• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why did wi legislature exempt police officers only?

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
The Wisconsin state legislature, maybe not all of them, believes that Wisconsinites who exercise our second amendment rights are a danger to the public because we have not been trained in the art of shooting our handgun often enough to be an accurate marksman. I would agree that we have not been trained in police tactics to apprehend criminals or use the PIT maneuver to stop speeders etc... but we do realize that if and when we are in a situation where we have to defend ourselves with a handgun, are responsible for every bullet that exits the barrel and what it hits. Police are no exception to accidental/irresponsible shooting where innocent bystanders are wounded or killed.

Now do each one of us have to prove to our legislature that we are competent shooters? I am wondering if SB589 is to make it to the governor's desk, someone will add an attachment that we qualify ourselves before an accredited firearms instructor, before the bill will be voted on. Just wondering...

Examples of COPS injuring bystanders

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/wh...public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/
 

Contrarian

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Seattle,WA, , USA
--snip--

Now do each one of us have to prove to our legislature that we are competent shooters? I am wondering if SB589 is to make it to the governor's desk, someone will add an attachment that we qualify ourselves before an accredited firearms instructor, before the bill will be voted on. Just wondering...

Does anyone know exactly how much training the (presumably) Academy provides each police recruit during training?
I suspect that many here get much more as we have this as an interest, not just a job requirement.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
--snip--

Now do each one of us have to prove to our legislature that we are competent shooters? I am wondering if SB589 is to make it to the governor's desk, someone will add an attachment that we qualify ourselves before an accredited firearms instructor, before the bill will be voted on. Just wondering...

Does anyone know exactly how much training the (presumably) Academy provides each police recruit during training?
I suspect that many here get much more as we have this as an interest, not just a job requirement.

Have them all line up 50 ft away and hold targets ...?
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Why? Because they are exempted from nearly all laws at this point... it's now standard practice to exempt cops from any law coming through any congress now.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
The Wisconsin state legislature, maybe not all of them, believes that Wisconsinites who exercise our second amendment rights are a danger to the public because we have not been trained in the art of shooting our handgun often enough to be an accurate marksman. I would agree that we have not been trained in police tactics to apprehend criminals or use the PIT maneuver to stop speeders etc... but we do realize that if and when we are in a situation where we have to defend ourselves with a handgun, are responsible for every bullet that exits the barrel and what it hits. Police are no exception to accidental/irresponsible shooting where innocent bystanders are wounded or killed.

Now do each one of us have to prove to our legislature that we are competent shooters? I am wondering if SB589 is to make it to the governor's desk, someone will add an attachment that we qualify ourselves before an accredited firearms instructor, before the bill will be voted on. Just wondering...

Examples of COPS injuring bystanders

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/wh...public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/

Because they are a separate class of citizen. As the saying goes, everyone is equal, some are just more equal than others.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Does anyone know exactly how much training the (presumably) Academy provides each police recruit during training?

HERE is the current standard. Notice that it says that recruits, active officers and retirees wishing to carry are REQUIRED to pass this course at least once per year. This is contrary to what some others have posted on these forums. These standards are not "suggestions" but mandates from DOJ Training & Standards. Individual departments can have additional training as well, but to supplement, not replace this course. The state requires only once per year. The current department I'm on requires twice per year plus 2 other firearm related trainings (on top of the 24 hours of inservice). The agency I retired from required qualifying 4 times per year.

Every officer I know is also required by their agency to go to more advanced training that includes air soft, simunition, shoot house, active shooter, etc., etc.. Those trainings are actually more dynamic and real world than simply shooting at a non-moving paper target.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Bring out the Only Ones apologists.

Read the 'standard', it is quite entertaining.
Quite.

When there are no criminal consequences for your actions what need is there for skill.

example: Distracted driving. In California, a cop killed a citizen due to his distracted driving by looking down at a laptop PC. No charges filed against him...he is exempt. We, on the other hand...

