Question about SB93 and law enforcement officers

In the newly signed law there is section 37 (state statute 175.49) Former law enforcement officers seeking
to carry concealed weapons.

It seems to be Wisconsins version to federal law HR218 except it only requires 10 years of service instead of 15 and does not appear to require the officer be eligible for a pension. Most importantly, the text does not say the officer had to be a full time employee.

This statute also is another affirmation of the right to open carry:

(7) GOING ARMED WITH A FIREARM. This section does
not limit a former officer’s right to go armed with a firearm
that is not concealed.

So does this mean my friend, who has been a part-time patrol cop for a small village for the last 20 years, could just quit and the department would be required to give him a card allowing him to continue carrying a concealed weapon?

Or am I reading this statute wrong?

175.49 (2) CERTIFICATION OF FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. (a) Upon the request of a former law enforcement
officer and at the expense of the former law enforcement agency officer, a law enforcement agency that employed the former law enforcement officer shall, except as provided in par. (b), issue the former law enforcement officer a certification card as described in sub. (4) stating all of the following:

Looks to me like they are required to.

Pkbites:

I think all your quoated statement is just an affermation that the retired LEO has the right to carry a visible firearm. It states "that is not concealed".

Captain Nemo said:

Pkbites:

I think all your quoated statement is just an affermation that the retired LEO has the right to carry a visible firearm. It states "that is not concealed".

Click to expand...

I believe what it's saying is that just because the LEO has the certification card does not mean he has to carry concealed.

What I want to know is, is there anything in this law that says the officer had to be employed full time.

The Law is what the Law Is

I haven't made a detailed study of this section but your interpretation seems reasonable. The state statute does not necessarily have to mirror/comply with LEOSA but those who only meet the lower state standards would not have the benefits of those who are LEOSA-compliant. Wisconsin would have to distinguish between the two classes and certification cards would have to be marked to indicate the level of the former LEO. This is not unlike a CDL limited to in-state operation or Florida recognizing a ND CWP only for 21+. It could be that the text of LEOSA makes such a distinction impossible but I don't know that to be the case. If so, it seems rather silly to have that defect. Perhaps a LEO such as yourself could ask the legislation to bring WI law into LEOSA compliance. Can you see any reason to have a less rigorous set of criteria in state law?

Interesting thought though...are other states required to accept that card? I would think so, though I would not want to be the one to test the concept in NYC court.

pkbites said:

I believe what it's saying is that just because the LEO has the certification card does not mean he has to carry concealed.

What I want to know is, is there anything in this law that says the officer had to be employed full time.

Click to expand...

pkbites, I do believe you've stumped the worthies of this forum. The state law doesn't mention that it's limited to full-timers, but it does cross reference federal law that could have some qualifiers.

Here's a suggestion that will get you a definite answer: Call or email your state representative, state that you need to know whether a part-time officer qualifies, and ask them to seek the advice of the Legislative Council. You don't need to explain that it's for a friend, etc. Just ask your question.

You can track down your state rep's email and address at this website, if you don't have that info to hand: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx

Good luck to you!

LaBomba said:

pkbites, I do believe you've stumped the worthies of this forum. The state law doesn't mention that it's limited to full-timers, but it does cross reference federal law that could have some qualifiers.

Click to expand...

Actually, federal law HR218 also does not mention full time officers either. It does say for retired officers to be able to carry they have to have worked a total of 15 years and be eligible for a pension.

Believe it or not you can work part-time in law enforcement and be in the state retirement system if, during one single year, you worked a total of 600 hours or more. You do not have to work 600 hours every year, just one. Once you qualify for the state retirement system you're in it for good, even if the following years you only work 1 hour per year.