-
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.
-
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.
'Retired LEO granted [LEOSA] right to carry concealed weapons.' J. B. Van Hollen WisOpinion.com
- Thread starter Doug Huffman
- Start date
hugh jarmis
Centurion
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
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
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
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.
hugh jarmis wrote:
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.
opusd2
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Brigdh wrote:
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.
Brigdh wrote:
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.
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
opusd2 wrote:
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.
opusd2 wrote:
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.
opusd2
Regular Member
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.
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.
opusd2
Regular Member
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.
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.
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry, slow connection posted twice.
Sorry, slow connection posted twice.
opusd2
Regular Member
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.
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.
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
opusd2 wrote:
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.
opusd2 wrote:
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.
opusd2
Regular Member
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 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....
opusd2
Regular Member
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???
By the way, being in Milwaukee WI and being an officer, do you ever have to go to Waukesha tech for refreshers, or whatever???
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
I only ask as I happen to know some of the staff there, as I see them at family reunions
I only ask as I happen to know some of the staff there, as I see them at family reunions
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
opusd2 wrote:
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.
opusd2 wrote:
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.
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
I was just curious, as I have a relative there.
I was just curious, as I have a relative there.
imported post
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.
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.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Bunker wrote:
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.
Bunker wrote:
:lol:, 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.
pkbites
Regular Member
imported post
Shotgun wrote:
Damn it, Shotgun! you know better than this, my friend!
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!!!
Shotgun wrote:
Blah, blah, blah!
Damn it, Shotgun! you know better than this, my friend!
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!!!