Every state has these types of exemptions in the laws.

Thus, being a good shot and being held to account for each one of your rounds down range do not apply to any cop, anywhere. We on the other hand...
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
Just curious as I really don't know, do officers pay out of pocket for their training and qualifying sessions and ammo used during training or do we generous taxpayers foot that bill? Comes out of the dept. budget?
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Most agencies pay for ammo used in on duty training.

A lot of departments require retirees to pay for their own

Requirements on who pays can vary widely .
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Just curious as I really don't know, do officers pay out of pocket for their training and qualifying sessions and ammo used during training or do we generous taxpayers foot that bill? Comes out of the dept. budget?

All required training for active officers is a budget item. Why wouldn't it be? Elective training usually is not. If I want to go to training that is not mandated it'd be a rare thing that the department would pay for it.

Every retiree that I know that carries using a cert card has to not only pay for their ammo they also have to pay a fee for the instructor, range, etc.. It's anywhere between $50-$100. The difference between carrying with a retiree certification card and carrying with a CCL is a retired officer has to qualify once a year to maintain the cert card. And he/she can only carry the weapons(s) qualified with which must be listed on the card. The advantage is the certification card is valid in all states and territories.

If you don't like that active off duty and qualified retired officers can carry in all 50 states, Wisconsin is not who to get mad at. That's a federal law that creates a special class. It's a law I benefit from yet still oppose.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
All required training for active officers is a budget item. Why wouldn't it be? Elective training usually is not. If I want to go to training that is not mandated it'd be a rare thing that the department would pay for it.

Every retiree that I know that carries using a cert card has to not only pay for their ammo they also have to pay a fee for the instructor, range, etc.. It's anywhere between $50-$100. The difference between carrying with a retiree certification card and carrying with a CCL is a retired officer has to qualify once a year to maintain the cert card. And he/she can only carry the weapons(s) qualified with which must be listed on the card. The advantage is the certification card is valid in all states and territories.

If you don't like that active off duty and qualified retired officers can carry in all 50 states, Wisconsin is not who to get mad at. That's a federal law that creates a special class. It's a law I benefit from yet still oppose.

I don't suppose I can apply for that certification?
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Benefit from, as in taking advantage of this privilege as you see fit? If, not, well done.

If so, then your opposition rings hollow.

I don't need it. After I retired I took a position with another agency so I'm still active.

I don't suppose I can apply for that certification?

Did you retire from a law enforcement agency in good standing? If not is this the part where you give me fecal matter over a law you don't like and I had nothing to do with it's passage?
 
Last edited:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
I don't need it. After I retired I took a position with another agency so I'm still active.



Did you retire from a law enforcement agency in good standing? If not is this the part where you give me fecal matter over a law you don't like and I had nothing to do with it's passage?

No. That law was passed secretly and quickly and signed by a governor who has claimed that we citizens also have constitutional rights in this case 2A which I am told shall not be infringed. However the feds too have created second class citizens which the state could have overruled. In the catechism of the constitution (1828), which should be used in civics in schools, question 35 states, and gives the answer: Q. 35. But if even the Congress itself should make a
law which is contrary to the Constitution, must the
people obey it?
A. No.


Did the governor and the legislature think about violating section 1 of the 14th amendment before he quietly/secretly signed the bill into law?? NO.
We have yet to define regulation and infringement. I am not blaming you for any bad laws. If you forget everything else please remember that I have and always will stand behind our police officers except where they violate laws or dept policies. I have done this and am doing it for my friend Chief of Prescott and also by inviting him and them to my mom's home for coffee and meals while on duty. I will always help them out, including my sheriff and her deputies. So I do not hold a grudge against you.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Now that sounds great. have to wait for a few years and retire from my current job working at a cutting edge biotech company first.

Actual once your sworn in you have police powers. it just takes a couple of years part time to meet the minimum requirements.

One always has to make choices.
 
Top