Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: 'Retired LEO granted [LEOSA] right to carry concealed weapons.' J. B. Van Hollen WisOpinion.com

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?...;article=18470

    The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

    I am proud to be the first Wisconsin Attorney General to certify retired law enforcement officers with credentials to carry concealed weapons. By having the Department of Justice take the lead when it comes to providing our own retired law enforcement officers with a permit to carry a concealed firearm, it shows that we have the confidence in local law enforcement agencies’ ability to do this on their own. As I have traveled across the state, I have repeatedly heard from active and retired law enforcement officers who know their ability to protect public safety in a crisis situation does not end with his or her retirement.

    On June 4 of this year, I issued the first such credential to Tom Steingraeber, former Special Agent and Bureau Director in the Department’s Division of Criminal Investigation. Tom’ law enforcement career spanned some four decades. He qualified for the credential based on his experience, record of service, and his ability to meet the firearms qualifications that all DCI agents must pass today.

    Since that seminal day in June, 14 other retired Wisconsin Department of Justice Special Agents have sought, and been given, the Department’s credential to carry concealed weapons.

    The authority to grant these permits to carry concealed weapons to retired Department of Justice employees is granted to me by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, more commonly known as “HR 218”. This federal law establishes guidelines by which experienced retired law enforcement officers who maintain firearms training may obtain certification that would allow those officers to carry firearms of the type they used while on the force.

    Under this same federal law, sheriffs and chiefs of police have the authority to issue the permits for retired members of their individual law enforcement agency to carry concealed weapons. Among the requirements to qualify, a person needs to have 15 years of service as a law enforcement officer, pass an annual firearms certification and be honorably retired. The permit must be issued by the agency from which the law enforcement officer retired.

    In the last session of the legislature I worked with State Representative Don Friske, himself a retired law enforcement officer, along with Wisconsin’s professional law enforcement organizations, to enact properly crafted legislation that would have benefitted efforts to further implement “HR 218” in all jurisdictions across the state. Former Sheriff Gary Hamblin, my Law Enforcement Services Administrator, and I worked tirelessly to allow for the enactment of this legislation designed to address the concerns of some local jurisdictions. Make no mistake, however, as my actions and that of many other jurisdictions across the state demonstrate, federal law currently does authorize employing law enforcement agencies to issue permits to their retired law enforcement officers who meet the statute’s criteria.

    You can count on me to continue to do what my office allows in an effort to improve public safety and fight crime. My issuing of “HR218” permits to retired Wisconsin Department of Justice agents is allowed by law. I have issued the permits and I will continue to work to ensure more Wisconsin jurisdictions do the same.

    -- Van Hollen, a Republican, is Wisconsin's attorney general.

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Great... Lets further perpetuate the myth that only police officers are trained to carry concealled weapons. Nice job JB....

    Lets further empower the "ruling class" of government to have rights the rest of us have been denied



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    Great... Lets further perpetuate the myth that only police officers are trained to carry concealled weapons. Nice job JB....

    Lets further empower the "ruling class" of government to have rights the rest of us have been denied

    Alright, that's one position to take on this. It is a valid debate about whether someone should have the status to carry a concealed weapon just because they used to work for the government while other citizens are denied that right.

    I'm going to take another position, sticking to points of the actual law:

    I can find nowhere in the wording of HR218 the word "permit" used, and nowhere does it indicate that it's an option for the department to decide if retirees can CCW. I'd like to know how other states are handling this issue. I feel that the way Wisconsin is doing it violates the intent of that law.

    But, of course, I'm biased.

  4. #4
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Of course you're biased! You along with a great deal of other people who have the right to be accosted not only by the criminals who want what we have or by the grace of their nature who just want to hurt or kill us, but also accosted by the very state in which we live.

    You're just biased because you want to take advantage of the ability to protect yourself against the evils of nature but instead are considered a radical because you want to do it in possibly the most effective form possible. And you're biased because your OPEN eyes see that other states in the US allow it without the extreme repercussions the selfish legislators and ANTIs are continuously crying would happen.

    Don't worry, I'm sure you are not the only biased one here. I for one am too.
    I aim to misbehave

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    I may be misinformed, but this law that allows retired LEOs to CC is federal, right?

    Why is it this law is allowed to trump the Wisconsin ban on CCW? Apart from whether or not retired LEOs deserve this because they were in the line of fire, or are a special class of citizen, does allowing retired LEOs to CC promote commerce or something? Or did I miss the exception in the WI ban?

    This seems to be a facet of the debate I have not seen anyone touch.

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    Why is it this law is allowed to trump the Wisconsin ban on CCW?
    It's allowed to trump state law because Congress wrote it to trump state law.

    pkbites, I believe you're correct about the "term" permit not appearing in the language of the law. I believe what is issued is a suitable "identification" rather than a permit per se.

    Also I believe that HR218 still allows states and municipalities to prohibit the carrying of firearms even by these "ID" holders in certain places, such as government buildings, schools, etc. And private individuals/entities can prohibit carrying on their property if they choose.
    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"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    opusd2 wrote:
    Of course you're biased! You along with a great deal of other people who have the right to be accosted not only by the criminals who want what we have or by the grace of their nature who just want to hurt or kill us, but also accosted by the very state in which we live.

    You're just biased because you want to take advantage of the ability to protect yourself against the evils of nature but instead are considered a radical because you want to do it in possibly the most effective form possible. And you're biased because your OPEN eyes see that other states in the US allow it without the extreme repercussions the selfish legislators and ANTIs are continuously crying would happen.

    Don't worry, I'm sure you are not the only biased one here. I for one am too.
    No. I was referring to my sticking to points about the actual law. My position is the state has no option whether or not to allow retirees to CCW or not.

    Whether or not HR218 creates a special class of citizen and should not have been written/passed into law is an entirely separate debate from my position that Wisconsin is violating the law as it is written.

    My position that Wisconsin is violating the law as written is biased because I am a law enforcement officer.

  8. #8
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Then it appears we may be biased for different reasons. Not entirely, but at least partially. I for one as it stands am not entrusted in WI as I am elsewhere with a CC permit. And as a citizen I won't wait for help that may or may not come in time, or even help as needed. Because experience has shown that LEOs aren't always gonna be the answer.
    I aim to misbehave

  9. #9
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Then it appears we may be biased for different reasons. Not entirely, but at least partially. I for one as it stands am not entrusted in WI as I am elsewhere with a CC permit. And as a citizen I won't wait for help that may or may not come in time, or even help as needed. Because experience has shown that LEOs aren't always gonna be the answer.
    I aim to misbehave

  10. #10
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Sorry, slow connection posted twice.
    I aim to misbehave

  11. #11
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    But personally, and this doesn't refer to you since I don't know you, I think that certain police officers shouldn't even be allowed access to firearms. Some that I know were bullies before and after high school and are now pricks on the police force and I wouldn't turn my backs on any of them for ANY reason.

    But if they were to retire and continue to carry firearms for ANY reason, I wouldn't want to live anywhere NEAR where they do. And I am sure the ones I know aren't the only ones that exist. Too many Napoleon's with a badge. And the fact that I witnessed them parking drunkenly on the sidewalk after being pulled over by a fellow LEO and THEN being allowed to leave on their own with no negative action, that just doesn't build any trust.
    I aim to misbehave

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    opusd2 wrote:
    Then it appears we may be biased for different reasons. Not entirely, but at least partially.
    No, not really. It's just 2 different discussion pertaining to the same issue.

    I support carry (open or concealed) by law abiding adults. And I recognize HR218 as creating a special class of citizen. A spit in the face to other citizens, especially those in Wisconsin, Illinois, etc.

    Separately from that, discussing HR218 as it is the law, I feel Wisconsin is in violation of it.

    Those are 2 separate debates of the same issue.

  13. #13
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I wish to congratulate you, as you gave me an entirely new perspective with your argument. And to be honest, I went in with a small chip on my shoulder, thank you for helping me kick that.

    Aside from all the negative notions I may have from contact with LEO (having dated a couple and seeing their friends change the law as they saw fit as it pertained to them, being related to quite a few in SE Wis, and having once been a Criminal Justice Major in college until I saw a few attitudes my junior year I decided I didn't wish to perpetuate), I am not against them as a whole. The best experiences I had with them was the city police in Cheyenne, WY and also the County of Laramie Sheriff deputies I encountered while living out west. But it IS a different world out there and I sometimes foolishly compare that with WI ways of thinking. It doesn't work.

    So thank you for opening my eyes to your argument, I think I see your way of thinking, and I always appreciate learning new ways to filter ideas.

    And yes, I am rather angry for having felt spat upon myself as one of Doyl;e's second class citizens.

    By the way, being back in WI after my move back from WY, I have lived in Shawano County as well as spending a LOT of time in Outagamie County since my son was born. So even though the names have changed, the attitudes of certain officials are all the same. But the worst I have encountered is Marathon County. Wow. But the best part is that I don't know most of the officers like I do in Door County, some of whom I really think needed a better psych eval before hiring....
    I aim to misbehave

  14. #14
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    By the way, being in Milwaukee WI and being an officer, do you ever have to go to Waukesha tech for refreshers, or whatever???
    I aim to misbehave

  15. #15
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I only ask as I happen to know some of the staff there, as I see them at family reunions
    I aim to misbehave

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    opusd2 wrote:
    By the way, being in Milwaukee WI and being an officer, do you ever have to go to Waukesha tech for refreshers, or whatever???
    No. Departments within Milwaukee County either do their in-service training "in house" using officers who are also certified instructors, or they go to the south campus of M.A.T.C in Oak Creek. The state requires a minimum 24 hours of in-service every year.

  17. #17
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I was just curious, as I have a relative there.
    I aim to misbehave

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    I am proud to be the first Wisconsin Attorney General to certify retired law enforcement officers with credentials to carry concealed weapons.
    Here's yer ammo boys....

    RETIRED police officers ARE NOT police officers. They are not employed as police officers and should not be allowed to CCW. If they allow retired, non-police officers to CCW, then private investigators who are trained and certified to carry a gun should be allowed to CCW also....and whats toprevent private citizens who are trained and certified to CCW too.

    ...Run with it.



  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Bunker wrote:
    I am proud to be the first Wisconsin Attorney General to certify retired law enforcement officers with credentials to carry concealed weapons.
    Here's yer ammo boys....

    RETIRED police officers ARE NOT police officers. They are not employed as police officers and should not be allowed to CCW. If they allow retired, non-police officers to CCW, then private investigators who are trained and certified to carry a gun should be allowed to CCW also....and whats toprevent private citizens who are trained and certified to CCW too.

    ...Run with it.

    , I walked away from the computer while Bunk's post was open and found my dog sitting on the chair in front of the screen. I think I should let him write the response because I believe even my DOG knows more about gun laws than Bunkie does. The dog has been with me when I have OC'd, so I know he has more experience than the one who is full of bunk.

    As always, the Bunk has not bothered to check facts before spouting off. If he would, he would see that under federal law, retired police with at least 15 years of experience and proper ID CAN carry concealed in any state, including Wisconsin. It certainly does not apply to private investigators. Bunker, we try to maintain certain standards on here, i.e., to back up what we say. You have consistently failed failed failed.


    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"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Bunker, we try to maintain certain standards on here, i.e., to back up what we say. You have consistently failed failed failed.

    Blah, blah, blah!

    Damn it, Shotgun! you know better than this, my friend!

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!!!

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    I just wanted to illustrate the nature of the beast to any new members so as to prevent them from getting sucked in by the blather.
    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"

Posting Permissions

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