Wis Police threatens lawful citizenry ?


PDA






bg
August 9, 2005, 03:20 PM
Wonder what this LEO means by more "AGGRESSIVE POLICING" should
this CCW bill get passed and signed..?
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_22121330.shtml
Appleton Police Chief Richard Myers called the concealed-carry issue “political” and said if Wisconsin does pass a concealed carry act, the public could expect “a more aggressive style in policing.”

If you enjoyed reading about "Wis Police threatens lawful citizenry ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
meathammer
August 9, 2005, 03:28 PM
the public could expect “a more aggressive style in policing.”

Translation: "We will harass lawful citizens who choose to carry."

:barf:

If not, my apologies to Police Chief Myers.

--meathammer

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2005, 03:28 PM
If you were more aggressive getting criminals off the street, chief, maybe ccw wouldn't be as necessary.

Sindawe
August 9, 2005, 03:31 PM
At best: Increased scrutiny of people who are stopped, for what ever reason, that have a CCW. Looking for any minor infraction or perceived infraction to issue a citation or even make an arrest.

At worst: Blanket arrest of anybody with gun, CCW or not. "Let the courts figure it out."

Note that the issue of "Officer Safety" is trotted out once again. :barf: Also take note of what Green Bay Police Chief Craig Van Schyndle's ally has said: But Jeri Bonavia of Milwaukee, president of WAVE, doesn’t think it’s a good idea.

“Arming more people with more guns is not going to make us safer,” Bonavia said. Bonavia said she comes from a family that hunts and uses guns and isn’t against their use.

“There are so many reasonable things that we could do with respect to gun laws, such as require criminal background checks for gun transfers,” she said. Some other solutions WAVE suggests:

• Giving law enforcement an effective fingerprinting system to trace guns used in homicides and other shootings.

• Tightening up the law to make sure assault weapons and sniper rifles designed for military use aren’t marketed and sold to the public.

• Closing loopholes that allow under-age people to purchase handguns. Including guns in consumer-safety regulations so the making, distributing and selling of them are overseen.

Reasonable = further infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Gordon Fink
August 9, 2005, 03:38 PM
Idiots. Of course, they would forget all about it within a few months of a shall-issue law going into effect … when the rivers of blood failed to flow through the streets.

~G. Fink

Mongo the Mutterer
August 9, 2005, 03:38 PM
Hey Chief, maybe we'll see a more agressive style of elections... to get rid of storm troopers like you ... :evil:

The statistics are out there for shall issue states -- why don't the elitists read them?

Answer: because they don't care and are socialist nannystaters, that's why...

jrpeterman
August 9, 2005, 03:44 PM
With the extensive background checks required for CCW applicants, the chief is barking up the wrong tree. I would think that aggressive policing would be more suitable towards armed criminals who have no regard for the law. Maybe, the chief should spend a little more time on the street in the real world and a little less time behind the desk.

El Tejon
August 9, 2005, 04:25 PM
I suggest the Wisconsin taxpayers aggressively defund Chief Wiggum's department. :)

Monkeyleg
August 9, 2005, 07:24 PM
The city of Green Bay is pretty much Democrat. The state senator for the area, who in the past has voted pro-gun, voted against concealed carry.

I find it really interesting that Jeri Bonavia is getting started this early, but have no idea why she's doing so.

I've heard rumors that some pro-gun Democrats are asking the governor to find a face-saving way to not veto the bill, because they're afraid of getting hurt in the re-election bids next year. Maybe there's more to that than just a rumor.

Sigh...I guess this means we're going to have to get to work before the end of summer.

Standing Wolf
August 9, 2005, 07:40 PM
Does this mean the streets are going to run with blood? Every fender bender will turn into a shoot-out? All the usual hysterical warnings?

Wisconsin's a beautiful state, but it's going to have to do without my vacation dollars.

Monkeyleg
August 9, 2005, 08:10 PM
OK, fellow Cheeseheads. I just sent off a letter to the editor.

Take a few minutes and do the same. Let's bombard them.

beerslurpy
August 9, 2005, 08:55 PM
I miss the good old days when Officer Safety meant what it literally means, instead of being a weak excuse for whatever authortarian game someone wishes to play with people's lives this week. Its not a good direction to take this country, both for egalitarian reasons and for what history teaches us of such societies.

In a police State, the Police Officer is an embodiment of the power, authority and will of the state, so making him sacrosanct is of the utmost importance. Finding men who will competently carry out your orders is not easy. Replacing them is even harder. Thats why we punish "cop-killers" so harshly, assuming they even survive to trial.

