what makes security gaurds special.

imported post

I was just at the grocery store and the Gaurda armored truck was there dropping off change and picking up money with the armed gaurd

now i have seen this plenty of times before all different companies

one thing that allways comes to mind is what gives this guy special privlege to carry and specificaly viechel carry

so a little searching around and i found the statuetes from the department of regulation and licensing

http://drl.wi.gov/prof/pria/pfaq.htm#Firearms

still i ask my self why are they special from what i can tell they have taken a minimal compitency skills test, have a uniform , and thier employer carries liability insurance.

but then i think so what gives them the right todefend money with a gun , nothing

they may only defend them selves froma personal threat at least if i have read when you may use lethal force correctly.

so how about some legislation to allow us to viechle carry if we can meet the same compitency requrments as a security gaurd. i feel it a very reasonable to ask this of our state legisalature.our govonerhas denied concealed carry twice , wants guns to be carried in the open , security gaurds already do this so this is not such a huge leap that if a security gaurd who had passed a skills test and wears identification is fine then why not a tiny step further private citizens who pass the same compitecy test and wears identification should be able to do the same.

imported post

GreenCountyPete wrote:

but then i think so what gives them the right todefend money with a gun , nothing

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment.

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

GreenCountyPete wrote:

but then i think so what gives them the right todefend money with a gun , nothing

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

while i agree that it should , it was my understanding that leathal force could only be used when there was reasonable expectation that harm to you or your family members or your charges , life or limb was in eminent danger.

as it pertains to wisconsin , merly having someone enter your home was not enought to shoot them over that they have to posse a danger that a reasonable person would fear for thier life or the life of thier family or charges. before force may be used.

lets just use this as an example : BG walks into your fenced yard and grabs your lawn mower and starts dragging it off you could pull your gun and attempt to detain them for police but if they did not stop and just walked away dragging your lawn mower away you could get a descrtiption for law enforcment , call and have police sent but you could not fire on them unless they stopped thier retriet and began threatining you or somone else in your family or your charges by making advances or showing a weapon.

this has been made quite clear that you may not shoot a retrieting criminal even while in possetion of your property. when a man in Racine emptied his gun at the men who had just broken into his girlfreinds car to steel possetions. he killed 1 as they were running away. he sitts in state prison for murder as we write this.

imported post

GreenCountyPete wrote:

SGT Jensen wrote:

GreenCountyPete wrote:

but then i think so what gives them the right todefend money with a gun , nothing

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

lets just use this as an example : BG walks into your fenced yard and grabs your lawn mower and starts dragging it off you could pull your gun and attempt to detain them for police but if they did not stop and just walked away dragging your lawn mower away you could get a descrtiption for law enforcment , call and have police sent but you could not fire on them

Click to expand...

In Texas you can shoot 'em. Wisconsin is a messed up State. I hope it gets straightened out before I move there.

The question should be why doesn't the Wisconsin Gestapo,... err Law Enforcement give them a DO cite like they often do/would to anyone else OC'ing.

imported post

While I agree with you that every free person should be allowed to carry in their vehicle, I'm afraid you're quite off base about security guards using guns to protect money.

Those firearms are to defend themselves, not the money. A person who was going to rob an armored car would most likely be threatening lethal force with some type of weapon (gun, knife, etc.). If you shoot someone who says "give me your money or I'll blow your head off" your lethal force is not to protect your money, but because your afraid this person is going to kill you no matter what. If you can articulate that you feared for your life the criminals conditions to save it are meaningless.

Your example of those gents who broke into the car is apples and oranges here. They were stealing something, but did not threaten force while doing so. This is not the same type of scenario of someone trying to hold up an armored car.

imported post

939.49 Defense of property and protection against
retail theft. (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally
use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating
what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful
interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force
or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably
believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It
is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense
of one’s property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person’s property
from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the
same conditions and by the same means as those under and by
which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property
from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person
reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the
3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his
or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person’s
property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person
is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household
or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect,
or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant’s employee or
agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged
to defend the property of the library in the manner specified
in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful” means either tortious or
expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
History: 1979 c. 245; 1981 c. 270; 1993 a. 486.
Flight on the part of one suspected of a felony does not, of itself, warrant the use
of deadly force by an arresting officer, and it is only in certain aggravated circumstances
that a police officer may shoot a fleeing suspect. Clark v. Ziedonis, 368 F.
Supp. 544 (1973).

imported post

pkbites wrote:

While I agree with you that every free person should be allowed to carry in their vehicle, I'm afraid you're quite off base about security guards using guns to protect money.

