Retired Law Enforcement Carry Bill

[comp45acp]

imported post

This bill is intended to remove any liability issues associated with HR-218 that was passed a few years ago at the Federal level. Under this bill all Wisconsin retired officers will get a permit to carry if they take on going training. While I am not opposed to it, my question would have to be "What about the rest of us?"
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB473hst.html

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ Goddamn the Obamination and its teeth.

 

[gbu28]

imported post

I would just add that this recalls a debate I had with a co-worker maybe a year or two ago regarding training. We're both pro-carry for all, open and concealed, but were split on if training should be required for civilians just like leo. I pointed out that leo gets trained to be a pro-active player in engagement of all sorts. I.e they need to be experts in purposefully involving themselves in situations. Much different than I would be in purely defense of myself.

As a civilian, I would not be either looking for people to engage with nor would I be answering calls from others who need assistance.

Short the fact that lives are involved and potential criminal liability, it's a bit like knowing the basics about your vehicle if it breaks down compared to being an expert who can overhaul the most complex engine.

Not sure exactly if my statement relates to retired leo training, but I do tend do agree with Doug anyhow.

 

[protias]

imported post

gbu28 wrote:

I would just add that this recalls a debate I had with a co-worker maybe a year or two ago regarding training. We're both pro-carry for all, open and concealed, but were split on if training should be required for civilians just like leo. I pointed out that leo gets trained to be a pro-active player in engagement of all sorts. I.e they need to be experts in purposefully involving themselves in situations. Much different than I would be in purely defense of myself.

As a civilian, I would not be either looking for people to engage with nor would I be answering calls from others who need assistance.

Short the fact that lives are involved and potential criminal liability, it's a bit like knowing the basics about your vehicle if it breaks down compared to being an expert who can overhaul the most complex engine.

Not sure exactly if my statement relates to retired leo training, but I do tend do agree with Doug anyhow.

You mean citizens right? Police are citizens too, they are not military. I disagree with required training as that is not a requirement in the Constitution.

 

[gbu28]

imported post

protias wrote:

You mean citizens right?  Police are citizens too, they are not military.  I disagree with required training as that is not a requirement in the Constitution.

Forgive my terminology. :uhoh:

I concur with the idea of no training as well, for different reasons though.

 

[protias]

imported post

gbu28 wrote:

protias wrote:

You mean citizens right? Police are citizens too, they are not military. I disagree with required training as that is not a requirement in the Constitution.

Forgive my terminology. :uhoh:

I concur with the idea of no training as well, for different reasons though.

I forgive you. I just like more correct terms. It helps when defending and argument.

What are your reasons for no training?

 

[gbu28]

imported post

I just see a training requirement as a negative for two reasons.

First being that it will undoubtedly limit one's ability to exercise a very important right. I see training acting essentially as a poll tax of sorts. It smells and I don't like. As a sub-item of this point, it allows the State to monitor, permit, and regulate where they have no business being.

What if the State offered free training? I still don't like it for reason number two. There are many extremely proficient firearm handlers out there (I'm not claiming to be one of them). We have this inclination to find some bad apples in something and then get all bent out of shape and start applying rules and regulations to everybody. We tend to regulate everything we can possibly regulate so nobody nowhere at anytime can every get hurt or do something stupid.

In my view, we're becoming a bunch of nancy-pants, in general. I learn quite a bit from making mistakes, maybe more so than doing things correctly every time. But we don't value the learning curve of making mistakes so we ban, outlaw, or regulate everything.

If I'm a dumb shit and shoot myself in the foot, then so be it. My two brothers have firearms and I immediately leave when they get their firearms out because i believe them to be irresponsible. But if I'm proved correct, natural selection will take its course. I still would not approve of the State getting involved.

May sound crass but like many others, I went to the school of hard knocks, and learned well from it imho.

 

[gollbladder13]

imported post

I don't think anybody should require training, but testing is a good idea, much like a driver's test. You can learn from your family (or friends, in the case of guns), and show an appointed "expert" you know what you're doing.

Regarding retired officers being able to carry and the average joe not being able to:

Police make a lot more enemies willing to kill them than the average person. Instead of criminals looking to get a few bucks from them, these guys are sometimes being actively hunted.

I don't mean to say we shouldn't be allowed to be armed, but I can see where the bill is coming from. If nothing else, it can only help. Watch how many retired LEOs find it important for citizens to be armed.

