Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: AB-479 relating to: law enforcement officers and licenses to carry concealed weapons.

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    AB-479 relating to: law enforcement officers and licenses to carry concealed weapons.

    Introduced by Steineke, co-sponsored by Lasee, referred to Bies' committee yesterday.

    Anyone have a link to the text?

  2. #2
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    deleted
    Last edited by oliverclotheshoff; 01-24-2012 at 10:05 AM.
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Why the special Privileges for LEO?

    Here is the link to AB-299: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011...roposals/ab299


    And there is also AB-479: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/AB479


    But the text doesn't appear to be available for AB-479. Both appear to be removing the requirement that LEO pay the SAME TAX and get the SAME PERMIT as the rest of us.


    I am just so sick/tired of all these "special" privileges for LEO.
    Last edited by bnhcomputing; 01-20-2012 at 07:59 AM.

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Introduced by Steineke, co-sponsored by Lasee, referred to Bies' committee yesterday. Anyone have a link to the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    But the text doesn't appear to be available for AB-479. ... I am just so sick/tired of all these "special" privileges for LEO.
    Yes, thank you. That's why I asked, that I was not able to find the text of another worrisome bill.

    My worry came from merely the subject, the sponsors and the committee chairman. In a word, Bies is an ex-chief deputy sheriff that has risen to his level of incompetence. He needs to go back to jailer.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,200
    One step forward at a time. Then we will get to the goal. I see every step that loosen's firearms laws as a step forward.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    One step forward at a time. Then we will get to the goal. I see every step that loosen's firearms laws as a step forward.
    I see every step that gives agents of the government more power/privilege than the average citizen as another LOSS by/for the average citizen. LEO having even more power/privilege is NOT a step forward for freedom, it is a step forward for control.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

  8. #8
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    I see every step that gives agents of the government more power/privilege than the average citizen as another LOSS by/for the average citizen. LEO having even more power/privilege is NOT a step forward for freedom, it is a step forward for control.
    This!
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    Needs to be amended so that it allows everyone to get the permit free, not just the more equal people.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    Needs to be amended so that it allows everyone to get the permit free, not just the more equal people.
    I like that idea. We should call our reps and try to get it amended as such.

    Looks like my rep is a sponsor.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 01-20-2012 at 09:48 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    i see every step that gives agents of the government more power/privilege than the average citizen as another loss by/for the average citizen. Leo having even more power/privilege is not a step forward for freedom, it is a step forward for control.
    bingo!!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Here is the link to AB-299: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011...roposals/ab299


    And there is also AB-479: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/AB479


    But the text doesn't appear to be available for AB-479. Both appear to be removing the requirement that LEO pay the SAME TAX and get the SAME PERMIT as the rest of us.


    I am just so sick/tired of all these "special" privileges for LEO.
    Actually, if what the two LEOs in my training class said had any merit, they are more restricted than regular citizens at the moment. Picture ID, yearly renewal, and live fire testing on specific platforms.

    It would be a little annoying if former and retired LEOs got treated differently, but I don't think I am going to lose any sleep over currently employed LEOs having the state cover the fees. LEOs have a long track record of effectively defending themselves and others with concealed weapons up until the time the CCL came to Wisconsin, I don't see why that is likely to change. I WANT everybody to carry. The bad guys will move out of state, change their ways, or Darwin themselves. Everybody is safer then.
    "I can only be held responsible for my own stupidity." - Captain Nemo

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    Needs to be amended so that it allows everyone to get the permit free, not just the more equal people.
    If everyone is getting a CCL for free, why even have them then?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    If everyone is getting a CCL for free, why even have them then?
    That would be the next step of course!
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  15. #15
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Having read and re-read the bill I may have to waffle a little. It is not clear from reading if this involves uniformed officers and if on school grounds.

