25 Jan Criminal Justice Corr. Committee agenda changed, AB-479 added

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/ab479.pdf

LRB said:

Under current federal law, with certain exceptions, a law enforcement officer may carry a concealed weapon if he or she is also carrying an identification issued
by the law enforcement agency that employs him or her; this federal provision explicitly preempts any state prohibition. Under current state law, any person may apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. When the person submits an
application, the Department of Justice (DOJ) must run a background check on the applicant to see if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm. The person must also submit a fee to cover the costs of the application and the background check and must submit proof of training. 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.

Click to expand...

Cops get super privileges while on duty in order to do a job.
Off duty, they're (supposed to be treated) just like every other citizen.

IMO, they don't need a WI citizen carry license since they already have their special federal privileges.*
So what privilege is being denied officers if they have to pay for their WI citizen carry license just like every other citizen?

If they want the flexibility which is given them by the citizen carry license of choosing different tools to carry, they can buy it themselves just like every other citizen. It's not work-related, so why try to link it to their work privileges? Should they get their car license & registrations free too, because they drive at work & to/from work, & are allowed to drive in other states?

As for not running a background check, why? Is it to prevent the embarrassment of being denied a license or purchase because of domestic violence or other convictions?

* Actually, it could easily be argued that the carry provisions of LEOSA aren't special privileges, but rather the natural right of all citizens as protected by the US & numerous state Constitutions, infringed only by the requirement to have a license/ID.

We have to put this whole issue in perspective. I think all of us would agree that Act35 is in and of itself an infringement on our federal and state constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Even Sen Galloway stated it was a stop gap measure toward true constitutional carry. She and we sanctioned Act 35 under the impression that it was the best thing we could get at the time and accepted it's infringement on our constitutional rights.

If it is true that off duty cops supposedly have no special law enforcement privileges superior to the private citizen then constitutional rights apply to them as well as to us private citizens. Why then do we want to draw them into our community of oppresion by implying that if we must sacrifice our constitutional rights they too must join us and undergo the same insults as background checks, fees and training?