The sad part is that it only takes a nation of sheep to turn a healthy democracy into a police state. Remember that Hitler formed his totalitarian government legally after being democratically elected. It was only necessary for him to hide the worst of his regime and smear dissenters as unpatriotic- and the german people went along with it. I guess if you arent being targeted at the moment it is all good.

To quote an LEO from the dynamic entry thread: "If you dont do anything illegal you dont have to worry about SWAT kicking your door in." What happens when the definition of illegality finally does include you? If somethign as harmless as posessing marijuana can get your door kicked in, what is really off limits?

CARRY'IN
August 9, 2005, 09:02 PM
Nothing like someone with a gun telling you he can have one but you cant.

beerslurpy
August 9, 2005, 09:08 PM
Sorry, I guess the nanny-state nonsense just pisses me off a lot.

The problem is that neither party seems to share my views, even partly. The Democrats and Republicans both want to do away with liberty, they disagree on which freedoms have to go.

Tropical Z
August 9, 2005, 11:40 PM
That Chief's a real A**!

Standing Wolf
August 10, 2005, 12:04 AM
The sad part is that it only takes a nation of sheep to turn a healthy democracy into a police state.

Well said!

AZRickD
August 10, 2005, 12:17 AM
My reply to the comment section and to the writer...
If it does become legal to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin, “expect to see a more aggressive style of policing,” Myers said.

When Arizona passed its concealed carry law in 1994, the first months saw police over-reacting during traffic stops despite the fact that open carry was always legal in Arizona. Some bad press and the threat of a lawsuit convinced the small contingent of anti-gun rights police to back off.

But a more important issue from a journalistic standpoint needs to be addressed. When Chief Myers said: “expect to see a more aggressive style of policing,” why didn't reporter Lee Reinsch ask a very simple question: "What do you mean by 'a more aggressive style of policing? Is that a threat to peaceful gun owners?" For some reason Reinsch didn't think that mattered.

Rick

chaim
August 10, 2005, 12:20 AM
The Democrats and Republicans both want to do away with liberty, they disagree on which freedoms have to go.

I'm not sure about that. Sometimes I think they only disagree about what order in which to remove them.

GregGry
August 10, 2005, 02:20 AM
I have a couple of comments on what was said in that article:

Arming more people with more guns is not going to make us safer,” Bonavia said.

Although that might be somewhat true, its not about making the police safer, its about protecting yourself. I don't know about you guys (and girls) but I want to be able to protect myself. I decided to go into law enforcement to protect others, especially thoes who can't protect themselves. I want the people in society to be able to protect themselves as best as they can, and if it takes a firearm to do it, so be it. I wish that I didn't have to lock my house and car, but dishonest people will take advantage of my trusting nature if I kept everything unlocked. I wish that guns weren't needed to protect oneself (Guns would still have to exist for hunting and normal gun hobbiest activities :D) but in this day and age, firearms are needed to keep you and your loved ones safe.

I feel secure in not going armed in public, that has a lot to do with the fact I am a big guy. The thing is however, I can't CCW in Wisconsin. If CCW existed I would carry, there is no doubt in my mind. It would make me feel even safer then I feel already, not to mention I could protect the lives of other people as well. Granted when I become a cop I wont have to worry about the CCW issue regardless of if CCW law is passed. I wont forget about the good citizens however, because after all, I am one of the people. Its not right that police are the only ones that can carry in public, I feel that every honest law abiding human should be able to carry, period. If you choose not to carry fine, if you choose to carry great.

Tightening up the law to make sure assault weapons and sniper rifles designed for military use aren’t marketed and sold to the public.

Although I admit, there is no practical use for a .50bmg, I don't feel that it should be restricted to law abiding people. The same thing goes for other rifles as well. I do feel that there should be restrictions on who can buy them (Pretty much same as for a normal rifle). I don't see why a law abiding citizen should not be able to own one, after all if they are law abiding, there is nothing to fear. If I can legally own a 2,000 hp street car, (which is obviously quite excessive and could easily be very dangerous) then the .50bmg and other firearms like full autos should be legal to. Guns are to men, what Gi joes are to boys, they are fun things to play with. If your not hurting anyone with your "toys" then whats the big deal. I mean when is the last time someone used a .50bmg in a crime, or even a full auto gun? Whats the harm in firing a .50bmg at the range, versus a .22 pistol?


“This is an officer-safety issue and a community-safety issue.

Having law abiding citizens that are carrying is not a safety risk in my opinion. Criminals in my area rarely buy legit guns, the only people that are affected by not having a ccw is the honest people.