    The text shows;
    Current law generally prohibits a person from possessing or discharging a
    firearm in, or on the grounds of, a school or within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a
    school. Current law contains several exemptions to this prohibition, including law
    enforcement officers who are acting in their official capacity and, if the person is not
    in or on the grounds of a school, a person who holds a license to carry a concealed
    weapon. This bill eliminates the requirement that the officer be acting in his or her
    official capacity if the officer is authorized to carry a firearm; the officer is not the
    subject of any disciplinary action by the law enforcement agency that could result in
    the suspension or loss of his or her law enforcement authority; the officer is qualified
    under standards established by the law enforcement agency to use a firearm; the law
    enforcement officer is not prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm; the
    firearm is not a machine gun or a destructive device, such as a bomb; the officer is
    not carrying a firearm silencer; and the officer is not under the influence of an
    intoxicant

    Doesn't state on or off duty nor does it states anything about exempting them from the license requirement. My interpretation is that it is allowing a uniformed officer acting NOT in an official capacity to be on school grounds armed. It should be worded more explicitly to indicate its intent.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Cobra469's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Allis, WI, , USA
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by RR_Broccoli View Post
    Actually, if what the two LEOs in my training class said had any merit, they are more restricted than regular citizens at the moment. Picture ID, yearly renewal, and live fire testing on specific platforms.
    If they were current LEO they would have to do that anyhow as part of their job. I have no problem with LEO have a no cost permit if it was amended to read that their current badge was their permit. That way it grants active LEO the right to carry for free so long as they are still active so long as it does not give them super powers to carry in places that law abiding citizens cannot. For instance they should not be allowed to carry in posted buildings.

  17. #17
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing
    I am just so sick/tired of all these "special" privileges for LEO.
    Esp. since they're illegal.
    14th Amendment:
    "...nor shall any state ...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    So let 'em make special privileges. They'll apply to everyone.
    It would be so much simpler to follow federal law & let everyone who's licensed carry everywhere in the school zone. (Federal law makes no distinction between the grounds/buildings & the magical 1000' zone around the property.)
    Even easier would be to follow the Constitution - repeal the licensing & "GF"SZ laws entirely, since they're useless worse than useless.

    Under the current WI licensing scheme, it would benefit an officer to get both the cop license & the citizen license.
    The cop license allows them to carry anywhere in the USA, but only what they qualified with & they have to requalify every year.
    The citizen license allows them to carry anything they want, but they're subject to the same restrictions as the rest of us.
    If they want the restrictions changed, they can argue for fewer restrictions for everyone.

    The summary for 299 says:
    [grounds of a school discussion]
    This bill eliminates the requirement that the officer be acting in his or her official capacity if:
    the officer is authorized to carry a firearm;
    the officer is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the law enforcement agency that could result in the suspension or loss of his or her law enforcement authority;
    the officer is qualified under standards established by the law enforcement agency to use a firearm;
    the law enforcement officer is not prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm;
    the firearm is not a machine gun or a destructive device, such as a bomb;
    the officer is not carrying a firearm silencer;
    and the officer is not under the influence of an intoxicant
    So any officer, on duty or not, assigned to the school or not, in uniform or not, could waltz into your kids' school with a hidden loaded gun.
    (We're using W"AV"E 'logic' here.)
    Though I like the part about following federal laws - no more DV cops still allowed to have guns.

    The summary for 479 says:
    Under this bill, DOJ must provide a license to carry a concealed weapon to all law enforcement officers without the fee, background check, or training required by applicants who are not law enforcement officers.
    From the text of the bill:
    The department may not conduct a background check on individuals who are to be issued a license under sub. (2) (a) 2.
    [that's the "all law enforcement officers get free licenses" section]
    Why? Worried that those DV charges would disqualify them? Or maybe the felony DUI conviction?
    And their renewal fee would be $12 to the regular citizens' $25.
    If someone is currently employed as a LEO, fine - let their badge be their license.
    But would that suffice for LEOSA?
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  18. #18
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    So all the unfair stuff is in AB479 I see
    Last edited by bigdaddy1; 01-21-2012 at 09:28 AM.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by RR_Broccoli View Post
    Actually, if what the two LEOs in my training class said had any merit, they are more restricted than regular citizens at the moment. Picture ID, yearly renewal, and live fire testing on specific platforms.

    It would be a little annoying if former and retired LEOs got treated differently, but I don't think I am going to lose any sleep over currently employed LEOs having the state cover the fees. LEOs have a long track record of effectively defending themselves and others with concealed weapons up until the time the CCL came to Wisconsin, I don't see why that is likely to change. I WANT everybody to carry. The bad guys will move out of state, change their ways, or Darwin themselves. Everybody is safer then.
    First, under the federal LEOSA you would be correct, but that allows them to carry in many restricted areas. This bill has NOTHING to do with LEOSA. This is strictly dealing with WI CCL.