 

[gbu28]

imported post

I never considered a test. I'll have to ponder that for a bit...:idea:

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

A voting/literacy test is quite analogous but that there is no right to vote equivalent to the RKABA.

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

Doesn't LEOSA already cover the ability for retired L-E to carry?

Other than that, I oppose this bill and agree with Doug;

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

This bill is setting up enhanced privileges for a perceived special class of people, nothing more

 

[UtahRSO]

imported post

I teach Hunter Education classes, a good part of which is devoted to firearms handling and safety. I also act as a range safety officer at apublic range. That doesn't make me a great shooter, but it's given me some insight into what happens when shooters have no training.

Forty years ago a great firearms instructor I knew told a group of us that if we handle firearms enough, wewill experience an ND or AD or something with a gun we didn't expect to happen.Over a goodly number of years, I'veseen many things, and found out for myself he was pretty much correct.

Two experiences of my own: I bought anew rifle many years ago, took it from the gun store to the range, closed the bolt on a cartridge, pushed the safety off, and the gun fired... without me touching the trigger. Sear problem. Same kind of thing happened with a new DA/SA pistol. Another sear problem. Both times muzzle was pointed down range, no one hurt, only great surprise.

Somemight think safe muzzle control is so basic, everyone would do it. Not so. It's likely we've all seen someone point a gun (hopefully unloaded!) at someone else.

Of course I recognize if we ever have desperateneed to fire a gun, it's likely we may not have glasses on. But the only people I've seen hurt when a gun was fired, had their eyesight saved because they were wearing glasses.My training, and also what I teach, is that glasses (and ear protection) should be worn when shooting. This is a new idea for some people whose only training is what they've seen on TV.

So my experience tells methat a person who carries and/or keeps a gun SHOULD get at leastsome basic training.

HOWEVER, I do not believe in MANDITORY tests or training to own or carry a firearm.

 

[AaronS]

imported post

I hate to agree with Doug (ok hate is a strong word), but once again, I do...

My issue is that I do not trust my local cops with guns now... Why would I ever trust retired ones??? Should cops also get two votes, because we all trust them so much? Can I become a cop for a year, and get this new "right" to carry for life?

 

[gbu28]

imported post

Ok, I've pondered. I'm in complete agreement with the 4 posts since my last one.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

protias wrote:

gbu28 wrote:

protias wrote:

You mean citizens right? Police are citizens too, they are not military. I disagree with required training as that is not a requirement in the Constitution.

Forgive my terminology. :uhoh:

I concur with the idea of no training as well, for different reasons though.

I forgive you. I just like more correct terms. It helps when defending and argument.

What are your reasons for no training?

Military are citizens also--- usually. "Civilian" has no strict usage these days. One sometimes used the word to mean "non-military", while another person might use it to denote a "non-LEO."

 

[Mr.arker]

imported post

The bill mentioned by the original poster is AB 473 which deals with fees and expenses in administering this program. The actual bill is this: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-474.pdf

I don't know about this, I have had retired cops tell me that this is all right as they think it is a stepping stone to concealed carry for all. Once again, we are asking permission to carry a weapon. You can bet that there will be all sorts of limitations on where you can carry. Flynn was chief in Alexandria VA(shall issue) and Springfield MA (may issue). He didn't like the VA policy at all, so while he may support concealed carry, I'm sure he wants the power to say who can get a permit.
The other problem I have is: if one of these retired coppers shoots someone and it is not justified, who's responsible for the liability? Them, the jurisdiction they used to work for or the jurisdiction that they shoot someone in?
I always wonder about visiting cops. Would they freak out if they see someone leaving a convenience store or bank with a pistol on their hip?
Concealed and open carry as rights; a permit(like Alaska) if you want to exercise those rights in other states.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:

I don't think anybody should require training, but testing is a good idea, much like a driver's test. [Testing before we VOTE? The Supreme Court has said such litmus tests are unconstitutional. TESTING??? I'll give a test NOBODY CAN PASS, and thus nobody can carry. I say NO REQUIRED TESTING and NO REQUIRED TRAINING]You can learn from your family (or friends, in the case of guns), and show an appointed "expert" you know what you're doing.

Regarding retired officers being able to carry and the average joe not being able to:

Police make a lot more enemies willing to kill them than the average person. Instead of criminals looking to get a few bucks from them, these guys are sometimes being actively hunted.

I don't mean to say we shouldn't be allowed to be armed, but I can see where the bill is coming from. If nothing else, it can only help. Watch how many retired LEOs find it important for citizens to be armed.