This is not even close to the situation wher veterans can carry in a parade thru a GFSZ and we cannot.
So tonight, woodchuck and I are at the table unarmed. We notice a Vernon County Sheriff deputy and he is carrying. Woodchuck goes to discuss the fact that the sign says, NO GUNS. There isn't an exception for LEO so woodchuck says he has to go.
The response was something to the affect of, "But I'm certified LEO."
After woodchuck left, I had opportunity to talk to two Viroqua officers. They too felt they were entitled to violate the sign. The Viroqua officers told me they don't want concealed or open carry.
This is not even close to the situation wher veterans can carry in a parade thru a GFSZ and we cannot.
I wonder if these county fairs have the legal authority to ban a constitutionally protected behavior?
Are the county fairs ban similar to this story? http://www.clickondetroit.com/commun...09/detail.html
Food for thought:
There may be some question, in the wake of McDonald V. Chicago, as to whether or not LEO can even comment or attempt to "influence" firearms rights now.
In February, when the state patrol "reacted" to protias, many on here said "once the business stated 'NO GUNS' LEO should have left as well."42 U.S.C. § 14141
§ 14141. Cause of action
(a) Unlawful conduct
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(b) Civil action by Attorney General
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
The GFSZA specifically states an exception for "official capacity" officers only, so even LEO acknowledges there are limitations on their privilege and that they CANNOT carry in school zones when off duty without authorization.
A private business puts up a sign that says "no firearms," that sign should be honored by EVERYBODY! "No firearms" is totally clear to me, they don't want any firearms at all, NONE! If the sign/policy has an exception for LEO, then the private business has granted LEO an additional privilege, if the sign has no exception, then LEO is TAKING a privilege they are NOT ENTITLED TO.
Every time someone on here has a LEO encounter, and they give ID, many here chastise them about how that is NOT required, and should NOT be provided. To do so, gives LEO a PRIVILEGE they are not entitled to. The argument is always, "keep giving them ID, and pretty soon they will always expect it, making it harder for the fella who refuses (within his right)." Likewise, continue to allow LEO to violate private property rights, and pretty soon there won't be private property where LEO is concerned.
If the sing/policy is "NO FIREARMS," and there isn't a LEO exception, then the policy also applies to LEO. Pointing this out to both LEO and the business is appropriate, it just needs to be done respectfully and tactfully.
Q: So your policy is no firearms at all, right?
Q: You realize that a stringent policy like that applies to the police as well?
A: No, hadn't thought of that.
Q: On duty officers, in uniform, that would be OK?
Q: Off duty or retired, not in uniform, carrying concealed. No way to tell they are police. Would that be OK?
A: Hadn't thought of that either, I guess so...
These ARE the questions we should be asking and the issues we should be pointing out. We do it in a RESPECTFUL manner, but point them out none-the-less.
A blanket BAN, "NO Firearms" can have unintended consequences for the business, LEO, and every other patron of the business. We need LEO thinking about this BEFORE they "recommend signage." We need businesses thinking about this BEFORE they place signage.
I don't believe pointing out that a "NO FIREARMS" policy, without a LEO exception, also applying to LEO is inappropriate and as I pointed out above, it may be unlawful for LEO to even suggest signage. Shouldn't LEO say "consult an attorney" instead of trying to provide LEGAL advice that discourages the free exercise of a state and federal constitutional right?
Done with the personal soap box now....
It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.
Only "licensed" retired LEO, and there are only a FEW in WI that are licensed. Many I have talked to say their local departments where they worked won't license them for FEAR of liability.
From the email:
So it appears that Milwaukee PD are saying they cannot carry "off duty" in a school zone.(2.) This felony offense also applies to off-duty coppers per Wis. Stat.
948.605 (2)(b)6 which requires that the copper is "acting in his or her official capacity;"
If I go to watch my kid at the playground or for an athletic event on a school field, I cannot lawfully carry a firearm while doing so off duty because I am not really acting in my official capacity as a cop, only as a parent. This is something I have tried to change for several sessions of the legislature but to no avail. I am trying again in this session through the Waukesha County delegation.
My point was/is these "No Carry" zones DO AFFECT us all (LEO and non LEO).
Federal law super cedes all state laws and therefore the unconstitutional GFSZ law in Wisconsin would not apply to officers under LEOSA.
If you know someone who is having problems getting qualified let me know, I know an instructor who has helped other retired officers
And I agree on your point, these zone do affect us all
Last edited by J.Gleason; 09-18-2010 at 10:44 AM.
The permits are to show that they have went through a qualification course at their own expense in order to meet the status of being a qualified retired officer.
`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.d) The identification required by this subsection is--
`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and
`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.
I believe that the bill implementing LEOSA in Wisconsin failed. Just like the federal GFSZA must be implemented in state law, so must the LEOSA. They're common scofflaws.
For example, cops frequently "drop into" bars around here just to make sure the law is being followed (nobody underage, capacity, bartender licensing, etc.). Bar owners hate this because customers get uneasy. Is it legal for cops to drop-in on private property without a warrant?
The more I think about this, it's total BS. Why would a cop need to carry a gun in a no-carry area? It's not like anyone would be able to attack him with a gun there, right? So why would he need a gun for self defense?
The same answers apply to why we should be allowed to carry everywhere. Because a no-carry sign doesn't guarantee that nobody will carry, and some of us rely on a firearm to even the odds against a stronger attacker.
The only possible argument I can come up with is that the LEO is assigned to patrol there, and I can choose not to be there in the first place if I don't like the no-carry policy.
That seems to be a condition under which the property owner is allowing people to be on the property. Like saying, "nobody under 18 after 10pm" or "members only" or any other legal criterion.
COPS HAVE NO RIGHTS AS COPS, BUT ONLY THE POWERS THAT WE DELEGATE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS
Last edited by Doug Huffman; 09-18-2010 at 09:46 PM.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you
in convening the hearing on H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2003. The bill authorizes ‘‘qualified’’ active and
retired Federal and State law enforcement officials to carry concealed
weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws
prohibiting or regulating such carriage.
A law enforcement officer includes corrections, probation, parole,
and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriff, and other law enforcement
officers who have had or who have statutory power over
arrest and who were or are engaged through employment by a governmental
entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision,
prosecution, or incarceration of law violators.
IT is a Right not a privilege:
Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to
allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off
duty, even within their jurisdiction?
Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe
it would mandate.
Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the
right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision
otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction?
Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would.
there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.
The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.
Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the definitions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.
You don't get a right for being someone special, like a cop, you get a privlege. Furthermore, congress can repeal the bill if they'd like. Same as I can let you on my property one day and decide you can't be on there the next. You have no right to be on my property, I granted you the privlege.
Should it be a right for ANYONE to carry wherever they want? I think so; but our government doesn't view it that way so they have gotten themselves a special privlege, no rights here.
Last edited by Brass Magnet; 09-20-2010 at 11:55 AM.
Lex malla, lex nulla
My point is that if you are the only person to have it, or among a specific group of people that has it, but it's denied to everyone else, how can it be a right?
You are born with all the rights you will ever have. Since this right is denied to some of us but given to others like you, it becomes a privlege. Doesn't that make sense?
I think you are just looking at this through rose colored glasses because you are one of the privleged few.
Lex malla, lex nulla