    Second, if WE the taxpayer want LEO to have a CCL, they can go through the same process you/I would and then we can reimburse them, we don't NEED another law. We don't need to give government yet another privilege.

    Like you, I want EVERYBODY who wants to carry to have the ability to carry, I just don't see the need to continue to grant LEO/government more power privilege than they already have.

  20. #20
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    I did send emails to both my state reps (both are Dems though ) expressing my concerns about both AB299 and AB479. Whether it will do any good is anybodies guess.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  21. #21
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Fedeeral Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Here is the link to AB-299: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011...roposals/ab299


    And there is also AB-479: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/AB479


    But the text doesn't appear to be available for AB-479. Both appear to be removing the requirement that LEO pay the SAME TAX and get the SAME PERMIT as the rest of us.


    I am just so sick/tired of all these "special" privileges for LEO.
    I can understand the concern over LEO getting special privileges, however, after spending 10 years working in a Federal Prison, I have a lot of training carrying a firearm and using it to either defend or protect, unlike a civilian.

    Taking into concideration the expierience, we should be exempt from the training requirment (classes) and currrently under federal law we are, all we have to do is qualify each year on a firing range by a qualified instructor, and shoot a course which has the same requirments as was when we were not retired.

    The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, Improvment Act states we are to be qualified in firearme according to the state requirments, unless the state don't have a firearms qualification standard, if the state don't then we are to qualify with a firearm to the standards of the agency we retired from.

    The state now has a standard, however, to apply to the state for a cc we need to have our agency we retired from fill out a form (attached) which I have asked them to do, and they refused. So, since they refused we cannot comply with the state in getting a cc permit issued to us.

    Since, we cannot comply with the state requirments, we are left with finding a qualified instructor (NRA) to qualify us every year to the standards of the agency we retired from which cost me $30.00 a year to do.

    So, all we need is an ID issued by the agency we retired from ie the Bureau of Prisons, and a qualification card showing we have qualified with the firearm within the last year in ordeer to be able to legaly cc under the .

    Looks like AB479 eliminates our requirment to meet the states firearm qualification standards altogether, plus it eliminates the fees associated with getting issue.

    I believe after working 10 years for the federal bureau of prisons and with all the training, we should be allowed to get our cc without paying fee's or the required training.

    Sorry, I disagree with you, I just believe we should be exempt from the requirments.

    Cowboyridn

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    Sorry, I disagree with you, I just believe we should be exempt from the requirments.
    Cowboyridn
    We partially agree with you, actually. We believe that you should be exempt from requirements. We additionally believe that, self defense being a human right and not a privilege, we should all be exempt from requirements.

  23. #23
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    Since, we cannot comply with the state requirments, we are left with finding a qualified instructor (NRA) to qualify us every year to the standards of the agency we retired from which cost me $30.00 a year to do.

    So, all we need is an ID issued by the agency we retired from ie the Bureau of Prisons, and a qualification card showing we have qualified with the firearm within the last year in ordeer to be able to legaly cc under the .

    Looks like AB479 eliminates our requirment to meet the states firearm qualification standards altogether, plus it eliminates the fees associated with getting issue.

    I believe after working 10 years for the federal bureau of prisons and with all the training, we should be allowed to get our cc without paying fee's or the required training.

    Sorry, I disagree with you, I just believe we should be exempt from the requirments.
    I don't understand the first part about having to qualify every year. Even if you have to qualify under WI law like non-LEO people do, non-LEO people don't have to requalify every year, so why would you?

    I also don't understand why a former LEO person should get or expect special treatment of no fees. Does their resume satisfy the training requirement? Sure, as long as no new laws come up about non-LEOs having to requalify every x number of years, because that would be like giving a former LEO a free pass on a driving test or something just because they used to drive a police car 30 years prior.

    Retired military are exempt from the training requirement, but they're not exempt from paying the permit fee, correct?

  24. #24
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    deleted
    Last edited by oliverclotheshoff; 02-08-2012 at 02:18 PM.
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  25. #25
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DangerClose View Post
    Retired military are exempt from the training requirement, but they're not exempt from paying the permit fee, correct?
    All honorably discharged ex-military/veterans are exempt from the training requirement, but they're not exempt from paying the permit fee, correct?

    Either we are equal or we are not. See isonomia and sortition.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •