H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Introduced by Steineke, co-sponsored by Lasee, referred to Bies' committee yesterday.
Anyone have a link to the text?
Anyone have a link to the text?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
AB-479 relating to: law enforcement officers and licenses to carry concealed weapons.
oliverclotheshoff
Regular Member
deleted
Last edited:
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
Why the special Privileges for LEO?
Here is the link to AB-299: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/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.
Here is the link to AB-299: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/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:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
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.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
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.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
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.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
This!
amaixner
Regular Member
Needs to be amended so that it allows everyone to get the permit free, not just the more equal people.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
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:
Nutczak
Regular Member
bingo!!!
RR_Broccoli
Regular Member
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.
If everyone is getting a CCL for free, why even have them then?
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
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.
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.
Cobra469
Regular Member
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.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Esp. since they're illegal.bnhcomputing said:
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 [strike]useless[/strike] 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:
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:
From the text of the bill:
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?
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
So all the unfair stuff is in AB479 I see
Last edited:
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
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.
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
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.
) expressing my concerns about both AB299 and AB479. Whether it will do any good is anybodies guess.