[Monkeyleg]

Amidst of all the gnashing of teeth over the failure to get a veto override on our concealed carry bill, I forgot one thing: this was the only chance for retired WI LEO's to get concealed carry.

When HR218 passed, AG Peg Lautenschlager punted the ball to the legislature.

The authors of the CCW bill were pretty adamant that retired LEO's not have any more rights than other citizens.

So they included the language for implementing HR218 in the Personal Protection Act.

Thus, Doyle screwed the cops as well.

If you're a law enforcement officer in Wisconsin, make sure you do not contribute any money to the Badger State Sheriffs Association, or any other law enforcement group that represents the top brass (police chiefs, etc). They helped Doyle screw you.

[Snake Eyes]

I guess I wonder why exactly retired cops should have different rights from every one else.

They're civilians. Get used to it. In fact, get used to it when still a LEO--you're still a civillian.

[StopTheGrays]

And if a retired LEO was found to be carrying concealed, do you believe they would be arrested? Maybe by a trooper, Madison PD or some metro Milwaukee area LEOs, I doubt by anyone else.

I will think otherwise after I read about a retired LEO arrested for CCW.

[tellner]

Good. If they aren't carrying tin for their job they don't deserve any special job-related privileges. When they are just "civilians" let them ride the pipe the same as the rest of us.

[Standing Wolf]

Thus, Doyle screwed the cops as well.

Heh. Serves them right for donning uniforms and taking a public stand against civil rights for commoners.

[cracked butt]

Heh. Serves them right for donning uniforms and taking a public stand against civil rights for commoners.

Its usually the elected Sheriffs that do this, they are nothing but politicians themselves. I live in one of the most, if not the most conservative county in the state, yet our sheriff has come out publicly against CCW on a few occasions. :banghead:

I don't think retired police should get any special rights either above other citizens, but it shows what kind of lunatic we have as a governor.

[GruntII]

HR 218 has langauge to allow cops to carry regardless of any local restrictions,active duty and retired. Several states have no ccw and the bill was worded to allow cops to carry even if there was no ccw system innthe satte. Cops still haveto follow the other rules like no guns in bars or where alcohol is sold etc. In this case HR218 was written specifically to trumph any local prohibition to cops and retired cops carrying.

Not saying I agree with the implications of a special class , as created by 218 but the bill was written to trumph local/state prohibitions against carry by active/ retired cops.

[Monkeyleg]

True, GruntII, but as I said, AG Peg Lautenshlager didn't want any part of it. So she handed it off to the state legislature.

I've heard rumors of some departments certifying retired LEO's, but it's just that: rumors.

The Democrat leadership in WI doesn't just hate guns, they hate cops. The only use them as props when it suits their purposes.

[GruntII]

True, GruntII, but as I said, AG Peg Lautenshlager didn't want any part of it. So she handed it off to the state legislature.

I've heard rumors of some departments certifying retired LEO's, but it's just that: rumors.

The Democrat leadership in WI doesn't just hate guns, they hate cops. The only use them as props when it suits their purposes.



I understand abotu the local LEO's and the local politics but it wouldn't have any effect on a copper on vacation. The current DOJ would most likely push the issue if they did that. I was against 218 even though I am amember of LEAA as I felt it should have included ccw holders. But the Mantra was one step at a time.

When the McCLure Vokmer act was passed with it's travel provisions the states fault it, and some still make a big show of being against it but if you follow the law you will eventually prevail.

[1911 guy]

First off, I'm not gonna bash the cops, they should be allowed to carry. I was under the impression that a new federal law provided for this and pre-empted state law.
Having said that, all stories like this do is add to the invisible and false wall between "us" and "them". So what if Detective So-and-so can't carry? Neither can the 4' 9" Grandma who'se been mugged three times and can't fight it out with a 6' gremlin. The real story here isn't the retired cops, it's every citizen of Wisconsin that just got screwed out of the ability to legally level the playing field with the BG's.

[Janitor]

Good. If they aren't carrying tin for their job they don't deserve any special job-related privileges. When they are just "civilians" let them ride the pipe the same as the rest of us.
Actually, even when they're carrying tin for their job they are still civilians.

[Strings]

Dick... this needs to be sent in a press release to every LEA in the state. Maybe THIS will wake 'em the heck up, and they'll stop helping to screw us over...

[AF_INT1N0]

+1 Standing Wolf,

Serves em right...

As far as I'm concerned Police should be able to own carry what ever the citizens are allowed to carry...

Which means

Whatever in Vermont, Alaska

No NFA in other states

Pinned lowers and < 10 rds Mags, No 50BMG in California, Maryland, Mass, etc.

Harsh language in DC and New York

Don't like it.... Don't rally against citizens rights.

[xd9fan]

nor should they get special treatment. The armed law-abidding, Constitution loving citizen should ALWAYS get first crack at increasing their "Rights". Which means me and you and retired cops if they believe it too.

IMHO being a retired cop should not make you better then me. Nor should a retired cop have more or less "Rights" than me.

This post IS NOT a slam against retired cops.....but is a retired cop going to protect my family better than me???? Are they going to follow me around 24/7 for my personal protection???

Conceal Carry holders lets be consistant please.

[Sam]

Law needs to read the same for everyone, PERIOD.

Don't care to hear any wiseacre commentary from the LEO"S on this one either. They are public servants, not privileged princes. A concept often forgotten.



Sam

[Gatman]

When I said something similar on another gunboard I was told that I was wrong and crazy. That eventually everyone could CCW in other states. I am glad to be amongst like minded people who feel the same as I do. :)

[Optical Serenity]

Good. If they aren't carrying tin for their job they don't deserve any special job-related privileges. When they are just "civilians" let them ride the pipe the same as the rest of us.

Actually, your congressmen did in fact believe that retired officers should have the priviledge to carry. Its funny how HR218 is a step towards more gun rights for everyone, and yet all you so-called Pro-2nd Amendment people here are so blind by your hatred for governement and law enforcement, you forget what the end result is.

Don't complain when you as a "civilian" don't have gun rights, you don't want them to be there.

Law needs to read the same for everyone, PERIOD.

Don't care to hear any wiseacre commentary from the LEO"S on this one either. They are public servants, not privileged princes. A concept often forgotten.

Hey Sam, what exactly is a "wiseacre" commentary? I'd like to know? Also...yes, we are public servants, however, if you are so ignorant that you fail to see how HR218 is a step in the right direction towards all civilians carrying concealed, well, I guess then its pointless to try to show you the light.

So you are saying, "If I can't do it, no one can" ? Thats absurd...First lets get folks used to all LEOs, current and prior, carrying...then we can move on to all law abiding citizens.

Its usually the elected Sheriffs that do this, they are nothing but politicians themselves. I live in one of the most, if not the most conservative county in the state, yet our sheriff has come out publicly against CCW on a few occasions.

Darn good reason I live in Georgia where us LEOs want law abiding citizens to carry guns.

[Maxwell]

The only people with assured gun rights are those powerful enough to ignore the law or rich enough to buy their way around it.

I believe the saying goes "Hang together, or we'll all hang seperatly".

[Tim Burke]

I suspect what happened in WI is that the mechanism to certify retired WI police, as mandated by HR218, was included in the recently vetoed CCW bill. If so, retired WI police will not have the proper credentials to carry in WI, or anywhere else that doesn't have Vermont style CCW.
However, retired police from other locales, that do have the proper certifications from their home, will be permitted to carry in WI, as the Federal law supersedes the state law.

[Monkeyleg]

Absolutely right, Tim Burke. Each department is free to establish its own re-certification guidelines. But almost every chief was reluctant to do so. They asked the AG to issue guidelines.

The AG, as I said, punted to the legislature.

And now, with a couple of possible exceptions, no department is willing to move forward.

[Sam]

Well OS I do NOT see how it leads to a gain for Joe Citizen.
Why don't you explain it for us all.

Sam

[Strings]

>Actually, your congressmen did in fact believe that retired officers should have the priviledge to carry. Its funny how HR218 is a step towards more gun rights for everyone<

I have to agree: how exactly is this a step forward for everyone? Will LEO organizations be more inclined to get behind the CCW push because of it? I somehow doubt it...

>and yet all you so-called Pro-2nd Amendment people here are so blind by your hatred for governement and law enforcement, you forget what the end result is.<

Us, meet Them. Sorry to burst your bubble man, but I don't hate cops. There's just a whole passel of 'em I don't trust further than I could throw 'em.And I think, given how some of their organizations have been fighting tooth and nail to stop CCW here, I have reason to feel that way...

[Trip20]

First lets get folks used to all LEOs, current and prior, carrying...then we can move on to all law abiding citizens.
BS. :barf:

I don't agree with having to get people "used to" ______, in order to get a right I should have now.

In addition, it's absurd to assert that CCWing LEOs, current and prior, are going to make "the people" comfortable when Joe Public asks for his right a few years later. :banghead:

[GruntII]

Interesting thing may come out of this and not just in Wisconsin. Because HR 218 passed if a state Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission and various departments can now be sued for refusing to certify retired officers or refusing to establish such procedures. Because by act of congress the right to carry after retirement is now part of a certain clas of workers rights and to deny siad right or not even to attempt to comply with the law opens up a new area of labor law to sue the bosses and employers under.

As I said before I was against creating a special class of ccw for cops, I think all citizens of good standing should be allowed such without government interference but i will use my 218 rights as needed when traveling if my state permit is not accepted.

[tellner]

Actually, your congressmen did in fact believe that retired officers should have the priviledge to carry. Its funny how HR218 is a step towards more gun rights for everyone, and yet all you so-called Pro-2nd Amendment people here are so blind by your hatred for governement and law enforcement, you forget what the end result is.
Pull the other one. It's got bells on. Calling me a government-hater is really pretty funny. I'm an old-style liberal tending who would vote Labor or Socialist if he lived in Europe. And I've always been a strong supporter of law enforcement.

No, the issue here is that American law enforcement as an institution has been quick to support gun control for "civilians" and even quicker to demand special privileges for itself. It's your representatives, selected by you, who speak for your union. The FOP has been consistently hostile to CCW everywhere it comes up. Likewise the Chiefs of Police's Association. Can we expect this to suddenly change simply because people who used to wear badges get a privilege not granted to the Little People? Hardly.

Don't complain when you as a "civilian" don't have gun rights, you don't want them to be there.
I can't make a bit of sense out of what you're saying here.



So you are saying, "If I can't do it, no one can" ? Thats absurd...First lets get folks used to all LEOs, current and prior, carrying...then we can move on to all law abiding citizens.

Darn good reason I live in Georgia where us LEOs want law abiding citizens to carry guns.

Plenty of cities and states have let retired cops carry. We haven't seen a tidal wave of support for gun rights for the rest of us in, say, New York or Chicago as a result. Do you seriously expect me to believe that just because there's a federal law that does the same thing the situation will magically change? Have we seen law enforcement professional groups, unions or the same take a public stand for universal CCW because their nest has been feathered? Hardly.

It's nice that a lot of individual police in Georgia are comfortable with gun rights for all. It really is. But many of the rest of us would take it a bit more seriously if we saw them actually do something about it besides ensuring their own privilege.

[xd9fan]

..First lets get folks used to all LEOs, current and prior, carrying...then we can move on to all law abiding citizens.


I can not believe a statement like this is on this board:eek:
This statement is not compatible with individual liberty. You are putting "the State" on a higher playing field then "we the people". Careful here.

I'm sure this statement was told to the people of Pre war Germany too.

Maybe all LEO's should have all of the Bill of Rights protections before we do....just to make sure they work........just to be safe...and secure.

unbelievable


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen."
—Samuel Adams


Let me guess....you vote for the GOP and at the same time dont understand why every year gun laws are growing and freedoms are eroded. Come on guys!!!!:banghead:

[TheEgg]

Its funny how HR218 is a step towards more gun rights for everyone, and yet all you so-called Pro-2nd Amendment people here are so blind by your hatred for governement and law enforcement, you forget what the end result is

Wow, just Wow!:eek:

This may be one of the most disturbing statements from a LEO I have ever seen posted on this board.

I saw no particular hatred for Government or LEO's expressed on this thread -- only the simple comments that some people don't like HR218 and that all citizens, including LEO, should be subject to the same laws vis-a-vis owning and carrying firearms.

If you conclude that this indicates blind hatred of government and Law Enforcement, you have a very strange viewpoint.:confused:

Perhaps you could clarify your viewpoint for us "so-called Pro-Second Amendment" people out here?

[AF_INT1N0]

Actually, your congressmen did in fact believe that retired officers should have the priviledge to carry. Its funny how HR218 is a step towards more gun rights for everyone, and yet all you so-called Pro-2nd Amendment people here are so blind by your hatred for governement and law enforcement, you forget what the end result is.

Not so. Law enforcement rights, very rarely if ever = Citizen rights.

Notice once 218 passed the Police Unions, Police Chiefs goups, and FOP got pretty quiet on the issue(they had theirs) .. The same groups that we (Government hating gun nuts) supported on 218 have been shooting us down for years. Police advocacy groups are known to stand up for (just to name a few)
the 94 Assualt Weapons Ban and it's renewal
The .50 Ban in Kalifornia
The 1989 sporting purpose ban.
The 1934 NFA.

Quite frankly, Police have been on the other side of the fence in regards to civilian disarmament since the dawn of time..

The Idea that we thought they would help us, even though we have helped them, is IMO stupid, and blatantly ignores past instances.


So you are saying, "If I can't do it, no one can" ? Thats absurd...First lets get folks used to all LEOs, current and prior, carrying...then we can move on to all law abiding citizens.


Actually yes. And thats the point. If I can't carry than no one should.. Especially not Police.
The have been several places where citizens(subjects) cannot carry arms, but the police can.
Some examples are (but are not limited to) Fuedal Japan---Samurai--Who could and did kill subjects at will

Old England--The Knights (ie. Royals) who could and would do as they pleased to subjects of the crown.

Nazi Germany--The Brown Shirts, SS, who killed with inpunity. 6 Million Jews?

Russia-- 20,000,000 unarmed disidents were killed by the Armed Political elites.

100,000,000 Subjects have been slaughtered by thier own governments in the 20th century alone..

Having no one carry is bad....
Having only the Police carry is with out a doubt worse.

Not that I'm calling you a JBT, Brown Shirt, thug, or Nazi. Please don't take this as an attack..

But history proves time and time again that gun control is always fatal to one group or another.

One should always be leery of another who tries to take away ones means of protecting oneself.

AF_int1n0

[Optical Serenity]

And yet you are comparing police officers to the SS nazi thugs. Thats absurd. I totally understand your frame of thought. You just have to understand that while the FOP heads and some chief of police don't like the 2nd amendment, that is NOT how police officers feel. I have yet to meet one LEO who does not like the 2nd amendment. Actually EVERY LEO I know is very pro-2nd amendment, and wants every citizen to carry.

[tellner]

I've met plenty of cops who wanted to get "guns off the street" or thought that only they and a few selected "good" people should have them. If someone who isn't even in the field hears police saying this in regular conversation your assertion is already false. As for the FOP, it's your union. If cops really felt strongly about the issue, strongly enough to take a stand, they would select representatives who would say the same thing. The fact that the FOP has been consistently for gun control for "civilians" for decades makes it impossible to believe what you are saying.

[scout26]

OS, may I point you to the following thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=180058

In addition, how many times have we seen uniformed Police officers (normally the Big Wigs and Head Honcho's) standing behind, say Governor Blagoevich, as he and Mayor Daley tout their latest gun control scheme ???? Hmmmm?????

I'm tired of hearing about how the rank and file support RKBA, 2A, and CCW, while their leadership fully supports gun control.

As for the FOP, it's your union. If cops really felt strongly about the issue, strongly enough to take a stand, they would select representatives who would say the same thing.
+1000000000000000000000000000000

I fully supported HR 218. But when it has come time for the LEO community to support CCW and other pro-2A, the LE community has been mostly anti or at best silent on the issue. Therefore, I am NOT drinking the "Help us get ours first and then we'll help you get yours" Kool-aid. Everybody or nobody, not even off-duty. Then when off-duty cops feel the same fear that we ordinary mortals feel, maybe it'll change, but until then, suck it up. :fire:

[tellner]

I finally figured out what was so disturbing about the "help us get ours and we'll help you get yours" line. It's the same one that women have gotten handed by most of the major progressive movements in the last century. "Help us organize the unions, and we'll help you get the vote." "Black women, help us achieve Black liberation first, then Black political groups will help women's liberation." Mirabile dictu, the help didn't arrive. "What is the position of women in the [Black] Revolution? Prone!"

"Bugger you, Jack. I've got mine," is a very common human failing. Why should one profession be immune?

[AF_INT1N0]

And yet you are comparing police officers to the SS nazi thugs. Thats absurd. I totally understand your frame of thought. You just have to understand that while the FOP heads and some chief of police don't like the 2nd amendment, that is NOT how police officers feel. I have yet to meet one LEO who does not like the 2nd amendment. Actually EVERY LEO I know is very pro-2nd amendment, and wants every citizen to carry.

One need not be a Nazi to abuse power over others in the name of the law.

The FOP is the voice (and the political face) of the police. So either
1. they speak for you.
2. You need a new voice. These positions are elected right (union heads and FOP, not chiefs) right??
3. You are the vast minority and the rest are thugs.

I'm not trying to bash you. I just don't understand how it is that we are supposed to be supportive of FOP, Police Union etc. when they hose us constantly.

This crap is where us vs. them comes from. It is the systematic approach of asking for more rights while trampling on everyone elses. :barf:

If it's not you (And I'm sure it's not or we wouldn't be having this conversation) then what are you doing to stop it. If someone was misrepresenting me I sure as heck would put a stop to it.

.02 FWIW

AF_int1N0

[Monkeyleg]

Our CCW bill this year had the backing of the Wisconsin chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Wisconsin chapter of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Milwaukee Police Association, and other law enforcement groups. Funny how the media ignores them and just concentrates on the chiefs and sheriffs.

While I'd like to see LEO's here in the state get the "privelege" to carry under HR218, politically it makes more sense to keep them fired up about the CCW bill and on our side. Their support won't be as vocal if they get what they want.

[Oldtimer]

This may end up being the last time I post or respond to other posts in THR. When I became a member, THR was, without a doubt, the BEST gun forum going, but this particular thread is totally shameful!

For 31 years of my life, I wore a badge, strapped on a firearm and went into the community to keep the peace and enforce the laws. I rarely got thanked for what I did, but I didn't become a police officer to win any popularity contest. I joined because I wanted to do my part in keeping the community safe. It bothered me when, for the most part, I responded to crimes AFTER they had taken place, but the "Thin Blue Line" is exactly that. All I could do was investigate those crimes in an efficient manner, so that the bad guy might eventually be captured.

During my 31 years of service, I had two "contracts" on my life, merely for having performed my duties. Neither of those "contracts" were solved, so I don't know how safe I am as a retired police officer. I also had a SERIOUS verbal threat
on my life, from a "certified" criminally insane person, who MAY eventually be released.

I often conducted "Neighborhood Watch" meetings within the community, and often spoke about firearms. Believe it or not, I have ALWAYS been pro-2nd Amendment AND pro-CCW rights for citizens!
I wasn't alone, for most of my "brother" officers felt the same way, that an ARMED community was a SAFER community. One particular incident stuck in my mind through the years, and that was the armed citizen who assisted the police officer in Austin, Texas. Had that armed citizen not been there and volunteered to help, the crazed sniper would have killed even more people!

I didn't become a high-ranking police officer, and I couldn't figure out why the "brass" of so many law enforcement agencies were ANTI-gun. My "street cop" voice was never heard by anyone who mattered, but the "brass" were allowed to speak freely to the press and government officials.

Yes, I am a "citizen"! I put my life on the line, though, as a professional police officer! Had I not chosen that profession, I probably wouldn't need to look over my shoulder as often as I do. Had I not become a professional police officer, how many of YOU would have taken my place?

How many times have I heard, "Oh, I couldn't be a cop!", or, "It's just too dangerous for me!"? How often have I heard, "You cops don't get paid enough for what you do." and, "They couldn't pay me enough to do what you do!"?

How many times have I been called a "Pig", a "Nazi", a "thug with a badge", etc.?

How many more times will I have to defend my "brother" officers by explaining that the MAJORITY of them are decent, hard-working, dedicated and professional? YES, there are rotten police officers, but they do NOT comprise the majority!

So, now that I'm a retired LEO, I'm supposed to return to being a "citizen"? That line that a few of you used irked me greatly! I was a "citizen" when I was an active-duty police officer, and as a retiree I am STILL a "citizen". NO, I don't feel that it is a "privelege" that I have, to still carry a concealed firearm. The day may come when it might be a necessity to defend myself, merely because I wore a uniform and a badge for so many years!

How many of YOU have put in long hours and patrolled dangerous areas during riots or "civil unrest"? How many of you have not been allowed to have your "regular" days off, or have had to cancel vacation time, due to "exigent circumstances"? How many of you have been spat upon, but had to hold your position on a riot control formation?

I could go on and on with what is on my mind, but I'll leave it with this....your local police officers and Sheriff's deputies ARE something "special"! They're performing their duties, going into locations YOU wouldn't go, seeing things that might make you puke, and are EASY targets while in uniform. You folks "CCW" for many reasons, but you're NOT easily recognizable as "targets". As a retired LEO, I still carry, but not just for myself. Hey, if I can save someone elses life, it will be due to the extensive training I have gone through AND directly related to what I believed in and performed for so many, many years!

[buzz_knox]

OS, may I point you to the following thread:

I fully supported HR 218. But when it has come time for the LEO community to support CCW and other pro-2A, the LE community has been mostly anti or at best silent on the issue. Therefore, I am NOT drinking the "Help us get ours first and then we'll help you get yours" Kool-aid. Everybody or nobody, not even off-duty.

I actually didn't fall for it. I saw HR 218 as a mechanism to insure the privileges of one group while serving as an eventual wedge between LEOs and those wanting total CCW reform. As predicted by many, it served precisely that purpose. The LEO community got what it wanted, and then went real quiet at the national level, while unions and police chiefs (many who had wanted HR 218) pushed to block CCW reform on the grounds of "officer safety."

[buzz_knox]

During my 31 years of service, I had two "contracts" on my life, merely for having performed my duties. Neither of those "contracts" were solved, so I don't know how safe I am as a retired police officer. I also had a SERIOUS verbal threat
on my life, from a "certified" criminally insane person, who MAY eventually be released.


An attorney I worked beside is still under a death threat by a man who murdered one federal employee and stated that as soon as he got out, he'd kill 6 more, including my colleague. And that attorney is prohibited from carrying at work. So, the threat isn't restricted to cops and there are people in just as much danger of retaliation, but who don't have the same ability to protect themselves.

They're performing their duties, going into locations YOU wouldn't go, seeing things that might make you puke, and are EASY targets while in uniform.

Actually, I've gone into a lot of those locations delivering food from my church, and I know people who do the same on a very regular basis. On one occasion, the cops patrolling the area spotted us and gave us an escort. But that was one time out of dozens.

I think you need to understand that when cops talk about going places "we" wouldn't go, dealing with people "we" wouldn't deal with, etc., there's a lot of ignorance and even arrogance involved in that. Those places are the places a lot of us live and work. Those people are the ones we deal with every day. We just want the same ability to protect ourselves that ya'll have.

[Trip20]

I think you need to understand that when cops talk about going places "we" wouldn't go, dealing with people "we" wouldn't deal with, etc., there's a lot of ignorance and even arrogance involved in that. Those places are the places a lot of us live and work. Those people are the ones we deal with every day. We just want the same ability to protect ourselves that ya'll have.

+1000000000000000000000

Oldtimer: The same scary bad guys you deal with, are the same scumbags who prey on us each and every day (hence the reason you must deal with them whilst performing your job duties).

Lastly, don't stop posting here because of a few morons. Most people know the majority of officers are no different than the rest of us. Good people, who go to work every day, and enjoy firearm related activities.

[tellner]

Oldtimer, it would be a shame if you left. Your posts have been interesting, informative and have carried the weight of experience.

If you look a little more closely at the posts on this subject you will see that most of us aren't anti-police. Far from it. But we are tired of watching law enforcement groups push for privileges while coming out against our rights. HR 218 was typical of this. The promise or wishful thinking was that we'd support it and get some support in return. We were left feeling a lot like a soldier's native girlfriend - "Come on honey, if you do it I'll take you back to America after the war."

As for the danger of an officer's life, we all understand it. And we all respect the risks you take every day including the risks of divorce and stress-related disease. But many of us live dangerous lives, too. According to this (http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/) police work isn't even in the top 10. Women being stalked by vengeful ex-es, prosecutors and cabbies, to name a few, are in at least as much danger of being killed, and the risk doesn't go away at the end of the shift. They are the sort of people whom we wish could have the means to defend themselves since the police can't be everywhere. It is frustrating to see their lives cheapened when the law enforcement groups that pushed for unrestricted carry for their former members come out strongly against even gun ownership for those most in harm's way.

[isp2605]

Actually, I've gone into a lot of those locations delivering food from my church, and I know people who do the same on a very regular basis. On one occasion, the cops patrolling the area spotted us and gave us an escort. But that was one time out of dozens.

There ya go oldtimer. All we had to do is bring them food when we rolled on those 2 AM calls. Instead of having to arrest them we could have given them a Twinkie and a cup of Kool-Aid. We wouldn't have had to break out the sticks, mace, OC, handcuffs, guns, and take cover. A sandwich and a coke would have made all the difference.:rolleyes:
Anyone who equates delivering food to having to haul someone in during a fight is out of touch with reality.
BTW, I've done the food trips into some pretty nasty areas, done the home repairs in the dangerous neighborhoods. But put the uniform on and make the house call and it's an entirely different world. BTDT on both sides.

[buzz_knox]

There ya go oldtimer. All we had to do is bring them food when we rolled on those 2 AM calls. Instead of having to arrest them we could have given them a Twinkie and a cup of Kool-Aid. We wouldn't have had to break out the sticks, mace, OC, handcuffs, guns, and take cover. A sandwich and a coke would have made all the difference.:rolleyes:
Anyone who equates delivering food to having to haul someone in during a fight is out of touch with reality.
BTW, I've done the food trips into some pretty nasty areas, done the home repairs in the dangerous neighborhoods. But put the uniform on and make the house call and it's an entirely different world. BTDT on both sides.

I'm quite in touch with reality. Oldtimer says we'd never go into those areas, and I was pointing out that many of us do on a regular basis.

But let's go further. I've gone into those areas in the company of uniformed cops in the performance of their duties, when we weren't delivering food. The only problem was that while they had weapons and armor, I didn't. Does that make me almost professional to have an opinion that when perhaps we civilians do face enough danger to warrant the "privileges" you take for granted?

[isp2605]

I've gone into those areas in the company of uniformed cops in the performance of their duties, when we weren't delivering food. The only problem was that while they had weapons and armor, I didn't. Does that make me almost professional to have an opinion that when perhaps we civilians do face enough danger to warrant the "privileges" you take for granted?

Still you weren't going in as a threat to take away their freedom or haul them off. You were a ride along. You won't know what's it like until you've done it. Just riding along isn't doing it. Try going in without backup and telling someone they're going to jail.
I've been on both sides of that fence. There's a major difference.

[buzz_knox]

Still you weren't going in as a threat to take away their freedom or haul them off. You were a ride along. You won't know what's it like until you've done it. Just riding along isn't doing it. Try going in without backup and telling someone they're going to jail.
I've been on both sides of that fence. There's a major difference.

I'm sure they would have taken the time to distinguish between the two people holding flashlights approaching the building. Think the bad guys would have really been that into target identification? I don't.

[isp2605]

I'm sure they would have taken the time to distinguish between the two people holding flashlights approaching the building. Think the bad guys would have really been that into target identification? I don't.

Again, it's just your lack of experience in the LE field. You think you might know simply because you rode along. Sorry, but riding along isn't the same.
Stay with delivering your sandwiches. It's much safer.

[ArmedBear]

That's too bad. Surely retired cops deserve to exercise the human rights denied the rest of us serfs.

Just like retired real estate brokers should have a special right to private property, retired journalists should have a special right to freedom of the press, retired detectives should have a special protection from having their homes searched without a warrant, and retired attorneys should have a special right to due process; but the rest of us should be denied these rights for our own good and for the good of an orderly society.

:barf:

[buzz_knox]

Again, it's just your lack of experience in the LE field. You think you might know simply because you rode along. Sorry, but riding along isn't the same.
Stay with delivering your sandwiches. It's much safer.

You know, on second thought, I should apologize. I really shouldn't think to tell someone that I actually have an idea of how dangerous the neighborhoods I travel in are, or that I am aware of what goes on there. Hopefully, I'll someday be "professional enough" to have an opinion on such things.

[ArmedBear]

For the record, I have no real objection to requiring extensive and effective training for a license to carry a concealed weapon in heavily-populated public places.

If regular citizens would be allowed to take and pass said training program, and be issued a CCW, then I have no problem with giving ex-cops that license by default, because they are already trained.

[isp2605]

That's too bad. Surely retired cops deserve to exercise the human rights denied the rest of us serfs.
Just like retired real estate brokers should have a special right to private property, retired journalists should have a special right to freedom of the press, retired detectives should have a special protection from having their homes searched without a warrant, and retired attorneys should have a special right to due process; but the rest of us should be denied these rights for our own good and for the good of an orderly society.
:barf:

You won't find anyone on this board disagreeing with you. Where the discussion turns to mush is when someone says "I can't so you can't." How about we all work together so we all can? How many on this board really has tried to get laws changed? Other than sit on their behinds in front of a computer and complain. I'm betting the majority can't even name their local senator or representative or even know how to find out who it is.

[isp2605]

You know, on second thought, I should apologize. I really shouldn't think to tell someone that I actually have an idea of how dangerous the neighborhoods I travel in are, or that I am aware of what goes on there. Hopefully, I'll someday be "professional enough" to have an opinion on such things.

And you have no idea some of the places I've worked, like places with the highest murder rate in the country. Some of those times were in uniform answering calls, other times working undercover alone. And I wasn't delivering food when I went in those places.

[isp2605]

For the record, I have no real objection to requiring extensive and effective training for a license to carry a concealed weapon in heavily-populated public places.

I don't think the training for CCW has to be near as extensive as for LEOs. Those are 2 separate disciplines. For CCW whatever training is decided it should heavily lean on the when to shoot and not the how to shoot. Average Joe Citizen needs to have a good understanding of the when just to keep himself out of legal trouble.

[buzz_knox]

You don't have a clue what I've done either, or been involved in. But you seem awfully willing to tell me what I should think, despite not having that knowledge.

You know, on second thought, just count me out on this conversation. It's not worth getting into a debate over who who deserves "props" for what they agree to do and the risks they take. It's not worth it anymore.

[isp2605]

You don't have a clue what I've done either, or been involved in. But you seem awfully willing to tell me what I should think, despite not having that knowledge.

You're the one who equated delivering food to LE. Then claimed you know what it's like because you did a ride along. Sorry, but those 'experiences', while I'm sure were quite terrifying for you, aren't the same.

[Strings]

Just thought I'd make one last post, before the "Us v. Them" rhetoric gets the thread locked...

Beautiful guys... only took a few posts to copletely degenerate!

[ArmedBear]

You're the one who equated delivering food to LE. Then claimed you know what it's like because you did a ride along. Sorry, but those 'experiences', while I'm sure were quite terrifying for you, aren't the same.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rodney_king.jpg

Can't we all just get along?

[TheEgg]

Maybe EVERYTHING in L&P should be locked for a little while.

[Strings]

well... everything relating to "Us v. Them"...

Y'all don't get it... we're living what Franklin said. And for all that the pasage is quoted all the time, we're ignoring it.

[Monkeyleg]

Why do threads concerning LEO's always have to degenerate into name-calling and "us vs. them" arguments? :mad:

[AF_INT1N0]

Old Dog-

I realize most LEOs are good hard working under appreciated, folks who for the most part just want to to do their job, live their lives, and go home safe. (I still assert that you need to consider replacing your representatives) Police work is difficult on the Body, Mind and Soul. You have every right to be safe in your person, home, and vehicle after you retire, and off duty.

No one here is denying your right.

However, once 218 passed, the FOP, the Chiefs group, the Unions, all fell silent. :scrutiny:

This alienation by those we tried to help, is a kick in the nuts. :(
We want to know why it is they deny us our right.

We know it's not you.

Like I said before the vast majority of the Police (those I have had the pleasure of interacting with at least) on this board are damn fine people.

But what are people to think when your line officers say one thing but your representatives say another?

[GruntII]

This may end up being the last time I post or respond to other posts in THR. When I became a member, THR was, without a doubt, the BEST gun forum going, but this particular thread is totally shameful!

For 31 years of my life, I wore a badge, strapped on a firearm and went into the community to keep the peace and enforce the laws. I rarely got thanked for what I did, but I didn't become a police officer to win any popularity contest. I joined because I wanted to do my part in keeping the community safe. It bothered me when, for the most part, I responded to crimes AFTER they had taken place, but the "Thin Blue Line" is exactly that. All I could do was investigate those crimes in an efficient manner, so that the bad guy might eventually be captured.

During my 31 years of service, I had two "contracts" on my life, merely for having performed my duties. Neither of those "contracts" were solved, so I don't know how safe I am as a retired police officer. I also had a SERIOUS verbal threat
on my life, from a "certified" criminally insane person, who MAY eventually be released.

I often conducted "Neighborhood Watch" meetings within the community, and often spoke about firearms. Believe it or not, I have ALWAYS been pro-2nd Amendment AND pro-CCW rights for citizens!
I wasn't alone, for most of my "brother" officers felt the same way, that an ARMED community was a SAFER community. One particular incident stuck in my mind through the years, and that was the armed citizen who assisted the police officer in Austin, Texas. Had that armed citizen not been there and volunteered to help, the crazed sniper would have killed even more people!

I didn't become a high-ranking police officer, and I couldn't figure out why the "brass" of so many law enforcement agencies were ANTI-gun. My "street cop" voice was never heard by anyone who mattered, but the "brass" were allowed to speak freely to the press and government officials.

Yes, I am a "citizen"! I put my life on the line, though, as a professional police officer! Had I not chosen that profession, I probably wouldn't need to look over my shoulder as often as I do. Had I not become a professional police officer, how many of YOU would have taken my place?

How many times have I heard, "Oh, I couldn't be a cop!", or, "It's just too dangerous for me!"? How often have I heard, "You cops don't get paid enough for what you do." and, "They couldn't pay me enough to do what you do!"?

How many times have I been called a "Pig", a "Nazi", a "thug with a badge", etc.?

How many more times will I have to defend my "brother" officers by explaining that the MAJORITY of them are decent, hard-working, dedicated and professional? YES, there are rotten police officers, but they do NOT comprise the majority!

So, now that I'm a retired LEO, I'm supposed to return to being a "citizen"? That line that a few of you used irked me greatly! I was a "citizen" when I was an active-duty police officer, and as a retiree I am STILL a "citizen". NO, I don't feel that it is a "privelege" that I have, to still carry a concealed firearm. The day may come when it might be a necessity to defend myself, merely because I wore a uniform and a badge for so many years!

How many of YOU have put in long hours and patrolled dangerous areas during riots or "civil unrest"? How many of you have not been allowed to have your "regular" days off, or have had to cancel vacation time, due to "exigent circumstances"? How many of you have been spat upon, but had to hold your position on a riot control formation?

I could go on and on with what is on my mind, but I'll leave it with this....your local police officers and Sheriff's deputies ARE something "special"! They're performing their duties, going into locations YOU wouldn't go, seeing things that might make you puke, and are EASY targets while in uniform. You folks "CCW" for many reasons, but you're NOT easily recognizable as "targets". As a retired LEO, I still carry, but not just for myself. Hey, if I can save someone elses life, it will be due to the extensive training I have gone through AND directly related to what I believed in and performed for so many, many years!

NO disrespect for you or your years of service, I just finished my 15th year of wearing a badge in one way or another. I have to disagree with you. I knew what I was letting myself in for when I put a badge on, I knew the dangers, the ups, the downs, I'm a citizxen that choose a dangerous and demanding profession, I have had a contract on me also (it was quickly rescinded as I was taught to play old school when that happened). I deserv e nothing special in the way of consideration beyond what I was promised in the way of pay and benefits when I started. I deserve nothing beyond what the average citizen gets. I too have always been pro 2nd amendment because I have realized we citizens loose our gun rights, my profession was next. I was against HR 218 before it passed and now that it has passed I still am working for all citizens to keep and their gun rights and expand the full limits of the rights that have been unconstitutionally boxed by the jerk politicians.
Cops are no more entitled to special treatment than anyone else be it gun rights, DUI, or Domestic Violence. I have a ccw permit and I use it, even with hr 218 I don't go places that do not recognize my permit out of conviction. The I've spent many years doing a dangerous job rap just don't cut it, we(The citizens who are police) choose the job and stayed with it, it aint' the military anyone can walk away at anytime.

[isp2605]

Why do threads concerning LEO's always have to degenerate into name-calling and "us vs. them" arguments? :mad:

You notice tho it goes downhill when someone says "I can't so you can't." If they would just think it thru what they said. "If I can't then you can't." That's exactly the mentality the legislature would use if they resended HR218. "If we don't let the cops, why should we let you."
You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time. It took over 12 yrs to get HR218 passed. It's taken sometimes more than that for some states to get on board and pass CCW. And then some states like IL still haven't, but that doesn't mean you spit out the one bite of the elephant. You just keep nibbling away. Will IL ever pass CCW? Won't be this year. Probably won't be next year. But just keep nibbling away and eventually we'll get that elephant. If any of you have been involved in union negotiations. It's no different tactic. You don't go into negotiations expecting to get a 50% raise, all insurance paid, and 100% full retirement after 20 yrs. You know that won't happen. So what do you do? You whittle away at it a little each contract. And that's what we have to do with CCW. Whittle a bit at a time. Talk to your legislators. Write them letters. Visit them during session. Don't rant and rave. Leave the cammo jackets and "kill bambi" hats at home. Be logical and sensible. They'll usually listen. And those who don't, put your money and mouth behind those who will. But I know few people contact their legislators. I've talked to legislators and they say they seldom get any feedback and when they do it's the usual 2 or 3 people each time. That phone call doesn't take but a couple of minutes. The letter costs you 39 cents. The face to face may get you more mileage but it shows you are concerned.
BTW, I can carry under HR218, but my wife and kids can't. Sure would be nice if they could too. And that's the way a lot of the street cops feel. Most have families who they'd like to have that ability.

[Huntzman]

BTW, I can carry under HR218, but my wife and kids can't. Sure would be nice if they could too. And that's the way a lot of the street cops feel. Most have families who they'd like to have that ability.

I agree 100%, this isn't simply an "us V them" battle. But those (read politicians and the gun grabber groups) who seek to out law all guns only have to dvide our house. We will do the damage ourselves.

This is not the time for fingerpointing or other forms of animosity. We need to stand together as one voice and make the politicians listen. The messege needs to be one of solidarity, not that of a bunch of spoiled kids.

All we do with these us versus them diatribes is to create doubt and muddy the waters for the gun grabbers.

[Strings]

>You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time<

But here's the rub: the representitives of the police will push away from the table after they've "got their's", saying "We're full". It'd be a LOT easier to back this if we had uniformed officers actually backing us during OUR fight for CCW, but it seems we never do: they seem to reserve their presence for the antis...

[isp2605]

>You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time<

But here's the rub: the representitives of the police will push away from the table after they've "got their's", saying "We're full". It'd be a LOT easier to back this if we had uniformed officers actually backing us during OUR fight for CCW, but it seems we never do: they seem to reserve their presence for the antis...

There are a whole lot of cops supporting CCW. Unfortunately, like most of the population, including no doubt alot on this board, who never make the effort to call a legislator to express an opinion and desire. It's not that they're fighting CCW, it's nothing more than apathy like most of the population. Few cops even called or wrote to support HR218. Most I've been in contact with didn't even know it was up for a vote. I know there are still cops who don't know about HR218 and it's been law for 19 months. Don't confuse laziness and apathy for anti.

[Monkeyleg]

Hunter, the cops who back this bill--including members of the organizations I mentioned before--don't get paid to show up in Madison. They're not even allowed to wear uniforms.

The chiefs and the sheriffs who showed up were on their departments' payroll to do so. I recognized many of them from last sessions, which begs the question: should we document how many hours these anti-gun chair-polishers are spending lobbying against our bill on the taxpayer dime?

The rules on lobbying are as clear as the Milwaukee River: here. (http://www.ethics.state.wi.us/Forms-Publications/Guidelines/511-licensetolobby.pdf)

Wanna bet that some of these brass were on the taxpayer dime and talked to legislators more than a few times?

If the Assembly or Senate votes were held on a weekend, you can bet your last buck that we'd have hundreds of people show up.

But most folks can't afford to take a day of vacation or an unpaid day from work.

The very few anti's can, because they don't work.

[xd9fan]

Oldtimer you are missing the point....big time.
GruntII great post.

No special "rights", and their should not be a special class of americans. I dont care who you are or what you did. Its about principle. Its not pro-cop its not anti-cop.

[Strings]

>The chiefs and the sheriffs who showed up were on their departments' payroll to do so. I recognized many of them from last sessions, which begs the question: should we document how many hours these anti-gun chair-polishers are spending lobbying against our bill on the taxpayer dime?<

And I told you when you first suggested it that we should, Dick. We're playing a gentleman's game with a chimpanzee on crack...

[StopTheGrays]

If the Assembly or Senate votes were held on a weekend, you can bet your last buck that we'd have hundreds of people show up.

Is there a rule against them doing that? Maybe next time we should encourage the leadership to schedule the votes on a weekend in order to allow more people to show up?

[Dolomite]

But our politicians work so hard during the week as it is.




OK - I'm sorry - I couldn't even write that with a straight face.

[NoPhilly]

They're performing their duties, going into locations YOU wouldn't go, seeing things that might make you puke, and are EASY targets while in uniform. You folks "CCW" for many reasons, but you're NOT easily recognizable as "targets".

I LIVE in the type of place you're describing. And a since I can't afford a car, I make a much easier and recognizable target than you probably would.

[lostone1413]

How many times have I heard, "Oh, I couldn't be a cop!", or, "It's just too dangerous for me!"? How often have I heard, "You cops don't get paid enough for what you do." and, "They couldn't pay me enough to do what you do!"?

You folks "CCW" for many reasons, but you're NOT easily recognizable as "targets". As a retired LEO, I still carry, but not just for myself. Hey, if I can save someone elses life, it will be due to the extensive training I have gone through AND directly related to what I believed in and performed for so many, many years!

For me hearing about the danger gets old. I remember when in Illinois they went to get the same benfits for the highway workers as the Police had. All the Police I knew would say you will never see it because their is way more danger in Police work. They went back like 50 years and when they looked at the figures you had a 7X better chance of getting killed or injured working on the highways. Pull up the most dangerous jobs on the net and see were they rate LE work. Then compare what they make and the benefits with what people in way more dangerous jobs make. The difference is if you are in LE and get killed or injured on the job it will make news coast to coast. If you are just one of us mutts and something happenes you will be lucky to see it in the local paper