, rarely develop self reliance. The opposite of these two statements is also true. Self reliant people do not want government assistance and sheepdogs can not become sheep.

You probably knew this, but now you will also know why.

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — the Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001.

Thank God Jean Assam, directly or indirectly, took this advice when she stopped the malevolent attack at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The former police officer and volunteer security guard who made the suggestion to beef up security at the church without question saved the lives of perhaps dozens of people.

What a terrific conundrum for the anti-gun left. Normally, a gun-waving psychopath is a poster child for their counterintuitive argument that firearms cause crime. This is related to the entire liberal philosophy that individuals are in some way not responsible for their actions but must be goaded into bad behavior by either society or some evil talisman that creates within them the desire to do harm. What actually disturbs them is the symbolic nature of the firearm and its association with the individualism of the West.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity,” wrote Sigmund Freud in his “General Introduction to Psychoanalysis.” Fear of firearms is, in most cases, not related to a fear of crime but likely is associated with disagreement over the idea of singular liberties attached to citizens, which conflicts with the centralizing nature of government.

The simplicity of rule by fiat is always hampered by the stubborn speedbump of individual rights. The right to own a firearm and, by implication, the ability to protect one’s environment without the constant need of organizational interference implies the ability to function at a basic and important level without total surrender of one’s individual rights to the social contract.

This unique aspect of American culture was given birth by British confiscation of colonists’ property. Its symbolic period was the romanticized Wild West, where it was said that “God did not make men equal, Colonel Colt did.”

Firearms by themselves may not have made men free or keep them so in today’s world. But their ownership demonstrates the citizens’ alliance with, not dominance by, their government.

As is often the case, this unique aspect of American culture is most recognized by those off our shores.

British author George Orwell recognized this symbolic and important feature by noting, “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

This bit of obvious Americana however, seems to be more difficult to grasp by some of our own politicians: “If I could have banned them all — (and said) ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ — I would have!” declared U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., on the TV program “60 Minutes” on Feb. 5, 1995.

But this fear of firearms and desire to eliminate them is relatively new, even on the left:

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible,” said Democrat Hubert Humphrey, vice president and presidential candidate in 1968.

Humphrey’s remarks were significant because it was during this period that the swelling demographic of the baby-boomer generation and its coddled attitudes fostered by grateful parents, survivors of the Depression and World War II, began to make itself apparent. As is often the case with heirs to self-made fortunes, parents desire their children to have an easier time than themselves, often not recognizing that it was just such difficulties that properly molded them.

The baby boomer desire to not be held accountable or take responsibility for actions has led to a never-ending stream of theories that seek to distance people from results. It is from this witches brew of self-indulgence and externalization of wrongdoing that modern gun control is born.

Rick Wagner offers more thoughts on politics at his blog, The War on Wrong, which can be reached through the blogs entry at GJSentinel.com.

Freedom and Firearms Senator Tom McClintock Date: June 9, 2001 Publication Type: Speech or Statement GO BACK A Speech by Senator Tom McClintock Western Conservative Conference, Los Angeles, June 9, 2001 There are two modern views of government that begin from entirely different premises. There is the 18th Century American view propounded by our nation’s founders. They believed, and formed a government based upon that belief, that each of us is endowed by our creator with certain rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights. This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the American Bill of Rights. The second view is 19th Century German in origin and expressed in the philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater good – defined, of course, by government. In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in public policy, I have seen the growing influence of this 19th Century German view. It disdains the view of the American Founders. It rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested. I mention this, because of a debate that occurred last week on the floor of the State Senate. It was a debate that occurred under the portrait of George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto, “Senatoris Est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri” – “The Senators Protect the Liberty of the Citizens.” At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state. We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion. During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the liberty of the citizens. She said, “There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want.” I want to focus on that statement. “The only constitutional right which is absolute is your right to believe anything you want.” Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” What rights has a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn’t utter it or act on it – he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship – except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master – whether that master is a state or an owner. Now, let us continue to look at this new constitutional principle propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of George Washington to the delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the proud words above them, is to “Protect the Liberty of the Citizens.” She continued, “Other than that, (the right to your own thoughts) government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people – I will put it in the colloquial way as my grandmother used to – your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It’s a balance of your rights and my rights because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for government is how do we balance those rights?” Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. An excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your fist so that you can never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my own fist to protect my nose? Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe government has the legitimate authority to do so. It is simply the question of balancing. It is very important that we understand precisely what Senator Kuehl and the Left are saying. A thief balances your right to your wallet against his right to eat. A murderer balances your right to life against his right to freedom. A master balances your right to “work and toil and make bread,” against his right to eat it. These are matters of balance. The American view is quite different. In the view of the American Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God endow each of us with rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. These rights are absolute. They cannot be alienated. But in a state of nature, there are predators who would deny us those rights. And thus we come together to preserve our freedom. In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by one government over its people, is “to secure these rights.” Senator Kuehl continues, “My right to defend myself in the home does not extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps, that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living room.” Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious fact that a tank is only an instrument of self-defense against a power that employs a tank. But let us turn to the more reasonable side of her argument: that rights can be constrained by government; that there is, after all, “no right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and yet constrained by government? To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is simply, “it’s easy -- whenever we say so.” Or, in her words, “government has the ability to say (so) on behalf of all the people.” The American Founders had a different view, also, not surprisingly, diametrically opposed to Senator Kuehl’s way of thinking. The right is absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim. Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them. Senator Kuehl continues, “In my opinion, this bill is one of those balances. It does not say you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling and using a dangerous item you need to know how to use it, and you need to prove that you know how to use it by becoming licensed.” How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic. We must understand what they are arguing, because it is chilling. They are arguing that any of our most precious rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights – any at least they decide are conceivably dangerous -- may only be extended through the license of the government. If that is the case, they are not rights. With that one despotic principle, you have just dissolved the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights. You have created a society where your only right is to your own thoughts. Inalienable rights are now alienated to government, and government may extend or refuse them upon its whim – or more precisely, upon a balancing act to be decided by government. Let us follow – in our minds at least – a little farther down this path. Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate their hatred and racism. Sick individuals in our society act upon this hatred. The Oklahoma City bombing killed a score of innocent children. Shouldn’t we license printing presses and Internet sites to prevent the pathology of hate from spreading? Such an act doesn’t say you cannot have a press. It does not say you cannot express yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling a printing press, you should know what not to say and prove that you can restrain yourself by becoming licensed. And what are we to do about rogue religions like those that produced Heaven’s Gate and Jonestown? How many people around the world are killed by acts of religious fanaticism every year? Should we not license the legitimate churches? Such an act doesn’t say you cannot have a church. It does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be running and conducting a church, that you must know how to worship and prove that you know how by becoming licensed. The only right you have is the right to believe anything you want. The only right of a slave. The rest is negotiable – or to use the new word, “balanceable.” In 1838, a 29 year old Abraham Lincoln posed the question for which he would ultimately give his life. Years later, he would debate Stephen Douglas, who argued that freedom and slavery were a matter of political balance. But in this speech, he spoke to the larger question that we must now confront: "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." The American Founders worried about the same thing. Late in life, Jefferson wrote to Adams, "Yes we did create a near perfect union; but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance is the surest path to destruction." And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim that “the only constitutional right in the United States which is absolute … is your right to believe anything you want,” and as I gazed at the portrait of George Washington, and as I thought about the solemn words, “the Senators Protect the Liberty of the Citizens,” I couldn’t help but think of an aide to George Washington by the name of James McHenry, who accompanied the General as they departed Independence Hall the day the Constitution was born. He recorded this encounter between Benjamin Franklin and a Mrs. Powell. She asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Answered Dr. Franklin, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." For this generation, that is no longer a hypothetical question. History warns us that to one generation in five falls the duty – the highest duty and the most difficult duty of this Republic – to preserve the liberty of the citizens. It is the most difficult, because as Lincoln warned, it is a threat that springs up not on a foreign shore where we can see it – it springs up amongst us. It cannot be defeated by force of arms. It must be defeated by reason. Have you noticed yet, that ours is that generation? And how ironic it would be that the freedoms won with the blood of Washington’s troops, and defended by so many who followed, should be voluntarily thrown away piece by piece by a generation that had become so dull and careless and pampered and uncaring that it lost the memory of freedom. The Athenian Democracy had a word for “citizen” that survives in our language today. “Politikos.” Politician. The Athenians believed that a free people who declare themselves citizens assume a duty to declare themselves politicians at the same time. It is time we took that responsibility very seriously. In 1780, the tide had turned in the American Revolution, and the Founders began to sense the freedom that was within sight. John Adams wrote these words to his wife that spring. He said, "The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain." Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom. And the wheel has come full circle. Our generation must study politics that we may restore the liberty that our parents and grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren. If we fail, what history will demand of our children and grandchildren, in a society where their only right is to their own thoughts, is simply unthinkable. And be assured, history will find it unforgivable. A generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the universe – freedom – and throws it away -- deserves to be reviled by every generation that follows – and will be, even though the only right left to them is their own thoughts. But if we succeed in this struggle, we will know the greatest joy of all – the joy of watching our grandchildren secure with the blessings of liberty, studying arts and literature in a free nation and under God’s grace, once again. Ladies and Gentlemen, isn’t that worth devoting the rest of our lives to achieve?

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By Lt.Col. (ret.) Dave Grossman, Army Ranger, psychology professor, author of "On Killing" and the upcoming "On Combat".
"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

_________________________________________________________________________

O ne Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word 'hero'?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog--the warrior--but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.