Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: State Rep. Friske circulates "Cops Only Concealed Carry" Wisconsin Gun Owners

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/Fe...Only%20CCW.cfm

    Madison, Wis .— Wisconsin is about to take one big leap toward becoming an all-out totalitarian police state.
    State Representative Don Friske (R-Merrill) — a retired Lincoln County Sheriff — is circulating a bill giving active and retired peace officers a license to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW). But before you assume this is a good bill for gun owners and concealed carry, you need to hear the truth.
    "Cops-Only CCW” is Trojan horse legislation – meaning it sounds good on the surface but underneath the “concealed carry” buzz word is the ugly truth that "Cops Only Concealed Carry" is fatal to citizen concealed carry.
    As of toady's date, the bill was being circulated for sponsors.
    Friske’s proposal claims that federal law already allows active and retired law officers to carry concealed, and this bill would simply bring state law into subjection with federal law. In other words, the bill creates federal gun control here at the state level when gun owners say they should be standing up to the feds.
    But they admit the bill will “implement federal law” here in the state – a notion that is entirely unconstitutional.
    “Cops Only CCW” reinforces the FALSE premise that cops deserve special treatment over ordinary citizens – and that cops are more qualified to carry handguns for self-defense than other people.
    That bolsters one of the most popular arguments used by anti-gunners against citizen concealed carry: That the people can’t be trusted to carry arms like the police.
    That’s just one reason why WGO is opposing this proposal and why it should come as no surprise that Al Gore and swarms of leftists like him support “Cops Only CCW.”
    Liberals love to grovel at the feet of “law enforcement” and view the cops as their benevolent rulers. This bill cements that anti-American idea.
    But the real concern is that this bill, if passed, will be FATAL to our chances of passing TRUE concealed carry...concealed carry restoring YOUR right to carry in Wisconsin.
    WGO is not anti-cop.
    WGO supports retired peace officers carrying handguns...because they are lawful citizens, not because they're cops.
    "Friske's proposal is pure Nazism," WGO said.
    Here’s a condensed list of why gun owners OPPOSE Friske’s “Citizen Disarmament and Police Empowerment Gun Control Act of 2008.”
    • Gun owners lose law enforcement support for CITIZEN concealed carry
    • Further empowers police to think and act like they are superior to the people
    • Is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL — Trumps states rights
    • Reinforces the false arguments of the gun prohibitionists who oppose citizen carry
    • Creates a special class of Super Citizen with special privileges – totally un-American
    • Gives state politicians a reason to claim they’re “pro-gun” when in fact the opposite is true
    At least 40 gun rights organizations or leaders OPPOSED this special exemption ELITIST scheme for cops at the federal level, while only 4 – just four!(one is the National Rifle Association) – actually supported it.

    If Rep. Friske were serious about retired and active, off-duty cops being able to carry concealed handguns (like WGO is), he would introduce a concealed carry bill for all law-abiding citizens.

    It is believed that the institutional gun lobby will support Friske's scheme (they supported it at the federal level).
    Gun owners are urged to tell Friske and the Wisconsin legislature that the institutional gun lobby does not speak for us.
    Friske is urged to introduce freedom-friendly concealed carry – a bill to allow all Wisconsin citizens to carry arms for self-defense.

    We have active and retired police who are members of our organization, too.
    These WGO member-peace officers (active and retired) understand and take seriously the oath they swore to protect and uphold the Constitution. In other words, they get it.
    If Friske is allowed to create a Special Class of Citizen, communist gun control principle becomes state law and one more nail is pounded into the gun rights coffin.
    ACTION:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CONCEALED CARRY PETITION
    WISCONSIN REP. DON FRISKE:
    GUN OWNERS OPPOSE “COPS-ONLY CONCEALED CARRY”
    Dear Rep. Friske,
    Whereas, active off-duty and retired police have an inalienable right to bear arms for self-defense because they are law-abiding citizens and not because they are cops;
    Whereas, “Cops Only CCW” improperly elevates cops’ perceptions of themselves to think they are superior to “ordinary” citizens;
    Whereas, “Cops Only CCW” undermines the right of ALL law-abiding Wisconsin citizens to carry concealed handguns for self-defense by reinforcing the false premise that the police are more qualified or able to bear arms than “ordinary” citizens;
    Whereas, “Cops Only CCW” is unconstitutional and usurps states rights—the states are not under any obligation to implement federal law;
    Whereas, “Cops Only CCW” is OPPOSED by over 40 state and national gun rights organizations;

    Whereas, I am law-abiding gun owner and the National Rifle Association DOES NOT speak for me if they choose to support this proposal, which I refer to as the “Citizen Disarmament and Police Empowerment Gun Control Act of 2008;”

    Therefore, I urge you in the strongest terms to uphold your sworn oath to protect the Constitution by pulling this elitist scheme from the legislative agenda and cease all further attempts to garner sponsors. If you are serious about restoring the right of peace officers to bear arms, I urge you to join with Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) to introduce a clean concealed carry bill for ALL Wisconsin citizens.

    I am a proud member of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) and will be watching your actions on this issue very closely.

    [Name, City] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Friske and supporters of Cops Only CCW will try to claim that it will help move the legislature toward a concealed carry bill for all citizens – but that is a lie.

    Gun owners are urged to stop Rep. Friske’s Cops-ONLY “Citizen Disarmament and Police Empowerment Gun Control Act of 2008.”

    Friske has the bill on a fast track and is rushing it through the legislature.

    Is Rep. Friske afraid that he will lose gun owner support if gun owners hear the truth about this gun control scheme? http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/8645.html

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I can see and agree with the concerns presented. I say kill the bill before it grows.

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    WI leos already have CCW it's called HR-218 (state leo national carry law-it's unconstitutional IMObut still law).

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    WI leos already have CCW it's called HR-218 (state leo national carry law-it's unconstitutional IMObut still law).
    Hey! Good point.

    What constitutional authority permitted Congress to enact that one?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    The catch all commerce clause asHR-218 only applies to firearms that have crossed state lines in interstate commerce.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    WI leos already have CCW it's called HR-218 (state leo national carry law-it's unconstitutional IMObut still law).
    Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), PL 108-277 made code at 18 USC 926B and 926C for 'retired' and 'qualified', respectively, officers.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    The catch all commerce clause asHR-218 only applies to firearms that have crossed state lines in interstate commerce.
    I rummaged around a bit and saw no other LEOSA reference to the Commerce-Clause swinette (pig's anus streched over a GI trashcan). The afirmative mention that I did find was to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    Can you point to a discussion of LEOSA Constitutionality? I found this, interesting but not on point and not quite a year old http://lieberman.senate.gov/document...guncontrol.pdf

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hilliard, OH, , USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    WTF?!?! The NRA supports this?

    I seriously question their motives. First they were against Heller and now they are for it. Then this?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    BIG SHAFE wrote:
    WTF?!?! The NRA supports this? I seriously question their motives.
    I don't know what 'motive' is questioned or why.

    The NRA depends on infringements (that's "their motive") of the Second Amendment (and Art. I, Sec. 25) for its livelihood of selling 'indulgences' that are dispensations from infringing 'requirements'; such as permitted concealment, required training, safety and responsible behavior. The Second Amendment and its Wisconsin proxy say only 'shall not be infringed.'

    It would seem, to me anyway, that in a state as heavily Lutheran as Wisconsin this would be common understanding, obvious to the most casual observer.

    Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing worldview.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    States do not have rights, they have powers that are liberally delegated in the constitution. This is a neo-con myth. States rights do not exist. Human beings have rights.

    In all fairness, they tried to implement HR 218 and pass CCW in the same bill. Now the LEO's are going for it again but without CCW since their chances are a lot better. It really not as bad as it sounds. Most LEO unions wouldn't back CCW any way because they are full of a bunch of bums.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    I'm confused. [active] Wisconsin LEO's could already carry concealed under state law.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    I'm confused. [active] Wisconsin LEO's could already carry concealed under state law.
    Re 'states' rights'; LEOSA is federal and might need to be implemented in state statute. And LEOSA applies to "retired" and "qualified" LEO.