Those firearms are to defend themselves, not the money. A person who was going to rob an armored car would most likely be threatening lethal force with some type of weapon (gun, knife, etc.). If you shoot someone who says "give me your money or I'll blow your head off" your lethal force is not to protect your money, but because your afraid this person is going to kill you no matter what. If you can articulate that you feared for your life the criminals conditions to save it are meaningless.

Your example of those gents who broke into the car is apples and oranges here. They were stealing something, but did not threaten force while doing so. This is not the same type of scenario of someone trying to hold up an armored car.

Click to expand...

i may not have put it the best but i understand that the security gaurd may only use his weapon to defend his own life or that of his partner

i don't want to get into a million senarios of if BG did this or that and while i was using the guys stealing from a car as an example of where you may not use force to protect property i may not have been clear enought in that.

if a person could find a way to take from a security gaurd in a way that was not in any way endangering or giving the expectation of endangerment then the security gaurd like the rest of us would be left to get a desription and file a report with law enforcment

so to the question what makes a security gaurd special , only that he/she may carry a firearm loaded into a viechel. is the asnwer

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

939.49 Defense of property and protection against
retail theft. (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally
use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating
what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful
interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force
or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably
believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It
is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense
of one’s property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person’s property
from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the
same conditions and by the same means as those under and by
which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property
from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person
reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the
3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his
or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person’s
property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person
is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household
or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect,
or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant’s employee or
agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged
to defend the property of the library in the manner specified
in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful” means either tortious or
expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
History: 1979 c. 245; 1981 c. 270; 1993 a. 486.
Flight on the part of one suspected of a felony does not, of itself, warrant the use
of deadly force by an arresting officer, and it is only in certain aggravated circumstances
that a police officer may shoot a fleeing suspect. Clark v. Ziedonis, 368 F.
Supp. 544 (1973).

Click to expand...

1 i take this to mean that you may threaten the use of force including deadly force and you may use phisical force to take back a possetion or stop a crime from happening should you want to so long as you do not cause death or great bodily harm

the even shorter version of this is you may threaten force but not use force causing death or great bodily harm in the defence of property

2 you can basicaly do the same but for a third party ,threaten force but not use force causing death or great bodily harm in the defence of property



3. basicaly the police have to play by this same set of rules , they may use force but not force causing death or great bodily harm in the defence of property





however what this is allowing you, security gaurds and police to do is to stop the action by threating and if a threat to you or your family or coworker or charge is returned then deadly force may be used but if the criminal behavior is stopped or the suspect flees then no further force may be used

so you will notice security gaurds carry things like the money into a store in a maner in wich it would be dificult to take it from them without the use of force there for justifying force because they use them self as a buffer to the item being gaurded.



my point was however that since vehicular carry is already being done by a group of non law enforcment whom primarily have to demonstrate compitency in the use of the fire arm , and this causes no mass histeria , no increase in crime , and no injury to by standards, no disorderly conduct , that it would be a very reasonable request of our legislature to draft legislation to allow the open carry of fire arms in the same maner used buy security gaurds for any member of the general public who could meet the same compitency requirments and display some form of id to show lawenforcement and public of this.

imported post

Look, if you're upset about your stategranting "security" less restrictions than the citizens, bitching about it here will do no good.

Your elected officials have done this to you. If you want something to change, if you want your freedom back, you need to let your state senators and local representatives know.

If they will not help you, make it clear that you will do all you can to get someone elected who will make a difference.

Only then will you get "Change you can believe in". :?

imported post

Perhaps i should rename this WHAT WE SHOULDASKOURSTATE LEGISLATURE FOR NEXT

first i was using this post to first make the point that open carry is leagal in wisconsin however restricted when it comes tovehical carry , but that there is a segment of the population security gaurdsthat are allowed open carry in a vehical and that there is already a state office in place toissuethe license and perform the compitency testing

our current govoner has made it clear that , he will do everythingin his power to keep the people of wisconsin from having concealed carry even though a majority 1 vote less than the 2/3rds majorityneeded to over ride a veto, he has stated several times and i think most of us realize it is to make him not look like a total bad guy infront of the media on this issue that "if your going to carry a gun in wisconsin it will be in the open" while patting his hip

this forum is dedicated to encouraging law abiding citizens to excersize thier right to open carry

so i make the logical next step that since the govoner has stated that he is ok with open carry that we move to ask our legislature toremove the restrictionof open vehical carry either totaly or in a maner consistent with the form allowed to private security gaurds

i also suggest that at the same time specific clerification of the current open carry be given.

when we asked for concealed carry as so many of our state representitives agreed to setting up a system to allow it , at that time there was no system in place they were infact ready to create new offices to to grant us that reasonable request.

what i propose now would require no new office to over see and administer compitency testing it already exists , i see this as a loggical baby step in the right direction

i am happy to take this to my state senator , i have spoken with him in the past and he was infavor and voted for concealed carry what i am asking is that many of us take it to our state reps , we should draft a clear request to take to our reps and then do so together, if one rep gets a call ,email or letter from one of us that is nice and they will likley even consider , some may even act on it , however if a majority of the state reps recived the same request at the same time it could stir them to the action we desire in a timely manner.

thanks , Pete

imported post

You are doomed to frustration as long as you think in terms of 'asking the legislature' for anything. What is their downside for ignoring YOU? What has been their downside for ignoring US?

When we can enforce a demand then we will be a potent political force. That will not happen while egalitarian opinion is tolerated.

imported post

The posts on this thread describe exactly why we need a "castle doctrine" statute in Wisconsin. A person is entitled to the privilege of defense only if his/her well being or if the well being of a third party is in imminent danger. Nothing in the actions of a person claiming privilege of defense must in themselves be considered as inviting an aggressive response. The very act of pointing a gun or dangerous weapon at a person in the act of committing a crime could be seen by some judges as inviting aggressive behavior because the criminal feared forhis/her life. Stranger things have happened in courts. Unfortunately, under current law, persons in the act of committing a crime have rights.

imported post

I think we may be able to make some headway byrequesting a "peaceable Journey"statute be enacted. It is based upon personal safety, and several other states have allowed people to do the same.

For instance, When I road trip it to FL, I cannot CCW becuase my permit expired down there years ago, but I can still carry a loaded handgun in my glove compartment or center console (or any other encasement within reach while driving)and be on the right side of the law.
I do not think a vehicle is not considered concealment in FL, can anyone verify?
I cannot carry openly or concealed down there, But I can carry legall in my vehicle, and that is all that really matters to me when I am on the road.

There are several other states that also allow for "peacable Journey" while traveling.

Approaching our legislators with something as benign as that should get little resistance from anyone and helpforward the issue of open-carry even more by removing the part where we must Unload, and encase the firearm seperate from the ammunition, in parts of the vehilce that we do not have access to while driving.

if we get peacable journey to pass, we could just unholster the firearm, place it in the glovebox until our next stop.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

You are doomed to frustration as long as you think in terms of 'asking the legislature' for anything. What is their downside for ignoring YOU? What has been their downside for ignoring US?

When we can enforce a demand then we will be a potent political force. That will not happen while egalitarian opinion is tolerated.

Click to expand...

perhaps we should replace ask with demand , or else they will be replace in the next election (for some we just don't have the votes to do this)

but beond that what can be done?open to suggestions on this . this is why i suggested a unified front demanding the same thing

one option is possably sueing the state for damages in a case where a law abiding citizen whom would have been deemed better able to defend themselves if they had access to a fire arm while exiting thier car but was blocked from this by current laws. waiting for the right case to use this argument to legislate thru the courts is not a good idea .

legislating thru the court is my opinion is a bad idea laws should be writen and intent stated so that there isvery little for the courts to do but follow them or deturmine them uncostitutional.

could you please explain what you mean by "enforcing a demand"

besides threatening to not vote for them ,what do you suggest,if they would not vote for this legislation it is highly unlikely that you voted for them in the last election and yet they were elected.

so what i am saying is get new legislation into the state legislature if they vote for it and it passes then we have a victory , if they don't and it fails we have one more round in the political war chest to use against them next election. but we need to get as much as possable to a vote as regularitly as possble.

this also goes for concealed carry because ever one deserves options yes it was vetoed twice , but if it is brought up every year and the same few block it the a few more of thier constiuents see that they don't like this elected official they will loose another vote if it goes to the govoners desk every year he has to deal with the press every year and eventualy more will see him for who he really is you can only spin somthing so many times before it starts to look and sound the same and eventualy people will see thru it , hopfully with a little more education about their rights , firearms , laws , self defence options and and de-sensitization from all of you out there open carrying that we canfully excersize our rights underthe constitution.

for any one who thinks that firarms education does not work ,

"According to The World Almanac:
In 1970, there were 2,406 fatal firearms accidents in the United States. In 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 680 fatal accidents.

In comparison, there were 54,633 fatal car accidents in 1970 and 44,700 in 2006. There were 16,926 fatal falls in 1970 and in 2006, there were 21,200. There were 5,299 deaths from accidental poisonings in 1970 and in 2006 (after the child proof caps were made mandatory), there were 25,300. In 1970, 2,753 people died by choking on food while in 2006 the number was 4,100.

If we look at accidental deaths per-hundred thousand to adjust for population growth, accidental firearm's deaths dropped from 1.2 per hundred thousand in 1970 to .2 per hundred thousand in 2006. Suffocation from food stands at about 1.4 per hundred thousand. " end quote

in wisconsin anyone born after 1973 is required to take hunters saftey to hunt with a fire arm we have repeatedly had very safe hunting seasons formany years as nearly 1/2 of the hunting population has had just a few days of formal training in safty

if taking some addional training and standardized compitency testing makesstate represenitivesfeel good about you excersizing your rights more fully and there for remove restrictions or difficulies toexcersizingthem it is a win win

imported post

Lammie wrote:

The posts on this thread describe exactly why we need a "castle doctrine" statute in Wisconsin. A person is entitled to the privilege of defense only if his/her well being or if the well being of a third party is in imminent danger. Nothing in the actions of a person claiming privilege of defense must in themselves be considered as inviting an aggressive response. The very act of pointing a gun or dangerous weapon at a person in the act of committing a crime could be seen by some judges as inviting aggressive behavior because the criminal feared forhis/her life. Stranger things have happened in courts. Unfortunately, under current law, persons in the act of committing a crime have rights.

Click to expand...

i agree a "castile doctrine" would be another good step

and fitting with the take small steps that seem reasonable to many people when properly presented

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I think we may be able to make some headway byrequesting a "peaceable Journey"statute be enacted. It is based upon personal safety, and several other states have allowed people to do the same.

For instance, When I road trip it to FL, I cannot CCW becuase my permit expired down there years ago, but I can still carry a loaded handgun in my glove compartment or center console (or any other encasement within reach while driving)and be on the right side of the law.
I do not think a vehicle is not considered concealment in FL, can anyone verify?
I cannot carry openly or concealed down there, But I can carry legall in my vehicle, and that is all that really matters to me when I am on the road.

There are several other states that also allow for "peacable Journey" while traveling.

Approaching our legislators with something as benign as that should get little resistance from anyone and helpforward the issue of open-carry even more by removing the part where we must Unload, and encase the firearm seperate from the ammunition, in parts of the vehilce that we do not have access to while driving.

if we get peacable journey to pass, we could just unholster the firearm, place it in the glovebox until our next stop.

Click to expand...

yesgood idea you are getting the idea , lets continue brain storming these ideas then we can consolidate a list of themand decidewhich we should try to push first and start putting to gether the wording of what we are going to present to our represenatives

imported post

movw to washington state we have open and concealed carry even in vehicle

imported post

armed citizen wrote:

movw to washington state we have open and concealed carry even in vehicle

Click to expand...

Welcome to OCDO!!!!!!