I am going into law enforcement in Wisconsin, and I back the introduction of CCW 100%. As a cop I rather have 1,000 good guys armed and on the streets, then no good guys packing. Although more guns on the street could equal more gunfights, the fact that there are more gunfights doesn't mean that any of them weren't justified.

One last thing I find appalling
If it does become legal to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin, “expect to see a more aggressive style of policing,” Myers said.
Ok so they are saying that when the honest people take it upon themselves to protect their lives legally (if ccw was passed) they will be hassled because of their (totally legal) choice to do so. I am sorry, but that is a bunch of garbage. I don't fear CCW holders, I fear the idiot crack head that stole his firearm, and will shoot me rather then going to jail.

I mean come on, to get a gun, and get a CCW its safe to say you have to take & pass a class, pass a back round check, and numerous other security measures. Your average crack head doesn't have to pass any tests, deal with a back round test, let alone even pay for his firearm (theft). Why people fear CCW holders is beyond me, they should be afraid of the criminals. Its safe to say that most criminals will be weeded out in that process of getting a CCW. If a persons record is clean, then big deal, let them buy whatever they want. Now if a person without a criminal back round commits a crime with weapons they bought, they should be treated as a criminal, and loose their rights to own firearms. Things like that will happen, but I know that most people who CCW are decent law abiding folks. The government really needs to stop making the good people suffer, and actually attempt to deal with the problem people (aka criminals).

stevelyn
August 10, 2005, 02:40 AM
Sounds like the threat of harrassment under the color of law to me. :scrutiny:

Either that or the Sturmgruppen fuhrer......excuse me......police chief is gonna call out the goon.....er SWAT everytime an officer pulls over a motorist with a valid CHL whether they're carrying or not.

This chief obviously dosen't agree with the prospect of lawful right-to-carry and is telegraphing his intentions of harrassing lawful permit holders in protest if the bill is signed into law.

The only way to deal with his type is to sue him and the jurisdiction into oblivion after they exhibit several incidents of using heavy handed tactics against valid CHL holders.

gunsmith
August 10, 2005, 02:46 AM
Although I admit, there is no practical use for a .50bmg
well they scare liberal politicians so there must be something
they are good for! :evil:
Somebody needs to make a real cheap version so I can buy one.

Why is it that so many "Chief of police" types are complete morons?

Art Eatman
August 10, 2005, 02:22 PM
The more important point that's missed by both the police chief and those reporting the news or writing editorials is that of the experience in other states where carry-laws are relatively new. To wit, Florida and Texas.

The laws have been in place long enough for reasonable conclusions to be drawn--and they have. Both states' law enforcement agencies have issued positive press releases pointing out the absence of problems with people having the concealed carry permits.

It's sad the chief won't look outside his own parochial little world to see what's happened--or not happened--elsewhere.

Art

TheEgg
August 10, 2005, 03:52 PM
“a more aggressive style in policing.”

Like maybe if you have a search warrant to serve on someone that has a CCW, you call in SWAT at 5:00am, bust down the door, and shoot anyone that "looks" like they might have a gun? Because the guy smoked a little weed on the side?

Naw, that couldn't happen. Could it?

308win
August 10, 2005, 04:59 PM
socialist nannystaters

OK, I like the term, what does it mean? I tried Googling it and got a couple of hits but couldn't find the term in context.
ETA: Not in Wikipedia either

scottgun
August 10, 2005, 05:24 PM
OK, I like the term, what does it mean? I tried Googling it and got a couple of hits but couldn't find the term in context.

The government creating laws for your own protection for the common good.

At least thats my take on it. This would be opposed to the principles of individual freedoms and responsibility and accepting the consequences for your own actions.

Strings
August 10, 2005, 06:58 PM
actually, to me, it sounds like a wonderful opportunity for several of us Cheeseheads to own large portions of GB after CCW is passed. Don't know about y'all, but out-of-bounds police tend to bring out the worst in me. And my brother's a lawyer... :D


"Gee officer... this seems rather excessive. I think I need to call my lawyer"... :evil:

Randy in Arizona
August 10, 2005, 07:57 PM
It's sad the chief won't look outside his own parochial little world to see what's happened--or not happened--elsewhere.

I think the good chief has a rather common vision problem.
On the plus side his ears are always warm!

:D :D :D

CZ-100
August 10, 2005, 08:14 PM
Well he is now on record saying he is going to Harass people. This should make it easier for someones lawyer to sue him and the department in the future. :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Wis Police threatens lawful citizenry ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!