  13. #13
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    WGO has proven to be no friend of any gun owner in this state. They did as much as anyone to defeat the Personal Protection Act. Corey Graff was openly and actively lobbying against the bill in the joint committee hearing room. He is not to be trusted with our Second Amendment rights and is anathema to our to our goals.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  14. #14
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    WGO has proven to be no friend of any gun owner in this state. They did as much as anyone to defeat the Personal Protection Act. Corey Graff was openly and actively lobbying against the bill in the joint committee hearing room. He is not to be trusted with our Second Amendment rights and is anathema to our to our goals of firearms liberty in this state.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  15. #15
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    WGO has proven to be no friend of any gun owner in this state. They did as much as anyone to defeat the Personal Protection Act. Corey Graff was openly and actively lobbying against the bill in the joint committee hearing room. He is not to be trusted with our Second Amendment rights and is anathema to our to our goals of firearms liberty in this state.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  16. #16
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    WGO has proven to be no friend of any gun owner in this state. They did as much as anyone to defeat the Personal Protection Act. Corey Graff was openly and actively lobbying against the bill in the joint committee hearing room. He is not to be trusted with our Second Amendment rights and is anathema to our to our goals of firearms liberty in this state.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  17. #17
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    WGO has proven to be no friend of any gun owner in this state. They did as much as anyone to defeat the Personal Protection Act. Corey Graff was openly and actively lobbying against the bill in the joint committee hearing room. He is not to be trusted with our Second Amendment rights and is anathema to our to our goals of firearms liberty in this state.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The PPA was an NRA approved and sponsored bill requiring concealed carry in an anomalous open carry state. I am unalterably opposed to any infringement of the Second Amendment as, for one thing, benefitting the NRA and its dishonest agenda.

    WGO and I have our differences but on this we agree. No Compromise and no surrender. Compromise is failure on the installment plan. Open Carry is legal in Wisconsin.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

  19. #19
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    cato wrote:
    The catch all commerce clause asHR-218 only applies to firearms that have crossed state lines in interstate commerce.
    I rummaged around a bit and saw no other LEOSA reference to the Commerce-Clause swinette (pig's anus streched over a GI trashcan). The afirmative mention that I did find was to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    Can you point to a discussion of LEOSA Constitutionality? I found this, interesting but not on point and not quite a year old http://lieberman.senate.gov/document...guncontrol.pdf
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...218enr.txt.pdf
    926B (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreigncommerce. subject to subsection (b)...

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    cato wrote:
    The catch all commerce clause asHR-218 only applies to firearms that have crossed state lines in interstate commerce.
    I rummaged around a bit and saw no other LEOSA reference to the Commerce-Clause swinette (pig's anus streched over a GI trashcan). The afirmative mention that I did find was to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    Can you point to a discussion of LEOSA Constitutionality? I found this, interesting but not on point and not quite a year old http://lieberman.senate.gov/document...guncontrol.pdf
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...218enr.txt.pdf
    926B (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreigncommerce. subject to subsection (b)...
    Thank you. No discussion needed on that point!

    I wonder how many times I had read it and not grokked what I was reading? Now the question must be 'what of local products and 'Buy American'?' Can LEOSA-cops in Georgia carry Glocks? Or, 'how ubiquitous is that shoehorn into the CC swinette?'

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    pkbites wrote:
    I'm confused. [active] Wisconsin LEO's could already carry concealed under state law.
    Re 'states' rights'; LEOSA is federal and might need to be implemented in state statute. And LEOSA applies to "retired" and "qualified" LEO.
    Theres nothing in HR218 that I've read that requires any action on behalf of the states.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    What I suspect is that there is a bit of misdirection going on here by the sponsor of this legislation.

    The same kind of legislation passed in Illinois, but it was because a lot of agencies refused to allow retired officers to qualify, so the ISP did an end run around those agencies and allowed them to qualify without going through the agency they retired from.

    It is only a matter of time until one of these retired cops shoots someone and the agency he retired from is going to be on the hook.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Mis-direction by a legislator? Ya think?

    Without intelligent skepticism we are lost to the sheeple-dogs of war.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I am a retired Police Officer from Wisconsin living full time in Florida. I also have HR218
    a federal statute which permits me to CCW anywhere in the country. The problem though is you need a Photo ID from the Department you retired from. My department doesn't issue them to a retiree. So while in Florida, the public has the right to CCW after the class and state ID card, I cannot because some Wisconsin departments will not issue a retiree an ID card because they do not want them to CCW after they retire. The state of Florida will certify me as to the shooting course.

    HR218 does no good for any retiree, anywhere if there department doesn't want them to CCW after retiring. All they have to do is what mine does, not issue a photo retirement ID to any retiree.

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    comp45acp wrote:
    WGO has proven to be no friend of any gun owner in this state. They did as much as anyone to defeat the Personal Protection Act. Corey Graff was openly and actively lobbying against the bill in the joint committee hearing room. He is not to be trusted with our Second Amendment rights and is anathema to our to our goals of firearms liberty in this state.
    You can say that again. :P
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •