Wisconsin Law Enforcement Firearm Qualifications

imported post

A refrain from law enforcement about open carry is that unqualified individuals may be carrying. The only thing I can find about state required law enforcement standards is this:

https://wilenet.org/html/hr218/agmemo.pdf

and this:

http://drl.wi.gov/dept/Firearms%20Manual.pdf

It seems that the NRA has more stringent requirements for its classes:

http://www.nrahq.org/education/training/basictraining.asp#pistol

imported post

I trained under the Wisconsin LEO Fire arms manual. It is pretty thorough.

The funny thing is that most of these small town PD's don't even requalify, they have an officer on their force that is labeled a Fire arms Instructor and he signs off for them. It is ridiculous. I know many will step up and say it is not true, but the fact is it is true.

Most of us have far more experience at fire arm safety then they do.

As far as the NRA goes, I sometimes wonder where their interests really are. I tend to lean toward the money.

And just why should a retired cop be able to carry concealed? He has no powers of arrest.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

The funny thing is that most of these small town PD's don't even requalify,

Click to expand...

The very unfunny thing is, AFAIK, there is no requirement under Training and Standards that mandates an officer requalify at any interval. Once one has passed the course in the academy, I don't know of any law that says they have to recert at anytime in his/her career.

When you consider that state law requires an armed private security guard has to renew once a year and cops don't have to, that's pretty scary.

Most departments do requalify at least once per year, but that has to do with individual department policies, not state mandates.

imported post

I did see any state "live fire" qualification requirements or minimum scoring. Is there such a thing or is it all "book learnin."

imported post

Flipper wrote:

I did see any state "live fire" qualification requirements or minimum scoring. Is there such a thing or is it all "book learnin."

Click to expand...

Did you mean to say "I didn't see any"?

AFAIK there aren't any. But training and Standards is a constantly evolving thing so if there are any, it's new to me.

As far as minimum scoring, many departments got rid of that. It's a pass/fail system. One reason for this is, if an officer scores 85% at qualification and get's into a shooting, a lawyer will bring up the fact that 15% of the time the officer failed to hit the correct area of the target.

imported post

Well, getting rid if the minimum scoring explains a lot. I have wondered for some time how our Milwaukee PD could be such poor shots. I mean 40 rounds shot, and two hit the target... That is a real problem to me... And this happens about once a year at min. in Milwaukee...

I should add, that I do not mean to bash our cops... I'm just bashing our cops because they make it so easy...

imported post

pkbites wrote:

Flipper wrote:

I did see any state "live fire" qualification requirements or minimum scoring. Is there such a thing or is it all "book learnin."

Click to expand...

Did you mean to say "I didn't see any"?

Click to expand...

Yep - left off the "nt"- so it's pass fail per each agency's own measuring - I wonder when Wisconsin goes to permitted concealed carry they will let each applicant to make make their qualification determination.

imported post

I will write and work against "permitted concealed carry".

imported post

I second that.

imported post

I also have learned enough to know that I do not want a "permitted" concealed carry in Wisconsin. This site, and all you nut jobs have taught me that...

Thanks a lot...

imported post

Permitted as in "May Issue," or Permitted as in having a CCW Permit system whatsoever?

The latter I don't have much of a problem with, to be honest.

imported post

Frankly, Im ok with concealed carry. But either way I plan on carrying, open or otherwise.

I had my little half-brainwashed 2nd grade niece tell me this spring that only "bad" people carry guns. Of course that made me very happy to hear it came from the public school system since shes seen me open carry her whole life. It must be new to her curriculum. What really became new to her studies was my telling her that good people carry guns because they care for other people because they protect others from bad animals and other predators which may hurt people.

The best I can hope for is to make a dent in the mis-education of this little girl. And its not form some inner city public school, but from a farming community where just about everyone hunts.

So suffice it to say, there will NOT be a time when she sees me without my sidearm, albeit with extra safeties engaged.

imported post

Try telling her that if only 'bad' people carry guns there by that logic police and military personnel must be "bad" too. Just something to get her thinking which is what you really want.

imported post

Oh yeah, I was a bad uncle and explained that there are "bad" police out there (as well as other "bad" people who don't carry guns). But I pushed the main point for my carrying is that I chose to protect myself and my family as my personal responsibility and it is everyone's job to take care of themselves and not depend on others. It was a bit heavy of a speech/conversation for her but she started asking questions about my firearm in a curious manner, making sure she saw but didn't touch since she was so young and so innocent of the concept of self protection. And of course the inherent dangers to the uninformed and untaught.

And of course I pointed out that the skunks that get to the the animals on the farm are expedited such instruments, or tools as I consider them for anyone who raises animals in an area ripe with predators, no matter what the conservation department likes to dole out for numbers - it's much higher than they want to admit. And having lost a calf to a midnight predator recently, it hit home with her and she was much more comfortable with it's presence on my side.

I will not go without a firearm when I am home. The area we live in was once a safe and quiet spot with farmers all around, and with the subsequent urban sprawl made possible by poor attitudes to the nature of farming (plus Doyle selling us all out whenever he gets a chance), the possibility of the unthinkable increases in the chance of it happening. Plus having a young deputy living across the way now who likes to not only fly down the road on his motorcycle at mach 2, and sometimes just getting loud and lit and firing off his weapon at all hours of the night, well - that just doesn't add to my faith in the presence of law enforcement as a deterrence.

imported post

opusd2 wrote:

Plus having a young deputy living across the way now who likes to not only fly down the road on his motorcycle at mach 2, and sometimes just getting loud and lit and firing off his weapon at all hours of the night, well - that just doesn't add to my faith in the presence of law enforcement as a deterrence.

Click to expand...

Might just be something you would want to video tape for future reference.
Just a thought

imported post

I guess that's not a bad idea. But this is such a small town good ol' boy area that nothing much ever happens with proof, but rather you end up on the radar.

imported post

Ahh but truth is, I've been on the radar for so long I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

imported post

Very interesting points.

Demonstrates the irony that the montra that "training" police have makes it ok for them to carry. At least thats the justification the sheeople use to justify why cops have guns.

But just for the point to be made, when you think about it, when it comes to life or death, should 'training' mean anything? Police use their guns for MUCH different purpose than we law-abiding citizens do. We only draw our guns when our life is in danger. Cops draw their guns whenever they want to intimidate, pursue, or otherwise make a show of force.

Let me use the following analogy. If the lonepilot of your plane dies mid-flight, should you just sit back and crash because you don't have "flight trianing"? Because you aren't qualified to fly a plane? Because you don't have a license? Of course not. As a last resort, if its between doing nothing, and having a 10 year old jump behind the yoke, GO for it.

Thats the same as firearms. SURE, more training is good, but when its life or death, ZERO training shouldn't preclude someone from defending their life with one of the most simple of machines. A firearm. Point and shoot. Its as simple as a computer mouse.

Hunting is FAR FAR FAR more dangerous than open-carrying for self-defense. When hunting you WILL discharge your weapon many times for sport. When carrying for self-defense, you would NEVER EVER EVER disharge your weapon except when you fear for your life/safety. What could be safer??? EVEN with zero training?

Whenever I hear someone say "I'm a hunter but" I ask them to consider how much EXPONENTIALLY more dangerous hunting is than open-carrying for self defense!!!!

I understand this is tangential to the topic at hand, but I feel compelled to make the statement so that when the fly-by web browser might come to this thread they don't get the rediculous notion in their head that the carry of a firearm in ANY way should have compulsory training as a prerequisite.

I can teach someone EVERYTHING they need to know in 10 minutes. After that, its all about practice and repetition. If you know how to load and unload your particular firearm safely, you know everyting you should know to open carry (combined with the knowledge that drawing your weapon to fire is ONLY allowed if you are in fear for your life/safety.) That is a CRIME to do so any other time. Thats not a hard concept to teach either.

imported post

It's interesting how you point out that cops will use their weapons as a show of force or intimidation. To understand that point, all you have to do is watch when the police are making a contact with a civilian, for whatever reason, and watch how their hands gravitate towards their sidearm and stay there as if to show that they are ready to do whatever is necessary to get their job done.

Sure it can be seen as a matter of just being prepared for the unseen circumstance when their lives will be in danger, but if you think about it that single act proves how they rely on their weapon to get more done than by using reason. Granted there are circumstances or calls when I wouldn't blame them for having their "little buddy" out of the holster and in their hands, but when they show up for a simple reporting of trespassing and are tickling the back strap like Librace on the piano, that's perhaps a bit too much dependence on what should be their last resort choice of action.